▶ 0:00:00companies from investing in costefficient and effective technology. At the core of the Clean Air Act is the idea that we can protect our environment without sacrificing economic growth. In the decades since it passed, the act was largely successful in accomplishing this goal. But that success is threatened by outdated provisions that do not function well today. Clean Air Act, as it stands, holds outdated provisions that punish American job creators for emissions they have no control over.
▶ 0:00:29It discourages wildfire mitigation measures threatening this country's air quality. It risks our economy and national security because of pollution that comes from outside the United States. It threatens our ability to stay competitive in the global artificial intelligence race. Most importantly, it inhibits the United States ability to meet our domestic energy needs. Americans care about clean air. They also care about rising electricity costs in our economy.
▶ 0:00:54They understand that excessive regulation and outdated statutes do not equate to good or effective regulation. They care about technological advancement, not punishing American companies who lead that advancement. The witnesses we hear from today have extensive experience with the challenges presented of these outdated provisions and are well suited to explain their impact. I look forward to their testimony and their feedback on the discussion drafts. In June, we held our first hearing on the need to update the Clean Air Act.
▶ 0:01:22At that hearing, we heard testimony from uh about the billion dollar price tag from Clean Air Act regulations doing little to improve air quality and the state of our economy. At that hearing, my colleagues across the aisle were critical of the proposals discussed because reforms were discussed in prior congresses. They challenged us to introduce novel ideas to reform the Clean Air Act. It's feedback we took seriously.
▶ 0:01:47I encourage the panel witnesses forced today to give us their best solutions for modernizing the Clean Air Act, both novel and previously discussed. Some of these solutions may not be novel, but our permitting problem isn't novel evil either. And it is not getting better. 35 years have passed since this committee meaningfully updated the Clean Air Act. It is our job to make sure that legislation passed out of this chamber is functioning effectively and is updated when needed.
▶ 0:02:14Let's take this opportunity to modernize outof-date legislation and create an effective permitting program that works for the American people. I thank the members of the committee who are leading these efforts and I hope my colleagues take the opportunity to engage in meaningful permit reform. I now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, my friend from New York, Mr. Tonko, for five minutes for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 0:02:44Chair, and welcome to our witnesses. I especially recognize Miss Coons um with Micron. Micron is making historic investments in upstate New York, creating thousands of well-paying jobs and revitalizing communities that have been rusty in recent decades into hubs for the next generation of advanced manufacturing in the United States.
▶ 0:03:04and we're most appreciative grateful for those investments to breathe new life into our region and help secure our nation's future economic competitiveness in such an important and strategic industry. This is an exciting time, but I also recognize there is a right way to develop these types of projects, one that allows for community engagement and mitigation of environmental harms.
▶ 0:03:27And there is a wrong way where we cut corners, take shortcuts, and exempt our way of out of needing to care about pollution and its health consequences. While I do not doubt that some Clean Air Act permitting processes could be re-examined, we should not overlook how effective the law has been historically at allowing our economy to grow while reducing dangerous air pollution.
▶ 0:03:50And as I've said at past hearings, I do not take this past success as evidence that we require a dramatic departure from the law. On the contrary, there is still much more work to do to ensure all Americans can breathe healthy air. More than 156 million Americans are living in places with unhealthy levels of ozone or particle pollution. This is not the first set of proposals to reform the Clean Air Act examined by the subcommittee this year.
▶ 0:04:18And much like that first slate, I have serious concerns with each of the bills before us today. Of all of the bills on the docket, I want to single out the Air Permitting Improvements to Protect National Security Act, which would create a new presidential exemption in the Clean Air Act. Unfortunately, we have already seen EPA and President Trump completely abuse the exemption process established in section 112i4 of the act for national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants.
▶ 0:04:49EPA solicited requests for exemptions from regulated entities and the president has granted them with essentially no public process or This is a horrible, opaque way to manage environmental regulations, allowing the president to handpick individual firms, potentially for political reasons, to receive special treatment at the expense of the people that live near these polluting facilities.
▶ 0:05:13Creating another presidential exemption process after seeing how the existing process has been so brazenly abused by this administration would be a dereliction of our duty as the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Clean Air Act. But with that said, I know there remains significant stakeholder interest in Congress pursuing some version of bipartisan permitting reform.
▶ 0:05:36From my perspective, those negotiations cannot happen while the Trump administration continues to provide zero confidence that any bipartisan agreement in Congress would be honored and implemented as intended. There is a long and growing record of the Trump administration playing favorites among certain technologies and individual firms doing favors for political allies and threatening retaliation against those that object.
▶ 0:06:02Meanwhile, EPA is carrying out a deregulatory agenda that is eroding critical public health protections, including numerous air pollution rules that would have saved thousands of Americans lives. This is not fostering a foundation that will allow bipartisan negotiations to succeed. Finally, I suspect that today it might be suggested that the Clean Air Act has gone 35 years without a major overhaul and is in need of modernization.
▶ 0:06:30Well, people might be surprised to hear that I do not disagree, but modernization of our bedrock environmental laws should not just be a shortorthhand for enacting a deregulatory agenda. We should consider the challenges our country is facing at this moment and develop targeted solutions for them. The 1990 amendments tackled many of the issues of that era, including establishing the acid rain program and putting new emphasis on addressing hazardous air pollutants.
▶ 0:06:58Today, we should seek to provide similar regulatory certainty to meet our current moment. If we are serious about modernizing the Clean Air Act, let's start by enacting a long-term program to phase down greenhouse gas emissions. I would welcome the conversation with the majority about how we can provide appropriate regulatory certainty and compliance flexibility while still allowing us to reduce this dangerous pollution and indeed grow our economy. With that, Mr.
▶ 0:07:28Chair, I yield back.
▶ 0:07:29Thank the gentleman. Uh the chair now recognizes the chairman of the full committee, the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Guthrie, for five
▶ 0:07:37Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for your opening statement and from my friend from New York's opening statement as well, that we can work on what we know is a common goal is that we be China and we have to have the energy and the resources to do it. And I know it's in and we have to have the permitting and so we can move the energy and resources to do it. And so America's job creators have been forced to confront burdensome and unworkable regulations that cost and create unnecessary barriers to growing their businesses. And today we'll have a panel witness.
▶ 0:08:06Thank you all for being here that will testify about the need to pass common sense clean air permitting reforms to reduce unreasonable regulatory burdens while continuing to protect our environment. Protecting our environment and strengthen our economy are not mutually exclusive.
▶ 0:08:22As we heard in our hearing in June on the national ambient air quality standards, regulatory burdens from the Biden Harris administration cost nearly 1.8 trillion dollars and more than 70% of the cost was imposed by the EPA primarily from Clean Air Act rules. Permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act, permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act are often cited as overly complex, timeconuming, and costly.
▶ 0:08:46They also often serve as a disincentive to building new or expanding existing infrastructure and manufacturing even if the project would be better for the environment. Substantive permitting reform under the Clean Air Act is needed for the US to strengthen domestic manufacturing, build critical infrastructure, and meet the growing energy needs and win the AI race.
▶ 0:09:09HR 161 was introduced by Representative Griffith and our four discussion drafts we will discuss today would make targeted changes to the Clean Air Act. They would not gut the Clean Air Act. Instead, they are sort of common sense solutions we need. Our witnesses today will share their firsthand experience with the current regulatory system and challenges they've encountered while trying to grow their business or strengthen their local economies.
