c-span.org/landmarkcases. next, a look at how states are implementing carbon emissions standards under the clean air act and their interaction with the epa. this senate environment and public works panel heard from state environmental regulators last month. >> i apologize for getting off a little bit, a couple minutes late. this hearing is called to order. i'll begin by recognizing myself for a brief opening statement before turning the floor over to my ranking member, senator whitehouse, for five minutes. then we'll hear from our panel of expert witnesses. i recognize myself for five minutes. the concept of cooperative federalism is enshrined in all

of our major environmental statutes and the clean air act is no exception. previous congresses realize that environmental preservation and its importance to human health, the economy, and the public's enjoyment of our country's national heritage is the responsibility of government at every level. our predecessors also recognize that different levels of government should have different responsibilities. not every aspect of our environmental policy can or should be dictated from here in washington. the epa lacks the expertise and the capacity to conduct oversight on our ecologically and industrially diverse country. the epa's role must be to dutifully implement environmental laws as crafted by congress and then to collaborate and support our states with matters within our jurisdiction. the states know their environmental and economic opportunities and challenges better than anybody else. the system has clearly worked, even without the implementation of the clean power plan, u.s. carbon dioxide emissions peaked in 2005.

since then, we've seen a decline of 12.4% in absolute tells and 19.9% on a per capita basis. these reductions have been led by the private sector, seeking greater efficiencies for lower costs to their consumers. since 2000, the u.s. has reduced its carbon footprint by a greater tonnage than any other country. according to the epa, since 1970, national concentrations of air pollutants have been reduced by 85% for lead, 84% for carbon monoxide, 67% for sulfur dioxide, 60% for nitrogen dioxide, 37% for fine particulate matter, and 67% for coarse particulate matter. this has benefitted agriculture by improving yields and helped preserve habitats and threatened species. economic growth has continued, even as emissions have declined,

setting achievable consensus-based standards and consultation with industry, state, local, and tribal governments has decoupled emissions and for the first time in recent years energy consumption itself from economic growth. in 1970, our gdp was 1.09 trillion. today it is 19.74 trillion, even with all the emission reductions. clearly the model has worked. and yet, it has been under pressure. the obama administration upended the consensus-based model for setting environmental regulations. we had several hearings that flushed this out. the epa imposed standards across a host of industries, especially the power sector, that were unachievable with commercially available technologies. their economic analysis routinely overstated the benefits and understated the economic costs associated with the regulations. i've heard from my constituents in the public and private sector in my state of west virginia and their comments were routinely

ignored. finally, underscored by the clean power plan, the epa routinely overstepped its jurisdiction. for its part, the cpp attempted to regulate, quote, beyond the fenceline, directing states to impose carbon taxes and cap and trade structures to achieve emissioning targets that could not otherwise be met. this is why the epa never provided model state implementation plans for the clean power plan. the data simply could not be tortured enough to make its implementation by the states legal or importantly feasible. during all of this, clean air -- state clean air regulators like those of us before today were sidelined. half the states sued, and it's no wonder they did. so i hope we can work across the aisle with every level of government and private industry to continue the good work we've set in place. if we follow the law, pursue goals achievable with modern technology and control methods and collaborate, we can continue to grow the economy while

reducing emissions. we must also never lose sight of the fact that the american dream of economic prosperity is what provided our citizens with two centuries of continuous advancements in health and development, and which itself has enabled our modern focus on environmental improvement. far from zero sum, economic and environmental benefits track together. i look forward to hearing from our state experts from across the country about their ideas on how to continue the cycle based on their experiences engaging with the epa. i would now recognize ranking member whitehouse for his opening statement. >> thank you very much, senator capito. i welcome the witnesses here today. we're here to talk about cooperative federalism, two words which have become something of a mantra for epa administrator scott pruitt. they're among his most trusted talking points, right up there with another favorite catch phrase, back to basics. so what does cooperative

federalism really mean, and particularly what does it mean to administrator pruitt? cooperative federalism should mean that epa and the states work together to reduce pollution. reducing pollution involves doing scientific analysis, gathering data, writing rules, setting targets, and enforcing the rules and targets. this work can and should be done together by epa and the states. it used to be. but that's not what scott pruitt means by cooperative federalism. to pruitt, cooperative federalism means having the epa do less to reduce pollution and hand over more of the work to the states, all while proposing fewer financial resources to the states to do this work. and if some states are less interested in reducing pollution or don't have the resources to develop and enforce rules

limiti limiting pollution, then so much the better. because, you see, that is pruitt's goal here. cooperative federalism is code for epa and some states walking away from their core mission of protecting human health and the environment. any time a state takes strong action to reduce pollution, pruitt's epa either opposes the initiative or slow walks it. pruitt's version of cooperative federalism is a one-way street towards more pollution. states are encouraged to take the lead in reducing pollution, so long as they don't actually try to reduce pollution. pruitt's recent decision to waterdown corporate fuel economy standards, is an example of how cooperative federalism under pruitt really works. these standards were negotiated in 2012 by epa, california, and the auto industry, all parties agreed to these standards, which are estimated to save consumers

$1.7 trillion at the pump. that's an average of $8,000 over the life of a car purchased in 2025. and of course, to reduce carbon emissions by 6 billion metric tons. so why did pruitt decide to roll back those agreed to standards? not because california asked him to. but because industry did. is it cooperative federalism to ignore the states and do industries' bidding? when you get beyond the rhetoric, pruitt isn't really interested in cooperating with states. his real interest is in cooperating with corporations, which have bankrolled his entire political career. you might actually call it cooperative corporatism. now that california and rhode island and delaware and many of the other ten states and district of columbia that follow california emission standards have objected to his decision to water down the standards, pruitt has suggested he may revoke the waiver granted to california u

under the clean air act. how's that for cooperation? and pruitt's desire to centralize decision making in his own hands isn't just limited to the clean air act. he announced all decisions related to determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact on waterways will be made by him. so much for local control and cooperative federalism. my home state of rhode island has a long coastline that is particularly vulnerable to sea level rise. the standards represent an important part of our efforts to combat climate change, which is responsible for sea level rise. the clean power plan is also critical to reducing the carbon emissions driving climate change. but pruitt is trying to repeal that too. do you think he consulted with rhode island officials or the officials in any coastal states on repealing the clean power plan? if you need any further proof that scott pruitt's corporative federalism is a one-way street

sham, just look at his proposed budget for fy-'19. he proposes cutting grants to the states for clean air programs by over $160 million. some programs he eliminated entirely. rhode island's department of environmental management received about $10 million a year in grants from epa. about 2.4 million goes to clean air programs. how does pruitt expect states to step up and lead on protecting clean air when he tries to cut the money they receive to do this work? the answer is he doesn't. scott pruitt's mission at epa is cooperative corporatism, to serve the interests of the industry that has always backed him. you see this in decision after decision where state input is ignored, and you see this in industry cronies eninstalled at epa. scott pruitt has sullied the doctrine of corporate federalism just as his actions stand to

