c-span.org/impeachment for video on demand. and we've added a tally from the associated press showing where each house democrat stands on the impeachment inquiry against president trump. follow the impeachment inquiry on our webpage. it's your fast and easy which to watch c-span's unfiltered coverage anytime. up next the senate environment and public works committee examines the pros and cons of a growing america innovation now legislation also known as the gain act. fewer regulatory barriers for manufacturing plants seeking to upgrade or retrofit their facilities. the committee's chair, senator john barrasso. from yesterday this is just over 90 minutes. i call this hearing to order. today we're hear to discuss

s-2662, the growing american innovation now act or the g.a.i.n. act this would bring long overdue ledges lative reform to the clean air act review program. it protects air quality when industrial boilers, factories and power plants are modified or newly built. the g.a.i.n. brings clarity to factory and power plant owners as well as to state permitting officials about when permits are needed. the new source review program was originally designed to support pollution control projects and upgrades. it's actually had the opposite effect. in its current form the program is complex. it's costly. it's time consuming. the program directly slows economic growth. it slows job creation. it slows technical innovation as well as the ability to modernize our american industry and infrastructure. the portland cement association submitted a letter outlining the extreme burden that new source review places on its members. the association explained that,

quote, a member company sought a permit to combust alternative fuels. the epa regional office insisted that permitting to burn alternative fuels automatically triggered an nsr permitting. after going appear burdensome process, the epa regional office concluded the project was not required to go through nsr permitting. it took five years to go through this process. five years to figure out that you do not need a permit. simply unacceptable. i ask unanimous consent to enter that letter into the record. without objection it is done. well, such permitting uncertainty and delays discourage key upgrades that would be good for the economy and the environment. last year a group of seven unions wrote to the committee urging new source review reform legislation. the seven union that wrote state, quote, the new source review program adversely impacts american workers by creating a

strong diskrennive to undertaking projects to improve the efficiency and productivity of existing utility and industrial plants, ranging from steel and chemicals to refineries. i'm entering that letter into the record without objection as well. congress enacted the new source review program more than 40 years ago. it's time for to us streamline and modernize the program. when congress lasts addressed the source review program we do not have power plant using carbon capture like we have now. at a 2017 hearing before this energy. nrg energy testified it to had redesign the pet ray nova project in texas to avoid trying aring new source review requirements. the unnecessary redesign added $100 million to the cost of the project. we can't have our environmental regulations pose road blocks to critical technologies that would reduce emissions and combat climate change. the gain act would make needed

changes to the clean air act. providing more clarity about what types of changes fit the definition of modifications. and therefore warrant a new source review permit. the bill would clarify that projects designed to reduce emissions or improve reliability and safety should not generally trigger new source review permits permitting would no longer be based on annual emission estimates which have been the subject to endless litigation and are very difficult to project. so i'd like to thank leader mcconnell and senator brawn and senator capito as for paul and inmovie joining me on the bill. the gain act is identical to a bipartisan bill, the new source review permitting improvement act sponsored in the house by congressman morgan griffeth and collin pederson and alexander moony process i encourage senate democrats to join us in making this bill bipartisan on this side of the capitol as well as

we have it bipartisan in the house. any senator mo cares about economic growth, emissions reductions and clear regulations, i would encourage to support in legislation. now i'd like to turn to ranking member carper for his opening remarks. >> thanks. i want to do something i've never done in 18 years. and i just ask my colleague to bear with me for a moment. we all have military personnel who served and injured and some killed. i want to share with you briefly before i recap my opening comments, just a couple of words about a army battalion ranger from actually from delaware who was nearly killed two months ago today. he sustained four brain injuries. a -- a building exploded and crushed him and other people. broke his ribs, pelvis, broke

his right leg. fractured vertebra in his spine and it's amazing he is alive. he was brought miraculously saved there, eventually brought back to walter reed and has gotten great care there. he has moved a couple of weeks ago. i talked to him. he was moved to the polytrauma center in tampa, florida. his mom lives in delaware, talked to him the other day, says he is doing well and has no infections apparently. learning to walk needs occupational therapy, brain stimulation for traumatic brain injuries, if you can believe that. currently he is having difficult remembering. ep remembers the incidents and some items. he has -- loses his focus. but he has a good tut attitude. i talked to him in the words of henry ford if you think you can or think you can't you're right.

and this is a greeting card his mother said he loves cards. and she said maybe you can send him one. i'm sending him one and ask you all to sign it my colleagues. okay. thank you. now i want to say terrible things about this bill. when i was pennsylvania -- a congressman i used a whole lot of townhall meetings. i still have some. not as many as then. every now and then somebody would waist raise an issue or have an idea or propose the idea which really was devoid of much alvalue. and rather than just say that's the dumbest idea i would every heard i said there is a germ of a god idea in what you propose and focus on that germ of a good idea. the issue is kmarm raises is one not new. and we adopted the clean air act, how many years ago, many, many years ago. i was involved in 1990 in the

mouskss to the amendments to the clean air act. this is not pennsylvania new issue. i want one i would recommending just a chance to mr. chairman just to sit and talk with you and your staff and to explore find out what there is of a germ of a good idea and i think there probably is. i'm but i'm going to ask that my statement for the record be entered. i am privilege to -- some of you heard me say this before. i from a little state in the northeast. 49th largest state. we're surrounded by states with a lot of population. when i was a governor stopped every car on the roads we would have been way out of compliance for clean air scattered showers in a lot of ways because of the pollution that comes to us from other places. my fear -- one of my fears i won't dwell on it one of my fears is the legislation doesn't help that situation get better. we all care about our states and the quality of the air and this is something we continue to wrestle with. my fear is if this legislation if adopted won't playbook that better. but i would be willing to have a

skfrgs, mr. chairman. in the meantime i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record in statement. and i would ask. >> without objection. >> if you'd take the time to write a note on this that. >> what's his name. >> his name is kyle. i'll have it on there the note. kyle robert montgomery. >> ranger. >> army ranger. >> we could start with the number one veteran and we can continue throughout. thank you. we'll now hear from witnesses gem homestead partner at bracewell llp and sean alteri, the deputy commissioner of the kentucky department of environmental protection as well as john walke, the clean air director for the natural resources defense council. i'd like to remind witness that is your full written testimony will be made part of the official hearing record. please keep your statements to five minutes so that we may have time for questions. i look forward to hearing the testimony of each much you. let's see, director, alteri you're first.

