▶ 0:08:23And you've said
▶ 0:09:11All good. All good. Well, she thought
▶ 0:09:57regular people. That's it. We are all
▶ 0:14:31Looks like everybody has taken their seats. I appreciate that. Uh and I will call the subcommittee on the environment uh to order. Chair now recognizes himself for five minutes for an opening statement. Today the subcommittee begins efforts to modernize the Clean Air Act. The act was last amended in a consequential way in 1990 with energy and commerce chair John Dingle being a driving force in that biccameal compromise.
▶ 0:14:57The clean air act has been effective according to EPA's 2023 air quality statistics report. Since the Clean Air Act amendment was amendments were passed in 1990, there's been a 79% reduction in carbon monoxide, a 92% reduction in sulfur dioxide or socks, and a 55% reduction in nitrogen dioxide or NOx.
▶ 0:15:22Since 2000, we've seen a 42% reduction in particulate matter 2.5, which are inhalable particles measuring less than two and a half micrometers. the Clean Air Acts national attainment air quality standard or standards or knack standards setting and permitting programs with each new review.
▶ 0:15:42EPA generally sets new lower with each new review EPA generally sets new lower pollution allowances and over time these newer standards have had the tendency to pass the point of diminishing returns. Accordingly, if you're an industrial plant wanting to build in this country, you may have to wait until another plant goes out of business and you can take over their permit. This is not a path for economic prosperity.
▶ 0:16:13Additionally, I don't believe that banning new industrial activity in the United States was what the authors of the Clean Air Act were aiming for. It was a tough compromise bill meant to have each state scrutinize major sources and think about air permit planning, industry concentration, and air quality in unfavorable geographic settings. The act was written to get industry to reexamine its operations and control pollution by investing in and implementing innovative technologies. It worked.
▶ 0:16:42But now we have to examine the law in light of little additional public health gain at the expense of paralyzing nationally important industries. And that health gain in what I'm talking about is the fact that we continue to lower the amount of pollutants allowed. We need to begin a modernization effort by examining draft legislative proposals to reform the outofdate knack process.
▶ 0:17:05As we heard in our recent full committee hearing, overly restrictive air regulations have curtailed some domestic in important semic semiconductor plants and data centers, which in turn could jeopardize America's ability to be able to compete in the global artificial intelligence race.
▶ 0:17:25One of the draft bills we are discussing today would improve the processes EPA uses to identify knacks pollutants and ceilings and then for states to implement those new standards under the clean air act acts knack program. The EPA set standards for six criteria pollutants like ground level ozone and particulate matter. Historically, the Clean Air Act required the EPA to review Knack standards and if appropriate, issue new limits at five-year intervals.
▶ 0:17:55The EPA has consistently missed statutory deadlines for both reviewing standards and for providing implementation guidance to the states which has led to litigation in some cases. These proposals will enable more reasonable requirements that states can actually implement.
▶ 0:18:12That is why the Clean Air Act and Economic Advancement Reform Act that we are talking about today would lengthen that interval to 10 years and allow the EPA administrator to consider whether it was likely the standard whether it was likely the standard can actually be attained. Additionally, the bill would require the EPA to consider the economic feasibility of these new standards.
▶ 0:18:37The bill would also allow for naturally occurring air pollution events such as wildfires not to count against averages for a particular state. The other bill, the Clean Air and Building Infrastructure Improvements Act, has to do more specifically with the most recent PM2.5 rule that really would a lot of industry by reducing the limit from 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air to 9 micrograms per cubic meter of air.
▶ 0:19:07Further, it allows for an easier preconstruction permitting process. Protecting our environment and our economy do not have to be mutually exclusive goals. But in order to achieve both, we must rethink how our country classifies pollution levels outside of our control. The EPA is still in the process of updating various air quality standards.
▶ 0:19:28As that work continues, Congress must ensure states and employers aren't unfairly penalized by impractical or burdensome new rules which could hurt our national security and our economic competitiveness. I look forward to learning from our expert witnesses who have extensive experience in implementing and complying with Knack standards under the Clean Air Act. With that, I yield back and now recognize the gentleman from New York for his opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to our witnesses.
▶ 0:19:58For almost as long as I have served on this committee, Republicans have tried and failed to enact the proposals before us today. These bills do not represent new and innovative solutions specifically tailored to meet our current policy changes or challenges, including addressing growing electricity demand. They are the same tired ideas that suggest Americans should expect to live with unsafe air quality if the rules necessary to protect them would cut into polluters profits.
▶ 0:20:24I am certain that members from both sides of the aisle will celebrate the success of the clean air act which has resulted in sign significant reductions in air pollution while our economy has grown. But the majority tends to believe that this is evidence that the job is done and we should dramatically change the law. I on the other hand take the exact opposite lesson. The Clean Air Act is working and there is still considerable work for the law to do.
▶ 0:20:50The American Lung Association's 2025 state-of-the-art report found that even after five decades of the Clean Air Act, 46% of Americans, more than 156 million people, are living in places with unhealthy levels of ozone or particle pollution. Two of the pollutants addressed by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards or Knacks. Now, as I said, the proposals before us today are not new, but there is some new and important context for us to discuss.
▶ 0:21:20First, three weeks ago, House Republicans passed their big, ugly bill, which according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office would result in 16 million Americans losing their healthcare. Now, the proposals today add insult to injury, pushing it to us toward a future where hospitals already under financial pressure will have to deal with more cases of asthma, of COPD, and other health consequences of increased air pollution affecting millions more as uninsured Americans.
▶ 0:21:49Second, the Trump administration intends to attempt to roll back the 2024 standard for fine particulate matter. EPA previously estimated that this standard will result in some 46 billion worth of net benefits in 2032, including 4,500 avoided premature deaths, 800,000 avoided asthma attacks, and nearly 300,000 avoided missed days of work each year.
▶ 0:22:14So the 2024 standard for fine particulate matter is expected to provide such significant benefits to the American people because knacks are required by law to be protective of our health without consideration of costs. But the proposals before us today would drastically weaken the process to set standards based on the latest science.
▶ 0:22:37They would double the amount of time between reviews of standards and inject cost considerations and attainability into the standard setting process. I also find it unfortunate that the majority's hearing title would lead us to believe that the Clean Air Act is stifling American innovation. And yet, House Republicans continue to sit on their hands while the Trump administration dismantles all of the conditions that have historically made the United States an engine for innovation.
▶ 0:23:06President Trump is proposing devastating funding cuts to the federal research enterprise, NSF, NIH, NOA, Noah, and other critical research agencies. This will ensure that America fails to train the next generation of great scientists, engineers, and other innovators who do rely on federal dollars to achieve their advanced degrees and conduct cuttingedge research.
▶ 0:23:30DOE's industrial programs, NIST's manufacturing extension partnership, and other programs that American manufacturers rely upon are also under threat. The Trump administration has caused an uncertain and an unstable investment environment with his unre strategic and everchanging tariff policies, and Republicans have demonstrated a willingness to jeopardize private sector investments by seeking to abruptly end energy tax incentives.
▶ 0:23:58Even federal contracts are no longer worth the paper they are printed on following the arbitrary and unlawful terminations of many finalized agreements. These actions are having a chilling effect on private sector investment, the American research community, and other entities that are critical to the future competitiveness of our economy. These are not the actions of a government that is serious about fostering innovation.
▶ 0:24:22But rather than criticize the Trump administration, we are back to undermining environmental protections and trying to convince Americans that we simply cannot afford safe, healthy air. I'm certain there is evidence going back decades of industries claiming each and every pass standard has been unachievable or would cause irrevocable economic harm. But the sky has never fallen.
▶ 0:24:45The Clean Air Act has worked and worked effectively as intended and it continues to protect Americans health while enabling economic growth. These goals are not at odds, but unfortunately the proposals we're examining today do not share that view. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. Gentleman yields back and now recognize the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Kentucky for five minutes for his opening statement. Thank you.
▶ 0:25:10Thank you, Chairman Griffith, for this uh hearing and welcome my friend, ranking member Tonko and and all the witnesses for being here today. And we're continuing our important work uh finding common sense solutions to reduce unreasonable regulatory burdens while continuing to protect our environment. Unfortunately, over the last four years, the onslaught of Biden Harris administration regulations under the Clean Air Act created significant regulatory burdens for the American electric power manufacturing and transportation sectors.
▶ 0:25:41We were recently reminded of this when we held a full committee hearing on artificial intelligence and heard testimony about the critical need to support and accelerate AI technologies. In that hearing, industry experts repeated the same concerns many of us have heard from small businesses and The overall regulatory environment and permitting processes in particular are overburdensome and inefficient here in the United States.
▶ 0:26:09As we hear as we will hear today, the economic impact of harmful regulatory burdens promated during the Biden Harris administration totaled nearly 1.8 trillion, a historical record. Amazingly, more than 70% of that cost was imposed by the EPA, much of it from the Clean Air Act rules. The last time Congress meaningfully amended the Clean Air Act was 1990, 35 years ago.
▶ 0:26:37We've learned a lot and seen a lot of environmental progress since then. In the decade since Congress first passed the Clean Air Act, air quality in the United States has dramatically Criter criteria air pollutants are down 73% since 1980 according to the World Health Organization and the US has some of the lowest particulate matter levels in the world. This the progress we have seen does not mean the Clean Air Act cannot be reviewed and modernized.
▶ 0:27:06Some of the Clean Air Acts provisions are unclear, outdated, and do not reflect the world we live in today. This trend is illustrated by the Biden Harris National Ambient Air Quality Standards or Knacks for a particulate matter. A prime example of the need for reforming and updating the flawed system used for setting and reviewing Clean Air Act regulations.
▶ 0:27:28The Biden rule will force large portions of the country into non-attainment status, which will block new development, hop modernization, and stunt job growth. In their testimony in April, witnesses in our AI hearing pointed to the particulate matter rule as a significant barrier when they looked to onshore American innovation.
▶ 0:27:48They noted that as currently implemented, the rule would limit opportunities for American These overly restrictive regulations oppress domestic investments in semiconductor plants, data centers, jeoping America's ability to compete in the global AI race. On top of unreasonable compliance costs and complexity, these regulations also fail to fulfill the promise of the Clean Air Act.
▶ 0:28:13A majority of emissions measured in Knacks are from sources outside of a manufacturer's control. American industry propelled the innovation that made us our air cleaner and yet they are being penalized for factors unrelated to their operation.
▶ 0:28:28A few weeks ago, EPA A administrators Lee Zeldon testified before this subcommittee about his efforts to address the significant regulatory burdens promulgated during the Biden Harris administration that have oppressed economic development without spurring meaningful improvements to environmental protection. Now, it's our turn to do the same.
▶ 0:28:48The discussion draft before us today are based on legislation considered by this committee and previous congresses and offer common sense practical solutions to remedy significant flaws in the current Knax process. The panel of witnesses are uniquely wellqualified to discuss the compliance nature of the Knack program and need and in its need of reform. And I thank Congressman Allen and Congressman Carter for their leadership on these bills.
▶ 0:29:12And I look forward to working with the rest of the members of the committee as we consider additional proposals on how to best modernize the Clean Air Act. And I look forward to today's discussion. And I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Chair now the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from New Jersey for five minutes for his opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, we're examining two Republican draft bills that once again put corporate polluters over people and will make the American people sicker.
▶ 0:29:42With these discussion drafts, Republicans are altering the fundamental premise of the Clean Air Act and threatening our ability to ensure Americans have clean and healthy air to breathe. For over 50 years, the Environmental Protection Agency has had the authority and obligation to set national ambient air quality standards or knacks. And these health-based standards essentially set the level of pollution that is safe to breathe. And they're based solely on the latest science and medical evidence.
▶ 0:30:07Since 1970, these standards have been the foundation of the Clean Air Act, resulting in healthier air while our economy has grown. And we know air pollution poses serious and significant health risk to communities every day. Even short-term exposure can cause aggravated asthma attacks, acute bronchitis, and increased susceptibility to respiratory infections. Pollution is dangerous, plain and simple, and Americans have a right to clean safe air.
▶ 0:30:32And that's why I was pleased that last year EPA strengthened the Knacks for fine particulate matter, also known as PM2.5. The new standard has tremendous public health benefits. It will save Americans up to $46 billion in 2032 in health care costs alone. It will also prevent asthma attacks, lost work days, and thousands of premature deaths. But Trump's EPA is abandoning that effort.
▶ 0:30:56My Republican colleagues now want to double down on the administration's actions by resurrecting bills that sell out the health of families and children to line the pockets of big corporate interests. And they work to steal health care from 16 million people, you know, in their big ugly bill. But at the same time, they're pushing proposals that will make people sick.
▶ 0:31:15The discussion drafted before us today would allow industry profits to override science in setting air quality standards, provide amnesty to new polluting facilities at the expense of existing ones, and remove incentives to cut pollution. They would also weaken and delay the fundamental protections in the law, virtually guaranteeing that people living in areas with poor air quality will continue to breathe unhealthy air. And these pieces of legislation are not new. Over the last decade, Republicans have pushed these proposals through the committee several times.
▶ 0:31:46They can try to claim these drafts will not increase air pollution, but anytime you put polluters bottom line over public health, the result is dirtier air and sicker people. Our experience with the Clean Air Act tells that we do not need to choose between the health of our communities and a healthy economy. We can and must have both. So before I close, I did want to ask the chairman a question about our committee rules.
▶ 0:32:08As you know, our rules require that the quote date, time, place, and subject matter of any hearing of the committee shall be announced at least one week in advance of the commencement of such hearing unquote, unless there is a determination of good cause exception. For at least the last decade, the subject matter of a legislative hearing has been interpreted to include announcing the title of any legislation to be discussed and circulating a copy of the legislative text.
▶ 0:32:34However, the notice for today's hearing did not include an announcement that legislation would be the topic of today's hearing and did not include a copy of any legislative text. My staff did receive communications from the chairman's staff just prior to the notice circulating that you intended it to be a legislative hearing, but they did not receive a copy of the two committee prints until last Thursday, one day after the hearing was noticed. and Republicans then circulated two new versions of committee prints with the memo on Monday.
▶ 0:33:03So there this is not, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the way the committee works. When Republicans choose not to provide the legislative text with the notice, it hinders our ability to prepare for this hearing, including our ability to discuss the subject matter with potential witnesses. And that's why it's imperative that the notice include both the title of any legislation being discussed and the copies of the legislative text consistent with long-standing committee procedure. So, Mr.