▶ 0:09:33This committee has a nuc unique opportunity to enact meaningful reforms and I'm eager to collaborate with members of this committee as we work to consider and achieve the necessary reforms. I appreciate the the time and I will yield
▶ 0:09:48Gentleman yields. Um the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Palone, is um submitting his opening statement for the record. Therefore, it concludes the member opening statements. Uh the chair would like to remind members and and present the committee rules all members opening statements will be made part of the record. I also like to remind members that the fiveminute question rule will be strictly enforced today. I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today and taking the time to testify before the subcommittee.
▶ 0:10:17You will have the opportunity to give an opening statement followed by a round of questions from the members. Our witnesses today are Danny Seiden, president and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Ashley Coons, senior director of environmental health and safety at Micron. Carrie Powell, senior attorney for community health and air program leader at Southern Environmental Law Center. Mark Jvia, vice president for environmental and permitting at Williams Companies.
▶ 0:10:45uh Alli Mzach Halleli, Air Quality Division Administrator at the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and Clint Woods, Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. Uh thank you for being here today. U uh I'd like Are we swearing in our witnesses? Okay. Uh thank all of you for being here today. Mr. Seiden, you recognized for five minutes for uh an opening statement.
▶ 0:11:14Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Tonko, full committee chair Guthrie, Ranking Member Palone, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Danny Sidin. I am the president and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry. And I'm here today on behalf of Arizona businesses, both large and small. At the Arizona Chamber, we represent every sector of our state's economy, from mining to manufacturing, energy, healthcare, and technology. I'm also happy and proud to be here in coordination with the National Association of Manufacturers.
▶ 0:11:44The issues we're discussing here today are very personal for me. Before leading the chamber, I worked for Intel where I saw I saw the impact firsthand of federal permitting decisions have on investment, innovation, and jobs. I've seen how businesses of every size invest heavily in cleaner technologies because they want to be good stewards of their That experience drives my perspective today. Arizona businesses aren't asking for a free pass. They're just asking for a fair chance to grow responsibly.
▶ 0:12:12Arizona is at the center of America's growth story right now. We are attracting historic levels of investment in industries that are vital to outco competing China, strengthening our national security, and providing for our clean energy future. A symbol of that growth is TSMC's decision to invest $165 billion in Arizona, the largest foreign direct investment in United States history. This didn't happen by accident. It's a product of years of smart policies in a competitive environment. Since 1990, our state's population has skyrocketed.
▶ 0:12:42Our GDP has risen by over 550% and vehicle miles traveled have soared. Yet, overall emissions are down That's proof that economic growth and cleaner hair can go hand in hand. Despite this progress and continued rigorous efforts to reduce emissions, Arizona continues to face ozone challenges driven by factors outside of our control. In fact, approximately more than 80% of our ozone comes from other states, from Mexico, from Asia, and natural events like wildfires.
▶ 0:13:13Matter of fact, even if we were to shut down every industrial source in the state and took every car off the road in Phoenix and areas the size of the state of Connecticut, we would not meet the standard. Still, Arizona's businesses are penalized as if they are responsible. This is not just a regulatory burden. It is an economic and strategic threat that could result in projects vital to national security being delayed or stopped. If companies can't build here, they'll build somewhere else, likely in countries with weaker standards. And that's a lose-lose scenario.
▶ 0:13:42To make matters worse, unlike states with long industrial histories, Arizona, which is the newest state in the Great 48, has no emission reduction credits or offsets to rely on. So when a new facility wants to break ground or an existing one wants to expand, there's no offsets for them to purchase. Our bank is empty. It's a regulatory dead end and innovative industries that would reduce emissions long term are blocked from growing. Arizona is at the tip of the spear for this issue as we continue to bring back manufacturing to America.
▶ 0:14:11Though more states will face this problem, especially if standards continue to be set at or below natural brackon levels. I do want to briefly recognize progress already made under EPA administrator Zelden's leadership. Administrator Zeldon came to our state very early on and he took action by rescending outdated section 179B guidance signaling flexibility on unfair non-attainment classifications and recognizing the difference between controllable and uncontrollable sources. EPA is moving towards fairness.
▶ 0:14:40But what struck me the most about that meeting wasn't just the policy. It was the people in the room. We had leaders from statewide and local communities. We had elected Democrats, elected Republicans. We had past uh elected officials. and everyone in the room were all rowing in the same direction. This shows what is possible when we prior prioritize solutions over politics. Congress and this committee can now build on this progress through six reforms which I'm glad to discuss in detail during Q&A. The first protecting competitiveness by keeping standards realistic.
▶ 0:15:10Second, codifying reforms section 179B. Incentivizing upwing controls. Fourth, modernizing permitting. Fifth, encouraging innovation and collaboration. And finally, six, strengthening cooperative federalism by allowing states to approve projects if EPA fails to act within a reasonable time frame. These reforms will help give private sector investors certainty. Arizona is now a global hub for advanced manufacturing. Our request is simple.
▶ 0:15:36Give us the flexibility and tools to continue to reduce emissions while ensuring that industries vital to Arizona and the United States economy are not sanctioned out of existence. Thank you, and I look forward to your The chair now recognizes Miss Coons for five minutes.
▶ 0:15:55Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Tonko, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today to represent Micron Technology regarding the importance of permitting reform in our broader conversations of invigorating American manufacturing. My name is Ashley Kun and I serve as a senior director responsible for environmental health and safety for Micron's US expansion projects in Idaho and New York. Micronic was founded more than 46 years ago in Boisee, Idaho as a technology startup.
▶ 0:16:22Today, Micron is a world leader in the design, development, and manufacturing of memory and storage products and is the only US semiconductor manufacturer with technology leadership. Micron has announced the largest private investment in memory manufacturing in US history of up to $150 billion for domestic memory manufacturing and $50 billion for research and development, creating as many as 90,000 US jobs and strengthening the US supply chain for the technologies that power everything from mobile devices
▶ 0:16:52to automobiles to artificial intelligence and advanced defense systems. Semiconductors are at the backbone of the modern economy and yet over the past several decades advanced chip manufacturing has largely shifted overseas. That imbalance puts our economy and our national and economic security at risk. Rebuilding this capability here at home is an area of bipartisan consensus.
▶ 0:17:15We appreciate the subcommittee's bipartisan leadership on permitting reform and we urge you to continue to drive progress here, but I want to be candid about challenges that we face. We are doing our part to make sure our planned expansions are at the cutting edge of innovation, efficiency, environmental stewardship, and sustainability. Our facilities are expected to achieve a minimum of gold lead status by adopting design, construction, and operational efficiencies.
▶ 0:17:40We use smart controls, energy recapture from tools, water reuse and recycling among many other innovations. But our innovations won't be enough to maintain competitiveness. We need to ensure that the regulations keep pace with our industry's manufacturing expansions. Micron is committed to environmental stewardship and compliance with regulations and standards, and we support the health-based objectives of the PM2.5 rule.
▶ 0:18:06We also support updates to the permitting process that will facilitate necessary industrial growth. Our facilities are designed with multi-million dollar available control technology to reduce emissions as well as other design features such as limiting the number of emissions generating equipment. And last year, Idaho Idaho's Micron campus won awards from both the EPA and Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry for Pollution Prevention, particularly with acknowledgements for above and beyond emissions reduction.
▶ 0:18:34Allowable levels within the PM2.5 standard was recently reduced from 12 micrograms to 9. Our Idaho and New York projects are located in attainment areas for PM2.5 where baseline background levels are already around six micrograms. In Idaho, wildfire smoke has become increasingly common and an uncontrollable contributor to PM2.5. Working to codify the definitions within the standards around wildfire events could assist in providing meaningful clarity.
▶ 0:19:01And not getting this right affects not only Micron's investments, but America's broader efforts to res to restore semiconductor leadership. If permitting stalls key projects, the US would fall behind, undermining economic competitiveness. We appreciate the committee's review of the Clean Air Act, specifically the permitting process, and ask the following. Consider a range of reviews from the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. Support the EPA in providing timely guidance to states and permittes.