would you please proceed. >> good morning, chair barrasso. ranking member carper and members of the committee. i'm sean alteri and current serve as deputy commissioner for the kentucky department for environmental protection. i'm honored to testify today and appreciate the opportunity to provide comments relative to the new source review program. it's important to note that the new source review program is utilized by epa, state tribal and local air pollution control agencies to attain and maintain compliance with the national ambient air quality standards. the new source review program is knows to protect the health of our citizens and prevents the significant deterioration of air quality. regarding this legislation, the proposed amendments are narrow in scope of the new source review program. this bill proposes to amend the definition of modification to exclude projects that implement efficiency measures which reduce the amount of any air pollutant emitted by the source per unit of production. et proposed amendment also

limits the emissions increases to the maximum hourly achievable -- or maximum achievable hourly ee manipulation rate demonstrated in the last ten years. to be certain, this bill does not apply to new major stapgsary urs sos or new units existing in major stapgsary sewers. this bill does not allow the debojts necks of mainstream emission units and does not exempt them from review and does now not allow sources of emissions to violate the national ambient air quality scattered showers standards. since 2008 the cabinet had youed more than 25 new sourps review permits. the actions allow for economic growth and development while require major sources of emissions to install and operate the best available control technologies. during in same time period air quality and in kentucky improved dramatically. in the last 10 years emissions of sulphur die ox i'd decreased more than 83% and emissions of

night troe jenn. due to the politic of new source review requirements famts unfortunately have foregone efficiency measures and improvements that can provide substantial environmental benefits. this bill will not allow coal fired electric generating units to violate applicable emission standards stebd established by the cross state air pollution rule. and that mercury air toxic standards. however this bill will allow an existing coal fired electric generating unit to implement energize energy efficiency measures and reduce emissions per megawatt generated. efficiency prompts projects that exist in coal fired units will be necessary to reduce cash cardiac arrest emissions and will be critical tor air pollution controlations to meet the afterable clean energy rule. a state plan under the ace rule

will. for the very first time. balanced environmental proepgts in and economic growth and development creates tension between regulated industries and environmental activists. this tension is most noticeable and evident in the krer clean air act new resource sof review program when is thing forth statutory authority congress kird clierd dlierd the new source review program is to ensure economic growth will occur in a manner consistent with the preservation of clean air resources. striking the proper balance between economic growth and protection of air urs resources is essentially essentially to fulfilling our obligations under the act. to resolve the tension final determinations of new source review permits are often administratively challenged and decided through litigation. in recent yeerps it's serveds a the vehicle to delay the permit process and the construction of major economic dweemt opportunities. in kentucky, third party

interest groups challenge or pe epa to object to eight air quality permits related in new source review in the last ten years. all of the challenged air quality permits utilize coal and the focus of the challenge centered on coal fired electric generation. ultimately, epa and the courts found that the air quality permits issued by the division or quality contain all applicable requirements to monitor dpliens np in an effort to r. the differences of this proposed legislation one would be would be to further restrict the new amendments to apply only to energy efficiency mts requirements at existing coal fired. state air quality regulators will be provided to regulatory certainty to skaebded carbon dioxide. thank you for the opportunity to comment today and i look forward to any questions you may have regarding my testimony.

>> thanks so much for your thoughtful fem testimony. i appreciate you coming in from kentucky to do that mr. homestead. >> thank you for giving me the chance to testify this morning. >> have you testified here before? >> a few times. >> if you had to guess how many times you testified how many times would you guess? >> a dozen or more. >> well maybe close that that number quite a few. >> welcome back. >> well, thank you. >> don't agree with you on everything but welcome back. >> i have to say it's always an honor to be here. as some of you know for almost 30 years i devoted my professional career to working on clean air act issues. as a staffer in the white house, abs the head of the pechlt a air office and attorney in private practice, and i have to say that one of of the things find so frustrating sits very hard to have an honest conversation about the new source review program what it does and doesn't do. i had the chance last night to review the testimony from nrdc

and i have to say that i found it disspiriting. even bordering on dishonest when it comes to coal fired power plants. and i want to just tell you why. historically the polluteants of greatest concern from power plants are so 2 and nox because of the impact on human health and environment. in 1990 when the modern cleaner clean airway was passed and at least two of you were involved power plants were the biggest sources of so 2 in the country and the biggest sources of noxp but since 1990 power plant emissions of so 2 decreased by 92% and power plant emissions of noxs have decreased 42%. you didn't know the about the clean air act you would assume that the program was

responsible. that all the plants were forced to install the best control technology. but that's not the case. if you go to the epa website that tracks power plants emissions is it says the dramatic reductions are attributable to a number of other regulatory programs, primarily a series of cap and trade programs starting with the acid rain program that have kbroesed increasingly stringent caps on so 2 and nox emissions and rdc seems to believe the best which to reduce emissions is to wait until plants trigger nsr and they are required to install back. but epa thinks it's better to issue regulations it telling them to reduce emissions by how much and by when. you might be surprised to know that there are many different clean air act programs that regulate the very same pollutant from the same facilities. and in fact power plant emissions of so 2 and nox are repentinged under at least 14

different clean air act programs. a cornucopia of acronyms that some of you know. the nrdc testimony gives these programs no credit. but these are the programs that have actually reduced power plant emissions by 90% over the last 25 years. and these are the same programs that will make sure thats pollution continues to go down regardless of what happens with the nsr program. i did a word search last night and found 15 different places in the nrdc testimony saying that the reforms in the g.a.i.n. act would lead to massive or enormous increases in pollution and 13 places saying ominously that it would allow industrial facilities to ee vied pollution controls. i will say in a theoretical world where there are no other environmental regulations and there is unlimited demand for all products this might be the case. but in the real world even if congress decided to exempt all existing power plants from nsr

entirely -- and that's not what this bill does -- but even if there did there would not be an increase in power plant pollution. in fact, because of the many other programs that regulate the same polluteants from the facilities emissions would continue to decrease as they have been doing since 1990. the nrdc testimony also concedes the total emissions would continue to go down but suggests gnat current nsr program is needed to ensure that no individual plant can increase annual emissions. but this is just plain silly. the current nsr program does nothing to perceptive a facility from increasing emissions. annual emissions from individual plants go up and down all the time for reasons entirely unrelated to nsr and modifications. the hours that plants run depend entirely on what demand is. if the economy heats up, or if other big power plants in an area shut down for any reason, other plants will need to

operate more hours and their annual emissions will increase. that's the way the world works. the nsr program doesn't prevent this. but thankfully as mr. alteri said there are many other regulatory programs that when there are increases in annual emissionster not enough to adversely affect air quality or cause health problems. in the real world, the current nsr program makes it difficult for plant owners to make capital investments that would make plants more efficient and does make it more difficult to maintain industrial plants in good working order. the gain act would remove the disincentives while still ensuring when new industrial facilities is built or existing facility expanded it will be required to install the best available control technology at that time. again i thank you very much for inviting me here today and look forward to answering questions. >> thank you so much for the thoughtful testimony. appreciate you come back to committee today. mr. walke. >> thank you chairman barrasso

and -- sorry put this on for you. thank you chairman barrasso ranking member carper and committee members. i've been a clo clean air attorney over 25 years. i'm afraid this bill is the most harmful senate bill to amend the clean air act i've read. this bill allows a greater amount of air pollution increases from a greater number of industrial polluters than any senate bill i have seen. indeed, the bill let's industrial facilities increase dangerous air pollution to higher levels than they ever have polluted worsens ing air kwlult and ee vieding controls that today's law requires. this bill let's famts increase pollution up to the worst possible polluting hour in the past 10 years and then incredibly the bill let's facilities exceed even that astronomical increase. bill supporters say there are other legal limits on these enormous pollution increases. that begs the question, why weaken the law so severely to allow massive pollution insides if there are the other limits on

actual pollution increases? the answer is because there are not these other limits. my written testimony provides multiple example why the other limits on actual pollution increases do not exist or do not limit massive increases. notably, the written testimony of my fellow witnesses does not contain a single example of a single law that limits actual air pollution increases from a single facility in the country. much less than many thousands of facilities that the bill would let increase air plugs. the main benefit of the new source review safeguards are to contrain run away pollution increases. when my fellow witnesses mr. homestead headed the bush epa air office epa renlted an approach similar to this bill amnesty saying the approach would mean increases in emissions that would be detrimental to air quality, quote. allowing pollution increases of 100 to 200%. the bush epa enforcement office found that a single power plant