▶ 0:33:29Chairman, I was going to uh confirm or I'd like to confirm that moving forward the notice for legislative hearing will include the name of any legislation to be discussed and a copy of the legislative text unless of course we go through the procedure to invoke a good cause exception. I was going to ask the chairman to respond. Does the gentleman from New Jersey yield time to the gentleman from Kentucky? Absolutely. Gentleman from Kentucky. Thank you. Thanks, gentleman for yielding.
▶ 0:33:54And the committee rules do not require legislative takes to be made available in advance of a hearing, including a legislative hearing. I understand that this is the president. This committee typically follows that text is released with the hearing notice. We intend to continue to follow this committee president when at all possible. Uh, however, like when you were chair, we reserve the right to deviate from that. And my understanding is the partic issue that you described is we we presented legislative text.
▶ 0:34:21We did uh sent submit another piece of update legislative text after the the hearing was noticed and that was because someone from ledge council was absent and and so we will do we we couldn't help that but we'll do whatever is within our our ability to follow the um president. So he's saying gentleman from New Jersey. Yeah. Um I just want to be assured I understand Mr.
▶ 0:34:47Chairman you're saying well it's not a requirement of the rules what I articulated that you're willing to follow it as a committee president is that we'll do it exact everywhere we're practicable. Yeah. All right. I appreciate that. Thank you. Gentleman from New Jersey yield back. Gentleman from New Jersey yields back. Now conclude with member opening statements.
▶ 0:35:11The chair would like to remind members that pursuant to the committee rules, all members opening statements will be made part of the We want to thank our witnesses for being here today and taking the time to testify before the subcommittee. Although it is not the practice of the subcommittee to swear witnesses, I would remind our witnesses that knowingly and willingly making material false statements to the legislative branches against the law under title 18 section 10001 of the United States code, you have the opportunity to give an opening statement followed by questions.
▶ 0:35:43Uh our witnesses today are Mr. Chad Whiteitman, vice president of environmental and regulatory affairs at the US Chamber of Commerce. Thank you for being here. Mr. James W. Bolan, chief of air protection branch at the Georgia Environment Protection Division. Thank you for being here, sir. Mr. John Wal, director of federal clean air and senior attorney environmental health at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Thank you, sir. And Mr. Paul Noey, vice president of public policy at the American Forest and Paper Association.
▶ 0:36:13Thank you for being here, sir. We appreciate all of you being here today. And I now recognize Mr. Whiteitman for his five minutes to give an opening Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Guthrie, Ranking Member Palone, and Subcommittee Chairman uh Griffith, and Ranking Member Tonko, and distinguished members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the business community regarding recent air quality regulations.
▶ 0:36:39I'm Chad Whiteitman, vice president of environment and regulatory affairs for the for the Global Energy Institute at the US Chamber of Commerce. As we discuss the Clean Air Act's impact to building infrastructure and onshoring American innovation, I'd like to focus on how the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, the NAX program impacts our ability to meet growing energy needs, reshoring manufacturing and securing our supply chains. Specifically, there are five points that I'd like to make today.
▶ 0:37:07we must rightsize regulations to support economic growth and innovation. Well-balanced regulations can provide clarity that help implement the laws passed by Congress in a manner that maximizes innovation and choice. When not properly constructed, regulations become a form of government micromanagement that eliminates the ability to do what people in the free markets do best, innovate. The lack of innovation stifles economic growth.
▶ 0:37:33And echoing what uh Representative Guthrie stated in his opening statement, uh the wave of regulations issued over the prior four years has raised concerns about the ineconomic impact due to their cumulative 1.8 trillion dollar price tag, a historic record that may be underestimated. More than 70% of those costs on the public were imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency and the vast majority of those came from the air regulations like the Knacks.
▶ 0:38:00Second, over the past several decades, the United States has made remarkable progress in improving air quality. Since 1970, emissions of key pollutants has significantly decreased thanks to collaborative efforts of businesses, states, and federal government. The Clean Air Act has been instrumental in driving these improvements. Since 2000, emissions of pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter have decreased by 87, 57, 54, and 37% respectively.
▶ 0:38:31These emission reductions have all occurred while gross domestic product, vehicle miles traveled, and population have all increased. The United States has some of the best air quality in the world with particulate matter levels up to 431% lower than other major economies thanks to steady reductions in pollutants over the last several decades. Third, most fine particulate matter now comes from non-industrial sources.
▶ 0:38:58As EPA's data shows, 84% of particulate matter emissions now come from sources like wildfires and road dust that are costly and hard to control. While EPA technically offers exemptions for wildfires under the Clean Air Act's exceptional events program, the process is timeconuming and difficult for states to navigate, involving extensive documentation and analysis. For one state, 70% of their past emit exemption requests were denied.
▶ 0:39:26On top of the challenges, the regulatory program may currently restrict these types of exemptions. Amendments like those included in the Clear Act would help address this. Fourth, the the 2024 particular matter standards will cause permitting gridlock across our economy. Unless the 2024 rule is rescended, it will block the permitting of new manufacturing facilities and associated good paying jobs, pushing investment overseas, just at the time when we're trying to bring back manufacturing and stronger supply chains.
▶ 0:39:56The rule will also prevent the delay in construction of roads, bridges, and other infrastructure funded by legislation recently passed by Congress. Fifth, and finally, small businesses, homeowners, and families could bear a disproportionate burden of these regulations. Increased compliance costs and administrative complexity can particularly be challenging for small businesses, limiting their ability to grow and compete.
▶ 0:40:21Furthermore, EPA uh for instance, in EPA's cost analysis, the agency identified various compliance pathways for tighter particulate matter standards, including the possibility of states requiring small businesses such as restaurants to install a costly equipment require and requiring homeowners to replace wood fireplaces with natural gas logs.
▶ 0:40:44Furthermore, EPA failed to identify cost-effective and technologically achievable pathways for complying with tighter standards as the agency only analyze costs of partial I'd like to close by reaffirming the business community's support for efforts to improve air quality. The chamber looks forward to working with policy makers on a reasonable regulatory approach that will achieve our shared goals of improving air quality and and unleashing economic prosperity.
▶ 0:41:12Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I'm looking forward to answering your questions. Thank you, gentlemen. Now recognize Dr. Boland for your five minutes of opening statement. Good morning, Chairman Griffith, Ranking Member Tonko, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Jim Boland, and I'm honored to testify before you as the chief of the air protection branch at the Georgia Environmental Protection Division.
▶ 0:41:36Today I am here to discuss the national ambient air quality standards and the impact on state regulatory agencies and the regulated community. My remarks will focus on two components of the knacks. The setting of the knacks and the implementation of the knacks. The knack setting process involves the development and re review of multiple documents. The time to develop and re review each document can be substantial since some of these documents can be over a thousand pages long.
▶ 0:42:01Currently, the Knax review process is required to be repeated for ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead every five years. There simply is not enough time to squeeze in all this work within a 5-year cycle. As far as I am aware, EPA has only completed an act review within the statutory 5-year cycle one time since the establishment of the program in the Clean Air Act in 1970.
▶ 0:42:26Extending the timelines for NAT reviews from five to 10 years would give EPA the time needed to develop new standards without being rushed. In addition, this change would bring about more stability and certainty for state air pollution control agencies and industry. Protecting public health is the core responsibility of Georgia EPD and we will always prioritize that. However, there is likely room for some balance in the next review process.
▶ 0:42:51The proximity of new standards to background levels puts many states in a situation where the new standard is not achievable for reasons that are beyond a state's control. Therefore, the EPA administrator should be allowed to consider likely attainability of the standard as proposed NAX levels approach background concentrations. The Clean Air Science Advisory Committee or KAC serves a critical role in the Knack setting process by providing independent expert feedback on various aspects of the Knacks.
▶ 0:43:19I had the pleasure to serve on the case act from 2017 to 2023 and was one of only two people selected to serve on the case act under both the Trump and Biden administrations. I have seen firsthand the imbalance that is caused by stacking the case act with mostly academic researchers. While academic researchers have a good understanding of the underlying science, they do not always have a practical understanding of how science is translated into the knacks.
▶ 0:43:46State air regulatory agencies possess specialized expertise and practical knowledge and skills needed for environmental management. For this reason, the KAC should include at least three representatives from air pollution control agencies who are well-versed in Knack implementation to balance the KAC. I'd now like to turn to the imple implementation of the Knacks.
▶ 0:44:07implementation guidance needs to be guidance needs to be issued concurrently with the issuance of any new knacks so that states have the immediate understanding of the requirements and are able to come into attainment quickly. Once a new knack is promagated, states are required to submit attainment non-attainment designation recommendations to EPA. As part of the designation processes, uh states can submit exceptional event demonstrations to EPA for approval.
▶ 0:44:33The state of Georgia issues prescribed burn permits for approximately 1.5 million acres per year. The application of prescribed fires in Georgia has been extremely successful as shown by the historically low number of wildfires across the state. However, the current provisions for exceptional events do not explicitly recognize prescribed fires as exceptional events. While EPA has tried to address this through guidance, it really needs to be addressed through legislation.
▶ 0:45:01There are multiple permitting challenges associated with implementing extremely low knacks in both attainment and nonattainment areas. For projects that want to build in areas meeting the Knacks, the lack of headroom or the difference between the standard and the background levels makes it very difficult to approve permits. For areas found in violation of the Knacks, they will be required to implement the most restrictive new source review permitting process, not only for new, but also for existing sources.
▶ 0:45:28In 2024, the annual PM standard was dropped from 12 micrograms per cubic meter to nine. Many locations in Georgia are currently over the standard or lack enough headroom for new projects. This is especially a concern with the large number of economic development projects looking to locate in Georgia. Specifically, data centers are one of the fastest growing industries in the state. These data centers need large amounts of energy to operate.
▶ 0:45:52In May, a data center developer announced plans to build a 20 building data center campus costing $16 billion that would require more power than one of plant Vogle's nuclear reactors. Power generation to support all the new data centers will pose multiple permitting challenges under the current Knack process. In closing, I would like to emphasize that there may be ways to modernize the Knack process that could help states implement the new standards in a way that continue to protect air quality without restricting economic opportunities.
▶ 0:46:22Again, I would like to thank the chairman Griffith for the invitation to appear today and I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much. Gentleman yields now recognize Mr. Walk for his five-minute opening statement. Thank you, Chairman Griffith and Ranking Member Tonko for the opportunity to testify today. My name is John Walk with NRDC. All Americans want safe, clean air. All members of Congress want the same. That consensus should unite us, not divide us.
▶ 0:46:49Today's draft bills, unfortunately, are divisive because they end Americans legal right to safe clean air that the Clean Air Act has guaranteed for 55 years. Today's law ensures safe air quality based on medical science. How much air pollution is unsafe for people to breathe, not based on company profits or economics.
▶ 0:47:08The draft clear act before you first would eliminate the obligation to establish health standards for air pollution like smog and soot based solely on medical science and what is required to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety for vulnerable groups like children and the elderly without any consideration of profits for regulated companies or economic impacts.
▶ 0:47:29Then the bill for the first time would authorize EPA to consider company profits and costs to set unprotective standards sanctioning continuing health hazards and even premature death from PM2.5. Both steps would overturn a unanimous Supreme Court decision by the late Justice Scalia upholding Americans right to safe air based on science, not unsafe error tainted by economics.
▶ 0:47:52After that 2001 Supreme Court decision, a lawyer for the Chamber of Commerce said, "Now we will see if we can get the magic word cost put into the statute." That's what this legislation is about. That longtime corporate campaign. Mr. Tonko is right. The sky has never fallen. Americans are not asking Congress to take away their 55-year-old legal right to safe, clean air. Americans are not asking the government to lie to us about whether the air is safe to breathe.
▶ 0:48:18I suspect the make America healthy again movement would be shocked to learn that is being considered for the third time in eight years before this subcommittee. Take the example of the health standard for ozone pollution last updated in 2015 to 7070 parts per billion.
▶ 0:48:34A strong majority of EPA science advisers found in 2023 that 70 was badly unsafe and needed strengthening to guarantee safe air for Suppose EPA in the future then considers a range of standards as high as 70. The draft clear air act the draft clear act would let EPA for the first time refuse to strengthen the ozone health standard to a safe level by invoking economic impacts or attainability of the standard and keep the unsafe level of 70.
▶ 0:49:04denying Americans safe clean air and allowing preventable asthma attacks, forcing parents to take their children to the ER and causing h hospital admissions for res respiratory distress. The implementation issues addressed in both bills and in much of the other testimony are complex, but the pro proposed solutions are the wrong ones. They would let air pollution increase by legal definition. Roll back safeguards under current law.
▶ 0:49:31Increase the burden on existing businesses and facilities to reduce their pollution to accommodate the new pollution increases. Force Americans to breathe unsafe air longer. Then change the law to declare unsafe air pollution levels acceptable. Over 156 Americans live in areas that suffer unsafe levels of smog pollution or fine particle pollution.
▶ 0:49:55More than 88,000 Americans die prematurely every year due to just fine particle pollution. Over twice as many deaths as auto accidents cause. Over 100 leading public health and environmental organizations have urged Congress not to pass nearly identical earlier versions of these harmful bills, including the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the National Medical Association, and the National Public Health Association.
▶ 0:50:26like me, they object to authorizing more air pollution, weakening the Clean Air Act in numerous ways, taking away Americans 55year-old right to safe clean air, worsening Americans health, and overturning multiple court decisions. All without doing one thing, unfortunately, to improve air quality, reduce air pollution, or make Americans healthier.
▶ 0:50:53Similar to these health experts, I urge members to decline to advance both bills. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Now recognize Mr. Noi for his five-minute opening. Thank you, chairs Griffith and Guthrie, Ranking members Tonko and Palone, and distinguished members of the committee. I'm here today on behalf of the American Forest and Paper Association and the American Wood Council.
▶ 0:51:20AFMPA represents manufacturers of sustainable paper products and AWC represents manufacturers of structural wood products. Our forest products industry directly employs over 925,000 people and we are a top 10 manufacturing sector employer in 44 states.
▶ 0:51:43The industry supports over 1.6 6 million more jobs across its suppliers and in local communities, many in rural America. These hardworking people are sourcing from sustainably managed forests and making products right here in America, representing nearly 5% of US manufacturing GDP. In February of last year, I testified before this committee that our air permit program is broken.