▶ 0:19:30Support investments in modernizing required permitting tools and staff resourcing at the local, state, and federal levels. and address any duplications within regulations. To close, Micron's memory and chip development. Micron's business is memory and chip development and manufacturing. And we are fully committed in investing in American manufacturing and to environmental stewardship. And we work very hard to ensure environmentally compliant and safe operations where we work and live.
▶ 0:19:59And we believe there is room for improvement and efficiency gains within the permitting process that can preserve both environmental integrity and US competitiveness. Micron is ready to do its part and we look forward to continuing to partner with this subcommittee and with Congress to ensure the United States remains a global leader in semiconductor manufacturing and technology. Thank you and I welcome your questions.
▶ 0:20:23Thank you, Miss Coons. Miss Pow, you're now recognized for five minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you to the members of the subcommittee for inviting me to testify today. My name is Carrie Powell and I am the air program leader and senior attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center. SELC is a nonprofit, nonpartisan legal and policy organization dedicated to protecting the health and environment of communities across the Southeast.
▶ 0:20:53The Clean Air Act at its core is a public health law. Its standards are designed to protect health with an adequate margin of safety. That phrase reflects Congress's intent to protect even the most vulnerable children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing illnesses. The Clean Air Act's results are striking. By 2020, the act prevented 230,000 premature deaths annually.
▶ 0:21:20It reduced asthma attacks, heart disease, and respiratory illnesses. As documented by EPA, the Clean Air Acts benefits exceed its costs by a factor of more than 30 to one. The act has allowed us to breathe clean cleaner air, avoid premature deaths, and grow our economy at the same time. I'm here today to talk about the critical importance of Clean Air Act permitting in achieving these goals.
▶ 0:21:50These requirements are not needless paperwork. They are central to effective implementation. Strong clean air protections are implemented through permits. Rather than weakening this essential tool for protecting air quality, Congress should be providing more support to state and local agencies charged with issuing and enforcing air permits. They need technical and scientific support, legal support, and funding.
▶ 0:22:19What they do not need is fuzzy requirements full of loopholes that prevent them from issuing strong permits needed to protect public health in their communities. The proposals before you today would undermine the Clean Air Act's legacy of protecting public health, but that's a sacrifice we don't need to make. We can have both healthy air quality and robust economic growth.
▶ 0:22:44The Clean Air Act's new source review permitting program works by requiring large new facilities to utilize modern pollution controls and requiring existing large facilities to do the same whenever they make changes that will significantly increase their emissions. In other words, existing facilities must modernize their pollution controls at the same time that they modernize their industrial processes. It's how we avoid locking in dirty technologies for decades to come.
▶ 0:23:14Far from improving New Source Review, the so-called New Source Review Permitting Improvement Act would essentially eliminate NSR for changes made to our nation's largest industrial sources. Instead of requiring NSR for facility changes that increase actual emissions that worsen air quality, the bill the bill alters how we measure pollution. It also creates a loophole that excludes a host of other changes.
▶ 0:23:42The effect of this bill would be to enable a source to make a change that vastly increases its actual annual emissions without installing modern controls or ensuring that the increased air pollution will not make air quality Communities that are already overburdened with highly polluting facilities would bear the brunt of this roll back of NSR safeguards.
▶ 0:24:05Not only would they be exposed to more pollution, but they would also be shut out of participating in decision-making regarding whether pollution increases should be allowed. The proposed air permitting improvements to protect national security act would authorize the president to exempt specified types of new highly polluting facilities from the requirement to offset the new pollution they will cause with air pollution reductions within the same airhed.
▶ 0:24:31It is important to recognize that these offsets are only required in places where air quality is already unsafe. We do not need to put the health of an of the American people in jeopardy to encourage economic growth. Any exemption from pollution offset requirements is highly concerning, but the presidential exemption from offset requirements is especially problematic because there are no public health guard rails.
▶ 0:24:59It does not require a factual justification and it's granted without public participation. The proposed bill would also create a pay-to-play loophole authorizing state permitting agencies to allow alternative offsets or charge a fee in place of real enforceable air pollution reductions. Again, this is this is a an idea that would put communities at risk who are already suffering from air quality violations.
▶ 0:25:26there would be no guard rails to ensure that these that these offsets actually occurred. I'm not addressing the fences, fire, and red tape bills and my oral comments due to time constraints, but SCC opposes all of them. Please see my written testimony for details. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
▶ 0:25:46Thank you, Miss Powell. Uh Mr. Gia, you are now recognized for five minutes. Good morning, Chairman Palmer, Vice Chairman Krenshaw, and Ranking Member Tonko, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Mark Jebia, and I'm the vice president of environmental, regulatory, and permitting at the Williams Companies. I am honored to be invited to discuss ways we can work together to unleash American energy while also protecting the environment. Supplying the world's energy needs while protecting the environment is one of the greatest challenges of our time.
▶ 0:26:18Today, as one of the nation's largest energy infrastructure providers, Williams is responsible for handling approximately one-third of the nation's natural gas through 33,000 miles of pipelines across the United States. Our operations include gas gathering, processing, storage, and transmission. We directly serve over 600 utility and industrial customers, and we indirectly serve over 35 million energy consumers.
▶ 0:26:41Williams is driven to meet the world's need for clean, affordable, and reliable energy by providing the necessary infrastructure to serve growing markets and safely deliver natural gas where it is needed most. We take pride in our safety driven, continuous improvement culture, and we lead with authenticity, creating connections to lead our industry into the future.
▶ 0:27:01Williams remains steadfast and focused on applying pragmatic solutions to further decarbonize the natural gas value chain while at the same time exploring advancing the next generation of emission reductions technologies and energy infrastructure solutions. As outlined in our most recent sustainability report, we replaced 92 compression engines in 2024 as a part of our global emissions reduction pro program. We held our absolute carbon emissions flat in 2024 even as our operations grew significantly.
▶ 0:27:29We became the first major US midstream company to join OGMP 2.0, an international initiative for transparent methane emissions reporting. Further, we continue to develop and invest in alternative lowcarbon technologies such as independently certified next-gen gas, carbon capture and sequestration, solar and battery storage.
▶ 0:27:49Our investment in energy infrastructure creates thousands of direct and indirect jobs, supporting skilled labor and stimulating local Williams knows how to responsibly and sustainably build and operate energy infrastructure. And by focusing on turnkey power generation solutions for hyperscalers, we are supporting America's ability to win the race against China for artificial intelligence. The United States is facing a surge in energy demand driven by the rapid expansion of AI technologies.
▶ 0:28:18Electricity demand increased 5% between 2010 and 2024 with most of that growth captured in 2024. is forecasted to increase 32% between 2025 and 2040 driven by the emergence of large load data centers and increased electrification of transportation and heating along with industrial reshoring of manufacturing facilities. There are approximately 175 data centers planned or under under construction within 50 miles of our transmission pipeline footprint.
▶ 0:28:48While Williams does not expect to capture every data center opportunity, we are well positioned to provide energy and ensure reliability for this growing source of demand. notably with behind the meter natural gas power generation. However, several legacy EPA air permitting regulations originally designed for coal fired plants owned by electric utility companies are creating delays and costs that do not align with the nature and needs of these cleaner, modern facilities.
▶ 0:29:13Congress can amend programs and statutes implemented by EPA to provide clarity needed to help accelerate construction timelines, reduce permitting burdens and delays, and align with national goals for energy reliability, security, and AI leadership without compromising environmental protections. These reforms outlined in my testimony would clarify that innovative gas tech fired technologies and behind the meter facilities are not swept into outdated steam, electric or utility categories that trigger unnecessary new source review thresholds.