that had violated the law and evaded pollution controls would have been able to get away with an astonishing 21,000 ton per year increase in smog forming pollution unthe approach of this bill and the approach the bush ep. a rejected. how bad is a 21,000 ton increase from one plant? that's greater than the total smog forming pollution from all coal burning power plants into each of these committee states. alabama, arkansas, delaware, iowa, maryland, mississippi, new jersey, oklahoma and oregon. pennsylvania 21,000-ton increase is an incredible 7% of all smoug formation nox pollution ee milted from all sources in indiana, including cars and trucks and industrial and manufacturing plants. it's 10% of all sources in kentucky. 12% of all sources in iowa. and an astounding 91% of all

pollution from all sources in delaware. noxs. when smoke stacks are belching more smog pollution from burning coal or oil they are belch pg brain poisons in the mercury. more carbon pollution driving dangerous climate change. a 21,000 ton smog inside would correspond to many millions of tons of increased carbon pollution. what about claims that the bill encouraging energy efficiency? what bill supporters claims to incentivize are marginal improvements in pollution rates. allowed to nbc overall air pollution significantly and worsen air quality significantly. this is not greater efficiency. but the bill does not require any efficiency improvements. famts may increase pollution up to and beyond their worst possible polluting hour in ten years becomes less efficient. the parents of a child rush to the er from an asthma attack do not care if pollution per

product or kilo watt decreases. what they care about is their daughter's health ar overall air pollution worsens causing asthma attacks. that's what this bill amnesty enables, more pollution, more asthma attacks. this bill does heflly confirm how illegal a proposed trump epa roll barker is that pretends the clean air act authorizes the same roll bahamabacks in this bill. current law does nothing of the sort as even the bill cosponsors seem to realize. the house is unlikely to pass any version of this bill. the main thing this bill appears to do now is attempt to give cover to the proposed trump epa rollback. the bill says titus merely clarifying the clean air act but that's plainly incorrect as all the bill's new text makes clear. if you want to let stres pollute more, that's what this bill does. if you want to explain to americans why we should let industry pollute all the way up

to the worst possible polluting hour in 10 years, that's what this bill does. and then pollute even more than that all the way up to what they are physically capable of polluting, that's what this bill does. deadly tiny part pollution. should not advance. >> i would like to enter into the record a letter of support for today's hearing for the bipartisan bill to point out that this was a bipartisan submitted from the house representative, the new source review commit kprochlt act hr 172, the house companion to the gain act. i would encourage oerps in the bipartisan way to support the legislation. let's go to questioning at this time. i'd like to start with mr. homestead. to understand how badly we need reform and you trusted on some of those things in the opening

statement. i think it would be helpful to the committee to know the types of projects that the current new source review program complicates or discourages, makes it harder. could you walk us through some examples of projects that a power plant or factory that the current program discourages? >> sure, yes, i would love to do that. so if you look at -- at all the nsr enforcement cases that groups like john walke's has brought, here is what you see. there is a power plant that has a component -- these components are skauld like an ee conmyselfer. any replace the content component and do the same thing you would do if you replaced the water pump in your car. they are not increasing the output. they are not increasing capacity. they're returning the plan to its original design, original operations. there are hundreds of those projects. that's what the nsr program has

done. if you operate a power plant you have to have teams of engineers and lawyers to make sure that somehow you don't run afoul of in program. that's what all the nsr enforcement cases are about is simply letting plants -- well, efficiency improvements is another issue. but for the most part the enforcement actions are about allowing plants to replace components part of the way they were originally designed. >> and mr. alteri, the trump administration is pursuing a number of reforms to the new source review program through updated regulations, guidance, memoranda, different things. in your testimony you note that the commonwealth of kentucky has supported regulatory reforms to the program. as a state regulator who complemented the clean air -- you're an administrator who.

>> in kentucky where we're prohibited from regular bag i policy and guidance. it's always for going through the rule making practice. as a regulator and former regulation, you know, supervisor, when you have clear statutory authority then you don't have the risk of wasted effort when you do promle gait the regulations and can always point back you have clear statutory authority. >> and mr. homestead, back to you, you've heard the other witnesses testify. i know you read the testimony previously, made some comments about that. anything else you heard from the other witnesses that you -- in terms of you'd like to add to your testimony from this morning? >> again, i would love to wager mr. walke. i would wager a year's salary that if you pass this bill there is not going to be an increase in pollution from power plants. i mean just think about it. power plants operate to provide electricity to people who demand

it. if you pass this bill is demand going up making power plants increase hours of operation? no. and all of those power plants have limits in permits or because of lounss that keep the pollution down. so that claim about the massive pollution increases, again, it's based on some theoretical world that's nothing like the real world. the other thing -- i wish i could just say quickly is, he claims in his written testimony that also no evidence that the nsr program discourages efficiency improvements. and i would just suggest that when -- when gina kmargty takes over nrdc that she acknowledge that. she acknowledges that's an issue. there are dozens of cases where the power plants have made efficiency improvements and targeted by nsr enforcement actions.

so mr. walke claims that there is no peer reviewed studies to prove that it discourages energy efficiency projects but all you have to do is look out there and see all the plants that have been subject to enforcement when any do that. and i -- i just think that's problematic. that's not the way the law should work. >> and mr. alteri, back to you, 20 years you've been with the kentucky department much environmental protection implemented a lot of clean air act programs. beyond the new source review program that we're looking at today, could you discuss any other epa programs that congress ought to modernize. >> well, you know, i'm always cautious because i'm a huge fan of the clean air act. and it's been a successful legislation. but i think you need to look at it really thoroughly. and i think the way we handle non-attainment areas. and basically we have a provision where we would withhold transportation dollars if you don't achieve attainment within a certain time period. that's counterintuitive to

improving air quality and in areas like cincinnati, ohio, los angeles, where you need the infrastructure dollars to open up some corridors, washington, d.c. alling the non-astainment areas in the northeast are up i-95. i think that's one area where you want to be thoughtful and not restrict people from transportation improvements. >> senator carper. >> sometimes when we have hearings like this -- and on other committees too where there are smart people on very different tides sides of an issue. i will ask them to help the committee think through where a principal compromise lies. i would just ask mr. walke, what with where do you think a principal compromise lies in this area? >> well, i think that there are. >> one that's respectful of

human health, clean air doing better. thanks. >> sure. we should be encouraging true energy efficiency improvements that cause us to burn less fuel, save is industry's money, reduce carbon pollution and reduce air pollution. that is true efficiency. there are improvements that could be made to new source review to improve all of those fronts. what this bill does, however, is allow air pollution to increase to allow fuel consumption to increase. to allow carbon pollution to increase, while avoiding the installation of modern air pollution controls. that's not a reasonable compromise. it's something that the bush epa rejected under mr. homestead. it's something that the bush epa enforcement office criticized heavily in materials that i submitted to this record, showing that plants across the

country were illegal evading pollution controls and increasing pollution by thousands of tons. that's not the right answer. if we want real energy efficiency improvements, overall carbon pollution should go down, overall air pollution should go down. and businesses can and will become more efficient. >> all right. mr. homestead, same question, please. >> i'm encouraged by what john says. if there is a way to define -- i mean the way he defined energy efficiency improvements or efficiency improvements, if those things could be -- if you could know that those things wouldn't trigger nsr, let's work out a -- a real definition of energy efficiency improvements. i think that's a big step in the right direction, a great idea. and i appreciate the opportunity to have that conversation with mr. walke. >> all right. please. are you from kentucky.