sully our environment. i salute states like rhode island, krarcalifornia, and dele that are working so hard to protect our environment. we do it better with an effective partner in epa. it is time for for epa to get serious about protecting the environment and public health. that, after all, is its true mission. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, senator. to begin our introductions, chairman barrasso is here. i would like to ask if you would like to introduce our witness. >> thank you very much, madam chairman, i would. and i am pleased to introduce nancy vehr, air quality administrator for the wyoming department of air quality. administrator vehr has led wyoming's efforts to improve air quality and implement the clean air act since 2015. before serving as air quality administrator, she worked at the wyoming attorney general's office, and in that office, she served as the assistant attorney general and represented the state's division of air quality. administrator vehr has also

broad experience in the private sector, where she handled a wide variety of civil and environmental matters. her wealth of experience with the clean air act and her deep familiarity of wyoming has served the state very well, for which we're very grateful. due to our unique location, geography, and natural resources, wyoming needs flexibility to implement the clean air act. so, i look forward to hearing your testimony today and listen as you explain the challenges faced by the state of wyoming in implementing the clean air act and how the epa can better partner with states, and specifically the state of wyoming, to solve these challenges. welcome, thank you for being here, thank you for your willingness to testify. thank you, madam chairman. >> i would like to recognize ranking member senator carper, if he would like to make an introduction. >> i would. thank you, madam chair. we're welcoming back, feels like "welcome back, cotter," "welcome back, sean, to the environment and public works committee. we're happy you could join us.

sean and i spent time trying to get here this morning on a train that was not really cooperative, but thank you for sticking with it and for making it down here. sean, do you ever work for joe biden? how long? >> two years. >> two years. would you say the happiest two years of your life? [ inaudible ] >> you mean the mother of your son? the mother of your son, dylan, right? in high school? college? okay, all right. going to college soon? >> soon. >> okay. so, you work for joe biden, kept him out of trouble for at least two years, and ended up for your efforts epa region administrator region three for what, eight years? was it eight years? yeah, eight years. and after that, you ended up as the secretary of the department of natural resources environmental control. is there anybody in this room who also held that position

previously? >> i believe the man over your left shoulder. we've known sean for a long time. we admire him. i'm happy that you would be with us today. thank you for your continued service, not just for the people of delaware, but for the people of our country. give your family our best. thank you for joining us. >> thank you, senator carper. and i will introduce the rest of the witness panel, and then we'll begin. in addition to ms. vehr and mr. garvin, we have mr. sean alteri, director for the division of air quality in the kentucky energy and environment cabinets, department of environmental protection. that's a long title. mr. alteri has previously served as the president of the association of air pollution control agencies and continues to play a leadership role in that organization. welcome. we have mr. toby baker, who is a commissioner of the texas commission on environmental quality, first nominated by then governor rick perry in 2012. welcome. we also have mr. matthew

rodriguez, who serves as california's secretary for environmental protection. i want to thank all of the witnesses for being here, and i will now recognize our witnesses for their opening statements. as a reminder, your full, written testimony has been submitted for the hearing record. so, ms. vehr, recognize you for five minutes -- >> madam chair, could i ask unanimous consent today that a statement of mine be accepted -- >> without objection. >> thank you so much. thank you. [ inaudible ] >> check, make sure your mike's on. >> oh, thank you. >> that's much better. we don't want to miss a word. >> okay. good morning, chairman capito, ranking member whitehouse and members of the subcommittee. i have the honor and pleasure of serving the great state of wyoming as the administrator for the air quality division. our department is an active member on the environmental council of states ecos with several of the other presenters also serving on that.

our division is a member of the association of air pollution control agencies where i serve as vice president and the western states air resource council west star where i also serve as vice president. while my testimony may reference those organizations, i am not here to testify on their behalf. in order to put my remarks in context, i'd like to share a few facts about wyoming to help you get to know who we are. wyoming has been blessed with amazing and abundant natural resources. we are home to yellowstone and grand teton national parks and other special and scenic places that some of you may have visited. our abundant mineral resources provide the nation, our state, and our citizens with revenue and jobs. our leading industries are energy, tourism, and agriculture. we are the ninth largest state, roughly 93 times the size of rhode island. our largest county is roughly four times as large as delaware. about half the land in wyoming is owned and managed by the federal government. we are also the least populous

state, not quite 600,000 of us in small, rural communities or in the large expanses in between. only nine communities in wyoming have more than 10,000 people each. wyoming wants and is working towards improved relationships and interactions with epa. it is wyoming's experience that epa shares this desire and is doing the same. why are improvements to cooperative federalism so important? because we want better outcomes and air quality improvements. my testimony highlights some of the progress that's been made in the recalibration of state and federal rules, which leads to more effective air quality environmental management at lower cost. my written testimony highlights some of these examples. my remarks today touch on one -- regional haze. with respect to cooperative federalism, epa sets the deadlines and standards, states develop plans with implementation strategies to meet those deadlines and standards.

when that process works, the result is improved air quality at lower cost. wyoming pressures her magnificent resources and vistas. in the 1977 clean air act amendments, congress established a goal to restore visibility in national parks and wilderness areas to natural conditions. some 20 years later, epa adopted the regional haze rule. the rule mandates that states submit plans to reduce regional haze emissions. however, right in the midst of the regional haze plan submittal and approval time frames, the cooperative federalism process failed. instead of approving innovative, state plans to improve air quality, epa oftentimes failed to act or imposed a one size fits all federal plan on a state. wyoming is one of those states in which epa imposed a regional haze federal plan that came with a much higher price tag and no added visibility benefit as

compared to the state's plan. the work involved to develop and submit a state plan is time-consuming and costly. for regional haze, the process in this first round took more than a decade and cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars on the technical work alone. wyoming's plan achieved significant emission reductions, including almost 10,000 tons of nitrogen oxides by installing $100 million worth of pollution controls. wyoming's plan demonstrated that wyoming would be on track to meet its visibility improvement progress goals. instead of approving wyoming's plan, epa imposed its own federal plan. epa's plan had a price tag of $600 million but did not meaningfully improve visibility. these issues are now tied up in litigation. the challenges that the second

round of regional haze plans are due in a few years. federal and state collaboration is under way in that process. wyoming remains hopeful that those collaborative efforts will continue and be fully implemented. if so, the result will be continued improvement and progress towards meeting the clean air act visibility goals at a cost and resource savings to wyoming's citizens. thank you to the committee for inviting wyoming and listening to the department's perspective on cooperative federalism under the clean air act. thank you. >> thank you. mr. alteri. >> good morning, chair capito, ranking member whitehouse, and members of the subcommittee. my name is sean alteri, and i currently serve as director of the kentucky division for air quality. i'm honored to testify today and i thank you for this opportunity to share a state's perspective related to cooperative federalism under the clean air act. in addition to my work with the kentucky division for air quality, i also serve as the past president of the association of air pollution control agencies.