▶ 0:29:43Remove these same facilities from legacy trading programs such as the acid rain and crossade air pollution programs that were never intended to apply to sources that do not sell power to the utility grid. Expand the pre-construction activities a developer may perform at its own risk, shortening project timelines without compromising air quality. Avoid making data center owners subject to permitting responsibilities for on-site power generation units that are owned by others.
▶ 0:30:08And ensure that section 111 greenhouse gas standards for utilities now proposed for repeal cannot be misapplied to behind the meter units. I've outlined additional reforms Congress should consider in my written testimony. Pipelines power America and our country and its citizens have received the benefits of this large-scale infrastructure for years.
▶ 0:30:28Clarifications to the application of federal air regulations to modern behind the meter data behind the meter data center projects will ensure that United States can win the race for AI without compromising environmental protection. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, ranking member and distinguished members of the committee. This concludes my prepared statement. I welcome your questions. Thank you.
▶ 0:30:49Thank you. The chair now recognizes Mr. Mekali for five minutes.
▶ 0:30:54Thank you very much, Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Tonko, and members of the subcommittee. Good afternoon. My name is Ali Mir Zakali and I serve as Oregon's administrator of air quality. I also co co-chair the National Association of Clean Air Agencies permitting and new source review committee. In addition, I served for two decades as Delaware's director of air quality. My testimony today reflects years of experience working with the Clean Air Act in East and West and many years of issuing permits in attainment and nonattainment areas. Thank you for the opportunity.
▶ 0:31:25Since the Clean Air Act was last amended 35 years ago, it has prevented literally hundreds of thousands of premature deaths as well as averted millions of incidents of morbidity, including, for example, heart disease, cancer, chronic bronchitis, and asthma. We have acred these health benefits cost-effectively as our nation's gross domestic products has grown. Therefore, as the committee considers revising the Clean Air Act, it is important to remember those outcomes.
▶ 0:31:51Will the proposed re will the proposed revisions continue to preserve the substantial public health benefit from pollution reduction while accommodating economic growth or will they break that fundamental tenant? I will start with new source review permanent improvement act. The proposed changes are concerning in several ways and would not improve overall efficiency of permitting by states because of added complexity.
▶ 0:32:15Many facilities are not equipped with continuous emission monitoring and assessing accurate emissions on an hourly basis. In such an instance may require producing multiple other records such as production rates, material usages, control equipment, operating records, and much more. The permitting agency will need to review and accept the data as valid before it can decide that the future emissions will not be higher than historical data.
▶ 0:32:41The proposed language in double I exempts modification that will restore, maintain or improve the reliability of operations at or safe the safety of the source. It is hard to imagine any modification at any source that would not qualify under this exemption. This act as written would likely exempt all existing facility changes from review. This could therefore allow considerable air quality degradation and public health impact. I've gone in more detail in my written testimony.
▶ 0:33:11The fire act contains a few ambigu ambiguities. I support increased pace and scale of prescribed fires as a wildfire mitigation tool, but this bill's reach goes beyond that to the title. These proposed changes appear to be an attempt to allow rebranding of poor air quality by excluding data that may have been caused by stagnation, hot days or dry days which are the exact condition when we experience air pollution.
▶ 0:33:35The implication is that air quality agencies will need to concerns themselves with providing good air quality on good days. This field feeds into the mistrust that the public and certain advocacy group groups have voiced in the process of exceptional events altogether. I've gone into a bit of detail on Oregon's Westbend pilot project in my written testimony, but we'll be happy to share our experience with the committee.
▶ 0:33:59Max compliance is not the barrier to expanded wildfire mitigation, and I urge a committee to consider including funding and resources for planning, outreach, and engagement activities, including adequate resourcing of federal, state, and local partners involved in this work. The Red Tape Act implies that it intends to eliminate duplicative reviews. However, it removes all environmental impact reviews of subsequent federal actions that may flow from the legislation.
▶ 0:34:26The consequences of this could be a late realization of environmental impact, delays in permitting and cost overruns. Defenses act includes introduces significant complications of for administering a permitting program which I presume are. Essentially a new permit cannot be issued to any facility under this construct no matter how well controlled because the background concentration already exceeds knacks and attainment permitting rules cannot allow that.
▶ 0:34:55Finally, air permitting improvement to protect N national security act provides a waiver for offsets required to the required in the non-attainment areas like my comments on the new source review permitting act. I believe that the proposed bill if adopted will have would have unintended consequences. Emissions from a small source that received a national security waiver may push an airship further into nonattainment triggering more stringent requirements like increased offset ratio and additional regulatory burdens.
▶ 0:35:26In conclusion, the proposed amendments fail to preserve the fundamental tenants of the Clean Air Act, which is to protect public health while providing opportunity for for economic growth. The proposal allows significantly more pollution by introducing new offramps and exemptions. We can do better to improve the processes instead of focusing on offramps. Um so I think we must do better. I hope I'm happy to engage with the committee with additional suggestions. Thank you for opportunity to testify and happy to answer
▶ 0:35:57Thank you. Uh Mr. Woods, you're now recognized for your five minutes of Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Tonko, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. My name is Clint Woods, and I have the privilege to serve as the commissioner for the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, or IDM, an agency of nearly 800 tremendous public servants who are on the front lines of implementing federal and state environmental laws and regulations for air, land, and water quality. I want to thank you for the uh attention uh for the subcommittee on this important topic.
▶ 0:36:25And I also wanted to express my appreciation for the hard work, professionalism, and dedication of your staff. I had the honor of serving for several years in this building as a professional staff member with the committee on science, space, and technology, and the opportunity to find bipartisan solutions for environmental policy as one that I think all the panel members would would strongly agree with. Uh, in my testimony, I'd like to to highlight four things. One, I'm still relatively new in my role and and new to Indiana, so there's your humility hasn't rubbed off on me yet.
▶ 0:36:50So, I want to brag a little bit about incredible success that we have in state permitting efficiency, in striking the right balance between environmental protection and economic prosperity. Um, and also the incredible progress that that Indiana is a microcosm for the US has had in improving air quality. And to underscore the point that one of the primary ways to get to permitting reform and from gridlock to growth is in many ways to get the federal government out of the way. Secondly, I wanted to emphasize four key issues with our existing Clean Air Act that don't match uh the current environment for improved air quality.
▶ 0:37:19Third, I'd like to describe how the bills being considered today will help address those issues. And finally, discuss a few common sense areas where there may be opportunities for bipartisan collaboration. As you all know, the Clean Air Act is built on a model of cooperative federalism between the US Environmental Protection Agency and state and lo state and local agencies. Uh with Congress repeatedly in amendments the underlying act recognizing that quote air pollution prevention and air pollution control is the primary responsibility of states and local governments.
▶ 0:37:45That's certainly true in Indiana where we have the primary responsibility for implementation of the Federal Clean Air Act, including nearly all monitoring, planning, permitting, compliance, and enforcement for air quality on behalf of Hoosiers. For us, that means 100% of key air permits in the state and over 99% of Clean Air Act compliance and enforcement activities are conducted by IDM versus US EPA. And IDM succeeds in that permitting. Uh we beat state permitting deadlines by roughly 50% issuing air, water, and land permits in a few short months compared to the years it often takes in other states.
▶ 0:38:15Our air permitting program, despite having more industrial sources than nearly any other state in the country, has the lowest permit renewal backlog among industrial states, as well as a robust public and wellsupported process for developing, reviewing, and issuing permits under the Clean Air Act. In part two to this environment, Indiana ranks as the top state in the country for manufacturing per capita, as well as the manufacturing share of GDP, near the top in future economic outlook, and forecasts nearly 100 billion in additional economic value for Hoosiers from artificial intelligence investments over the next decade.