▶ 0:52:12While it remains true, I am heartened to sit before you today knowing critical steps are being taken to modernize the underlying permit program to be achievable. And I want to express our We strongly support Congressman Rick Allen and Buddy Carter in their efforts to address the impacts of air permitting issues on US manufacturing. The proposed legislation you are considering today would greatly improve the Knack program.
▶ 0:52:43We'd especially like to applaud that the legislation requires a workable implementation plan when the standards are issued so they can be successfully achieved. Establishes a 10-year review cycle to increase certainty and reduce wasteful and reforms the exceptional events program to facilitate prescribed burns to prevent wildfires, by far the largest source of particulate matter in our
▶ 0:53:13country. We look forward to continuing to work with you on this legislation and we have included some additional suggestions in our written testimony. Only through common sense solutions will we truly enable the onshoring of American innovators. and we thank Congressman Ellen and Allan and Carter for their leadership and all the members helping us.
▶ 0:53:38We're also grateful that in March, EPA administrator Zelden recognized the specific problems manufacturers are facing when he announced the agency will quickly revisit the unworkable 2024 PMAX standard. Under previous PM standards, our industry could make substantial capital investments to modernize.
▶ 0:54:01But the new PM standard is a perfect storm for permit gridlock, making it much harder to modernize our facilities and continue reducing emissions. The previous EPA rushed to tighten the PM necks close to background levels using dubious legal authority, ahead of schedule, and without a workable implementation plan.
▶ 0:54:25Notably, the 2024 rule doesn't address at all 84% of particulate matter emissions, which come from non-industrial sources such as wildfires and road dust. Pulp paper and wood products mills account for less than 1% of particulate matter to put that in perspective.
▶ 0:54:45Blindly ratcheting down on already controlled sources has diminishing returns and collapsing the permit program by making it unachievable blocks progress towards more efficient and cleaner facilities. The previous administration unfortunately ignored each of these concerns. concerns raised not only by industry but our partners in labor and many elected officials.
▶ 0:55:13If we don't change this trajectory now, American manufacturing competitiveness and jobs in many of your districts are at stake. We stand ready to work with you with Administrator Zelden and the Trump administration to strengthen and support this effort. Thank you again for the opportunity to be heard and for your tireless leadership to support US manufacturing jobs. I look forward to your questions. Thank you gentlemen.
▶ 0:55:42Thank all of you for your testimony and now move into the question and answer portion of the hearing and I will begin the questioning and recognize myself for five minutes. Mr. Noi, we are talking about Knacks today but I can't help myself. Attainment uh also impacts new source review permitting.
▶ 0:55:56It concerns me uh that industries are trying to reduce industries trying to reduce emissions at their plant can potentially be punished in some cases under the Clean Air Act, which is why I've been working on HR 161, the new source review permitting improvement act. Doesn't the current new source review permitting process make manufacturers think twice about building new projects or improve or even improving current facilities? Mr.
▶ 0:56:23chairman 100% and thank you so much for your tireless work there. Um I'm going to paraphrase a friend of mine and former EPA general counsel Don Elliott who said the kindest things you can say about in NSR is it's ineffective, slow, and it doesn't work.
▶ 0:56:43And those really are about the kindest things you can say about it because it makes no sense that a program that's supposed to improve air quality blocks efforts to become more efficient and thereby lower emissions per ton of production. It's that simple. Yeah. Is it economically efficient or environmentally friendly to require pollution control projects to go through the full NSR permitting process?
▶ 0:57:08And doesn't the current NSR regime actually discourage major sources from installing emission control equipment for fear of losing their current air permit? 100%. And Mr. Chairman, I just want to add when you were kind enough to have a hearing back in February 2018 and I had the opportunity to testify, we had a whole bunch of examples from our industry alone about how NSR has had very damaging unintended effects.
▶ 0:57:38The intent was good. Let's make our air cleaner. We all support that. I think you've heard that already from not only all of you, this panel. But we got to be smart about how we do this. There's so much at stake if we're not smart in how we do it. I appreciate that. And I had my examples, too, but I won't go through them today. Mr. Whiteitman, could you briefly explain the colored map which has uh we've got our fake Vanna here.
▶ 0:58:04Could you explain the colored map in your written testimony and uh and that is enlarged behind me? We'll do. Thank you for the question. Yes. So this map is a map of the counties in the US and we modeled uh the air quality uh and areas that would be inattainment. So if you look at the map, the green areas would be those that are in attainment. The red areas are those that are out of attainment. Uh 428 counties that we project uh EPA projected just 1/4 of that.
▶ 0:58:33Uh and then uh the light red areas are those where there's not much headroom. there's not a lot of headroom to be able to build new facilities or you bump into the standards. Uh this is the first time that we've seen uh the Clean Air Act next program reduce emissions so low that the impacts uh are getting around background levels. So that's why we see such an extensive um potential permitting gridlock across the country.
▶ 0:59:00Uh and it's why we've raised so many concerns about the uh the Knack standard. We all want to uh reshore manufacturing. We all want to provide the good paying jobs and uh and unfortunately this looks like it's going to block a lot of those projects from coming back. What are the real world effects of a non-attainment designation for a county trying hard to land a big factory or a family manufacturing looking to expand their plant? I'm sorry, sir, I missed. That's all right.
▶ 0:59:27What are the real world effects of a non of a non-attainment designation for a county trying to land a big factory or even a family manufacturer looking to expand their existing facility. It it puts them through a lot of permitting uh and can be quite difficult. In fact, I was talking to somebody in the foundry industry yesterday from Wisconsin. Uh they had a uh a new green field facility that they wanted to build. They looked at 400 sites uh after they that that they could meet their labor requirements.
▶ 0:59:57When they went on uh and considered the environmental requirements from the Knack from ozone and PM, it narrowed it down to eight. Uh and then when they looked at supply chain energy access and other things, they decided they just couldn't do the project because uh the next program and what's coming up is just going to be too stringent for them. Couldn't do the project in the United States. They sheld No, they sheld it. Sheld it. And and so when we're talking about those non-attainment areas, those are the ones that are currently red, correct? Dark red.
▶ 1:00:24Uh these are the ones that are projected to be uh out of attainment in the future. All right. And then a lot of the pinkish red ones are are close. So if you if you were trying to land a really big factory, that might tip you over the line as well. That's right. Uh we have an example in one of the reports that we wrote. Even a wind facility uh in Colorado, CS Wind, uh the air permit they had to put together to follow EPA's requirements would increase the emissions in their area by 1.9 micrograms.
▶ 1:00:54Uh they may not have been able to build their facility because even uh uh even projects like that could be blocked. All right, my time is up. I yield back and now recognize the ranking member from the state of New York for his five minutes of questioning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, as I expressed earlier, it is critically important that the national ambient air quality standards are based on the latest science to ensure they are health protective. However, I am concerned that several provisions in these proposals will undermine those efforts.
▶ 1:01:23First, the Clear Act would change the current 5-year review cycle to a 10-year cycle. So, Mr. Walk, what would be the consequences of making that sort of Uh, thank you, Mr. Tonko. the um the the consequences unfortunately would be to ensure that updates to health standards occur closer to 12 to 15 years. Now why do I say that? Because under today's law where the statutory deadline is 5 years as Dr.
▶ 1:01:50Boland has said the reality is it's closer to 8 to 10 years and the agency has to be sued in order to to try to issue them faster. Um if the statutory deadline were five years they would miss that statutory deadline too. Now, why do I say that? Well, because Congress adopted a program in 1990 that set a 10-year statutory deadline for a lot of standards. And EPA missed that deadline probably 60 to 70% of the time. Sometimes they missed it by 10 or even 15 years.
▶ 1:02:19So, it's entirely predictable what would happen. Americans would be denied safer, clean air based upon what the medical science says for as long as 12 to 15 years or more. Thank you. And is it safe to say that our scientific understanding of the health impacts of air pollution um is continuously improving? That's absolutely the case.
▶ 1:02:38And the most recent updates to the health standards for um ozone uh that uh unfortunately did not occur but were the the the subject of scientific analysis in 2023 shows that we've learned much more and the standard should be strengthened. uh the strengthening the PM2.5 standard in 2024, which by the way is the most deadly pollutant regulated by the Clean Air Act and recognized globally as the either second or third largest uh source of premature mortality globally.
▶ 1:03:07Um we've learned much more and we need to do more to protect Americans. Right. And let me add to your assessment. There can be a lot of science produced in a short period of time. And as an example, the 2020 ozone standard review included more than 1,700 new studies that were published in CPA's 2015 review of that standard. So even within the current 5-year cycle, there could be hundreds, if not thousands of relevant scientific studies that further our understanding of what levels of air pollution may be considered safe.
▶ 1:03:37So Mr. walk. If we are committed to having our environmental protections based on the latest, best available science, would shifting to a 10-year review cycle undermine that goal? Absolutely, it would undermine that goal. And so would eliminating the Office of Research and Development, a lot of other things that are being done by this administration. Unfortunately, we are eliminating scientific capacities and uh lengthening the period to 12 to 15 years would just be even more irresponsible. And Mr. Mr.
▶ 1:04:05Walk, I would also uh further ask about the Clear Acts proposed changes to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. Currently, the case act is statutoily required to have seven members with at least one from a state agency. Uh Mr. Walker, what is the role of the case act today? And would you say it is to inform EPA's and consideration of the latest science when reviewing standards or is it more focused on the implementation and feasibility of standards?
▶ 1:04:32It is focused on the protectiveness of the health standards and whether they provide an adequate margin of safety for vulnerable populations like children and so it requires uh medical expertise. Uh it does not require implementation expertise and I I differed with my uh fellow witness Dr. Bon in that respect. Um geographic diversity doesn't speak to medical expertise.
▶ 1:04:57So, uh, kind of pulling people from region 4 states to be on the panel doesn't speak to whether the standard will be better and more protective of Americans. Thank you. And while I certainly support states playing an important role in scientific reviews of standards, I also believe states are just one of several important contributors. Mr. Walker, are you concerned that this proposed change to the case membership might tip balance u of the tip the balance of the committee? I think it's intended to, Mr. Tonko.
▶ 1:05:26We we had testimony before this committee today that criticized past panels for being imbalanced. Uh and this was the approach to uh supposedly address that. Uh the administrator Puit did it during the Trump administration and blocked people who had EPA grants from serving on the committee and that was found to be unlawful by a court. So I think there have been attacks on the integrity of of KESAC for as long as I've been practicing law.
▶ 1:05:51Is there any evidence that the current structure of the case is causing it to fail to adequately fulfill its responsibilities? To the contrary, I mean, Dr. Boon was reappointed by a Democratic administration and provided his views and they were fully captured for the public record and I think that was to the credit of both Dr. Boon and to uh Mr. Biden um and his EPA. All right. Thank you. And Mr. Chair, yield back. Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes Mr. Lada.
▶ 1:06:21Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our witnesses for being here. Uh, this is a uh a pretty important uh discussion that we're having today on these on these bills that we the discussion drafts. And you know, if you look at this map and again looking where the state of Ohio is, it pretty much puts the entire state of Ohio in jeopardy. And what I'd like to start, Mr. White, if I could just ask you some real quick questions.
▶ 1:06:47uh you know, one of the things you said in your your testimony that when the EPA uh acts based on faulty scientific analysis, how often does that happen and how can this affect this map right here? Uh let me first qualify. I'm not a scientist, but uh there's a lot of science that goes into this uh into the Knacks uh and their concerns.
▶ 1:07:13Um, you know, I let me just speak from the business community perspective on cost because ultimately, uh, if we're not considering costs and we're just considering, uh, one side of the equation and not the other, uh, it leaves with unbalanced, uh, and overly burdensome regulatory, uh, provisions uh, that we're finding ourselves now in this this situation of having potential permitting gridlock.
▶ 1:07:37Okay, you know, let's go back just a couple years back because, you know, when we're talking about maybe a county being out of compliance and the county that' be adjacent to it and all of a sudden the county adjacent to it, we might not have any issues, but because being next to that county, depending when that test is being run, then all of a sudden that could be putting the county adjacent that didn't have any issues out of out of compliance. But would you say with when you're looking at this map today, it's putting everything out of compliance. Is that correct? Yeah.
▶ 1:08:07uh you know the red areas uh we completely expect them to be uh in violation of the standards and those next to it uh we expect permitting gridlock to be there uh because you need some headroom to be able to site these facilities and because they're so low the standards so close to background levels there's just not a lot there. Okay, let me ask a few more questions real quick.
▶ 1:08:28um you know when these tests are out there and they're and they're mon the monitoring goes on you know when they take into effect certain things like I've got a couple one in particular what we have an interstate highway that runs through your through a county uh would would you know would that be a factor out there that would be a concern?
▶ 1:08:47Yeah, certainly uh the funding that Congress passed and the infrastructure bill building new roads and bridges um you know uh state DOS have to look at potential air uh emissions increases and factor that and look at the next standards and so that may block uh some of those roads and bridges that would increase efficiency and supply chain efficiency. Well, and and again this is like several years back in in Ohio on Interstate 75 from the Michigan border down to the city of Finley.
▶ 1:09:15it was determined that we had to the road was about 115% capacity and what they have to do they needed to put a third lane in. So what you're saying right then is it could put that that kind of a project in jeopardy to have something like that done then they would likely have to deal with uh uh the next program and finding offsets and other things which may not be available and what what what would the uh impact be on agricultural areas? Do you have an any idea on that?
▶ 1:09:42Uh certainly they're one of the uh non-point sources uh that uh are becoming you know as industrial emissions have gone down or around 16% other non-point sources like egg and and uh road dust and fires are becoming a bigger portion of it. So it's likely that uh you know farming and other things will be in the crosshairs uh for this type of next which is bringing uh pollution levels down so low. Yeah. And just follow up on that real quick.
▶ 1:10:13Just for a comment on my part because again, you have to think about when harvest is is done. So if you're, you know, if you're out shelling corn, or if it's going to be you're harvesting beans, you're harvesting wheat, that's the time of the year that you're going to have a little more dust in the air. But uh thank you, Mr. Newi, if I could ask you. Um could you tell the committee about the cumulative regulatory challenge facing American industry, what it means to this country? Thank you, Congressman.
▶ 1:10:39Um the challenge is enormous and there's so much at stake because if our regulatory system isn't working well and the permit system is gridlocked that grinds progress to a halt. We need to play to our strengths. We are the most innovative country on the planet. We have great entrepreneurs. We have a great productive workforce. And our workers just want the right to compete. That's all they're asking for.