our association is a national, non-partisan, consensus-driven organization focused on improving air quality. the association represents more than 45 state and local air agencies. as senator inhofe remarked during a 2016 hearing, cooperative federalism is a core principle of environmental statutes, including the clean air act, where epa and states work together to meet environmental goals. obviously, mutual respect is essential and necessary to forge a strong working relationship between epa and state regulators. working together cooperatively will allow all of us to achieve our environmental goals and objectives. specific to the clean air act, cooperative federalism is more than just a catch phrase. once epa establishes a standard or an applicable requirement under title one of the act, the states are primarily responsible for implementation and enforcement of those standards and requirements. these standards include the national air quality standards, the standards of performance, the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants,

and waste incineration rules. to ensure that states are provided with the ability to carry out its obligations under the clean air act and effectively administer its delegated authorities, epa must establish nationally uniform emission standards based on sound science. additionally, epa must promulgate reasonable regulations and fully consider implementation requirements of state, travel, and local air pollution control agencies. importantly, epa must allocate stable and adequate resources and funds to stay tribal and local air pollution control agencies. also, epa must provide timely implementation guidance and technical support. and finally, epa must meet all of its nondiscretionary, statutory duties as by the prescribed deadlines. epa's strategic plan for fiscal year '18 through 2022 underscores each of these necessities. in its strategic plan, epa establishes a goal of cooperative federalism and sets forth its objectives to enhance shared accountability and to

increase transparency in public participation. epa's goal and objectives are consistent with state, local and tribal air pollution control ssions. in kentucky, we take our responsibility seriously and work diligently to fulfill our obligations under the act. we are proud in the significant improvement in air quality and understand there is more work to conduct. in the spirit of cooperative federalism, i'd like to provide a status report on air quality in kentucky and a detailed activities conducted by our cabinet to fulfill our obligations. air quality in kentucky is improving dramatically. in the last ten years, emissions of sulfur dioxides from our electric generating units has decreased by more than 83%. and emissions of nitrogen oxides have decreased by more than 70%. our robust ambient air monitor network measures these positive results. currently, all of the monitors in the commonwealth, except for one ozone monitor in louisville, measure compliance with all of the national air quality standards, including the 2015 ozone standard.

these reductions in our success in air quality improvement are achieved through significant investments to install and upgrade air pollution controls. in the last ten years, our utility's invested more than $8 billion, with a "b," for air pollution controls. now, these expenditures are shared by all of the rate payers in the commonwealth. despite these efforts, epa during the last administration disapproved several state implementation plan revisions and issued several implementation plans as a result. epa's negative actions to disapprove a federal implementation plan resulted from sued and settled decisions. in closing, the commonwealth of kentucky is meeting its statutory obligations under the clean air act, and we are good neighbors. by reducing our emissions and providing the rest of the country with all the manufactured goods and products necessary to improve the quality of life for all. to accommodate cooperative federalism and strong working relationships, we request that epa apply state implementation

approach, rather than aggressive federal overreach. again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and i look forward to any questions or comments you may have regarding my testimony. >> thank you. commissioner baker. >> thank you, madam chairman, member whitewhite house and members of the committee. i am toby baker, commissioner of the texas commission on environmental quality, the tceq. we're the third largest environmental regulatory agency in the united states behind the epa, if you count the model as one agency. we have croes to 3,000 employees across our 16 regional officewise our largest office being located in houston, as you may have guessed. by authority delegated to our agency, we regulate water quality, air quality and waste in texas. i'd like to highlight a few facts about texas i believe were made possible through the tradition of cooperative federalism that, as you know, is built into the federal clean air act and a number of other

federal regulatory statutes. starting with the amendments to the clean air act in the early '90s, texas, the largest -- one of the largest coastal states, turned a corner in environmental regulation, has become one of the leading states in environmental success relative to our environmental challenges. we currently produce one-third of the nation's crude oil, 30% of all refining capacity is located within our borders, and a quarter of all u.s. natural gas production comes from texas. balancing this, we also are the largest wind-producing state in the u.s. with over 20,000 megawatts of capacity. solar energy production is ramping up, and if you consider the projects we have in queue, we should have close to 3,500 megawatts of utility scale solar constructed or being built by 2019. we produce and consume more energy than any other state. in addition, the population of texas is increasing rapidly. since 2000, it is estimated that our population has grown by over 8 million. it's no secret that texas is hot

and these 8 million newcomers to the state have no doubt discovered the benefits of air conditioning, which requires a significant amount of power. it's also no secret that texans like their cars and 34i8on new texans moving primarily to already heavily populated areas adds a number of new vehicles to our transportation system. one could assume an increase in population coupled with our robust manufacturing sector would lead to increased emissions, but in reality, the opposite has occurred. since the late '90s, we've seen a dramatic drop in nox emissions and ozone emissions. while we have occasional bouts with other criteria pollutants, ozone is our most pressing. since 2000, we have been one of the top states in reducing ozone emissions. in fact, in the latest ranking of the dirtiest cities by the american lung association, texas does not have a city in the top ten, while having three of the top ten largest cities in the u.s. given the fact that the houston area is essentially the kitchen for a good portion of the u.s., and that it has prime ozone-making weather, it's, frankly, astounding. our emissions in our major

metropolitan areas are currently driven more by mobile sources than any point source. co2 is worth mentioning here as well. while texas produces more co2 than any other state, the per-capita production, according to eia, puts us at number 14 when ranking the states. if we're objective about it, i would argue that's a model for efficiency. so, what's led to the success? i'd say a tradition of cooperative federalism that's allowed texas to tailor its own unique solutions to our own unique problems, a market that has led to maximizing efficiency in the refining sector and power sectors. three, cleaner burning vehicles. and finally, incentives. so, i'd like to address cooperative federalism a little more specifically. first and foremost, the benefits of cooperative federalism done correctly were on full display during our response to the worst natural disaster in recent memory for the state of texas, hurricane harvey. before and after harvey made landfall, both epa headquarters

and region 6 coordinated closely with other agencies to ensure all fuel labor requests were processed as expeditiously as possible. as a result, requests were usually granted within a matter of hours. compare that to previous hurricanes where such waivers would be processed over several days because epa took more of a wait-and-see approach. similarly, epa staff processed tceq's reaction for no action assurance letters for landing of floating roofs and gasoline storage tanks. epa's rapid response in close coordination with tceq in approving the fuel waivers and naa letters helped ensure the flow of gasoline and diesel products throughout texas and the united states. to be fair, the previous administration also worked well with tceq in transitioning all of the greenhouse gas permitting under the tailoring rule from the epepa to texas, seeing thei ability to happenedle the load as an example of how federal

cooperatism should work. i notice that i'm running out of time, so i will skip forward briefly. at the same time that we have cooperative federalism where it works, it sometimes doesn't work. take for example the clean power plan, which would have imposed significant economic and electric reliability strains on the state of texas to obtain emission reduction benchmarks in a short time frame that the state has consistently maintained would be met anyway under existing market conditions. specifically, texas is currently on pace to nearly hit the initial emissions reduction benchmark of the clean power plan several years ahead of schedule and all without the rule being in place. finally, i'm pleased to see that under this administration, a return to the historical norm of an approach to the clean air act enforcement and implementation by diverting from the first approach, the epa has enabled individual states to implement