▶ 0:38:45We intend to continue as a beacon of investment for artificial intelligence, manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, and life sciences. And while we're currently the world's capital of production of key uh products, including RVs and ducks and popcorn and pontoon boats and goldfish and high school basketball, we intend to expand that list in the coming years. State-led implementation of the Clean Air Act has served our country incredibly well. And one of the greatest stories seldom told is a monumental improvement in ambient air quality and emissions. progress that outpaces the rest of the world.
▶ 0:39:15For example, in Indiana, we meet or exceed nearly all national ambient air quality standards or knacks. These trends have actually accelerated. For example, since 2002, aggregate emissions of criteria air pollutants like ozone, particulate matter, and lead have fell in Indiana by more than 65%. Sulfur dioxide concentrations in southwest Indiana have dropped by nearly 80% just since 2013. And that that that is that extends to the United States for population weighted fine particulate matter levels which is usually a surrogate for air pollution.
▶ 0:39:43We actually have levels that are less than a quarter of the global average. So we're talking about setting standards between 12 and 9 micrograms. The global average is above 30. As you consider important changes to modernize the Clean Air Act, including those that create unnecessary permitting delays, there are four issues I'd like to highlight with the act. First, it's desperately in need of overhaul and modernization. Although it has served us very well, many provisions have fallen into disrepair and obsolescence.
▶ 0:40:08Second, all too often in the past, US EPA has second-guessed state plans, permits, and demonstrations, including when such oversight is not timely or is not ground grounded firmly in the Clean Air Act. Third, EPA has often failed to incorporate, consider, or address the growing role of significant air pollution concentrations from background, natural, international, fire, geographically distinct, and mobile sources.
▶ 0:40:29Finally, EPA relies on a two-tiered permitting system that discourages investment in newer modified facilities that emit less air pollution and it also creates perverse incentives for older grandfather facilities. HR 161 and recent EPA changes would go a long way to address that two-tiered system. Similarly, the uh fire act would remove important uh confusion that currently exists that limits the applicability of regulatory relief for clean air act provisions on exceptional events.
▶ 0:40:53The fences act would take many important steps to clarify clean air act provisions to avoid unnecessary penalties in areas like northwest Indiana where they would have attained the knacks but for international contributions. My written testimony contains a number of other examples of potential opportunities for common sense and bipartisan agreement to modernize the clean air act. Our agency stands ready to assist the subcommittee as it considers the important legislative changes uh changes. I look forward to your questions.
▶ 0:41:18Thank you. The chair now recognizes the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Guthrie. Hi. Thanks, M. I want to start with you. Um, we're talking about permitting reform and I think we're going to work and work together on permitting reform across the aisle. Uh, the question the issue is permitting reform means a lot of things to a lot of people. You can permit we permit a lot of things at the federal level. So, I guess my question is uh permitting for energy. We want to permit because we need more energy and we want to bring back manufacturing.
▶ 0:41:45So, how significant is the Clean Air Act's role in permitting process in a business decision to invest in build and can we have meaningful permitting reform without modernizing the Clean Air Act?
▶ 0:41:57Mr. Chair, thank you, Mr. Full, Committee Chair. Uh, the answer, great question. The answer is I don't believe you can have long-term certainty without without reforming the modernizing the Clean Air Act because again there's little things we can do and we're seeing it and they're exciting and they're they're hopeful. The this this leadership team at the EPA right now has provided hope and pathways for some of my members in Arizona as well as I would argue around the country. However, there's no certainty that in the next administration that will still be there.
▶ 0:42:27So, one of the most meaningful and significant ways you can lock down long-term investment is provide the certainty in the regulatory environment that we could have. And I think the investment would follow very soon after that. People will feel comfortable. The delays would go away. So, um, while there's things you can do and you can nip around the edges, the Clean Air Act should be modernized. It should be changed to reflect what we've learned, what science has taught us, and where we are now. And that will trigger more investment and allow us to compete better with the rest of the world.
▶ 0:42:54Thank you, Mr. Woods. Uh so I know one of my good my great colleagues Mr. Westerman chair Westerman's working on NEPA reform. A lot of people think NEPA reform is permitting reform. So I kind of the same theme. So uh the NEPA process it has to have more we have to have reforms to cleaner act generally. Would you uh comment on that as well?
▶ 0:43:14Yeah I I I agree wholeheartedly with that that that sentiment. I think it's uh you know 35 years is a long time. uh there's a lot of concepts, there's a lot of technology and ability to model and understand where the contributions to potential nonattainment areas come from.
▶ 0:43:27uh the tools need to be updated and while uh I think the Cleaner Act has served us extremely well, I think there's a number of changes including invigorating some of those provisions for regulatory relief related to international transport, exceptional events, rural transport areas, but also how EPA sets standards, designates areas that attainment, nonattainment, and reclassifies areas are desperately in need of a 21st century vision that I think uh some of the bills under consideration today would get go a long way towards.
▶ 0:43:51All right. Thank you. and Miss Coons and in Micron's experience, how essential is clean air permitting reform to your continued expansion in race to win the for AI dominance and what risk does our country face if Congress fails to modernize the Clean Air Act?
▶ 0:44:06Thank you, Chairman. What we have experienced on our end is a lengthy duplicative permitting process. In fact, in our one of our key investments within New York, we have undergone environmental permitting for the last two and a half years. So what we are looking for is meaningful streamline and reform in this space that will allow us to enable our investments from everything from construction start to operations. By streamlining this we can continue to modernize our facilities and be at the backbone of semiconductor manufacturing here within the United
▶ 0:44:37Okay. Thank you. And Mr. Jeffy uh this committee has recognized the need for increase of almost all of our hearings about energy production to to fund to to fuel uh a demand for AI and to beat China to AI. So what impact does regulatory uncertainty have on your industry and its ability to meet the increased demand and what is permitting reform necessary to ensure the cleaner act reflects technological developments is not an impediment to needed energy
▶ 0:45:05Thank you chairman. This committee has been doing some outstanding work on trying to evaluate these issues and the need is current and in front of us that without certainty we go through an entire permitting process and then have confidence to deploy capital just by driving the durable policy and regulatory certainty that this committee is working on.
▶ 0:45:28uh it provides the opportunity to speed up significantly our ability to deploy power generation um behind the meter particularly to support the AI race.
▶ 0:45:38Okay. So, and Mr. Woods, in your experience in the 309 review process where EPA does secondary review, uh is this still necessary and and how do you respond to testimony we've heard today on the red tape act?
▶ 0:45:51Yeah, I think I I think uh it is not necessary in its current form. I think it adds very little value and frankly there's not clear criteria for EPA to provide that feedback on other federal agency actions. It often serves as another source of delay and often duplicates processes that we have at other state and federal levels. So I think there is a real opportunity with that bill uh to clarify uh and and provide uh uh reduced red tape that will allow us to get to a more clear vision for the future and EPA's role in weighing in on other federal agency
▶ 0:46:17Thank you. I appreciate all you for being here. We really are do want this committee and all of us to to find common ground together. So, thank you for being here and we look forward to continuing the work after this hearing. Thank you and I yield back.
▶ 0:46:29The gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes the ranking member of the committee uh Mr. Tonko for his five
▶ 0:46:35Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to uh reiterate my overall concerns about these bills, but I would try to focus my questions on the air permitting improvements to protect national security act. As I stated in in my opening statement, I want to see advanced manufacturing facilities built in our United States.