>> i am. >> kentucky was in the news last night. >> yes. >> my sister lives there. >> we beat michigan state. >> there you go. i think both of these gentlemen touched if a biller other electric generating unit replace as turban and goes from 30% efficiency to 43% that should be base rated by everybody however by increasing fishes it dpachs more often that goes to the annual increase in emissions however still making less plugs per megawatt hour. considering yeah a coal state and affordable reliable electricity is the focus it makes sense to improve the efficiency at the existing coal fired generating units. >> mr. walke, do you want to respond to that. >> say that again. >> do you want to pond to that, mr. walke. >> yeah, i touched upon this in my opening statement. pollution going down per

megawatt doesn't help people breathing dirtier air. doesn't help the asthmatic child. that's not an improvement to the system. that's a severe weakening of the rules and exactly the type of things that new source review is supposed to guard against. mr. homestead said something interesting in responding to a question from senator barrasso. he had that allowances keep pollution down in the power sector. now, allowances may not be a term familiar to all the senators. but it's a pollution credit. in dplish it's the permission to pollute. and in a cappen a trade program you by and sell allowances. you buy and sell permission to pollute. allowances don't keep pollution down from the plant that bought the allowance. allowances allow that plant to increase pollution. there was a plant in texas last year that increased emissions by over 20,000 tons. by 54% over the year before. why? it had bought allowances.

pollution got worse around that texas town and downwind from the plant by 20,000 tons. allowances don't keep pollution down. >> so. >> the john the nsr program didn't stop that either. the nsr program doesn't stop them from increasing hours of operation. you talked about allowances there is a limit on the number of allowanceens it's a limit on pollution. >> if plants modify and this bill mauves the definition of modification. >> but at that point that point you're talking about had no modification. >> all right. >> senator carper you have the floor the question is zboo i welcome the conversation and probably would welcome it in other forums as well. one of the concerns i've heard raised about the legislation is that it doesn't address pollution from coal fired utilities but also from thousands of other emitters. mr. walke would you speak to that just briefly, please.

>> yes, sir. the trump epa roleback would just allow poir plants to increase pollution. but this bill would apply to every major industrial facility in the united states. and there are thousands and us thats and thousands of that this this bill would grant permission to increase harmful air pollution. it's hazardous waste insin raters. oil refineries, chemical plants, cement plants, you flame it. that's what informed my statement at the top of my oral statement that this is the most harmful clean air bill worsening air pollution more than any i've seen before. we don't need to be going backwards. this is dangerous air pollution. we flow that it is deadly. we flow that it caused heart attack as and strokes and asthma attacks. we no he 120 million. >> thank you. >> okay. >> yes, now, do you -- the point that mr. walke is trying to make is that -- this goes way, way,

way, the number much utilities that -- we're concerned about to touch on thousands of other emitters. do you think that might be an area of some agreement? >> look, i think if we could -- if we could do something for power plants and if that was a compromise that we could reach that would be great. i'm not -- i -- support the idea that you would have the same approach for other plants. because i don't think they would increase pollution. what we're talking about is hours of operation here. and hours of operation is determined by the demand for product that goes up and down. i don't think there would be an increase in pollution. but in the spirit of trying to find a compromise, if we could do it at least for power plants that would be a step in the right direction np. >> all right. thank you both. thank you all very much very much. >> senator inhofe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm let me help senator carper out with his statistics.

we have looked and you appeared before the committee seven times just during the years i chaired the committee. maybe you weren't too far off. you are experienced here. let me just mention that first of all i thank the chairman for hosting this hearing. the g.a.i.n. act, the important legislation we need to streamline regulatory overreach. regulatory overreach goes far beyond the subject we talk about today. in fact, the fact that we have arguably the best economy that we have had in dsh maybe in my lifetime. two things precipitated that. one was the -- and the reduction but also regulatory relief. this is something we are sensitive to. i can remember during the four years that you had the office of air and radiation we addressed this. let me ask you, mr. homestead,

talk shall it dsh we haven't really talked about job creation, which is what -- one of the things that's supposed to be accomplishment with the new source review. and so respond to that, and then also the -- how the gain act reforms help job growth. >> so i -- i think the best indication that this would be good for jobs comes from the support from the labor unions. you mentioned i think that there were seven labor unions, mostly the building trades supportive of this because they do see the projects that they would be working on, that companies don't do because of nsr. and so i think that would be -- that in and of itself is pretty good evidence. i think it's hard to come up with numbers. but because you would -- because you would reduce the threat of -- of nsr i think you would certainly unleash a lot of economic activity, making plants

more efficient. >> yeah. and mr. alteri -- i came over to introduce myself to you so i could pronounce your name correctly. and i still haven't done it. but anyway, as you know, the states are the primary regulator of the new source review program. and your testimony highlighted that since 2008 kentucky has issued more than 25 new source review permits. but do you agree the time it appears you've also seen the program used by activists to delay important projects that would improve environmental quality and modernization of facilities. so mr. alteri, would you agree that it is possible to protect air quality while also streamlining the nsr permitting? and would you agree that the gain act balances those

interests? >> i think it does. but i think during this conversation it has raised the issues relative to who else it would be affect. but i think if you have opportunity to improve energy efficiency as existing coal fired units, i think you do have the opportunity to reduce pollution without triggers nsr in costly litigation. >> that's good. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i might also add we are passing around something that can be signed by some of the members for an american hero that senator carper called to our attention. and i help pass that around. >> thanks, senator inhofe. senator gillibrand. >> welcome, the trump administration epa focus ds on repealing and clean air laws with weaker standard meaning more not less air pollution falling on communities through

new york and amoun the park waters forest and kmupt have suffered the worst acid rain damage in the united states, including the chemical sterilization of hundreds of high elevation lakes and ponds. a review of national emissions data provided by the usepa and kbield by the council shows that between 2017 and 2018 emissions of so 2 increased by more than 1,000 tons at each of the 16 coal fired power plants in nine states whose emission create acid rate ray rain and smog in new york. first mr. walke what types of impact with the gain act have on air pollution flefrls in downwind states like new york. >> thank you, senator. as i testified, this bill would allow very significant air pollution increases. and we know that the pollution is carried by wind to downwind states. the trump administration has

denied pleading requests from new york to protect the air quality in new york from upwind power plants. my testimony has at the back maps of the really shocking, stunning number of coal fired power plants in this country today that still lack modern air pollution controls like scrubbers and those for smog. those plants have been grandfathered in many cases since the '40s and '50s and it's in their interest to evade controls and that hurts states like new york, delaware and maryland. hurting the adir on dax and make pollution worse not better. >> and would residents of new york have to worry about more frequent acid rain events in communities? >> yes. and the reason is that this bill

increases long-term annual air pollution levels of -- of nox and so 2 cribbing to cause acid rain as well as a number of of chronic health problems from long-term exposure to these polluteants, including koird vascular and and respiratory problems and premature death. >> i would like to issue a standing invite aceation to my republican colleagues to spend time with me in the adifferencing to see why the this would be horrible. as you know ground level ozone forms on hot sunny apay when pollution reacts with with sunlight. ozone is most likely to reach harmful 11s in urban levels on hot sunny day and have known health effect people most at risk include people with asthma, children older americans, and