and enforce federal standards to allow for greater flexibility and efficiency. this, in turn, leads to both a greater diversity in problem-solving methods tailored to each state's natural environment as well as more predictability, consistency, and enforcement. i have examples of that, but i will leave those for later. that concludes my testimony. thank you for having me here today. >> thank you. mr. rodriguez. >> well, thank you, chair capito, ranking member whitehouse, and other subcommittee members for inviting me to testify. i am matt rodriguez, secretary of the california environmental protection agency. and i will describe how the federal-state partnership created by the clean air act has provided an extraordinarily successful example of cooperative federalism. since the clean air act was comprehensively amended in 1970, emissions of the nation's most common air pollutants have fallen by an average of 70%, even as our economy grew by 246%. by 2020, the act's economic benefits will total $2 trillion.

the act has spurred the use of clean technologies that drive business opportunity. new refinery equipment reduces waste and improves worker safety and also improves the health of people in nearby neighborhoods. idle reduction in electric vehicle technologies for cars, trucks and school buses have cut fuel costs, engine wear, and greenhouse gas and smog emissions. cooperative federal and state efforts have built this record of achievement. the federal government provides minimum standards and resources to states and states tailor solutions for their individual communities. unfortunately, today this relationship has been put in jeopardy. usepa through a series of ill conceived actions is attempting to weaken landmark safeguards with the resulted states spending resources to fill the gap. i'll provide several examples, and i've provided some more in my written remarks. in adopting the clean air act, congress gave california the option to develop its own emission standards and have other states adopt them as well

because california has technical expertise and experience that could drive innovation. using this framework, 13 states, including california, automakers and the federal government have operated a coordinated national program to set rigorous and fair standards for greenhouse gases and fuel economy for cars and trucks. u.s. epa's findings last year show this collaboration has been very successful. it is estimated that we'll save roughly 1.2 billion barlst of oil, cut greenhouse gas emissions by over 0.5 billion metric tons and save a consumer over $1,000 over the vehicle's life. moreover, these standards have helped u.s. automakers stay competitive in the global market. so, it's deeply disappointing that the administration recently announced its intention without really meaningfully consulting with its partner states to weaken and potentially dismantle this program. the result is huge uncertainty for industry and huge risks for the public. we're prepared to take action as necessary, including legal action, to protect this program

and to restore the balance to this cooperative relationship. similarly, the clean air act gives u.s. epa the authority, indeed, the responsibility, to fight global warming and control greenhouse gases. using this authority, the agency developed a clean power plan through a transparent process to set attainable greenhouse gas reduction targets by 2030. the plan offers an array of state planning options to meet these targets, and with a plan in place, states will work correctively on implementation strategies. the trump administration's proposal to repeal the clean power plan threatens to curtail this progress and shirks its responsibility under the act. many states are stepping in with their own programs, but without federal leadership, we lack a vision to help the power sector and respond to climate change. federal-state cooperation is at the core of our national program to make sure our air meets basic standards to protect public health. ordinarily, u.s. epa sets

science-based maximum levels for air pollution. the states develop plans to meet and maintain the thresholds. this is critical because smog can trigger asthma attacks and dampen production. but they have refused, instead announcing an extended delay before even starting this process. when 15 states and the district of columbia filed suit over this illegal step, u.s. epa withdrew this formal delay but still did not do anything. we had to go to court again to require u.s. epa to do its job. we rely on federal partners to ensure that factories and power plants have strong pollution controls. however, a few months ago, u.s. epa revoked the once in, always in policy that ensures major sources of toxic air pollution are always subject to strict controls. these toxic air pollutants include lead, mercury, and arsenic, which can cause cancer and damage the nervous system. under the new policy, these pollution sources can drop out

of the program and increase their emissions again. states again will have to do their best to develop programs to clean the air and protect it, but it means diverting resources that could address other public health threats. achieving the goal of clean air is about protecting our communities. we achieve this goal most effectively in partnerships with the public, with industry, and with the federal administration. a key to success is a strong and vigorous u.s. epa, and this is why we appreciate congress' resistance to propose budget cuts to the agency and its core programs, including its grant programs. it's why we also appreciate the federal workers who have stayed with the program through this period of uncertainty. but this will not be enough if u.s. epa continues to walk away from its responsibilities. if they do, the states will do what they must to protect the health of our people, our economies, and our environments, and we will use all our available tools to ensure that u.s. epa is again there to work with us and not against us. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. rodriguez. mr. garvin.

>> chairwoman capito, ranking member whitehouse, senator carper, members of the subcommittee, my name is shawn garvin, and i am delaware secretary of the department of natural resources and environmental control. i would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify on cooperative federalism under the clean air act state perspectives. in may of 2017, i had the opportunity to testify in front of this subcommittee on the importance and effectiveness of the clean air act in protecting public health and welfare, preventing premature deaths and for protecting the environment. i am pleased to be here today to once again address you on my state's perspective of the clean air act and some of the serious challenges downwind states face in meeting attainment standards for air quality. ozone-forming pollutants are well controlled in delaware due to the state's proactively requiring cost-effective controls on a wide range of sources, including power plants, refinery, manufacturing plants, onroad vehicles, consumer

products, paints and coatings, gas stations, and open burning activities, to name a few. despite these efforts, delaware continues to be challenged in ensuring healthy air to our citizens because we are a downwind state and subject to air pollution transport from facilities in other parts of the country. in fact, over 90% of the pollution that contributes to ozone in delaware is transported from out-of-state sources. the answer to solving our ozone problems lies outside our borders, and we need the federal government to recognize the inequity that exists between upwind and downwind states. epa has maintained that cooperative federalism is key to maintaining clean air. i would agree that cooperative federalism is invaluable, when it works well, by empowering states to act under federal law and allowing communities to enjoy the benefits of state innovation. positive outcomes can occur when the federal government works alongside states to determine best methods to continue

progress towards clean air, provides the resources that states need to enforce the regulation, and steps in when a state fails to meet its obligation. progress in downwind states, such as delaware, require that the federal government continue to provide the states with the tools and resources needed to enforce the clean air act. yet, there have been proposed massive cuts in the past two epa budgets. progress also requires that epa maintain oversight and step in to ensure that upwind states continue to comply with the good neighbor provision. however, the epa seems to be pulling back and turning decisions over to the states. we are also seeing the attempt to reduce regulations at the federal level, such as repeal and replace of the clean power plan, weakening of the fuel efficiency standards, revocation of the california waiver, and the rollback of the glider truck rule. in addition, epa has also failed to act on section 126 petitions, which is one of the ways a state can address problems that lie outside its borders and seek