▶ 0:46:54They are a huge part of upstate New York's near and long-term economic development strategy, but it has to be done the right way, and creating a non-transparent presidential exemption process, as proposed in the discussion draft, is simply not the right way.
▶ 0:47:09Seeing this proposal, I'm reminded of EPA's actions earlier this year where the administrator created an email inbox and encouraged regulated entities to request a presidential exemption under section 1124 of the Clean Air Act for standards related to hazardous air pollutants. Miss Powell, have you been following that exemption process?
▶ 0:47:32Thank you, Ranking Member Tonko. Yes, SCLC has been following that process very carefully and we've observed that over the last several months the president has exempted dozens of toxic air pollution emmitting facilities from control requirements. And this is especially concerning because it's done without any record of decisions so that people can see why it's being done.
▶ 0:48:00It's done without any public participation. And we're finding that the facts on the ground don't even support the exemptions. We have a facility in Georgia that is according to the state already fully complying with the federal rule and yet the exemption is issued on the basis that the technology is somehow not available.
▶ 0:48:22And so I 100% agree that the type of presidential exemption that is spelled out in the National Security Act is problematic and it will put the public health at risk of being exposed to increased levels of air pollution that can cause devastating health
▶ 0:48:41And in accordance with your response here, I believe that I can interpret that the exemption has the opportunity to be misused.
▶ 0:48:50Absolutely. it has the opportunity to be misused because there is so little accountability in ensuring that there's even a reason for it to happen. And of course, we're talking about communities where the air quality is already unsafe to breathe.
▶ 0:49:07That's the only time offsets Well, giving the presidential discretion based on broad undefined national security interests allows pollution sources to evade a formal process that would allow for public input and a transparent public record. Instead, we would be giving tremendous latitude to the president who wouldn't even need to justify the decision to offer these exemptions.
▶ 0:49:33So, Miss Powell, again, do you believe the recent exemptions to facilitate to facilities for various hazardous air pollutant standards provided a strong technical record or justification that the public could examine to understand why exemptions were granted?
▶ 0:49:49The recent presidential exemptions have no technical record that's available. In fact, we've struggled to even get copies of the applications that the facilities have filed. And unbelievably the state agencies that have primary authority to regulate those facilities also don't have the applications.
▶ 0:50:10Appreciate that. Uh Mr. Mesuli, um generally, do you have any potential concerns as a co-regulator that facilities located in your state may be escaping pollution standards without any oversight or opportunity to have the state's perspectives heard?
▶ 0:50:29Thank you, Member Tanco. I I presume you're referring to the um that national security act again u we're fortunate in Oregon we don't have nonattainment we're attain attainment for all pollutants but certainly I think what you would uh point out here in in term in terms of facilities that get a waiver be presidential waiver or or waiver requirement it puts pressure on other facilities that don't qualify for a waiver as as the requirement for one facility is waved
▶ 0:51:00at the pollution doesn't go away. It ex it goes back to the background. Then other facilities we have to make up the difference and to in order for us to attain that standard. It just it's not a level playing field. And under this specific waiver proposal, can you talk about some of the potential unintended consequences? Could other facilities, for example, be required to reduce their emissions more or find more offsets to balance the exemptions provided to these favored industries?
▶ 0:51:27That that that's exactly right. and and it's it's the uh subsidy that um it's in introduces here for one facility to do other it it's not a waiver from the state to meet the obligation to meet
▶ 0:51:41the chair would ask the witness to submit the answers for the record our five minutes has expired unfortunately the chair recognizes uh the gentleman from uh Texas Mr. Krenshaw for his five appreciate it thank you Mr. Chairman, thank you for all for being here. I just want to start out by saying if we want to be China uh in the AI and advanced manufacturing race, we can't regulate ourselves into industrial decline.
▶ 0:52:04And the Clean Air Act's permitting system is indeed outdated and projects that should be green lit in months take years if they happen at all. Companies that go beyond compliance to cut emissions, they get punished with additional red tape. and energy like natural gas that has lowered emissions that becomes a boogeyman for the radical left. None of this overregulation makes our air air cleaner. It kills investment. It delays cleaner technology and it drives industry overseas.
▶ 0:52:30Uh stifling American job growth in these vital sectors and really just passing along pollution somewhere else. We made enormous progress on clean air, I might add. I mean, emissions of the six criteria pollutants are down more than 70% since 1970. We should be building on that success. Impermaning reform, first of all, it does not tear up the Clean Air Act. It it makes it work for today's challenges and it restores some common sense. The question is simple.
▶ 0:52:55Do we want to lead the world in innovation, energy security, or do we want to follow Europe's path of overregulation and I'll start with uh Miss Coons. um you to lead in artificial intelligence and advanced manufacturing. We can't afford to build factories at the speed of bureaucracy while China's building uh at the speed of strategy. Now, from your perspective, how does permitting gridlock put US innovation and therefore national security at risk?
▶ 0:53:24From our experience and in our perspective, our projects have faced delay and in some cases we have not been able to start meaningful construction. Therefore, delays in operations, duplicative reviews at the state, local and federal level along with lack of resourcing and modernization of tools create lengthy processes and what we are asking is for review in streamlining the permitting application process for permites and those reviewing
▶ 0:53:50Appreciate that. Um, and Mr. Woods, I'll I'll move to you. Um, your testimony talks about how the EPA second guessesses a lot of state permitting decisions. How would common sense reform that trust states more instead of federal micromanagement speed up clean air progress and investment at the same time?
▶ 0:54:10Thanks so so much the vice chairman. I I think it's a great question. I think we are seeing some important changes right now where with with the the new administration coming in. I I think there's a couple of examples. So just this week um as a result of an AI round table there was an announcement of a new new policy uh really a readoption of an old policy at EPA related to second-guessing of states and permites applicability determinations for new source review.
▶ 0:54:30A great example, my testimony, I lay out a little bit more about how sometimes the title 5 review process that is overseen by EPA either to object or to grant thirdparty petitions to state overseeing permits expands uh issues that are not within that key provision of the act. and that narrowing that that review process would go a long way to ensure that you don't have delays in key projects and that state-led delegated programs that work effectively in in providing environmentally protective and legally durable permits uh could could move much more quickly.
▶ 0:55:00And so we're seeing in real time, but I think some of the legislation discussed today could uh potentially really help to address that.
▶ 0:55:06some of these on this duplicative process problem at the state and federal level, do you have any examples on hand that we could put in for the record? We do I think of right now for us for example the the 2024 fine particulate matter standard uh of 9 micrograms uh really serves as a limit to headroom.
▶ 0:55:23So while most of the state uh we expect to be in attainment with that legally and scientifically dubious standard uh it really limits the ability of new investment to come in whether that's a data center, new energy generation, opportunity for advanced manufacturing and so that really is a limiting factor in a state like ours that intends to be in full attainment with all national ambient air quality standards and yet the lack of headroom under the uh revised standard is a serious issue for us and many other states around the
▶ 0:55:48Uh Mr. Jebia, the re the Biden administration had imposed regulatory obstacles after regulatory obstacle on the economy. Now we we're seeing a lot of good reforms under the new EPA and under Lee Zeldon. What do you think this means or are we seeing any uh are we seeing what this might mean for private investment into reliable energy infrastructure? Uh and what would you prioritize for Congress to to codify?
▶ 0:56:12Yeah, there's been some very helpful work done so far. Um but as we've recently talked on this panel, uh congressional action will provide that permanence. Uh some of the key issues that the the administration is looking into, um really a big one is being able to begin construction ahead of receiving a permit. Um this is not changing the environmental outcome of anything. Uh we are just it's adding time to the construction and be able to bring projects in service.
▶ 0:56:40So taking a look not only from a regulatory action but also from congressional action on that issue could be extremely helpful.