▶ 1:11:08And so we can't have a picture like that where the permit program is basically collapsing because what those colors show you, it's not just there's lots more of these non-attainment areas in red. That pink is a special problem for my industry and and those are attainment areas, okay? So don't get me wrong, we're in rural America by and large. Those are cleaner areas that tend to be in attainment.
▶ 1:11:34But by putting the standard so close to background level, average in this country is eight. They put it at nine. We that blocks major projects in our industry. They typically need an increment of three. So the simple math is you started background, let's say it's eight. You add three to that. Where are you? 11. That's way above the standard of nine. You can't do it. You've now blocked a project that is both going to create more jobs in this country.
▶ 1:12:02help help onshore manufacturing put wealth in communities that really need more economic development and job opportunity. You're blocking all that and you're also preventing more efficient technology that's also cleaner technology. So that's what I mean when I say we've got to be smarter than that. We need a permit system that works and allows all the benefits of our economy where we can have both jobs and environmental progress to happen together.
▶ 1:12:32Well, uh, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for your indulgence. My time has expired and I yield back. Gentlemen yields back. Um, chair yields five minutes to Miss Shakowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Mr. walk. I want to just tell you that you and I are on the same p panel right now and on the same view.
▶ 1:12:57You know, when I was in the state legislature in 1995, I uh found the report and I stood on the on the uh in the state legislature and said, "Please, let's pay attention to this issue. Time is running out." Well, how many times have we heard that the time is running out?
▶ 1:13:21We know that the um panel on climate change said that very clearly. We have heard them all the time. But even more uh important to me is that children in my district, especially in lowincome districts, have more asthma than others in the country. And we don't want to see that happen.
▶ 1:13:48We have to understand the time really is running out. And while we want to make uh sure that we have a good economy, are we going to trade that in and that um about all the businesses that are that are made? I'm not against them, but I say we have to do something.
▶ 1:14:14And I wanted you to talk about in the the the things that were that have been what income what what what is going to happen if those bills go uh fruition and are we going to do Thank you, Mr. Chowsky. Oh, we're we're going to do worse. And I think across the board that's clear in in in my testimony.
▶ 1:14:44A bipartisan Congress in 1970 and again in 1977 and again in 1990 ensured that health standards for Americans protected us all with an adequate margin of safety. And the courts and EPA have found that means children, it means the elderly, it means people suffering from asthma and emphyma. to make sure that we have health standards that protect all Americans, not just not just some. And this bill would eliminate that.
▶ 1:15:14It would allow uh economic impacts or attainability or techn you know cost feasibility to eliminate the protectiveness of standards for children, for the elderly and for the most vulnerable among us because it eliminates the health foundation for the standards and replaces it with whatever costs decide is good enough. Yeah, thank you.
▶ 1:15:36So, I wanted to ask you um what what is an immediate thing most immediate thing that you think that we want to do to start to catch up with this timeline that is growing stronger. So, the the current process for setting the health standards takes too long, but it takes too long because EPA engages in a bunch of steps that the statute doesn't require.
▶ 1:16:03So, I think that we could have a science and health-based process that actually does update health standards according to the best medical science. Uh, closer to 5 years than 10. Uh, certainly closer than the 15 that this um this uh bill would produce and and and we would be better served by that process. Uh we have recommendations to strengthen the current unsafe ozone standard now. Uh and this administration, if it wanted to, could act on that.
▶ 1:16:32Instead, they've announced that they don't see any cause or reason to update the standard until 2030. That's 15 years after it was last updated, Miss Shakowski, in the year 2015. And we've been told that level is unsafe, and we're going to be stuck with that unsafe standard till at least 2030 and beyond.
▶ 1:16:53are are uh yours and mine and I I think a lot of people in this country are we going to be really saying to uh manufacturers that you can't do a job? Of course not. Uh like you said, 1995 is an interesting year that you mentioned because that's when the Chamber of Commerce and some others filed lawsuits to require that health standards be set based on cost.
▶ 1:17:18that resulted in the Supreme Court decision in 2001 that unanimously said no that's just that's just wrong. Okay. So this fight has been going on for a long time and as Mr. Tonko said we've been told ever since the sky is falling but it never has and these complaints are ones that are designed to weaken the law. Uh there's a lot of complexity in this testimony and there are surely things that could be improved with implementation of the program, but eliminating Americans legal right to safe air based on medical science is not the way to do it.
▶ 1:17:49I agree and my time is up, but I wanted to thank um the allowing me to talk a little over. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you. The gentle lady yields. The chair now recognizes uh chairman of the full committee, Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. chairman for the time and uh look forward to the discussion based on what we just heard. I see a good friend of mine, Johnny Walker's in the audience.
▶ 1:18:11Johnny Walker's from Tennessee and uh he is uh uh runs a business is trying to put people to work and and run a manufacturing business and and be successful and and uh has no other intent than to run a clean sound business and make sure that that he uh puts people to work. And it's a high what do you call it?
▶ 1:18:32you were you're in a high cost low margin business and that's a fun one to be in right a high cost low margin and just trying to stay ahead and regul regulations matter but we do need a clean environment so Mr. Whiteitman um the Biden administration did a particular matter rule and that would reduce the annual standard to nine parts per microgram of cubic meter which is getting close to some areas of the country maybe being at lower than background levels.
▶ 1:18:56Could you describe what uh having a standard lower than background levels what the impact could be on manufacturing or ability to develop, ability to construct, ability to operate? Um it essentially puts those areas into gridlock. I mean the uh the way the permitting works is once you're out of attainment um you have to implement the most stringent emissions control technologies out there uh under the uh lowest achievable emissions reduction program.
▶ 1:19:24And on top of that, uh, you're going to have to seek offsets because once you establish the background so low, uh, and you're in this area trying to implement layer, uh, controls, you're going to need some help somewhere else. Uh, the problem is you set it so low, everybody else is going to be in the same boat. Uh, so everyone else is going to be pointing to each other like the Spider-Man mem like, can I get your um, uh, offset credits from you?
▶ 1:19:50So ultimately it's going to lead to uh a lot of projects like the one I mentioned Wisconsin that that uh that it's going to get blocked. I know it was mentioned earlier that people say the sky fall hope we can fix this product before the sky falls. That's the idea not have it fall on us. So uh so Mr. No, the pulp and paper industry use a lot of energy. Data centers which are being built to support and develop artificial intelligence also need enormous amount of energy.
▶ 1:20:15What insights can your industry share with those in the AI sector about how these air quality standards will impact their ability to grow in the United States? Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman, and I think that shows the urgency. We have got to be able to build things. We've got to be able to expand things. We've got to be able to modernize things in this country. And what that map's showing you is permit gridlock all around the country. And it's not just these bigger red areas of nonattainment that Mr. Whiteitman was mentioning.
▶ 1:20:45All of that pink is areas that are in attainment. So, you'd think things would be fine, but they're not because there's permit gridlock. And if you want to do a major project in those areas, you're going to be blocked. So, you know, there's a lot at stake here. It's not just US manufacturing competitiveness.
▶ 1:21:04our place in the world, our ability not only to compete but national security issues are at stake because the demand that's coming online for energy in this country including electricity are massive and that's what keeps CEOs up at night. I can tell you. Well, think and that's a good point because you know from the mid1 1990s until just recently we've had a flat level demand for power.
▶ 1:21:28Part of it is because and thankfully so we've become far more efficient at using the the power that we use which we absolutely should be. The second part of it is we've unfortunately had flat manufacturing growth which is now beginning to increase but not just bringing jobs back but also the excessive demand the extensive demand that's coming from new areas which is data centers.
▶ 1:21:52You know, I always quote and I said Bill Gates at a Microsoft data center can not everyone but can one of them can use as much power as the city of Seattle. And so that's what we have to scale up for. If we don't do it, then we're going to lose this battle to China. And I would rather have the American values govern AI around the world than Chinese values any any day. There's no comparison to that. So let me go to Mr. Bolan. The Cleaner Act requires EPA to review and revise air quality standards on 5-year intervals.
▶ 1:22:21But the M Biden administration conducted a review of the particulate matter outside of the normal review cycle. That means like your states like yours may have significant burdens in implementing these changing standards. The draft draft legislation would move it to 10 years. As a head of Georgia's program, can you discuss the impact that would be for you? Yes. So the um the impact of of changing from five to 10 years, is that what you're asking? Yes. Yes. So, what that would do is it would allow EPA to fully consider all the documents.
▶ 1:22:51The way it is now, they're they're rushed um and sometimes they try to shortcut um reviews and things like that. Um giving the full 10 years would allow for a full consideration of all the science. Um these documents um can be over a thousand pages long and um and there's six different pollutants that are being reviewed.
▶ 1:23:11And so um one it would allow for EPA to not be rushed but it would also give more stability to the state to be able to implement um because what happens is um sometimes states are right on the verge of coming into attainment and then um EPA drops the standard and then we kind of have to start the whole process again um of getting back into non-attainment. So it would give more stability um and allow for more a better long plan long-term planning for attainment. Thank you Dr. I said Mr. Thank you Dr. B. I appreciate it and I will yield back.
▶ 1:23:41Gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Clean Air Act is one of our most nation's most important substantive environmental and public health laws. At the center of the law are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards or Knacks. They define what levels of common air pollutants are safe to breathe and they're developed based solely on silence, science, and public health considerations.
▶ 1:24:03And I've often talked about in the context of permit reform when we talk about is um um statues like NEPA uh we don't have to worry so much about NEPA because we have the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act guarding us against the emission of pollutants into the atmosphere or into the environment without a uh without permission by by way of a permit. And as we consider ways to support infrastructure and energy development, I think there's room for bipartisan conversation.
▶ 1:24:30We should be looking at how to reduce permitting delays, provide clarity for important infrastructure projects, but I don't think that those projects and improvements should come at the expense of science-based process that sets clean air standards. Um, so the discussion drafts we're looking at today do raise a couple of questions. One thing I'm struck by is this the debate between five and 10 years, and it doesn't sound like five years has ever Um, and uh, Mr. walk.
▶ 1:24:57Um what what were you saying was the timeline we're seeing for the review actual review of this in comparison to the five five-year mandate? Mr. Peters, it it's it's been closer to 8 to 10 years, right? Um I'm you know I'm and that happened under Democratic and Republican administrations. I guess I'm I'm interested if you want to extend it. I could we could talk about that, but I also wonder what enforcement we're going to have.
▶ 1:25:21I what I find among my colleagues um is that they're reluctant to talk back to this administration and if they were willing to give me some assurance about actually observing a limit I think that's something that we could we could talk about. Um Mr. Walk also would you just address this concern I think about the standards getting so low that they're close to background and that makes it makes things impractical to comply with. Sure I'd be happy to do so.
▶ 1:25:47um that that actually was addressed in the most recent uh court decision from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals about the ozone standards where that very concern was raised and what the court said rightly and what the law has uh said for you know 55 years is those are implementation concerns Congress has uh three tools that they've included in the law exceptional events uh international transport and rural transport uh you know maybe the regulations for those programs could be improved D but it's
▶ 1:26:17an implementation concern. It is an implementation concern. I mean how how would we respond to the practical uh problem that that presents when you know you you impose regulations on on actors what when the the regulations themselves you have to say you have to get so close to background it's impractical. How do you how do you deal with that as a practical matter?
▶ 1:26:36Well, I you know, we've heard a lot of talk about wildfires and prescribed fires and and things that are real concerns in this country and and I was a little puzzled because I looked up the 2017 exceptional events rule last night. It defines exceptional events to include prescribed fires and mentions prescribed fires 182 times. So, I'm a little puzzled why we're talking about the need to change the law when the law already guarantees that.
▶ 1:27:01But I, you know, it requires good hard work by people of good faith to say, "Look, if if you've violated the standard of nine because the combination of background and wildfires pushes you over nine, you're not in non-attainment. You're not. And if the rules and the processes need to be expedited and made more efficient and effective, then we we would stand ready to support that." Okay. I guess I just like to pick up on on the issue of particulates and wildfires.
▶ 1:27:28Um it is a huge problem and I would say I would just uh draw everyone's attention to um the bill I did with uh Chair Westerman, the Fix Our Forest Act uh which is the only attempt I believe uh certainly the only bipartisan attempt to deal with pollution from wildfires by giving the Forest Service the ability it needs to actually go in and perform the Forest management that would keep us from only having catastrophic fires and get us back to a normal fire cycle, which we've suppressed
▶ 1:27:58particularly in the west for many decades. I would also ask particularly the National Resources Defense Council to participate in that process. They have basically not helped us in a way that I think would really meaningfully reduce air qual air quality concerns and and reduce the concern about particullet from wildfires which is a bigger climate uh pollution source than the entire power sector of California right now. It is the biggest problem we have. We need the help of the environmental community.
▶ 1:28:27We have the natural we have the nature conservancy that's helped us, the environmental defense fund, the Ottabon Society, but some people are so um wedded to what the law is today that that they have so far not helped us change the law to really help meet concerns about air quality. I know that's not what NRDC is about and I ask their help. And with that, I yield Gentleman yields. Uh the chair recognizes Mr. Palmer for five minutes.
▶ 1:28:58Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, this is a a topic that I'm particularly interested in. I I worked for two international engineering companies. Um, we were I worked for combustion engineering in the environmental systems division, worked for Rush International, did everything from refuge to energy to airspace and um and in talking about particulate matter in in in general uh we
▶ 1:29:28have the technology to reduce some I think we're at a point now where we're asking industry to u and to meet standards that we don't have the technology to meet particularly when it comes as my friend from California mentioned uh dealing with wildfires agricultural dust uh uh just things that that occur in nature a substantial part of the particulate matter that's in the atmosphere over California
▶ 1:29:58originated in China or other places. Uh how do you respond to that? U obviously we we want to to maintain as high air quality as we possibly can, but at the same time we we've got to take into account what we're capable of and what uh is economically sustainable. Any of you?
▶ 1:30:23I mean, Congressman, what I would say is 100% no one's saying we shouldn't use best technology. That's not the issue. The issue is we've got a permit program that's basically collapsed right now. You can't get a permit to do a highly beneficial project that anyone could tell you is not only going to create jobs and economic growth and inject that community with some prosperity, but it's also going to be more efficient. This is typical.
▶ 1:30:53So, it's going to lower emissions per ton of production. Those are the kind of projects we should be having all around our country. And that map's showing you we can't because you've got permit gridlock all across the country, including in attainment areas. Yeah. It's also a problem though. We're I I believe we're literally in a national security situation regarding refining of rare earth elements. There's not a single major refinery for earth elements in the Western Hemisphere.