reductions in emissions contributing to its nonattainment. all of these actions or nonactions will have serious consequences for downwind states, such as did the eelawar. this is compounded by the fact that we are a downwind and the lowest lying coastal state, and in fact, the lowest lying state. we are disproportionally economically affected by the health care costs borne by the state due to the health effects of poor air quality and industry locating elsewhere because of lack of controls. as for the lowest lying state, we will be further compacted by pollution of inland-level states contributing to sea level rise and the increased frequency of storms and coastal erosion. my concern with the way the epa is approaching cooperative federalism under the clean air act is they are only focused on providing flexibility to decisions we make inside our states. the problem is that air pollution knows no boundaries, and i have no authority to ensure other states are addressing pollution that

impacts my citizens. i count on the epa to use their authority to hold all of us accountable to the law, regulations, and science, to ensure we are all being good neighbors. thank you for the opportunity to testify. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. thank you all. and i will begin with my five minutes of questions. mr. alteri, you recently served as the president of the association of air pollution control agencies representing state clean air regulators from around the country. in fact, in that capacity, you sent a letter to me and to ranking member whitehouse last year, outlining the aapca's priorities for improving the clean air act to improve coordination between the epa and state regulators. so, thank you for the letter, and i would like to seek unanimous consent to commit that letter for the record. without objection, we will do that. a bit over a year into the administration, what do you perceive has changed with regards to the epa's coordination with the states, and has it been more collaborative, in your opinion? >> thank you, chair.

we've always had a strong working relationship with epa, but this administration has been coming to states for that technical information, as opposed to just imposing its will through federal implementation plans. so, we have seen more technical thorough discussion directly with our state. >> ms. vehr, would you have a comment on that? have you seen a difference in the last year, working with a different administration on the epa's coordination between the federal and the state? >> yes, we have. again, echoing mr. alteri, we had a working relationship with epa prior, but since, under this new administration, we found that that working relationship has improved. epa is listening to the state's concern and is interested in developing flexible solutions that fit wyoming's unique characteristics. >> well, i would just like to say antidotally, in my state over the last -- in the previous

administration for eight years, we really asked epa to come to our state to have a listening session, which we were never able to get. but the epa did come in several months ago, had a very vigorous listening session in charleston, west virginia, mostly around, obviously, coal. and we had all sides of the argument heard in public sector, very -- it was very much welcomed. so, i think part of what i see cooperative federalism is, is the ability to listen, and that's what you've said as well. commissioner baker, you're from an energy state. you've mentioned that. the clean air act, obviously, you mentioned the clean power plan. that was mentioned in some of the other testimonies, that without the clean power plan, we're not going to move forward with the desired capturing of carbon and cleaning the environment. could you comment on that again, what texas is doing is obviously one of the biggest -- well, you

said the biggest producer of carbon in the country. >> sure. so, if you look inside the clean power plan, there were glide paths laid out that states had to meet to comply with the plan itself. i believe our first year was early in the 2020s some time. we will be within 5% of that number by 2019, and that is without any plan currently in place. >> what do you attribute that to? >> honestly, chairman, a number of things. i think efficiency with our industrial sector, but i also would say, honestly, cheap natural gas has had a direct impact. we've had 12 coal-fired egus that are going to be retired -- have retired or are retiring soon. so, the market itself i think is driving us to do what the clean power plan set out to do through -- and then you layer on

top of that massive wind saturation into our power supply. >> i'd like to ask just a very simple question of everybody. actually, senator whitehouse got me thinking about this in his opening statement. he mentioned that states would want to walk away from the core mission of less pollution. so, is that the desire, ms ms. vehr, to walk away from the core mission of the clean air act, to mission of yes pollution, just yes or no? >> absolutely not. >> mr. alteri? >> no. >> mr. baker? >> no. >> mr. rodriguez? >> no. >> mr. garvin? >> being downwind, i hope not. >> well, i wondered if somebody was going to take more than just a yes or no. so, thank you, mr. garvin, for having faith in adding a few extra words there. on the sue and settle issue, you mentioned that, i think -- who mentioned that? mr. alteri mentioned that. could you explain to me how that

works in terms of the ozone, the ground-level ozone provisions? >> i think they have outcomes that are not consistent with the clean air act. currently, our utilities are being forced to add additional controls at an extreme cost, whereas those areas that maintain the standard on the east coast, they don't have to provide any additional controls. so, i think it's a negative outcome for our state, and really unnecessary. >> anybody else have a comment on the sue and settle? >> i'd like to make one comment. one of the more egregious sue and settle complaints that i think we would have goes back to 2011, 2010-2011. came out of a case over timing reviews for nsps. and through that consent decree and that decision, epa decided that new source performance standards were now going to be applicable to all oil and gas

wells, whereas we had years and years and years of legal interpretation that said that nsps did not apply. so, with that one decision essentially overnight, we went from -- we had to regulate, essentially, you know, hundreds of thousands of new sources. and the problem with that is, obviously, the cost to do that, since we're a delegated state, falls on my agency in trying to figure out how to go and do that through just a simple reinterpretation of the way the clean air act had been interpreted since the amendments of the early '90s. >> thank you. senator whitehouse. >> thank you, madam chair, and thank you again to all of the witnesses for being here. i'd like to open my question reading a quotation from freddie mac, the u.s. morning backer. and i quote them here. this is relating to harm to

coastal housing and property markets. quote, the economic losses and social disruption may happen gradually, but they are likely to be greater in total than those experienced in the housing crisis and great recession. now, those of us who are from coastal states take warnings like that from our federal mortgage provides pretty damn seriously, as i think you would expect that we should. could you tell me, ms. vehr, what is the relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and sea level rise? >> in terms of -- >> cause and effect. >> cause and effect? i know that there are changes that are occurring in our environment currently that people are studying, and i am

not an expert in that area, so i would have to defer to the studies that others are doing in that area. >> mr. alteri, can you do any better than that? >> no, i'm not certain of the direct relationship between the co2 emissions and sea level rise. >> all righty. well, you've got a coast, commissioner baker. >> yes, sir. >> maybe you can do better. what do you know about this? >> in certain areas, i think there is a direct correlation. i would say in texas, our -- >> what do you mean in certain areas? >> so, for example, in texas, the relative sea level rise that we're experiencing comes from really manmade things like subsidence, manmade structures that extend into the gulf of mexico, causing beach erosion -- >> i guess my question is what is the role of carbon dioxide emissions in contributing to that sea level rise, if any? what is your understanding of that? >> in texas, i don't know what the science says specifically about that regarding our coastline. >> how about generally, if not specifically?