▶ 0:56:46And maybe you can send it to us later but examples of that would be very helpful. Thank you.
▶ 0:56:52The gentleman yields. Votes have been called on the House floor. So the subcommittee stands in recess. We'll reconvene 10 minutes after the final vote is called. The committees in
▶ 1:34:14The subcommittee on the environment uh in the energy and commerce committee will now reconvene. The chair recognizes the gentle lady from Illinois, Miss Shikowski, for her five minutes of
▶ 1:34:24Thank you, Mr. Chairman. there are almost um a 100,000 people in the United States of America who die because of air pollution. That's a lot of people.
▶ 1:34:42And I don't quite understand why it is so important that we deal with this particular piece of legislation in a very narrow view of how does a particular kind of uh uh business needs to be done and add to the pollution that kills almost
▶ 1:35:13190,000 people. I mean we also have other ways of getting the uh important work done but not for these particular witnesses who are here today who need to do it in a different way. And I don't understand.
▶ 1:35:32I really don't understand why it is not the number one priority to try and keep people, children, adults, older people safer so that they don't end up being sick and dying.
▶ 1:35:54I really don't understand the priorities that are being that are being set here and those that are left out of thinking about what are the consequences of this kind of work. So I wanted to um ask um Mr. Ali, if I could use your your that that name.
▶ 1:36:23Are there going to be more people who get sick and perhaps even die by making this change in what is the priority in our manufacturing? Um, representative, thank you for the question and appreciate you highlighting the the the problem here.
▶ 1:36:52That's that's a highly crit essential for us to consider. Clean Air Act, as we mentioned, has saved hundreds of thousands of lives. This is we're talking about increased pollution that can harm people. That is being called exemption waiver. It just contributes to additional pollution we're trying to allow. Um and it's interesting to note that both Miss Kun and Siden's uh facilities although they're complain about the permitting process, they have the permits. They obtain the permits for the facilities.
▶ 1:37:22They built it. They're operating within the compliance with the Clean Air Act. So it works. I appreciate the fact that it is hard and it's been painful process. So we need to focus on process and process improvement and I'm all eager to engage in that. that I think state agencies are eager to engage in that. How do we do things better?
▶ 1:37:44How do we issue permits in a shorter time period not to how you know we out of frustration exempt facilities from permitting requirement. We create uh offramps and waiverss for things that are necessary to protect public health. So this is this is essential. I think it's the um crux of the matter and I think you hit the nail on the head that we need to make sure these exemptions, these processes, these bypasses cause excess pollution.
▶ 1:38:12Excess pollution particular some of them and as Miss Powell points at here in the testimony, it's in areas that are already polluted and the people are suffering from the consequences of of uh unalthful air.
▶ 1:38:27I appreciate your comment. Um, I wanted to ask ask Miss Po.
▶ 1:38:36Yeah. Okay. Miss Powell. Um, and I appreciated your uh your presentation very much. I wanted to ask you, my understanding is that the EPA has a way of helping uh companies and and and working in in a way that ends up with um I mean work still happens, but we can make it safer
▶ 1:39:07and that there's a way that the EPA helps encourage that. Is that not true?
▶ 1:39:15That's absolutely true. I used to work for EPA and I worked together with technical staff at EPA to issue permits for some types of facilities and we routinely answered questions of the applicants and help them through the process. I know state and local agencies that have permitting authority do the same thing.
▶ 1:39:34Thank you. And the time has expired. Uh I now recognize myself uh for my five minutes of questioning. Uh Mr. Woods, my first question will be to you. Uh in Colorado, uh we know uh that roughly 70% of the emissions in the state of Colorado don't originate from the state of Colorado. And so when through things like the Clean Air Act, we heavily regulate the economy, uh we're not actually getting to the root of the problem, which is where these emissions are coming from.
▶ 1:40:01And what we end up doing is uh regulating the economy, losing jobs, losing uh the the cost of living that's so important to people, which has negative outcomes for folks because if they don't have the money, they're not going to go get preventative care. They're going to delay going to the doctor. Health outcomes go down. And so the the question to you is uh if you were in our position uh what reforms would you prioritize in the permitting process so that our economy isn't strangled by events outside of uh the control of whatever the particular jurisdiction is?
▶ 1:40:33Thanks so much for the question. I think it's a really timely one and one that is not limited to Colorado and where I think there are national solutions that that already exist within the Clean Air Act but also could be invigorated with action by by by this body. Um, so I'll say we we are very similar in Northwest Indiana. I mentioned previously we've got three parts of our 92 counties that are in partial non-attainment with ozone or uh sulfur dioxide standards. And at least for Northwest Indiana, of the standard of 70 parts per billion, between four and 13 parts per billion come from local sources that my agency regulates.
▶ 1:41:02The rest comes from international and interstate um from upwind states, but also from natural and biogenic and increasingly from fire sources. There are provisions in the act to address exceptional events that are becoming increasingly unexceptional. Um including our ability to characterize wildfire uh contributions.
▶ 1:41:19Um there are provisions that allow to uh you to address uh the the contributions of international uh where you would have attained the standard but for uh those international contributions and we're increasingly able to say 10 15 20 parts per billion of a 70 part per billion standard comes from those international and boundary conditions. So I think there's an opportunity to uh utilize those tools. I also think resources of state agencies are probably another area where core categorical grants for cooperative federalism.
▶ 1:41:45It's a very minor investment, but the certainty that comes with authorization of those appropriations that hasn't happened this century is absolutely critical for your state permitting authorities with some light oversight, but also uh helpful guidance from EPA uh can really invigorate those permitting programs to get improved environmental outcomes but also improved economic activity in states like Colorado.
▶ 1:42:04Thank you so much. Uh Mr. Seiden, next question goes to you. um Colorado, Arizona, obviously we have some uh some similar situations going on there. Um I think back to what the the um chair of our I guess he's executive director of our regional air quality council said uh talking about ozone nonattainment where he said we could get rid of driving, we could get rid of oil and gas in the state of Colorado and we still wouldn't meet our summertime ozone standards.
▶ 1:42:28And so my question to you uh representing a lot of u economic interests which of course as we've talked about leads to improved health outcomes for folks when they have the resources to be able to go get that early and preventative care. What happens to the economy of a region when you have this heavy hand of regulation that doesn't actually uh clean up the environment because it's targeting the wrong emissions? What what happens uh to the jobs and to the
▶ 1:42:53Mr. Chair, thank you for the question and you're absolutely right. Uh what happens is very simple. Capital always goes where it's most wanted and stays where it's most welcome. So if you have an uncertain regulatory environment, that capital will go elsewhere. We will lose these jobs. And if if they were to I'm a competitive person. If they were go to another state, I begrudgingly would tip my hat to that state and that governor. But what we're seeing happen is often they're going to other countries that have lower standards. We're seeing them go to places where we don't track uh the pollution as well.
▶ 1:43:20And then the worst part of that all is we know it still ends up in our region. And that is something that Colorado and Arizona have in common. We are in that that western region where uh the this international transport is coming from areas we can't control. And so again, we're have a perverse incentive to manufacture outside of our country, take our jobs away, yet also make our air worse. Thank you. I got one minute left. Mr. Jebia, a final question to you.
▶ 1:43:45Uh we just heard that when you have this heavy hand of regulation uh that doesn't actually target the actual source of these emissions with much of it coming from overseas and international transport, we're strangling our own economy and we still don't get clean air uh out of it. So is there anything Congress can do to make sure that states aren't intentionally ignoring existing waiver processes or exceptions to the Clean Air Act uh around certain industries, regulated industries like natural gas? 31 seconds.