▶ 1:31:23If I said there wasn't one in the United States, that'd be bad enough. There's not one in the Western Hemisphere. And there's only nine in the world. Eight are in China. The other one's in Malaysia. And there's a reason for that. We've regulated these industries out of existence to the point now that we're we're confronted with a national security emergency. You you your economy depends on them, but your military depends on them. Uh absolutely. So I I think we've got to find that balance.
▶ 1:31:49The the other interesting thing about this is is when you look at at asthma rates and I don't admittedly I I wouldn't expect China to provide the most accurate data but um or India for that matter but when you look at at efforts to improve uh emission quality the United States has a prevalence of 8.7%. China has one of 2.2%.
▶ 1:32:15and and anyone who's ever been to China will tell you that the air quality there is substantially worse than here. So, there's just a a a lot of information out there that that I think uh requires a little different narrative. Um I think part of the the problem is from the narrative from my colleagues on on the other side of the aisle is that the EPA regulations only impact large businesses and that's that's not true.
▶ 1:32:43Uh so I think when you look at the overall impact and whether it's homebuilders, whether it's small manufacturers, we're literally regulating our economy. We have in been regulating it into oblivion to make it to get us to the point where we're no longer competitive. I I was asked to be on a panel with members of the European Parliament and we were talking about this and I said, you know, China subsidizes their companies.
▶ 1:33:11they they cut up they they don't follow the rules that we follow whether it's wages in some cases slave labor uh and how do we respond we tax our companies and we regulate them to the point that they're not even competitive within our own markets and I I think u part of what all of us have got to come to a realization of is is you know we've got to have sensible regulation we're not in competition with Europe we're not in competition with with Canada it's the west in competition with China and I
▶ 1:33:41I think it's time that we sat down and had a very serious discussion about the regulations that we need, the tax policy that we need. That's what we're trying to do with this bill that they they're so uh adamantly opposed to is we're trying to get to a position where we can bring back these industries that we're going to need for our economic security and national security. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Gentlemen yields. Chair now recognizes Mr. Ruice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:34:12Uh, at the heart of today's hearing is the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, our nation's baseline for breathable, safe air. These standards are designed to limit how much of certain harmful pollutants can be in the air. And yet, rather than strengthening these standards, my Republican colleagues are once again choosing a familiar path, chipping away at policies that protect the environment and the health of the American people.
▶ 1:34:37So let's let's be clear weakening these standards mean more pollution more illness and more deaths and and uh these knacks protect our health environment and also vulnerable communities. Uh fine particular matter is microscopic pollution so small that they can enter our blood right straight through the lungs. They're tied to asthma, heart disease, lung damage, and early death.
▶ 1:35:06And in communities like mine, the consequences are dire. In California's 25th district, we've been classified as an EPA non-attainment area for years, meaning our air quality consistently fails to meet the national healthbased standards set by the federal government. Riverside County has been flunked by the American Lung Association, receiving an F for annual particle pollution. Uh, Mr. walk.
▶ 1:35:30Is it correct that the new Knack standards have consistently provided significant health benefits for communities, especially our most underserved? Absolutely, Mr. Ru. It's and and they will continue to do so if we let them. Um uh you know, the the the state of California has about 10% of the manufacturing in this country. It's the fourth largest economy in the world. It also happens to have the greatest air pollution challenges in the United States.
▶ 1:35:58Uh, and yet the California Air Resources Board strongly opposes these bills because they know that protecting health and children's health especially is compatible with economic growth and they know that deadly fine particle pollution kills far too many Americans that we can prevent by upholding the law. Well, that's that's why I'm so concerned about these legislative proposals that would delay and weaken these standards. Last Congress, we examined changes to the PM2.5 standard, which is projected to save thousands of lives. Mr.
▶ 1:36:27Wall, can you share why it is why it was critical for EPA to follow the science when the agency revised the PM2.5 Knack standard? It it was critical because PM2.5 is responsible for more premature deaths than any other air pollution in this country and around the globe. EPA found that strengthening the standards would avoid 4500 premature deaths every year as a result of this. And Congressman, I'm a little puzzled by some of this conversation. These bills do not eliminate Clean Air Act permitting.
▶ 1:36:57So, it sounds really like what's going on here to me is they just don't want the PM2.5 standard to be strengthened. They don't want it to be in place at all so that permits would have to be obtained to meet those stronger limits. And so, if EPA had considered uh industry costs during the standard setting process, how might that have impacted the standard and what would be the downstream effects for communities rural and impoverished like mine?
▶ 1:37:22I I don't think EPA would have strengthened the standard and in fact that's what the Trump administration did as it was walking out the door on December 23rd, 2000. They refused to strengthen the standard and I think they were just secretly considering costs and the Biden administration properly reconsidered those standards as the law has always allowed for four decades. Uh and that's why we now have safer standards protecting more American lives. Thank you. As as an emergency physician, you know, I've seen the impact of this pollution up close.
▶ 1:37:49kids wheezing through asthma attacks, seniors collapsing from respiratory distress. And these are not data points. They are people and they are depending on us to act. But instead of standing with their constituents, uh, Republicans are standing with corporate polluters. Last Congress, committee Republicans voted for the bills being discussed today. Uh, these are disastrous bills.
▶ 1:38:13And now they're back once again moving these bills and trying to delay and derail these public health standards. Uh let's be honest, they're not defending public health. They're not defending Medicaid or working families. They're defending polluters and profit margins. And the cost is measured in ER visits, missed school days, missed work, and lives cut too short. So people will die.
▶ 1:38:39Uh, as we've seen, people who live in high polluted areas live 10 years less than people who live in non- high polluted areas. The evidence is there. High pollution kills people earlier than what was intended. Uh, and we must uphold and enforce the national ambient air quality standards, not weaken them.
▶ 1:39:02I yield Now recognize the chairman of the health subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you for being here. It's extremely important. Um, you know, balancing America's air quality with economic development begins with implementing common sense legislation. I think we'd all agree on that. EPA reviews national ambient air quality standards and on a five-year interval.
▶ 1:39:33After establishing a national ambient air quality standard, states assume the primary responsibility for implementing and enforcing the um these rules. This is an extremely timeconsuming process, one that takes years and years. I've got a bill. It's called the Clear Act that would give states the time needed to implement standards without rushing the process. And I think that's very important.
▶ 1:39:57This bill also allows states the opportunity to correct deficiencies found by EPA in state implementation plans for knacks before EPA can issue a federal implementation plan. The Clear Act offers common sense solutions. Common sense solutions to make attaining clean air standards realistic while giving states the time necessary to comply. Dr.
▶ 1:40:21Boland, I want to ask you um you're obviously very familiar with implementing clear air quality standards and policy. Can you tell me more about the implementation process for these kind of rules that we're talking about Uh yes. So for um for the implementation for the attainment and the non-attainment areas um for attainment areas uh there's a lot of hurdles for getting new permits implemented.
▶ 1:40:48Um, in fact, the last time the PM standard was um dropped from 15 micrograms to 12 micrograms, we had four non-attainment areas and we had zero new large projects go into those areas until the areas were designated back to attainment many years later. In addition, the areas that were um attainment, there was still little headroom that the number of new projects even in the attainment areas declined sub substantially in those areas.
▶ 1:41:13Um so that's kind of what we're looking at with the the new standard of um nine micrograms here in Georgia. Okay. Well, let me ask you this. Um lowering the knack standards, how does it impact you on the local and state Yeah. So um when the when the um Knax is lowered um there's a process to go through for designations. It's very resource intensive. Um we have to make recommendations to EPA on areas that are attainment or nonattainment.
▶ 1:41:42It also involves the evaluation of exceptional events particularly in Georgia for um prescribed fires. Um that we had a team of 14 people recently working on just on exceptional events um to be able to get them submitted to EPA. So once we go through the designation process, then a new lower standard does make it much more difficult to issue permits um and then the the resources become um much tougher.
▶ 1:42:07Working with the um companies to see if there's ways to find compromises and things like that, but in in the end sometimes projects just need to be denied because there's not enough headroom to issue the permit. Okay. Well, you know, we've had a lot of discussion in this subcommittee about the um PM2.5 standard and um whether it's too close to background levels or not. Um is that you just mentioned wildfires, is that um something that can lead to non-compliance, do you think? Yes.
▶ 1:42:35So, wildfires, you know, we had the Canadian wildfires that impacted the Northeast and Midwest, but it also impacted the Southeast. So, wildfires definitely can impact um compliance as well as uh prescribed fires, which um your bill would specifically call out prescribed fires as um as events that could be removed um when comparing um making the comparison um to the Knacks. And isn't that what we call common sense? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you.
▶ 1:43:04Uh let me ask you this. Georgia for 11 years in a row, we've been number one state in which to do business. One of the primary reasons for that is our availability and affordability of energy. Now the the current PM2.5 and other knack standards, does it pose a threat to the development of energy projects in in Georgia? Uh yes it does. Um in fact I spent um four years as um the Georgia EPD leaison to our Georgia Department of Economic Development.
▶ 1:43:33And when I'm at with new companies looking to locate in Georgia, the first question they ask is um is this a nonatimary? And if the answer is yes, the they're they're not looking at it. And then they're looking at how much headroom there is for for new projects. Um but yes, this is a a serious concern um with the lower PM standard that the ability to permit new projects um will be very difficult. Thank you for that and thank you for all thank all of you for being here. Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back. Gentleman yields back now.
▶ 1:44:02Recognize the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from New Jersey for five minutes of question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, today we're back again considering harmful legislation to undermine the heart of the Clean Air Act. And these discussion drafts are more of the same, creating loopholes and providing giveaways to industry at the expense of the people's health. And proponents are rehashing old, misleading arguments to justify these proposals. Every time EPA proposes a new policy, we hear arguments for why it can't be done.
▶ 1:44:31These arguments rely on exaggerated claims about implementation costs, job losses, and minimal health benefits. But we've heard all of these doomsday claims before. Over and over again, these claims have turned out to be simply wrong. So, Mr. Wilkey, can I ask what does the history of the Clean Air Act tell us about the relationship between environmental, health, and safety regulations and a strong economy? Thank you, Mr. Palone.
▶ 1:44:58It's it's one of the greatest success stories of of any US law in my opinion. we have had, you know, 400% plus growth in uh GDP over the period that the Clean Air Act has reduced emissions by, you know, 78 to 90%. And so all of these doomsday scenarios, um I've been hearing them for 32 years as a Clean Air Act attorney. 37 for me. The same old same old. Congratulations, sir. Thank you.
▶ 1:45:25Well, one of the exaggerated Republican claims being circulated about the EPA's PM 2.5 standards is that it's simply impossible and the majority of counties around the nation will be a non-attainment. Of course, this is at odds with EPA's own analysis. We have this map here and if you look look at it, it clearly shows that the overwhelming majority of the United States is in light green and these are the counties that already meet EPA's more protective standard.
▶ 1:45:53uh yet the National Association of Manufacturers released a report about the economic effects associated with a stronger PM2.5 standard and that report which has been used to justify undermining Clean Air protections in today's draft bills unsurprisingly paints a much darker picture. So Mr. Wilkey again based on your Clean Air Act expertise what do you think of the manufacturers's report?
▶ 1:46:17Is it realistic to expect the potential economic impacts that they're Uh, Congressman, thank you. That that red pink map we've seen unfortunately today is just is fiction. It was created by consultants for NAM in a report. Uh, as the logo on your map shows, it was produced by EPA. They found that 3.8% of counties nationwide would be in non-attainment and half of those were in California and already failing to meet the older standard.
▶ 1:46:46So, this is a a Californiaentric problem. uh they've got some challenges, but the rest of the country looks nothing like the red and and pink blood bath that we saw in that other map. Let me say one thing about headroom, too. Headroom is a concept that says a new plant should be able to come in and become uh built and permitted um very often at the expense of existing businesses and facilities that are already in that area.
▶ 1:47:13If you allow a new plant to come in that does not have modern air pollution controls, that shifts the burden to the existing plants and facilities that are being asked to do more. Uh that's not the way the law works. Uh this bill doesn't actually eliminate the permitting program. So I think something else is going on. I think they are actually targeting the PM2.5 standard and like the Trump administration uh really aiming to make it go away. Well, thank you. I agree with you.
▶ 1:47:40Since again, you know, since the beginning of the Clean Air Act, polluters have been crying wolf every time EPA has issued a new rule to protect public health. And they claim time and again that a new uh new clean air rule will lead to economic ruin. Those claims never come true. And we know we can have a strong economy while cutting pollution and cleaning the air. Everything points to that.
▶ 1:48:03So, these exaggerated claims are being used to justify this legislation, which I think is dangerous and will leave communities exposed to the harmful impacts of air pollution. And these Republican draft bills once again put corporate polluters over people and will make Americans sicker. Everyone has the right to clean and healthy air to breathe. And I think these drafts undermine that right. And that's why I will continue to oppose them uh for more than the 37 years. And thank you again. I yield back, Mr.
▶ 1:48:32Chairman, gentleman yields back and now recognize the gentleman from Texas for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to come to you all with a simple yes or no answer. Mr. Whiteitman, you're hearing about from the other side that we want to put polluters over people. Does that sound absurd? Yes or no? We want a clean energy environment, don't we? Does that sound absurd? 84% of the emissions come from non-point sources like wildfires. So, that's a yes. Dr. And you think that's absurd that they that people to think that we want to put polluters over children?
▶ 1:49:02I'm sure Mr. No, I'm going to come to you next. Yes, sir. Okay. I'm going to stay with you, Mr. No. We seem to be looking at two different maps. Yeah. How would Why is that, do you think? Well, it's very misleading to look at the map that was just shown because those are EPA projections and I won't get into the details, but the point is that's showing the projections of who's in attainment. That's misses the point.
▶ 1:49:28What this map shows you is uh the whole country lights up on who is going to have permit gridlock. And that's the problem. Our industry, as I said, by and large is in cleaner attainment areas. We're in rural America. But the problem is the way the math works under this the the program. You got to take what's background level. Average in this country is eight. You have a major project, you need an increment of a of three more micrograms. That gets you to 11.
▶ 1:49:57The standard's nine. That's gridlock. That means you can't create jobs. You can't inject uh the local community with prosperity. And you also can't upgrade, which means you can't lower emissions per ton of production. That's why it's so frustrating. It's a lose-lose for jobs and the environment. And all the while, our enemies are outstripping us big time. Not just Absolutely. We've got to compete. Our workers are asking you just let us compete. Pretty simple.