what does the science generally, on the correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and sea level rise? >> i think i answered that it's correlated. >> okay, there we go. that's a start. mr. rodriguez? california's coastal. >> i'll just say i work with scientists all the time, and it's sometimes hard to get them to agree on certainty on anything. but in this particular area, the overwhelming consensus, and i have no doubt, there is a direct correlation between co2 emissions and changes in the weather, including sea level rise. >> and you have coastal communities that are actually having to plan for that, correct? >> absolutely. we just agreed to a new set of guidelines for a development along our coast just recently at our ocean protection council. we're preparing for sea level rise. we're already seeing it along our coasts. >> mr. garvin, you're like me. you're coastal and you are downwind. your friend, mr. rodriguez, is

downwind of china. we're downwind of the coal plants in west virginia, ohio, pennsylvania, kentucky, and so forth. and for a long time, we have been on the receiving end of their pollution and don't much appreciate the high smokestacks that have been built to make sure that that pollution goes out of their states and lands on ours. so, take a stab at what sea level rise means for delaware and whether it connects to the carb emissions from these plants. >> so, i want to touch on two things, and i completely agree with my colleague from california. but when we look at this issue in delaware, our two largest economic generators are tourism and agriculture. when you talk about climate change, part of it's sea level rise issues, part of it is creating more frequency of storms and more severe storms and higher droughts and more flooding across the board, and

they have direct impacts on our two largest economic engines in the state of delaware. and we're seeing those impacts particularly along our coastline now and have been. >> what do coastal communities in delaware have to start doing now, given the sea level rise that is anticipated as a result of climate change and carb emissions? >> so, there's three things going on right now. one is we continue to work on renourishment of our coastline to try to protect our coastline as much as possible. our local communities are looking at land use decisions and existing structures on how they need to raise and address any new construction. and currently -- >> treatment plants, ports, harbors, all those things, need to be reconsidered? >> our wastewater treatment plants, our power plants. in addition, as we speak, our department of transportation is raising route 1, which connects our coastline along the atlantic coast, by several inches to try to not to address the big

storms, just to address the regular storms and the impacts that we're having on transportation, which also becomes a public safety issue for our communities along the coast. >> thank you, chairman. my time has expired. i appreciate that. >> senator markey. >> great. thank you very much. mr. rodriguez, welcome. scott pruitt is now attacking the fuel economy standards, which were reached as in agreement with california and all the waiver states, along with the epa and nhtsa in 2010-2011. that would reduce our imports of oil that increased 3.5 million barrels of oil a day, which is roughly equivalent to what we import from opec on a daily

basis. seems like a pretty important thing to do to keep on the books. and it also is still the largest single reduction that any law, any country has ever put on the books to reduce greenhouse gases, that one decision. so, it is huge, and i take a great deal of pride in it because i was the house author of that legislation in the same way senator feinstein, senator stevens were the senate authors of that bill. that's a 2007 bill that was relied upon by d.o.t. so, what do you think about scott pruitt's statement that the standards are too hard to meet, that it's just an unfair imposition on the auto industry? do you agree with that? >> no. we did a very, very through technical assessment of the standards and the progress that the auto industry has made in complying with those standards

back in 2016 and in 2017. our air resources board found that there was no reason to deviate from those standards. progress was being made, and in fact, our experience has been, if you set the right targets, industry will find a way to get there, and that seems to be the case here. so, we see no reason to deviate from those standards that were agreed to previously with the federal administration. >> yeah, so, what do you think about general motors and toyota and the other companies that are now saying they cannot meet the standards? what would your message to them be? >> well, we'll continue to work with them and talk to them about how do we meet these standards. we're always interested in hearing from industry. frankly, they're not as much dramatic in that. what we hear is they are interested in talking about some tweaks to the system, but i'm not hearing anybody say that they want to see a wholesale revision of the standards.

and as i said, i think we're making very good progress meeting those standards. >> yeah, well, i appreciate what you're saying, but the american automotive association speaks for someone, okay? they're not out there just talking as though they have a view. and that association has just pinocchioed. the gentlempetto are the organizations ahead of them. they don't make that statement without it coming down to them. the ceo of ford motor company has made clear he doesn't agree with it, but the others not so much from my perspective, and that's at the core of the problem that we have right now. what would this represent as an attack on the clean air standards of california and the other 13 states who would see their standards compromised? >> transportation, obviously, is a very, very significant part of the air pollution puzzle.

we've made tremendous progress through the years, but we need to continue to clean up the air. and frankly, our goal is to move to electric and fuel cell vehicles, zero emission vehicles, because that's the only way that we can meet our greenhouse gas emission standards. so, we are fully committed to continuing to work to enforce these standards and continue to work with the auto industry to bring about this change in technology that will change us over to zero emission vehicles. >> so, scott pruitt talks about cooperative federalism is the way in which he wants to operate. in your opinion, would this be a direct attack on cooperative federalism, given the agreement that was reached back six years ago to increase the standards? >> we look forward to dialogue with the epa. we haven't really had it yet

with the technology. we had worked with the previous epa administration on the technology and agreed with them in their assessment of the standards and success in meeting those standards. in answer to you question, no, we haven't seen that kind of cooperative federalism exhibited by this administration. >> so you haven't had a conversation with them yet? >> there have been general conversations, but certainly nothing on the technical level that you need to do if you're going to look at standards. >> so, do you think it makes sense that scott pruitt says he's going to recommend revocation of those rules without even having had conversations with the other party to the negotiation to determine whether or not the technical standards can be met? do you think that's cooperative federalism? >> no. >> no. okay. i thank you, and i thank you, madam chair. >> senator barrasso. >> thank you very much, madam chair. ms. vehr, if i could ask a couple things. your testimony states the value of cooperative federalism because many of the wyoming issues are unique to the state, given our size, our location,

high elevation, topography, economy, all quite unique. so, what can the epa do to work with wyoming to address these unique characteristics and how they affect issues such as background ozone, exceptional events and things like wildfires? >> first, start by listening to what wyoming has to say. second, to act timely when wyoming makes a request. three, to provide some of the technical tools that states like wyoming, it consumes a lot of resources to develop, such as modeling and the like. >> when you talk about house and look at the fact that we have been so successful in balancing the economic benefits from using natural resources for energy production in wyoming, while ensuring views in our national parks aren't impacted by issues related to air pollution, this is why striking that proper balance you talk about between state and federal decision-making in the

implementation of, say, the regional haze program, is critical. is epa addressing your concerns about the role federal land managers play in state plans as it relates to regional haze? >> i think they're starting to. i think it's critically important that states work with epa, but it's also equally as critically important that all the federal land managers and epa having a working relationship. and wyoming does participate through some of these discussions so that we have other federal land managers, epa, and the state at the table so that all of our voices are heard and we can achieve improved air quality. >> thank you. and director alteri, you know, one of the greatest concerns about the obama administration's epa, which for me, at least, was the agency's use of a tactic known as sue and settle. this allowed the epa to make decisions that had major impact on states without including

states in the decision-making process at all. how will the recent directive issued by administrator pruitt on sue and settle be helpful to states? >> thank you. as it relates to our state implementation plan, the director from administrative pruitt mandates that states have a voice at the table, they have a seat at the table, and i think that will give us an opportunity to explain the technical limitations or the technical abilities to achieve these standards. >> okay. and then ms. vehr again, the prior administration issued some rules that imposed i thought really burdensome requirements on states, because epa charged that states like ours affected air quality in other states. can you talk a little bit about your perspectives on these air transport issues, and should we also think about international affects on our air quality? >> definitely, the international effects. and this is still an evolving area of science, both on the