people who are active outdoors, especially outdoor workers. what affect does increased pollution have power plants have on ozone formation and other air quality problems in states downwind to the emitting source. >> coal fired power plants are one of the largest sources in the united states of a smog forming pollutant called nox, which in addiction to cribbing acid rain causes respiratory problems and even premature death we know from the latest literature from ozone. we know that the downwind states are suffering from air pollution that they cannot control from big power plants and in the midwest pan upwind in the southeast as well. another dirty little secret of the clean air act i'm afraid is that even plants equipped with the controls are allowed to turn them off. >> right. >> after they are charging customers for these controls

that they are not allowed -- that they are allowed not to operate pb including on summer days when there are high ozone levels hurting new yorkers. pollution, fine particle pollution are unsafe at any level. even in areas that are nominally meeting these standards people are drying, people are suffering heart attacks and strokes. parts of new york have some of the highest asthma rates of anywhere in the done try which affect children in particular. then of course we have a lot of very toxic pollutants like mercury and lead that come from these power plants that are landing in waterways and it's a full suite of health problems that americans are still suffering, especially interest

these large, uncontrolled and poorly controlled coal plants. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you so very much. senator braun. >> thank you, mr. chairman. number one, i think the discussion we're having a pertinent in the sense that next to the cost of health care needing to be fixed in an industry that's digging in and fighting almost everything we're doing to try to help them fix themselves, i see a pattern of pro activity in interest among the industry. i think this is a point that can be confusing to most in a sense that if you become more efficient, isn't it close to a zero sum game in a sense in this one plant you are more efficient -- this is directed to mr. holmstead first, then i'd like mr. walke's response -- wouldn't you at least be holding your own in terms of emissions because demand has been

relatively flat given how fast the economy has grown for electricity anyway. so i know that if you had run it more that particular plant would be emitting more, but if you're running less efficient plants less isn't it close to a zero sum game when it comes to emission as soon as. >> thank you for headachesing that making that point. if one plant becomes more efficient and runs more hours that means another plant is going to run fewer hours. you would have to look at the emission rate of each plant, but in general you would expect an overall reduction as you start to shift generation to more efficient plants. >> mr. walke? >> senator braun, that would be an area of reasonable compromise. if a plant is going to keep its production flat, there are mechanisms in the law where it

can agree to do so and it won't increase dangerous air pollution. that's a reasonable outcome. and if it doesn't increase dangerous i remember pollution it wouldn't require pollution control so it can become more efficient as you posited but it can also fail to increase dangerous air pollution. efrl that's not what it bill does. so if there was interest on your part in changing the approach in the bill to make clear that plants can become more efficient and not increase dangerous air pollution by agreeing to limit to the demand that you acknowledge has been flat, that's a very sensible outcome. >> and i think that might occur somewhat naturally even without a provision because i don't see utilities producing more than what the demand is and that's been relatively flat. so maybe that's something that would be a pleasant outcome without needing a requirement. next question. regardless of what we do here

and anything impacting climate in the u.s., where do you see -- and any of the panelists feel free to jump in -- what impact does this have on the world in terms of our impact in percentage if india and china keep on the trajectory they're on? so if we do things that cost a lot in the present, which is the biggest variable in any financial analysis, what you spend today, anything that you accrue in terms of benefits is somewhat of an estimate. what's the best kind of number out there of how this impacts what happens around the world because we breathe an atmosphere that diffuses across the world. >> kentucky we're a manufacturing state so if you drive up electric prices artificially or through these

regulations then you would end up shifting that manufacturing to countries that do not have the environmental laws that we have. we've had significant emission reductions and i think you would lose that gain if you end up shifting jobs to even mexico. >> senator, i would make two points. in the mid 1970s united states was a world leader in removing will ed from gasoline. that saved a tremendous number of lives and avoided misery in this country. that u.s. leadership spread to countries around the globe and now we don't have lead in gasoline in most countries in the world. that's the type of american leadership that we need to confront the climate crisis. you are correct if india and china do not reduce their emissions then we are in big trouble but america needs to get its house in order first and address the problems that we have control over and to negotiate and to work with other countries, that's what the paris

climate accord was trying to do and we know that this administration has stepped away from that. i support your call for american leadership in exporting american ingenuity to countries around the world. >> very good. i do want to announce that i'm the first republican to join a bipartisan climate caucus and we now from three or four others as well and i think this capsulizes well in a good fashion the discussion and i believe if we are not having this we've sewn a little bit of commonality in terms of the nsr and other discussion or how this is a global issue as well. and i believe that this is going to be the driving sh u over the next couple decades. i'm glad to see folks of different points of view still seem to be zeroing in on the same outcome. thank you. >> thank you, senator braun. senator van holland.

>> thank you all of your for your testimony today. senator corden and i are both from the state of maryland, maryland is a downwind state, we suffer from some of the issues you heard from senator gillibrand, in fact, in november 2016 maryland filed a petition concerning air pollution generated by 36 power plants located in indiana, kentucky, ohio, pennsylvania and west virginia. and the point of that petition was that that pollution coming from those states was making it harder for maryland to meet its air quality goals and causing more health risks in the state of maryland. so we filed a petition with the epa in september of last year, epa denied maryland's good neighbor po tigs, that's been appealed by our attorney general.

so this conversation is important to maryland like other states as well. i'm trying to just understand one thing. i understand the nsr only applies to existing sources if a facility wants to make changes that will significantly increase its aggregate annual pollution. is that right? >> correct. >> so maybe i misunderstood you, mr. holmstead. i thought i heard you to say that you would bet mr. walke that these changes would not increase the annual emissions at a plant that took advantage of the changes that you're proposing, did i misunderstand you? >> what i said is power plant emissions in the united states would not increase. total power plant emissions would continue to decrease, but the question is at an individual power plant emissions increase and decrease all the time, every year they increase and decrease.

>> right. but the law here only triggers if there is -- let me just make sure i understand. as i understand this law only applies if the air pollution generated at the particular plant in question will increase. isn't that true, just yes or no? isn't that true. >> no. it's more complicated. >> mr. walke -- >> if you would let me answer. >> i only have a certain amount of time. you said no i want to hear what mr. walke -- >> the answer is absolutely yet yes. it's absolutely yes. >> how many cases are there where there has been an nsr -- >> mr. walke. >> reduced their emissions -- >> i will come back to you in a second round. >> mr. walke, could you explain your plane to that question. >> yes, the law says exactly what you said, senator van holland. only if a change at a facility increases emissions significantly in tons per year from that plant. what jeff's answer reveals is

that on balance across the entire united states the power sector's plaugs will go down. that's no consolation to someone living next to a plant that has it's -- >> nd it's no consolation to maryland if the plants in question are the plants that are causing pollution to drift to maryland and impact air quality in maryland. >> that's correct. you're just better that overall pollution from power plants will go down in the united states. there's lots of reasons for that. but the whole purpose of this law is correct directed at a particular power plant. as i understood mr. walke if you want to do a deal with him where you can guarantee in advance that another power plant may be owned by the same company is going to reduce, you know, its air pollution by more than compensated, maybe that's a discussion we should have, but let me just -- i understood you

earlier, mr. walke, to point out that trying to frame this bill as a clarification of existing law obviously flies in the face of the facts, right? if epa thought this current epa, the trump administration epa thought that this was compliant with the law, wouldn't they have included this in their most recent revisions to the obama power plant rule? >> oh, yes, sir. i mean, they clearly failed to finalize that rule because they were getting advice from lawyers at epa and the justice department that it was severely problematic. the first half of this bill essentially kind of replicates what the trump epa is doing and has just, you know, sentence after sentence after sentence that congress is adding to the law to make clear you can only change the law by amending the law. the second half of this bill is so extreme by allowing unlimited pollution increases in the name of reliability that not only the