▶ 1:50:27All right, Dr. Bolan, I'm going to come to you if I may. On March 12, 2025, the EPA announced the reconsideration of Biden's administration protected matter PM2.5 standard, which lowered the standard from 12 micrograms per cubic meter to 9. This committee going back to the previous Congress has expressed concerns that the nine level simply is not attainable in many regions without bringing manufacturing, interproduction and infrastructure development to a halt. Did I mention our enemies are outstripping us right now?
▶ 1:50:57So, in your opinion, is the 12 standard a more appropriate balance between protecting public health and while preserving our nation's ability to grow and innovate in spite of our enemies? Yes, I do. Boy, you're easy.
▶ 1:51:12Can you can you sh can you share how the United States has successfully balanced high air quality standards with the needs of industry and what the EPA needs to keep in mind as it considers revising the PM2.5 standard. Yes. So, um you know, none of these bills are looking to remove the um the permitting process, the the analysis that is done, the best available control technology, the lowest achievable emission rate.
▶ 1:51:41Um all those are are in there. It's just it's just um ensuring that the standard is set at a a value that that is achievable when you when you set it a reasonable standard keeping in mind those kids that we loved and the parents and the grandparents that we love. Keep going. That is correct. Um right. And when you you set standards um at or below background values, they're they're impossible to meet and it basically causes permitting gridlock. And in handicaps, as Mr.
▶ 1:52:08No said, industry all the while our enemies are loving every minute of this. Dr. Roland, I'm going to stick with you for a minute. uh given the states that are responsible for developing and implementing state implementation which I was in the state legislature on environmental reg committee when I was back in Texas in 2009 2012 and implementing state implication plans to ensure compliance with EPA's air quality standards how important for it is for those states to have a meaningful role which they love their kids people in those legislatores
▶ 1:52:38want people to thrive they don't want kids to get sick how important is it for them to have something to say meaningful role in the standard setting process to ensure that they can actually implement these standards. How important is that? Yeah, that that's very important. Um and and specifically, you know, getting more state regulators on the case is important because many of the academic researchers, they understand the science, but they don't understand how it translate into the Knack, which in involves not just a number, it's it's a level, it's an averaging period, it's a form.
▶ 1:53:08Um you know, and there's many of the academic researchers don't understand the importance of the risk and exposure assessment. In fact, the last ozone study, they didn't even want to they didn't even want to see a risk in exposure assessment. They looked at some epi studies and said the number should be 55, which just really m didn't make sense. It's like they're trying to pull a rabbit out of the hat just to Anyway, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield Gentleman yields back.
▶ 1:53:33Now recognize uh the gentle lady from California for her five minutes of questioning. Uh thank you. Thank you, Mr. uh Mr. walk. we just heard an exchange about fiction and absurdity and pulling rabbits out of a hat. Is there anything that you want correct from that conversation for the American people that are watching today? Sure. I'd like to uh, you know, address this constant charge of permitting gridlock.
▶ 1:54:03That word has been you that term has been used a lot today. What what's what what you won't find for it is the the evidence in testimony presented today or in the prior two hearings that would remotely justify eliminating Americans right to safe air over some problems that have been identified. This system is not perfect. They've given us some examples of things that should be improved.
▶ 1:54:28But in the in the exchange that just happened, I think we had something really useful happen that I want to bring attention to. Um, and one of the answers to Mr. Weber's question, it it became clear that permitting gridlock is just a euphemism for eliminating the right to safe air by claiming that it's not attainable or that we should be considering feasible costs. Excuse me, sir. Oh, it's Mrs. Ms. Baragon's time. Go ahead, sir.
▶ 1:54:58And I expect to have that extra time. Yes, ma'am. And so I you know I I I do want to emphasize that the focus on implementation and permitting in particular where Dr. Boland correctly said that this does not change the permit process. Okay.
▶ 1:55:17In the implementation section of the bill rather it's the attack on the health foundation of setting standards that guarantees Americans right to safe air. That's really the target of this bill. We will continue to have permitting and we should for new facilities coming into an airhed using modern air pollution control technology. They would like the PM2.5 standard to disappear. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Walk.
▶ 1:55:46And I think the um the member that was interrupting you is indicate indicating of they don't like to be challenged and and the answers that are given uh they don't like the fiction to be corrected. So, thank you for doing that. Um, the Trump EPA and House Republicans claim that weaker clean air regulations will spur economic growth.
▶ 1:56:08But according to a recent Associated Press investigation, these roll backs could lead to up to 30,000 premature deaths annually and wipe out $275 billion in public health benefits each year. Mr.
▶ 1:56:20Chairman, I'd like to enter into the record the Associated Press article entitled, "Trump EPA rollbacks would weaken rules projected to save billions of dollars and thousands of lives." The article highlights Jessica Blazer, whose 11-year-old son, Julian, has multiple health conditions that make him more sensitive to air quality, which can make breathing, quote, feel like a knife sometimes, end quote. Jessica said, "These roll backs, quote, are almost adding insult to injury end quote." and it's on the staff list, so we'll make sure we get it put in the record.
▶ 1:56:50Thank you, Mr. Walk. Um, I have a district that is heavily uh has heavy air pollution. I'm surrounded by freeways and ports. Kids uh play in parks with inhalers around their necks because of the air pollution. Can you talk about how weaker air standards will affect school attendance and student Uh yes, Miss Bergen.
▶ 1:57:13There have been numerous studies that show that um attention in school uh is is uh dramatically worsened in districts like your own unfortunately due to air pollution. We know that mercury and lead both neurotoxins uh begin damaging u the developing fetus all the way up through children that that breastfeed due to uh the mother's milk being contaminated by those neurotoxins.
▶ 1:57:41Uh and yet we've had um a Congressional Review Act resolution in this Congress that rolled back um air toxic safeguards under uh the Clean Air Act for the first time in the law's history. Uh we've got the administrator uh announcing that he wants to conduct the greatest roll back in US history of nine hazardous air pollution standards.
▶ 1:58:05We are expecting at 2 o'clock this afternoon roll backs of the mercury and air toxic standards for power plants that burn coal. And all of these roll backs will have devastating impacts on the health of children, sending them to ERS, causing them to miss school, causing them to s suffer learning deficiencies and even uh you know saddling them from an early early life with diminished IQ as a result of damage that was done to them before they were even born.
▶ 1:58:34Well, thank you for pointing that out because we apparently uh love our children too and our grandchildren too. Um except we don't want them to go to the hospital and suffer those and um other people I guess feel differently and they're okay with having kids suffer and not get the air quality that they deserve and the clean air they deserve. I yield back. Gentle yields back. Now recognize uh the gentleman from Pennsylvania for five minutes of questioning.
▶ 1:59:01Uh thank you chairman and thank you ranking member Tonka for holding today's important hearing. Thanks to the panel for testifying here today. Important context for this hearing is understanding that America's air quality is among the best in the world and that the US emissions have steadily decreased over the past several decades even as economic input and output has changed.
▶ 1:59:26We observe this trend because of the fact that reasonable clean air standards lead to economic growth and that this economic growth spurs innovation and investment in technology that ultimately reduces emissions without sacrificing output.
▶ 1:59:44We need to balance public health and clean air goals with the reality that attainable standards standards will not only hurt the American economy but also disincentivize development of the more efficient technologies necessary to continue to lower US emissions. Mr. Whiteitman, I'd like a clarification of some previous discussion we've had. Could you explain the data differences between the two maxes that were recently discussed?
▶ 2:00:13We do. Thank you for the question, uh, Mr. Joyce. Uh, so I just wanted to talk a little bit about the differences between the two maps that we've seen here today. Uh, the map that, uh, uh, was put together that we presented and talked about actually looks at more recent data, data that actually incorporates the fires from 2023, which is missing from the EPA map, which we just saw previously. Uh and that's one of the big reasons why we see such a massive increase in unattainment areas.
▶ 2:00:42Everybody remembers here in Washington DC uh when we had two weeks of uh red haze in the sky because of the emissions uh coming down from from Canada. The other thing is uh EPA only looks at the monitored areas to determine uh non-attainment areas and they didn't look at adjacent areas. So therefore, we did and when you have adjacent areas to non-attainment areas, you can expect them too to have issues.
▶ 2:01:07Um, and finally, I'll just mention that EPA has a habit of underestimating the non-attainment areas. In the 20205 Knax, they estimated 14 counties out of California to be out of attainment with a knack. The last time I looked at EPA's green book, there were over 143 counties that are out of attainment with the ozone knack. Uh so the issues can be significant. Um uh it's a real issue. You have to look at the the recent data.
▶ 2:01:33Uh and unfortunately uh the prior estimates have been uh underestimated and we think our maps are much more accurate. Thank you for that clarification. Dr. Bolan, in your testimony, you discussed how the lack of headroom in some areas due to the stringent 2024 annual PM 2.5 standards hurts economic development, even in attainment areas that comply with the current Knacks.
▶ 2:01:57Can you discuss how these overly burdensome standards can prevent the permitting and development of innovative projects such as data centers that we desperately need? Yes. So, it goes back to the headroom issue with the with the map. If you looked at the map of in Georgia, um it had a lot of red areas and then a lot of pink areas making it very difficult. The pink areas being the the attainment areas.
▶ 2:02:20Um with so little little headroom and the amount of energy that is going to be required for these data centers, it's going to be very challenging to be able to um permit all the new um power generation that is going to be needed to to power this industry. By creating an inhospitable environment for these projects, data centers you you mentioned, we will lose out on investment in American innovation to countries like China, which lacks truly any meaningful environmental regulations. Dr.
▶ 2:02:50Bolium, would you agree that seeding our investment opportunities to foreign adversaries who do not have clean air requirements not only harms the US economy but is incompatible with the ultimate goal of protecting the environment? Yes, I would agree with that. Mr. Whitman, do overly aggressive and burdensome environmental regulations threaten our global They're really challenging.
▶ 2:03:16uh they're micromanaging businesses and aren't providing the opportunities for us to innovate which we do best. In the same vein, in order to encourage investment and project sponsors, they need to have the predictability when they choose to invest their resources that will not be burdened with unforeseen costs.
▶ 2:03:36Unfortunately, PSD projects that submitted previously but not finalized before the effective date of tighter standards are not grandfathered in will be forced to invest resources to update their permitting. Dr. Boland, how will giving more flexibility to projects that are already engaged in the permitting process benefit both the states and the industry stakeholders? Yes.
▶ 2:04:00So, um you're correct that there's no grandfathering in the grandfathering would allow projects that have already um already um in the permitting process to continue through that process and and finish them out. So, it would save a lot of resources for states and industry and rather than having to go back to the drawing board and starting from scratch again. So, short answer, grandfathering in will speed up the process. Yes, that is correct. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is expired. I yield back. I now recognize the gentleman from Florida for his five minutes of questioning.
▶ 2:04:30Thank you, chairman. You know, in Florida, we're peninsula. We're blessed with a naturally uh clean air quality as the breeze just blows through. No mountains to stop it. Uh a lot of this, as you could tell from the maps that have been put up, uh geography has a big effect on it. Uh and we're every one of our counties, including in Central Florida, below the National Air Ambient Quality Standards.
▶ 2:04:55Uh although we are still working on clean air in central Florida with the closing of the OU coal plant. Um natural gas, solar, nuclear are the predominant u power sources in central Florida and uh South Florida. We also see IRA projects including the largest solar plant in North America coming to our area.
▶ 2:05:15Uh although we did see just recently Orange County had an air pollutant ozone at elevated levels on May 23rd primarily due to forest fires uh which uh obviously we're discussing here today and uh a big population with some vehicle pollution and Florida has the second most EVs of any state in the union. That may shock some folks. And then you look at with transportation being the biggest air poller 20% of new vehicles that are bought hybrid and electric. Uh so we see the trends and where they're going.
▶ 2:05:45Another interest we have is uh hurricanes which are getting more extreme and are making insurance rates go up. They're making it intolerable for many Floridaidians. Um and it's making it progressively worse. So why would we want to stop now the progress that we're making? Uh that's not common sense. That makes no sense when we're looking at data centers, AI fabricators for microchips.
▶ 2:06:12You know, I feel like a lot of this conversation is like we're having it 10 years ago. Most of these places, they're going nuclear now. Microsoft 20-year agreement with Three Mile Island. Amazon major agreement with Pennsylvania Susahana nuclear power plant. Google, they're going with small modular reactors and they're adding in wind and solar. And solar power is being used by Apple in Nevada. Uh none of these have significant air pollution.
▶ 2:06:38Uh we just passed last term the Nuclear Advancement Act which uh improved timetables, fee cap, streamlined approval for wellestablished reactor models. Um Mr. Boland, we we saw in Georgia you all just opened the new Vogal power plant. and some of it has been reported in response to the increasing demand for power generation uh in Georgia from AI and data centers.
▶ 2:07:05Um what can you tell us about what the challenges you faced with go Vogle and what we can do to continue to improve the ability to get more nuclear energy online. Yeah. So plant Vogle um while it was the first nuclear reactors built in in 30 years um they were um severely delayed in timelines and and um well over in budget by billions and billions of dollars.
▶ 2:07:31Um I I do think you know increase in in nuclear energy is is um a a good thing. Um however not all of the data centers are being powered by nuclear and clean energy and in Georgia. Uh we have a number of new projects inhouse being evaluated currently for fossil um because fossil is much quicker to get up and running than than nuclear projects that could take uh 10 to 20 years to get online. So what could we do to help? What were some of the obstacles you faced with the Vogle with the new unit at the Vogle plant?
▶ 2:08:00Well, um, so as far as, um, like you mentioned, um, Plant Vogle is a nuclear plant. It doesn't have a lot of air emissions. We we don't actually issue permits for Plant Vogle. Um, it's regulated through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Uh, what we do issue um are very minor permits for backup uh, generators and things like that. Um, and so that that was not a um, a major permitting project for for Georgia, but those are things that we have to improve upon if we're going to continue to provide this power.
▶ 2:08:29Uh we saw Noah through the climate program office uh state that wildfire fires were 25% of all days with unhealthy ozone levels. Mr. Walk, what is the danger if we remove wildfire smoke and wildfire pollution from air quality standards?