ozone and on wyoming. the model we did for the first round of regional haze showed that visibility in the west was impacted by the international transport of pollutants. the ozone modeling that epa conducted for the cross-state air pollution rule update looked at pollution, and as we delve into that modeling, we realize that there is still an area that needs to be examined with international transport. it does affect. last week at our apca meeting, we heard from a speaker who talked about reduction in international pollution may help solve the ozone issues that other states are experiencing. and so, yes, international transport is important. >> and director alteri, i'd ask if you'd like to weigh in, anything you'd like to add to what administrator vehr had to say and if you could talk about how the state of kentucky has

been affected by these epa regulations about emissions that move from one state to another. >> ms. vehr had mentioned models. and the models are limited. former assistant administrator mccabe mentioned that epa has not fully evaluated all of the other stationary sources, beyond egus, and so, those limit yauat imposed greater reductions for us than in maryland and other places. then also, there was a statement as well that if emissions from kentucky were reduced in total, that it still would not affect and bring the areas in the northeast into compliance. >> so, even when you say -- like, to zero -- >> to zero. >> if emissions went to zero, it still wouldn't help. >> it would still not bring other areas into compliance. >> thank you, madam chairman. very interesting. >> thank you. senator carper. >> mr. alteri, my mother lived in kentucky the last two or three years of her life in a place called ashland. >> yes.

>> so, i had a chance to go there a lot. my sister and her family live in winchester, and to have a chance to go see her and her family a good deal. love going to kentucky. you have a beautiful state. >> thank you. >> and i applaud the reduction in emissions that you talked about in your testimony. when our secretary, shawn garvin, spoke, he mentioned that i think something like 90% -- shawn, correct me if i'm wrong -- repeat what you said, 90% -- >> over 90% of our ozone comes from outside our borders. >> yeah. that's not good. that is not good. earlier in my life, i was privileged to serve as governor of delaware. i remember having a conversation with folks from maryland, and these are folks who made their living on harvesting the creatures that live in the chesapeake bay. and they had the big dead spots in the chesapeake bay, and the sea grasses stopped growing, and their ability to make a living

was diminished. and they came, said to us, we needed to do something about it. we said, why? and they said, because the river that flows through delaware into maryland, called the nanacoke, and into the chesapeake bay that was carrying a lot of nutrients from when we clean out chicken houses, poultry houses in delaware, and our farmers were, some cases, just back stacking it up on their farm fields. other cases, they would spread it across their farm fields for the value of the nitrogen and phosphorus. and we're doing it without a lot of thought. it would rain. nutrients would wash into ditches, creeks, rivers, the chesapeake, and degrade the quality of their water. it wasn't just delaware. pennsylvania, virginia and other places. but the folks from maryland

said, how would you like to be making your living by harvesting god's creatures that live in the chesapeake bay, how would you like to be trying to make your living and your neighbors are all just polluting the place where you're trying to make a living. and said you know, you've got a pretty good point there. i think they even went to point out that that wasn't really schi consistent with the golden rule, treat other people the way we want to be concentrated. and we put together a farmer-led initiative called the nutrient management commission, that ultimately worked with environmental groups as well as worked with the department of natural resources, include iing nick depasquapaepasquale, and c with a way to reduce the dramatic runoff in emissions and the damage we're doing to our neighbors. we have been on both sides of this equation. we have been the neighbor who

degraded the water quality of our neighbor, maryland, and we are the neighbor who still receives emissions from my native west virginia, from western pennsylvania, from kentucky where my sister now lives, from indiana, tennessee, all kinds of -- virginia -- all kinds of states. and my colleagues over me are sick of hearing me say this, but when i was governor of delaware, the kind of emissions our secretary was talking about, we could have shut down our state. i could have shut down every car off the road, every truck off the road, basically shut down the economy. we still would have been out of compliance on ozone, still would have been out of compliance. sdwlaust not fair. and it's -- there's a need here for a federal role. and to say other states, happen to be upwind states, those of us who live at the end of america's tail pipe, delaware, rhode island, new jersey, maryland, all of us, this ain't right.

and there is a need for the federal government, when states won't do enough to help us out, to make sure that you do more. and i'm just going to ask secretary garvin to comment on that, if you would, because you have to live with this. >> i appreciate that. if you look at the state of delaware, the biggest things we're talking about here is our transport that we're receiving, which is over 90%, and the second piece is transportation. those are the two biggest pieces we mission and those we need cooperatati cooperatation and partnership from the states as well as leadership from the federal government. we have taken advantage of all of the work that kryta. 's done, because we could have never have done it on our own. and when you look at the mid-atlantic and the northeast and the amount of vehicle traffic that we have, for us to address air issues, we're going to need to continue to work on

the transportation side, and we're continuing to look inside the state on how we build a much better electric infrastructure for vehicles, but we're really going to rely on cooperative federalism in cooperation with our fellow states on both the transport issue and the transportation issue. >> thank you. madam chairman, if we have a chance to ask another question, i would like to maybe use two minutes to ask one last question. >> yes. i'll go to senator inhofe, and then -- okay. thank you. senator, is it okay if he goes with -- i didn't know what your time constraints might be. >> i'd like to hear his question. go ahead. >> okay, go ahead. >> two minutes. >> over a number of years, we've made real progress, going back to i think when ford was president, and more recently in the last, since 2007, we've made real progress in reducing

emissions that secretary garvin alluded to that come out of our cars, trucks and vans. one thing senator inhofe and i worked together was pioneering the emissions initiative. but we have the opportunity to continue to make progress and do so in a way in a win-win situation where we provide the automakers from flexibility in the near term, maybe '21 to mectio'25 in return to making clear what the out year targets should be, particularly for light suvs, light trucks and suvs and so forth. but for the auto industry, they need certainty. they don't want to have to build one model for california and a different model car for, you know, same vehicle for, you know, 49 other states or even 40 other states. but i think there's a real opportunity here to make clear

the endangerment finding and the clean air act are compatible with one another, that there is a way to give the auto industry some flexibility in the near term, to 25 and turn for greater rigor standards after 2030 and in a way that's respectful of california's leadership and for the rest of us. and is that a pipe dream? is that reality? or just give me a reality check on that idea. >> as i said, we believe the standards are, that we agreed to previously are attainable but certainly willing to sit down and talk to the auto industry and talk to the technology. look to 2030. we want to work to a solution that will keep us moving forward and so, no it's not a pipe dream. we will talk to the industry. we will work with others to come

up with the solution. >> one of the things i try to do every year in january is go to the detroit auto show and you all have been there as well for years and i met with representatives from ten different auto companies, foreign and domestic who basically said, give us some additional flexibility in the near term in terms for greater certainty but greater rigor after 2030. i really do think there's here and will take advantage of it. >> thank you, senator? >> thank you, madam chairman and the ranking member for having this hearing it and we sometimes have that problem but i, you know, our states should be seen as a partner, and i think that's what is going on that's different now than it has been during the last administration. and in the looking at it like opposition. the current epa administrator