trump administration wausau dashs enough to claim that that was allowed under current law and yet this bill caused that to a clarification of the law. it doesn't pass the test. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator capito. >> mr. holmstead, i'm going to give you a chance to respond because understanding it's more complicated but i want to say a few things before i turn the floor over to you. first of all, i am a co-sponsor of the gain act and i think because we have a bipartisan -- we have several bipartisan pieces of legislation here that are in sending carbon capture and utilization with the dual purposes of preserving economy and also cleaning the environment at the same time. so i was going to ask you to respond to what mr. walke said, but the way i understand this is if you add on, make a significant investment with the goal of reducing your emissions

and you are more efficient that it would stand to reason that you would be more economical and so your plant would be running more, more time, putting out more production, therefore, maybe your per -- per unit emission is less, but your overall emission may be more because you're running more efficiently. and so wouldn't we rather have -- since -- like senator from indiana said, you're only going to go to a certain demand. wouldn't we rather have the more efficient cleaner plants going than having the less efficient plants, you know, keeping their steady production numbers, but adding to the emission count at the same time? am i understanding that right? and if you could -- >> no. no. absolutely. you've explained it better than perhaps than i've been and that is, yes, a more efficient plant would likely run more hours, but that would -- that would mean

that other less-efficient plants run fewer hours. so on an overall basis you would expect pollution to decrease. now, as i said before, plants d annual emissions based on demand, whether other plants in the area are out of service and the nsr program doesn't stop that, but we have all kinds of other laws in place to make sure those variations we see on a year-to-year basis don't adversely affect public health. >> in your testimony, this is conflicting information wave heard in the testimony, you say emission reductions have dramatically improved over the quality of the air we breathe. nobody is pro-pollution. but according to the epa's air trend report since 1990 facial concentrations of air pollutants have improved 89%, 82% for lead,

74% for co and 57% for nox and 21% for ozone. we're trending down. is that a correct interpretation of what your testimony is? >> yes. absolutely. air quality improvements over the last 30 years have been dramatic throughout the country and it's been really a remarkable achievement that's attributable to the clean air act. >> for one of the states that the senator from maryland is down wind from west virginia and lucky to be there, but, you know, this is an argument and being from a coal producing state, in order to get to that goal of keeping our coal miners working efficiently to get to the ccu goal, we've got to keep moving forward i think with encouraging the investments that

are going to keep it -- make it more efficient number one, maybe not number one, more efficient and more environmentally correct and improving that and lowering the emissions. that to me is the whole point of the act. i want to ask from kentucky, you highlight the fact that kentucky was repeatedly sued regarding permits by the nsr program over the past decade. the guidance and drafted is contributing to the lawsuits? >> i think implementation of the rules and i think it's been highlighted, if you replace a turbine and then run the unit more, then you're going to increase more than 40 tons per year. that would trigger nsr. it is that improvement that has been the subject of the litigation between these two. >> at the same time while you're

improving the efficiency of the turbine, i'm going to assume you're cutting emissions at the same time. >> per megawatt hour, yes, ma'am. >> thank you. senator cardin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i also appreciate all the panelists and this hearing. our constituents breathe the same air and our border so intertwined, sometimes i don't know if i'm in west virginia or maryland. it's -- we share a similar goal. i was intrigued by the senator's questioning on trying to reach some agreement here. i think the confusion, as i understand it, yes, you can make an individual power plant more efficient as far as its production and pollution, but if the total mix in the region is increasing because that plant is not doing what it should be doing, the overall impact is dirtier air. that's as i understand the

dilemma we're in. perhaps we have something going on an individual plant if it doesn't increase its capacity but reduces its emissions may be an area where weekend reach some type of an accord if i understand what you're saying. i want to follow up on the point made, we are a down wind state, there's no question about it. the clean air act gives us the opportunity to challenge when there is pollution coming from a different state, it affects our ability to comply with the national ambient air quality standards. my concern and i want to get mr. walker your view on this, that this legislation would make it difficult for maryland to challenge another state's activities in regards to maryland meeting our air quality standards. is that a concern i should have?

>> you should. that's completely correct. this bill would authorize those pollution increases and say they're just fine to occur under the law. maryland is helpless to control that increased air pollution that's occurring in indiana or another up wind state and so the burden that falls on marriylands to crack down on pollution sources inside maryland's borders not responsible for the problem. maryland has turned to the epa to plead for help and they've consistently denied those requests, and now we have two court decisions within the past two months that have struck down the trump administration's approach to failing to protect down wind states and denied maryland's petitions based on one of the faulty legal defenses the courts have said is insufficient. we need leadership that will

protect down wind states because the current epa is to the doing so. the trump epa roll back will make things worse and this bill would as well. >> i appreciate that answer. we do have our challenges, there's no question, with the regulatory and activities of epa and giving legal justifications to some of this through this bill will make it more challenging. i want to get to a statement that you made that has me of concern, i looked at your map and the coal burning plants and how they're sur rondsing my state and then you said many still don't have the scrubbers and the modern technology to make them as efficient as possible. and you said that this legislation may even make it more challenging for those types of improvements to be made. elaborate why you believe that is -- we haven't made more progress in cleaning up those plants. >> sure. when congress adopted this new source review program in 1977,

older plants before that date were grandfathered. they were only required to install modern pollution controls when they undertook modifications. thank y that is the subject of this bill. in the new plants. an agreement that new plants have to install controls and some of the challenges shawn may have been facing were challenges to new plants. that's not what this bill is about. what this bill does is say to those grant fathered power plants that still lack controls after being built in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, you can continue to run forever without installing modern pollution controls. you can overhaul your facility and extend its life by 20, 30, 40 years, without ever installing controls. that to me is indefensible in america in 2019. then the bill extends to every industrial facility in the united states. again, i just -- it's going to

make air quality worse and air pollution problems worse, not just in downwind states but where the grandfather plants are continuing to operate unkrol uncontrolled. >> thank you, mr. chairman, very much. the clean air act has been cleaning up america's air since 1970 and cut down toxins like lead and mercury in the air improving the health of millions across the nation. the clean air act source review program is key to improving our air quality standards, any attempts to weaken the new source review poses a major threat to public health. does the new source review program successfully help to control emissions increases that threaten the health of communities around sources like power plants. >> it does. i want to make a point, the role that new source review plays in

the clean air act to serve as a sensible constraint on runway pollution increases. if we can't agree industry should not be able to increase air pollution wildly that's a problem. new source review i think of it like an iceberg. 7/8 is below the surface. 7/8 of the benefits are preventing runway pollution increases. >> i agree with you. unfortunately the growing america innovation now act, the gain act, would allow facilities to emit more dangerous pollutants and toxins, carbon monoxide and mercury and arsenic. is it true under the gain act a facility could have an unlimited license to pollute? >> it is under this bill. mr. homestead is correct there may be constrantsz on unlimited emission increases in some cases but nothing that limits air

pollution at all. >> i was trying to think of an analogy and so say you smoke one cigarette per day. you smoke 365 cigarettes a year. your doctor says that's okay, one a day. cigarettes are bad but keep it to one a day your health might be okay. you are physically capable of smoking ten cigarette an hour. understand the gain act rules applied to cigarettes you would be able to smoke ten cigarettes an hour, 365 days a year, 87660 a year before your doctor would be able to tell you to stop the doctor here being the epa. you got to stop. so if you can smoke 87660 it's probably going to hurt your health, your lungs. >> i will agree with that one.