▶ 2:08:52Senator Inhof uh amended the Clean Air Act, you know, 20 years ago to ensure that wildfire smoke did not count towards violations of air quality standards. Um and since then we've issued regulations that add prescribed fires uh I think smartly and responsibly to that same practice so that uh states and industries are not penalized for violations of monitors that occur due to prescribed fire. So there's no need to amend the law.
▶ 2:09:22The law already guarantees that and it's a real challenge but it's the the right treatment under the law I So the key is we're promoting management of forests because this is now 25% of what's affecting our our clean air standards across the nation. Isn't that true? Yes, sir. And it comes down from Canada as we remember from last summer or two summers ago in Washington DC when we were blanketed in smog.
▶ 2:09:45It's a it's a real problem for all of us and we believe is driven and accelerated by climate change, but we can all agree that it causes dangerous air pollution. Thank you. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentle lady of North Dakota for five minutes of questioning. Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh thank you all for sharing your expertise with us today. Appreciate this uh really informative discussion.
▶ 2:10:10So North Dakota, where I'm from, is one of only four states that has never violated a federal ambient air standard. And we do that while being one of the largest energy producers in the Yet North Dakota opposed, our state opposed the Knack uh rule change. In fact, we joined more than half the states that sued according against this um new standard.
▶ 2:10:39At the heart of this matter is the health assumptions and the modeling. We all agree that we want clean air for our kids, for our grandkids. It's offensive to suggest that some don't agree with that. And I take great offense at that at those suggestions. We all share that. But we also can all agree that you can get a model to say just about anything you want. And so what's at the core of this um disagreement is the health assumptions.
▶ 2:11:08That's what my state focused on. uh some in the opposition from our D dev department of environmental quality was opposition to some of the technical flaws in the health modeling specifically they failed to use actual models actual air quality versus modeled air quality data. There was assumptions that there is no safe threshold.
▶ 2:11:33So regardless if it was something from smoke or whatever that the factories or the emitters could never affect was considered still not safe. And then the application of urban health impacts to rural states like mine. That just doesn't work.
▶ 2:11:52So I'm curious um to some of the the experts here, what are the uh specifically um Mr. I forget your name from the chamber? Could you talk about further about some of the health uh assumptions and and the health data modeling assumptions that were erroneous or could have been improved in in this current rule proposal?
▶ 2:12:19I think our biggest one of our biggest concerns with uh the proposal was uh EPA uh the standard full review process uh and uh instead of doing the full review and going back and looking at all the science uh they shortcircuited that and and uh and moved forward. So that that's one of our big concerns.
▶ 2:12:41they didn't do the full review which is really required uh and um you know I I think they could have done a better job at looking at the science if they had done that. Okay. Thank you. Um Mr. Walk you talked with uh my colleague from Mr.
▶ 2:12:59Peters about an implementation uh cons concern regarding you know how he asked some very good questions about how how are companies supposed to deal with existing emissions that they can affect and you said that that's an implementation concern but I don't really feel like you got to the heart of the matter in providing like an answer to how is an emitter a factory or a generator an electric power generator supposed to
▶ 2:13:29achieve emissions standards when the emissions in the air are dominated by sources that they can't affect. How are they supposed to deal with that? Well, the the way they're supposed to deal with it and the way the law has worked for over 50 years is that first, states and industry are not responsible for controlling emissions that are uncontrollable. No one's asking them to do things that can't be done.
▶ 2:13:56And so the law has mechanisms to ensure that things like wildfire smoke doesn't count towards how they receive their permits or whether air quality standards are met. And that's what I was addressing in my my comments. But the the question of permitting gridlock, as I think we've seen here today, is really not about implementation.
▶ 2:14:18It's about an attack on the standards and whether they are too safe in one version or too low in another version. And that's why I think the the focus should be on what the bill really does. The Clear Act, especially as Dr. Boland said, facilities still have to get the required permits and meet the modern air pollution control technology and attainment and nonattainment under the Republican bills. And I'm grateful for that.
▶ 2:14:47I think that's the responsible thing to do, but why doesn't that lead to permit gridlock just as much as requiring it for a safer standard? So, the attack is really on the safer standards because we're still requiring permits. U the attack seems to be on on I agree with you on the standard and the fact that more than half of the states oppose this says an awful lot about that standard and whether it's accurate or not. Thank you. I yield back.
▶ 2:15:24Gentle lady yields back. Now recognize Mr. Lansman for five minutes of questioning. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh and thank you to all of our witnesses for being here and uh and engaging. uh the the proposal that we're discussing today could fundamentally change the way air quality standards are are pursued implemented in this country and and that has enormous implications for our children our families our communities uh as part of the proposals
▶ 2:15:55uh the the the worry as as as we're hearing is that the way in which we use science and could be changed in in in prioritizing um or in in setting these standards. So this is unfortunately not the only way in which science that informs these health protective standards has been diminished.
▶ 2:16:25Um, so Administrator Zelden announced uh that they would shutter the office of research and development uh which affects my district in southwest Ohio significantly affects the entire country just from an employment standpoint affects us uh and would fire nearly 1,200 dedicated public servants that conduct uh the office's work. It is the scientific backbone, if you will, of the EPA.
▶ 2:16:55Not only will this plan have a negative impact on the research conducted by the agencies, but the actions uh are have real impact on uh again my district, our constituents. Mr. walk. Um, how does the EPA's work with thin OAD uh inform EPA's work to address address uh air pollution? Uh, thank you, Congressman.
▶ 2:17:21Oh, the Office of Research and Development Scientists work touches on every aspect of air pollution control at EPA in ways that you couldn't even describe in a full day's hearing with the intricacy of of the analysis and the worldclass research. And it was just even to me breathtakingly reckless that they would uh shutter that office. Far more extreme than anything they did in the first term.
▶ 2:17:47Um just two days ago they announced quietly that they're cancelling a worldclass air quality research lab in North Carolina. It didn't get much attention, but this is a systematic attack on uh the science and the scientists that inform health safeguards and protections for the American people. I had uh heard somewhere recently that government sometimes uh is in the business of providing investments and supporting uh folks and trying to improve their lives.
▶ 2:18:16But it's also about mitigating risk. These these societal risks uh that uh if government doesn't stand in the way or try to mitigate those risks, terrible things will happen. And I'm I'm curious based on your extensive experience um what what are the implications of shuttering OAD? I mean what what what are the risks that we will start to deal with because we're no longer using OD?
▶ 2:18:45So, OARDD, among other things, provides um invaluable research into the hazards and harms of of classes and chemicals like PCBs and dioxins and other chemicals that make their way into products that go into consumer products and can get into the food supply and the water supply.
▶ 2:19:04And so they are, you know, the the scientific canary in the coal mine that alerts us to those future risks while at the same time providing the, you know, the leg work for the the the scientific studies and analysis that goes into trying to protect us against deadly levels of PM2.5 pollution. Um, alerting us to uh new chemical risk that we haven't even known about.
▶ 2:19:28It's hard to keep up with uh industry and industrious uh chemists in this country and OD is in part our bull work against that trying to provide the government with a a fair assessment of dangerous chemicals before they go into the marketplace and and end up in our food and shampoo and water and places that we can't do anything about. And who benefits?
▶ 2:19:50I mean, you know, obviously this is a committee that has there's bipartisan support for permitting reform and and and and getting things done built faster. Uh you also want to make sure that we're using science and research to inform how we protect people. Uh undermining that obviously has a negative impact on kids, families, all of us. Who benefits and who why do this?
▶ 2:20:16Congressman, honestly, I don't think anyone benefits unless you adopt kind of a short-term quarterly mentality that profits and your, you know, the the stock values are important because really it's the it's it's companies producing the chemicals and pushing them out into the marketplace that now we're facing shorter abbreviated inadequate reviews. It doesn't help their families or their uh workers to h to have that happen or long-term their businesses. Thank you. And I I yield back. Gentleman is back now.
▶ 2:20:44recognize gentle lady from Iowa for her five minutes of questioning. Uh thank you chairman Griffith and ranking member Tonko for holding this important hearing today. And I also want to thank our witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee. Over the past two decades, the US has proven that environmental progress and economic growth aren't mutually exclusive. We've dramatically improved air quality while expanding energy output. In Iowa, our farmers and manufacturers rely on stable, smart policy to keep innovating and growing.
▶ 2:21:13and also to compete economically around the globe. As we look to the future, any new regulations must support, not stifle, the backbone industries of our heartland. Mr. Boland, the discussion draft before the subcommittee today reforms several counterintuitive and outdated portions of the Knack program uh in AAQS, excuse me. Uh for example, it extends the timelines to conduct the Knax process from 5 to 10 years.
▶ 2:21:39How many times has the EPA completed a knack review within the statutory mandated five years? Um, as far as I know, the um 2020 um o the 2020 review um was last reviewed in 2015 which would would have been one time but technically was actually five years and three months. So even technically that one didn't make the five years. So, and as someone who has served on CASAC, can you explain to the committee why it's such an important role and your thoughts on increasing state representation?
▶ 2:22:10Uh, yes. So, um, typically the the case act is more academic researchers who under understand the underlying science, but they don't really understand how the underlying science is translated into the knack.
▶ 2:22:24Um from that standpoint the NAX includes an averaging period a form a stat a statistical form and a level and an indicator of pollutant and um that is understood through a risk and exposure assessment and many of the academic researchers don't um understand the value of the risk and exposure assessment um which basically translates the basic science into an equivalent knack and um a lot of state regulators deal with um design values every single day and and really understand that that's we should
▶ 2:22:54have more state regulators on there. As a physician who's been both in academic medicine as well as in the field, if you say in the community, I certainly understand and would uh echo that sentiment. And can you tell me how the exceptional event process has unfolded in Georgia? Yes. So in Georgia, um as the map was showing, we have a lot of red areas. many of those areas for PM2.5.
▶ 2:23:18Um, some of those were caused by Canadian wildfires, but a majority of them were caused by prescribed burns where we burn 1.5 million acres per year to prevent the the wildfires. And it's been a very successful program. Um, but I will say that the amount of exceptional events we've had to do, um, we actually recently turned inund 129 exceptional events to EPA for approval, the majority of which were prescribed fire, some were Canadian wildfire. Um, and it was a huge resource.
▶ 2:23:47We had 14 people on my staff working on this on this project over the last year and a half. Um, and now we're actually turning to do exceptional events for the 2024 data. It's almost a never-ending process. And and would the process of extending timelines and or uh the uh PM2.5 would that uh hamper you from being able to do prescribed burns to prevent uh drastic wildfires? I'm sorry. So, could you repeat the question? I'm sorry. Uh the uh EPA's guidelines on uh PM2.5.
▶ 2:24:16Um so, the the this the standards. Yeah. So, um, if EPA EPA has not yet approved any of our exceptional events, um, and so I I don't know if I can, you know, if they can approve the exceptional events, um, that would be great. Um, right now, the exceptional events are not part of the Clean Air Act.
▶ 2:24:36Um, in fact, the the description of exceptional events is almost contrary to prescribed burning and that that is the reason why um, I feel strongly that specifically prescribed burning should be added into the act. So, you answered my question. So, uh, thank you for that. Mr. No, in your testimony, you describe the permitting gridlock crisis that occurs when a knack is changed.
▶ 2:24:57How does the immediate application of the revised PM2.5 Knacks to PSD permitting in attainment areas contribute to permitting gridlock despite those areas still meeting the new standard? Thank you, Congresswoman. I think the map shows it best because so much of the country lights up either in red nonattainment or even these attainment areas where you've got permit gridlock now pink.
▶ 2:25:21But I'll tell you, I I put a chart in my written statement on page 15 that's complicated, but it makes a really important point. This really is the first time in the history of the Clean Air Act where the permit gridlock problem is unique because this is the first time in the history of the Clean Air Act where the standard is so low. It's literally one click above background levels that the average level in the US.
▶ 2:25:50In some areas it it's um you know it's below background. Um, but because we're in that situation, that's why that map lights up and so much of your state is lit up in that and these other members. Um, and you know, that's a shame not just for jobs again and the economy, that's a shame for progress because the typical project's going to bring efficiency, which is lower emissions per ton of production.
▶ 2:26:19We all should want the modernization of our manufacturing sector. Thank you. My time's expired. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back now. Recognize the gentleman from Louisiana. First five minutes of questioning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and and thank our witnesses for being here today. Um, you know, I've heard repeatedly said from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that u we have the best air quality uh in the world.
▶ 2:26:43according to IQ Air Global Rankings shows that major US cities frequently fall outside the world's top demonstrating that that statement is not correct. Meanwhile, some countries and territories like Bahamas, Bermuda, and New Zealand consistently outperform the US in terms of cleaning cleaner air on Um we know that 1980 2006 emissions in carbon dioxide, sulfide dioxide, lead and part particulates in
▶ 2:27:14the US have fallen lower under the clean act and EPA measures. Yet uh we still are losing despite progress in chronic exposure to fine particulate matters in the US still causes an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 premature deaths annually which means we can do better. Uh it's not a us against them. It's not a one or the other. We can do better.
▶ 2:27:42The notion that we have the cleanest air compared to what people are still dying. people are still getting chronic diseases as a result of pollutants in the air. So, we have nothing to celebrate. There's there's nothing to pat ourselves on the back about. You know, I represent a community in Louisiana that unfortunately has the dubious distinction, and I hate even saying it because the pain associated with it. Um, nicknamed cancer alley.
▶ 2:28:09It's an indust industrialized stretch along the Mississippi River which suffers from high cancer rates among residents believed to be linked to industrial pollution. I've heard stories of people who lost their families. I've seen the pain and suffering of people who have talked about their loved ones who have died because of their close proximity. You know, we can't accept a false choice between public health and economic growth. We can have both.
▶ 2:28:32Congress can and must work with both communities and industries to set fair science-based uh solutions to pollution standards to protect people without shutting down jobs. Many companies are already stepping up. Many have a long way to go because cleaner technologies and responsible practices aren't just good for health, they're good for business. Communities must be safe. Clean air, clean water. If we expect industry to survive, you have to have healthy employees.
▶ 2:29:03We know that um once a a national ambient air quality standard is in place, states and industries get to work on how best to meet it. Along the way, we develop more effective and less expensive pollution control technologies. Not only is our air cleaner due to the clear clear clean air act, but we know now also export tens of billions of dollars of pollution control equipment worldwide.
▶ 2:29:33We've seen this happen over and over again. But the discussion of draft being considered today would undermine EPA's ability to set forth health protective air quality standards and drive the development of pollution control technology rejecting an approach that has been successful for over five Mr. Walk, why is it so important for EPA to have the ability to set strong enforcable air quality standards?