scott pruitt has made it his mission and delving on promise and in the first year of administrator, he's met with 34 governors in both parties. the 30 states and u.s. territories. under his leadership, the epa has acted on 322 state implementation plans as those are sips and average turning one federal into a sip each month. in comparison, obama administration imposed more than 50 sips on our state partners. it was this idea that, and i understand that some people think this is a step backwards to have our administrator has been doing, but they're the ones who think that somehow the federal government or other states should be dictating what we do in our state and i know that's not the feeling of our administrator now. and i've read the testimony today and i'd say many states,

they see positive results from this administration. now, question for mr. terry, senator brought up the things about the problems we've had and i had the privilege of chairing this committee for a number of years and watched that happen in the case in my oklahoma, we're a victim of the sue that took place. sued in northern california courts and forced to comply with a settlement that we're not a party to regarding the regional plan, a decision congress has specifically delegated to the states. the federal plan will cost rate payers an estimated $282 million in oklahoma gas and electric that said the apa's rule and this is a quote, trigger the largest customer rate increase

in og & e's history while the resulting impact on regional a's would be practically imperceptib imperceptible. does this sound like a reasonable expectation? from a result of the court case like this? are you familiar with this? or are there other comparable problems? >> specific to regional hayes, all the glide path or status update. all the states are achieving those and i think when epa issues federal implementation plans, it gives a negative connotation to the fact, we are doing our job and federal implementation plans allude that states are not stepping up to the table and doing their job. >> yeah. well, yeah, but we are and this is, i've been here for a number of years and this is the same thing you always get. those who are the more liberal individuals who think someone

else can set an example in the case of federal government, that somehow they know how to do things that we don't know how to do. it's kind of rewarding, actually, during the last administration when we had a partnership program take place with fish and wildlife and they went and found the states were doing a better job and i thought that was neat. a question for mr. baker. one of the misconceptions with hurricane harvey was that the epa was missing in action in response to the environmental concerns. that texas was potentially facing. your testimony suggests that this was not the case at all. can you elaborate on how the epa was a partner with the state in facing the effects of this natural disaster? >> sure. with us every step of the way as hurricane harvey was coming in and in the response, part of a group called the natural disaster operational work group

made up of our agency and the epa and the coast guard and so we have table topped hurricanes coming in multiple times at the staff level, so they were already prepared and big difference here as opposed to previous administrations was that after the hurricane hit and we needed fuel waivers, they acted almost immediately. i went through katrina, all in the government. and this one by far was the one that it was the most reactive and moved with the most efficiency. so we couldn't have done the things that we did without them being at the table with us. they actually had people in our office with us and in the state operations center on a daily basis. >> you in texas know more about that. you had more of them. we in oklahoma, tornadoes, not hurricanes. but the same thing. we've experienced, we know how to react to them. and i think that needs to be

talked about. last, in your testimony, you highlight the fact that a cooperative federalism is not just implementing federal decisions but being a part of the decision making process itself. you mention the fact that administrator pruitt announced new policies for the epa's board of scientific counselors including ensuring a diverse compositi composition. why do you think it's important for these boards to be regionally diverse? >> my apologies. so all of the state's voices can be heard and the unique circumstances that are in all states are brought to the table to be considered in decision-making, so that there can be flexibility and appropriate decision making to lead to better improved air quality at lower costs. >> that's good. well, thank you very much. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you, senator. i like to recognize the ranking

member to make a quick statement before we close out the hearing. >> i just wanted to point out one dimension of the role of the epa has to do with assuring fairness between separate states. both senator harper and i have lived the world in which from a state regulator's perspective, the solution for instance to air pollution was to build taller smokestacks. so that the pollution went up higher into the atmosphere and carried out of the polluting state and then landed on our state. it's very hard to ask ohio or pennsylvania or kentucky to crack down on pollution that is not landing in ohio or pennsylvania or kentucky. it's a tough expectation to have for them politically. and we could regulate until

we're blue in the face in rhode island but it doesn't help if what's coming in is coming in and deliberately being set up to come in on us from out of state and it's in that circumstance that the epa plays an essential and vital role and that role cannot be subject to the control by the polluting state because there's another state involved that is the downwind recipient of all of this and in that particular situation, i think, we have to be very careful about how cooperative this federalism gets. if you're not dealing with the polluting, polluted state as well. just wanted to be clear on that point. >> i wanted to make a response. i agree with you in this case. >> it's true with water as well. >> however, it's not the case. we talked to mr. commissioner baker there. in that case, it's quite clear that they had a lot more knowledge in handling their own problems than the federal government did.

obviously, in the case you cite is one where it does, there has to be the interference. we understand that. >> and i would. >> to end on a happy note. >> i would like to reinforce, since we're in the land of final comments, that i think what has been, at least from my state, is the welcome, the open door policy of the epa, the willingness to talk, the willingness to understand the implications at every state, whether it's a downwind state or a heavy energy producing state, and so i think if we're going to have any, if the part of cooperative federalism is going to work cooperative, it's got to work. and i'm encouraged by what we see. so with that. >> could i ask you? >> land of final comments, one last thing. >> thank you so much. first of all, thank you for giving me the ability to go in and out so i can be in the hearing as well. i just wanted to say again, i

thought the white house nailed it for those of us with the end of america's tailpipe. i ask you to put yourselves in our shoes and we'll try to do the same thing with respect to other states. but i'd ask unanimous consent for the record, the four petitions from the state of delaware to the epa that asks the agency to require upwind power plants to install or consistently upgrade or pollution controls, needed to help with states like delaware, address not the need for ozones and request if i could with glider trucks and i would ask some consent to the record and sent you to epa regarding the proposal with some of the dirtiest heavy duty diesel trucks call. it looks like trucks on the inside but with high polluting diesel engines to emit 450 times the particular matter pollution in up to 43 times in nitrous

oxide pollutions of the model 2014 and 2015 trucks. so that would be my two requests, madam. >> without objection. >> and thank you very much to the witnesses and secretary for getting up early and putting up with the train schedule to be here with all of us and you're joined by a member, at least one member of your staff over your left shoulder. you look so familiar. why don't you introduce her? >> i have my chief of staff, kristen, short as well as my acting director, david. >> nice to see you. >> i can barely see your lips moving. it was good. thank you so much. >> thank you, if there's no more questions, i want to thank the panel as well for today. members may submit follow-up questions and written questions for the record by the close of business tuesday april 24th for witnesses committee staff. forward questions from committee members and please respond to those written questions by the close of business by tuesday may 8th. again, thank you so much and this hearing is adjourned.

>> next, the secretary of the navy. chief of naval operations and marine come dant appear at a hearing on navy rediness and budget issues. 4:15 p.m., fda commissioner with the food conference.