>> that's what the problem is. that it's just -- opens up this huge loophole and unfortunately, smokers need some limits because we know that it causes cancer and the children of america who could contract asthma, you know, pregnant women need protections as well. this just blows open all the protections. the analogy with cigarettes is something that from my perspective is just so easy to understand that instead it's going to be going out of smoke stacks but tinto the lungs of people across our country. the bill would authorize that massive pollution increase and we need a cleaner air future not to go back in time. four out of ten americans are living with unhealthy air right now. minority and low-income communities are

disproportionately faked by air pollution. african-american have a 54% higher health burden like soot. the trump administration's epa has been hard trying to dismantle air quality protections across the board. again, do you agree that gain act would mean that both new and old facilities, coal plantsnd other power plants could emit more life-threatening pollution? >> absolutely. senator van hollen led, individual power plants and facilities in the thousands across the united states would be allowed to increase pollution. >> massachusetts doesn't have any remaining coal plants operating. you testified to the downwind impacts in new york to response to senator gillibrand. can you tell me what the impact of the gain act would be on the air quality of the commonwealth of massachusetts? >> if anything it would be

worse. new england, maine, massachusetts are referred to as the end of the tailpipe in the united states. the wind patterns are carrying pollution directly into the commonwealth's backyard. >> right. if we weaken the clean air act with legislation like the gain act, existing facilities in every state could use loopholes to spew out 20,000 tons per year of nitric ox sides 200 times allowed for new facilities and that pollution would be allowed in massachusetts an travel down wind to the commonwealth of massachusetts from other places just blowing the smoke, blowing the smoke, like a father smoking a cigar on the front seat blowing to the three kids in the back seat but the father is going hey, i'm to the responsible for the impact on kids in the car with the windows up. that's what happens with the wind blowing towards massachusetts and other states. we have to inhale this dangerous

and unnecessarily permissive new law that is being proposed. i thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for the opportunity to be question. >> thank you very much. senator cramer. >> thank you. mr. chairman, thanks to all of you for being here. i ask forgiveness for my tardiness. i plreside over the senate wednesday mornings and unfortunately i miss the first hour of really good hearings. thank you for being here. i'm going to throw a couple things out maybe and for -- facilitate discussion if that's okay. i think some of you know maybe all of you know i was a regulator for ten years in north dakota where we had broadcabroad and deep regulatory authority over environmental and all of that. one of the challenges and my frustrations with nsr has always been what seems to me to be a perverse incentive away from

innovation that would actually be applied, especially to existing fli existing facilities in the form of modify cases that would be cheaper but the incentive not to do it. maybe -- i'm sure you've discussed some of that but maybe i would throw out, along with that frustration, there's got to be bipartisan, wide-ranging solutions that don't perversely incent the wrong activity. assuming, and i think we can, we all support cleaner energy development and lowering of emissions, particularly pollutants of all types, do any of you or all of you have just an idea for us, whether it's the gains act -- [ inaudible ] i will be a co-sponsor of it to try to bring clearer definition to terms, but is there something

we can be doing that, you know, senator carper and i can agree on? we tend to agree more often than people might think. what are some thoughts anybody could share as to how we might be able to get to the goal we all share? is that fair? >> in my testimony i offered narrow the scope even further to just existing coal fired generating units. that's a known universe. if they were to add a new unit it would go through nsr. do not ig for how beneficial the air pe lution rule is. ancient history when talking about tail pipes and downwind states. mobile sources are your problem. marine vessels are your problem in the northeast. kentucky, i don't know that air quality phenomenon that allows emissions from kentucky to leap over west virginia and then fall down in one concentrated area in

hartford, maryland. i really think that marine vessels, mobile sources, peak demand generators operating on high ozone days, those are the focus, maybe we should focus in that arene fa. as far as narrowing the scope of this legislation do it with existing sources but do not ignore the great benefits. the cross state air pollution rule we talk about allowing areas more concentrated and pollutants. the 2017 update narrowed that to states. those are narrowed to the states. kentucky cannot emit more by buying allowances from georgia or indiana or somewhere else. that's old ancient history. >> i know you're familiar with the -- i think you referenced it in your testimony and we're flarm with in north dakota as well. is there a way to do this. >> you raise an interesting

point, that if we really do want coal fired power plants to install carbon capture and sequestration, coming up with some way to help them do that without having the regulatory burdens like nsr would be a good thing. and maybe that's an area where we cou come up with an increase because everybody supports that kind of approach. i know from the pret tra nova experience, nsr was a huge impediment. we talked about this before you were able to get here is, you know, defining energy efficiency improvements in a way that everybody would be comfortable with. i just don't know why you would want to have this regulatory hurdle for people who want to improve their -- the efficiency of their facilities. shawn mentioned an issue in a number of cases is you can now buy more efficient turbine

blades for coal fired power plants but you trigger nsr. the cost and the expense of triggering no one wants to go through that. you have people passing ups the energy efficiency opportunities. >> could you address it? i know my time is running out, but i would feel incomplete if i didn't hear from you? >> thank you, senator. senator, i don't have a specific idea, but i think most americans think that there's a pretty simple common sense question that should be and, will any reform let plants pollute more after the reform than they did before. if the answer is yes maybe we should look for other solutions. we are in agreement that greater efficiency is a good thing, less pollution, less carbon pollution is a good thing, but we need to look elsewhere for solutions since the answers at this hearing are so clear today this

bill will let plants pollute more. maybe that's not the solution we need to find the crow piompromi around. >> senator carper. >> thank you. before i -- my colleague has to leave i circulated today a card to send to an army ranger who was almost killed in afghanistan two months ago today if you have a minute to sign that. thank you. i mentioned i had three unanimous consent requests to make. i will do it right now if i may. i would like to submit for the record data from this administration that shows air pollution including carbon pollution and energy consumption in our country are increasing, not decreasing. make that. >> without objection. >> second one, to the -- i would like to ask unanimous consent to submit a letter opposing the gain act by the clean air task

force and the sierra club. the organizations caution if this bill were enacted i quote their letter lou enormous increases in air pollution endangering public health in the environment. and by clooompletely eviscerati the clean air act. one more. i ask consent to submit several materials study, reports, letters, from the public health organizations and former epa officials that show how the gain act in previous and current proposals by congress and the epa weaken the clean air act by restructure source harming our health and the environment. that was a long sentence. >> without objection. >> thank you. all right. the question if i could, again thanks to all of you for being here and for some of you who have been here many times and for being here today.

if i could, mr. homestead's testimony says that the increase in emissions would be the same for new source review for the clean air act section 111 new source provision. would you speak about the differences between these two programs and describe why congress found it necessary to add the new source review program in the clean air act amendment of 1977? >> yes. senator, the new source performance standard you're referring to was and is viewed to be unsuckfuunsuckful reducin pollution from individual plants. congress added the safeguardses in 1977 to economiment the nsps program. the program is forced on federal

technology standards, but it doesn't prevent wild increases in emissions that can hurt people from actual plants. that's why we have new source review added to the law. what this bill would do is eliminate new source review and replace it with new source performance standards that allows plants to increase pollution to their worst possible polluting hour in ten years and doesn't protect people living earn specific plants or protect people living in downwind states. >> thank you. and where do you live in kentucky? >> lawrence burg. >> where is that? >> it's in between louisville and lexington. home of wild turkey and four roses. >> are those adult beverages? >> i was going to say, are those dairy products? >> they will make you feel better. my sister lives south of there in winchester.