▶ 2:30:04Thank you, Congressman. because over 156 million Americans live in parts of the country where the air is not safe and that's based on health standards that themselves are not protective. So the problem is bigger than the 156 million. It's actually uh much bigger because we are allowing unsafe air pollution levels to persist today and and calling them healthy based on outdated science.
▶ 2:30:32Uh, President Trump doesn't believe in climate change, but he's talks about air pollution and water pollution. Um, they issued a make America healthy again report. Dr. Walk, I don't want to cut you off. I appreciate that because I really want to get to Dr. Borland in my my final seconds. Dr. Borland, the coperative federalism model allows EPA to set clean air goals and allow states to decide how to best achieve them. Before joining Congress, I served in Louisiana State Senate, so I'm very familiar with difficult budgetary decisions states are forced to make.
▶ 2:31:01Uh, that's why I'm dismayed by the proposed cuts to state funding and EPA's budget request. Dr. Borland, would a cut to EPA's resources and state grants hurt your state's ability to comply with clean air regulations? Yes, a cut a cut in our budget grants that we get from EPA would definitely um hurt us. Yes, thank you. I agree. The federal government needs to be a strong partner with our states if we're going to protect the environment and public health. that includes robust and reliable federal resources.
▶ 2:31:31Unfortunately, my Republicans are ignoring the dangers of toxic pollution and putting polluters over people. We can, we must do better. This is not a partisan issue. This is about lives. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the vice chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Krenshaw, for five minutes. Thank you to both chair and ranking member for holding this uh important hearing today. It's been a great conversation.
▶ 2:31:56um and especially regarding I I think what are very common sense and frankly quite mild changes to uh the national ambient air quality standards uh under the Clean Air Act. Look, there's a there's radical environmentalism and there's rational environmentalism and I'm certainly environmentalist, but I'm a rational one and I would hope we all are. Um it's important to protect the air and water of course. Uh but as policy makers, we deal with trade-offs. That's what policym is. There's no perfect solutions to anything.
▶ 2:32:25there are only trade-offs and you can't hold two contradicting ideas in your head. One being that you know what got well we need more energy or at least at least 50 to 100% more energy over the next 50 years. That's pretty commonly understood. Um we want to reshore manufacturing on especially on critical items like critical minerals uh processing or or uh or medical manufacturing. That's actually on the same committee. That's that exact hearing is going on downstairs.
▶ 2:32:53But you can't say that, but also say, "Look, we we we we have to create limits to to to any of that manufacturing, basically making it impossible to build anything new." You can't hold both of those ideas in your head at the same time. Um, and also, let's stop with the the the catastrophizing. Um, and I want to let the American people know that luckily that this this this this crisis mode that everybody says we're in is just not true.
▶ 2:33:20The facts are air quality in the US has been improving, not deteriorating. According to EPA's own data, the concentration of the six critical pollutants are down almost 80% in recent decades. Meanwhile, uh population has gone up, economic activity has skyrocketed, and energy demand has also massively increased. So, this this this crisis isn't true. That doesn't mean that the first regulation wasn't a good thing. But let's have a little thought experiment. One regulation being good doesn't mean 10 more are necessary.
▶ 2:33:51There has to be a logical limit. And I think the the legislation that we've been proposing is is just assessing those trade-offs more properly. You know, more than 80% of 2.5 emissions, they come from sources other than the manufacturing that we're talking about. We're talking about our cities being so polluted. I live when I live here in DC, right next to a highway. Yeah. I get a lot more dust than my home in Houston. A lot more. is it's from the highway. Are there manufacturing plants around me that I'm not aware of?
▶ 2:34:21I don't think so. You know, so so these are coming from sources um like that are that other than manufacturing in the power sector. They're coming from wildfires and road dust. And we're getting to this point as assessed where you you've had the largest reduction and Mr. Boland maybe you can help me with this one. We've had the in 2024 Knax rule decreased the limit for PM2. 2.5 by 25%. How does that drastic reduction compare to the past?
▶ 2:34:46Um for PM 2.5 uh the previous reduction was from um 15 down to 12 and then from um 12 down to 9 which which is a huge a huge reduction. 25% is a big reduction. And where did it start? We've been trying to actually research that during this hearing. I I've gotten numbers like 65 75. It started pretty high, didn't it? So that the um just to be clear, there's the annual standard which was started at 15 and there's the 24-hour standard which started at 65 and has now been brought down to 35.
▶ 2:35:17So the annual standard went from 65 to 35. The I'm sorry, the the daily standard went from 65 to 35 and the annual standard went from 15 down to 12 and now down to nine. Okay. You know, and it it obviously begs the question, what's the logical limit? And Mr. Walk, maybe you can tell me like a thought experiment. What's your what's your end goal here?
▶ 2:35:37I mean, it should it go below nine and at what point is have we gone too far on the logical limit of I I guess that's just a a misunderstanding, Congressman. There that's not the way that the law or I view it. The goals are twofold. One, safe air for all Americans. Two, which we've accomplished, as is in your testimony, you talked about how we've accomplished it. That's not true.
▶ 2:36:00The second goal is how much better can you get safe air based upon medical science which is why I can't and won't give you a limit because science tells us what the limit is not a witness at a table who okay say what the science tells us the limit is congressman I I I'm not a scientist I don't have the science before me that's why we need to have scientists doing their job we talk about I mean you keep referring to to the public health and of course that has to be a consideration but you know what else is a consideration when considering public health is economic activity and prosperity and in fact that's probably the primary ary determinant
▶ 2:36:31of public health by far. Um, and that's and and not taking that into account is a disservice to the American taxpayer. And I'm already out of time, but uh had a lot more questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Now recognized the junior member from New Jersey for five minutes of questioning. Thank you, Chairman. No one should worry about the air that they breathe. No one should worry that the air they breathe is unsafe.
▶ 2:36:56That's why Congress established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards to keep excess cancer-causing pollutants like lead and carbon monoxide out of the air. And since 1990, the Knacks have reduced the concentration of criteria pollutants in New Jersey's air by 80% and improve the health of our communities. That's a great thing. But here's the problem. Just weeks after voting to take health care away from 16 million people, Republicans are bringing up draft bills that would weaken vital Clean Air Act protections.
▶ 2:37:26and increase Americans risk of developing serious health conditions conditions. And these drafts don't just endanger the health of our communities. They're bad for the economy and bad for our workers. We're hearing a lot of talk today about permits issued for the highest emitting projects, facilities like factories and refineries. The Clean Air Act requires large new or expanding industrial facilities to get air pollution permits before starting construction. Mr. walk.
▶ 2:37:54Those facilities must commit to installing installing pollution controls and demonstrate that emissions won't produce unhealthy levels of air pollution in the area. Is that correct? That's correct under current law. It's not correct under the bills. Right. And that's the problem that we're going to address in our four minutes together. And if a polluting industrial facility would cause the area in which it operates to violate an air pollution standard, then it must do more to reduce or offset its emissions. Is that correct? That is correct. And under current law, that's before the plant is even built.
▶ 2:38:24So it has plenty of opportunity to get the right controls to get the right result to ensure clean air in the Yes, sir. area was served depending on those particular circumstances. Correct. Agree. Thank you. These permits provide an effective science-based way to protect our communities from dangerous health risk associated with dirty air while supporting businesses and economic growth. But the draft bill, as you alluded to, creates a loophole in the law.
▶ 2:38:47If the EPA fails to meet new procedural requirements, the proposal will allow a facility to get a permit by measuring its emissions against an outdated, less protective air quality standard. Previous witnesses have referred to this as quote amnesty. Mr. Walk, what is the practical effect of allowing a new facility to be permitted under an outdated standard? The effect is it pushes the pollution burden from the plant that will not meet the health standards onto two groups.
▶ 2:39:16The first group is the community and the public that lives around that plant. The second group is other businesses that now will be required to reduce pollution more because we allowed a new plant to be built that's not doing its job. Can you expand on part two and how would existing facilities be impacted by such a change? Uh yes sir. I mean it's a the the Clean Air Act in attainment and nonattainment areas is a zero- sum game. Someone's got to come up with the reductions in order to meet the health standards.
▶ 2:39:44So, if you're not requiring it of the new plant because you're giving them a pass or amnesty or whatever you want to call it, you're putting the burden on existing plants and constituents and and companies in that area to make up for the added pollution that you have failed to address properly. Correct. I appreciate you explaining how this discussion draft would not only harm public health, right, the first group, the community that these facilities would serve in, but it would also hurt industry. Exact the existing facilities. Correct.
▶ 2:40:12This provision shifts the burden of air quality improvements from new to existing industrial facilities, as you alluded to, which would make it more expensive and doesn't make business sense. And it's not just this one section that's bad for business. Environmental protections, specifically, especially Knack, support a key driver of economic growth, our nation's labor force. I consistent consistently hear from Jersey businesses and manufacturers who want to protect and prepare our workforce, not make them sicker.
▶ 2:40:38I'm concerned about what gutting bedrock air quality standards means for workers breathing unsafe air. Mr. Walk, these bills could allow industrial sites to emit more polluted air. Is that correct? That's correct. And ground zero for the air pollution is the workers. That's right. And Mr. Carter acknowledged that in a part of Louisiana that he represents in terms of these high industrial areas where workers are subject to lower air quality, especially if we consider these draft proposals and that would make situations better or worse for workers.
▶ 2:41:09That's a problem. So, yes or no? Do you agree that those effects on workers could worsen if air pollution increases beyond safe limits as a result of these discussion drafts? Yes. All right. And we're here today because Republicans claim that gutting bedrock clean air protections is good for business. But would you agree that harming worker health and productivity would be bad for business, too? I fully agree.
▶ 2:41:33So, the pro business Republicans are actually doing things that would harm existing businesses and make it more expensive for them while creating unsafe air conditions for both the workers inside those facilities and the communities surrounding them. Is that correct? I'll I'll stick with your words. I appreciate I yield back. Gentlemen yields back. Seeing no other members of the committee, I'll now move to those who wish to wave on. It is policy in our committee and I appreciate the witnesses.
▶ 2:42:02I appreciate the witnesses uh being here, but we always allow folks to wave on to our committee. And Miss Dingle wants to wave on and we're more than happy to have her. Miss Dingle, you're now recognized. I should say the gentle lady from uh Illinois is Michigan. Sorry. Trying to put you in Chicago. I apologize. It's been a long day. Please forgive me. Uh the gentle lady from Michigan is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Charity, how much I love him.
▶ 2:42:32So look, all Americans deserve to breathe clean air. Clean air is a basic right and it's the foundation of the Clean Air Act. it. And by the way, I lived through watching the Clean Air Act get passed and it took a long time and I watched a lot of the fights on all sides. But here's the reality. Over 100 million Americans live in areas with unhealthy air. Air pollution contributes to over 100,000 premature deaths annually.
▶ 2:43:02And it hits children, seniors, underserved communities, workers, as it's been discussed the hardest in Michigan. We know the cost of environmental failure from contaminated sites in my district which is one of the was one of the heaviest to the Flint water crisis. And I think we also can all agree that we want efficient permitting.
▶ 2:43:26But that can't come at the expense of health protections like the national ambient air quality standards which save thousands of lives each year. So with respect to my colleagues, you are pushing two draft bills that would delay life-saving clean air standards, let polluters override public health experts, and exempt the most polluted communities from being cleaned up. This is a giveaway to polluters at the expense of everyday Americans.
▶ 2:43:55And to make matters worse, hundreds of EPA employees have been let go since the start of this year, weakening our ability to protect air, water, and public health. health. So, point blank, clean air saves lives and protecting it should be a top priority for all of us. And before I get to my questions, I also having listened to yes, economic security, economic success matters, but I listen to the autos.
▶ 2:44:22I worked for General Motors for 30 years, and I can remember how the company said, "We can't do anything. It's too expensive." 30 years ago, a car sitting in a driveway not going anywhere was dirtier than a car going down a highway today. That's a fact. So, since I've been in Congress, I have fought hard to ensure strong science-based standards, but that they're also balanced with economic growth. We can do both. They're not a conflict. Mr. walk.
▶ 2:44:51Can you explain why the National Ambient Air Quality Standards Process is essential to protecting public cloud, particularly for vulnerable groups like children, the elderly, and lowincome communities? Uh, yes, Mrs. Dingle. It's it's pretty basic. Um, first, the law says you have to make sure health standards are safe to protect humans from dangerous air pollution. Okay?
▶ 2:45:17But then Congress in its wisdom went on to say and especially provide a margin of safety for vulnerable groups like children and the elderly and people who suffer asthmatics. For 55 years that has worked to make the Clean Air Act one of the biggest success stories in the world.
▶ 2:45:36And so I just still am puzzled why we are attacking success when we are protecting our children and elderly and all Americans based on science and not based on cost or economics. So let me ask you this, Mr. Walk to justify this bill. We've heard concerns that new standards would result in significant cost to states and industry. Do you agree with this assessment?
▶ 2:46:02What would be the cost if we delayed implementation or weakened standards? I do agree that they impose significant costs and they impose uh or deliver vastly vastly higher benefits. The Office of Management and Budget routinely identifies the Clean Air Act as the single most successful cost-effective law across all of federal government producing benefits of 60 to1 or 90 to1 higher than their costs.
▶ 2:46:28So by definition, if you weaken those self health protections, you are increasing costs on the American people in the form of hospitalizations and premature death and lots of other things that the law is designed to avoid. Thank you. And that's what we've also got to figure out how you keep that take that into account. Can you one more question. Can you explain how these policy proposals would undermine the science-based framework that currently guides clean air protection?
▶ 2:46:57Well, it eliminates the science-based framework and replaces it with one that uh even the majority has described as based on cost feasibility. Uh an earlier member described this as quite modest I think but it would be cataclysmic and it would be a radical radical overhaul of the law uh overturning Supreme Court decisions and multiple other decisions. It there is nothing modest about that. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:47:23I just want to say we have cut air pollution by 78% since 1970 while growing our economy. We can and must keep leading. And with that, I thank you and yield back. The gentle lady from Michigan yields back. The gentleman from I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. Members may have additional written questions for you.
▶ 2:47:48I'll remind members, you have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the record and I would ask the witnesses to do their best to submit responses within 10 business days of receipt of the additional questions from the members of this subcommittee. I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the documents included on the staff hearing document list. Without objection, so ordered. Uh the subcommittee is hereby adjourned. Thank you all.