i'll mention you were here. my question for you, in 2012, kentucky's power plant some of the largest emitters of mercury and other toxic pollutions in our country and in your written testimony you state that coal plants in kentucky have greatly reduced their emissions due to regulations under section 112 of the clean air act. would you oppose any efforts to undermine that today? >> i would. >> thank you very much. >> and mr. homestead, one closing question for you as well, in 2012, while you were running the epa air office, epa expressly rejected a change to nsr based on the maximum hourly emission rate. the george w. bush epa i'm told

warned using such a test would, i'm going to quote, could sanction greater emission increases to the environment often from older facilities without preconstruction review closed quote and such an approach quote coulded three an unreviewed increase -- could lead to unreviewed increases in emissions that would be detrimental to air quality close quote. my question mr. homestead, it's not a got you question but were you wrong then or do you think you might be wrong today? >> let me be clear. we never rejected this approach. we didn't adopt it, but i have -- and i have to say, i was -- to read the quotes, what i will say is, you know, you

emphasized the right words there. something like this could allow or might allow increases. what we know from the real worl is that they would not. or it's highly unlikely they would. if we lifbd in a world where nsr was the only regulatory program that applied to existing facilities if that were the case i would agree that this bill could allow pollution increases although the amount of pollution is not a function of these. what we're talking about is hours of operation. hours of operation depends on the demand for your product. right. plants don't exist so they can maximize their pollution. they exist to sell things to people. whether you're talking about electricity or with widgets that determines the operation people

run. whether you modify, all those things are constrained by demand. going back to your question, though, if the nsr program were the only program and if demand were essentially unconstrained this would allow more pollution. we don't live in a world like that. we live in the real world. i have to say, i care a lot about air pollution. but i also care about doing it in the right way and we've learned a lot over the years and the nsr program is to the a very effective way to reduce air pollution. it's good for new sources because they're required to install pollution controls. that's what shawn said. it's good when someone is going to expand a source because it's part of that process. you're required to install pollution controls. but playing this game of got you with existing sources when they replace a component and we try to get them to trigger nsr has proven not to be a very

effective way. it creates sort of the wrong incentives. >> thank you for that. john, take just 30 seconds to close us out, please. >> sure. just two quick points. despite these kind of general reassurances for jeff, let me emphasize he has not identified a single law in the united states that would limit increases in actual emissions from thousands of plants this bill covers the way the modification program does. the second point i would make is that jeff's enforcement colleagues down the hall in the bush administration identified plant after plant that had increased emissions unthe tests that epa rejektsd. there was nothing theoretical about it. the air got dirtier and people sicker. >> mr. chairman, this is not a new issue as we said and one be we've been arguing about discussing for a long time. your legislation, if not else,

gives us an opportunity to revisit and maybe have a start of a productive conversation. i'm not sure but we'll see. thank you. >> thank you very much, senator. at one point mr. walker was making an answer or something related to whether it was a new source or old and you shook your head about what happened in kentucky. i don't recall the specifics. is that something you would like to clarify. >> absolutely correct on two new units. they were coal projects an they were located there at the mines. so i think you're reducing your carbon footprint having that direct access to local fuel sourceses. the other actions related to improvements that exist in facilities also included when you put on a scrubber and you have a selective catalytic reduction strategy it creates sulfurics acid mist and that triggers nsr. even though you're having a 95%

plus reduction because of the chemistry and the atmosphere chemistry you're going to increase sulfuric acid mist and no way to control it. if you limit your sulfur content in the coal that would be an opportunity to make reforms where you will not cost litigation costs as well as going through the permitting process for something that is a pollution control project. mr. walk described the g.a.i.n. act as creating a license to pollute. could you comment on the rack y accuracy of that statement? >> well, you won't be surprised that i disagree. what this rule would do was remove the threat of triggering nsr that discourages company from doing the things that we should want them to do. we should want them to maintain their facilities. if your boiler tubes wear out, you ought to be able to repair

your facility and return it to the way that it was. if you want to improve the efficiency of your facility, why in the world do you want to have this -- this -- this permitting requirement that is cumbersome, it takes a long time, it can be very expensive, why do you want that? we have all these other regulatory programs that protect air quality and this one has just not worked very well when it comes to -- if you're trying to get plants to actually reduce their emissions. it just hasn't worked. and so i'm frustrated because i see that we're -- you know, as a country, and this is a small part of our economy, but it's, nevertheless, very important, and you talk to manufacturing facilities. you talk to anybody and they say nsr is a significant problem. and i just wish that we had some way to fix it and i think -- i

think this act would be a very sensible way to do that. >> well, thank you, all. the committee has received a number of letters in support of the g.a.i.n. act from a number of groups including national association of manufacturers, the portland cement association, american forest and paper association, the international brotherhood of boilermakers, the pennsylvania chamber of business and industry, and without objection, i ask unanimous consent to enter these letters into the record and it is so done. we've heard from our witnesses. i want to thank all of you for being here with your testimony. there are no more people to ask questions today at the hearing, but they may submit written questions so the hearing record will be remaining open for two weeks. i want to thank all of you for being here. thank you for your time. thank you for your testimony. hearing's adjourned.

this week on c-span3 at 8:00 p.m. eastern, watch samples of our history coverage featured every weekend on american history tv. tonight, a look at past impeachment proceedings for presidents andrew johnson, richard nixon, and bill clinton. and friday, the american revolution. american history tv features all week at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. sunday night on booktv at 9:00 eastern on "after words" former speaker of the house newt gingrich with his latest book "trump versus china." >> i don't think the chinese have any great planning certainly in the next 20 or 25 years to try to take us on militarily in a traditional sense but i think they're trying to build the kind of cyber capability. i think this is part of where huawei is an extraordinary national asset for them, and i

think that they're trying to build a capability in space both of which have global implications. >> and then at 10:00 eastern, new york university journalism professor pamela newkirk talks about her new book, "diversity inc." >> what i'm not optimistic about is white america's ability to see past the -- the fiction of african-americans, of latinx people, the centuries-old demeaning images of people and how that has as much to do with the lack of diversity. >> watch booktv every weekend on c-span2.

. watch the c-span networks live next week as the house intelligence committee holds the first public impeachment hearings. the committee led by chairman adam schiff will hear from three state department officials starting wednesday at 10:00 eastern on c-span3, top u.s. diplomat in ukraine william taylor and deputy assistant secretary of state george kent will testify. then on friday at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2, former u.s. ambassador to ukraine marie yavanovitch will appear before the committee. follow the impeachment inquiry live on the c-span networks, online at c-span.org, or listen live with the free c-span radio app. at c-span.org, we're making it easier for you to watch c-span's coverage of the impeachment inquiry and the administration's response.

if you miss any of our live coverage, go to our impeachment inquiry page at c-span.org/impeachment for video on demand. and we've added a tally from the "associated press" showing where each house democrat stands on the impeachment inquiry against president trump. follow the impeachment inquiry on our web page at c-span.org/impeachment. it's your fast and easy way to watch c-span's unfiltered coverage any time. and now the house homeland security subcommittee on transportation looks at the progress made in implementing the tsa modernization act a year after it was enacted. witnesses include acting deputy tsa administrator patricia coxwell. from late last month. this is about an hour 25 minutes.