▶ 1:44:13Thank you for the question. The Clean Air Act has been extremely successful in what's been achieved to date. Um, but with the issues we're talking about today are really new source review, which is stationary sources where most of those emissions have been reduced over time. So, it is getting to the point of diminishing returns. And I think Congress can take action to help solidify uh ways to reform new source review to to help facilitate expansion of of projects and uh and focus on the environmental outcome of them.
▶ 1:44:41Thank you so much. My time has expired. Uh and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking member of the full committee, uh Mr. Palone for his five minutes.
▶ 1:44:50Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh the bills before us today paint the picture that the only way we can build things in America is if we exempt various polluting industries from environmental laws, permit by permit. But I think that's a false choice. And contrary to the history of the Clean Air Act, we know that we can have a clean environment and a booming economy. and to say otherwise is to doubt American innovation and to put communities living in areas with toxic air pollution at great risk. So I have three questions. First is of M Miss Powell.
▶ 1:45:21Why is effective permitting so critical to the success of the Clean Air Act? And in your experience, what is causing permitting delays for major projects, if you will?
▶ 1:45:32Thank you for the question, Congressman. Permitting is incredibly important in achieving the Clean Air Acts goals because it's really how the standards are set for most facilities. You can have the best rules, the best statute, but if you don't have robust permitting, the public is not going to receive the promises of the Clean Air Act for healthy air quality.
▶ 1:45:55As far as what causes delays, there are myriad things that might cause delays that often don't even have to do with anything in the Clean Air Act, but sometimes companies will put blame on that. Another thing that will happen is that companies won't file complete permit applications or uh supplement the record with information that they need to provide.
▶ 1:46:16My experience is that companies that are serious about complying with the Clean Air Act and not trying to skirt its requirements, they eventually get their permits and the investment in time upfront helps ensure that they are solid protective permits that are less likely to be struck down when they're challenged if they have been done properly and with proper public participation.
▶ 1:46:39All right. Thank you. My second question is of Mr. Mirs Kouli. You have extensive experience running state level clean air act permitting programs. And are these road exemptions necessary or can we have a permitting system that works for industry while adhering to environmental
▶ 1:46:59We absolutely can have a system that that operates without those exemptions. The exemptions do nothing but complicate applicability determinations. Uh the first argument shouldn't be whether or not some something is subject to the rule.
▶ 1:47:13uh and that's where we spend a lot of times and up front who's who is subject to the are they the hourly emissions higher or lower is the actual to what is the future actual of the emissions look like and and what is that if it doesn't happen in the future what is that future action how do you calculate that how do you make that enforceable so that adds a a tremendous level of complexity to the process that's unnecessary we clarify who is subject to rule and then we'll focus on streamlining and making the process easier easier to get through
▶ 1:47:43it and there's a number of recommendations I could make u to make that happen but uh
▶ 1:47:48All right. Well, thank you because you know I'm concerned that Republicans push for so-called permitting reform legislation, but that's not happening in a silo. The Trump administration has been busy trying to roll back and undermine the PM2.5 Knack standard and other protections that ensure Americans have safe air to breathe. And I have I think we have to consider all of these actions as we evaluate these bills. But let me go back to Miss Powell.
▶ 1:48:14Taken collectively, how will the administration's proposal to weaken the PM2.5 Knack standard along with additional roll backs and exemptions being proposed in the legislation before us impact the health and safety of communities around the country.
▶ 1:48:30These roll backs will undoubtedly harm public health. Fine particulate matter is among the most deadly of air pollutants. These particles are so small that they wedge their way deep into people's lungs and into their bloodstreams. They can lead they've been associated with stroke, heart disease, uh developmental delays in children. So rolling back these requirements is a a really serious threat to public health.
▶ 1:48:59I appreciate that because look, I think everyone has the right to clean and healthy air to breathe. But the Republican bills would undermine that right and once again put the well-being of corporate polluters over the American people. And the Clean Air Act works because of its health protection standards and enforcement and permitting programs, not despite them, frankly. So, and that's why I oppose the bills before us today. Yield back, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:49:23The gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas. Uh, Mr. Fluger for his five minutes.
▶ 1:49:29Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Mr. Woods, thank you for for joining us. Um, your testimony highlights how states can be unfairly penalized for air pollution uh that they can't control, whether it drifts across borders, international, state borders, a number of things, whether it stems from wildfires, natural sources, the foreign emissions and non-attainment clarification for economic stability or the fences act um aims to correct that problem by making sure that states aren't labeled as non-attainment when the pollution is literally out
▶ 1:49:59of their hands. Um, and your testimony points out that non-attainment designations can delay permits, hurt economic growth, and and don't actually get after the problem that they're trying to uh to solve. So, I want to ask a couple of questions. How would clarifying section 179B as the Fences Act proposes reduce permitting delays or or protect uh the environment better uh than than what we're actually doing right now? It's a great question, and I apologize in advance for perhaps being a little bit longwinded.
▶ 1:50:28is something I'm very passionate about and I think the bill goes a long way to clarify this provision that that allows for state agencies like ours to uh capture the right the right moment. So as EPA thinks about international background other other uh sources that are outside the control of a local agency as the primary regulator of air quality there are several points in which the agency could consider it.
▶ 1:50:47when it sets the standards, when it does designations of an area initially, when it looks at redesating those areas into attainment or non-attainment, when it reclassifies, as my test point lays out in great detail, as you get in non-attainment and then higher classifications from marginal to moderate to serious to severe to extreme, the penalties on permitting, on transportation uh funds and transportation conformity, on fuel requirements become much much more uh much more uh heavy-handed um and can just devastate and strangle economic growth that are really at core of
▶ 1:51:17the permitting issue. So we want the whole country to be an attainment, but the 179B provision is actually to avoid getting bumped up beyond marginal to those more significant penalties. So in this case, I think the provision clarifies and this bill would clarify for EPA what I think they could do already, which is to grant uh demonstrations by uh states that show that they would have attained but for those international contributions.
▶ 1:51:39So when we're talking about 5 10 20 parts per billion of a 70 part per billion standard coming from Canada, Mexico, Asia, and elsewhere, that's what puts you over the top to a 72 or 75 part per billion design value and would have an incredible impact on uh the opportunities for eliminating those delays in permitting, economic activity, and innovation that would also bring down emissions overall.
▶ 1:52:00the the fear-mongering that we just heard um and and the lack of actual work with industries that um do want to comply with this type of thing. And I can point back to um a variety of visits including the region six director under President Biden who came to my area and was amazed at the monitoring that we actually had out there.
▶ 1:52:22But they never once thought and especially when they lowered the uh the um the parts um per million requirement they never through a rule just a unilateral rule they never once thought about talking to industry. So they're they're actually not solving uh the problems and we want to be realistic about it. I'll turn to to Miss Coons um and talk about um infrastructure and the AI um game that we know is here and you know just looking at the the data centers of semiconductor uh facilities and other advanced manufacturing.
▶ 1:52:53Uh we've heard from several witnesses that um the current Clean Air Act permitting especially the prevention of significant deterioration in the title 5 requirements can add years to project timelines. And I'd like to hear your thoughts about Micron who's building multiple large semiconductor fabrication facilities across the country. How can the Clean Air Act permitting timelines influence the schedule and the cost of these projects while not necessarily achieving the desired goals?
▶ 1:53:21Yeah, thank you Congressman. From this perspective, what we have seen is a lengthy environmental permitting and review process that where we have duplicative reviews in some cases, we have inter agency coordination of up to tens of agencies where it oftent times we may receive conflicting guidance.
▶ 1:53:36So within this to streamline that process and remove those particular barriers within the application process itself would be critically important to ensuring that we can start construction on time and deliver for our operational needs that will ultimately bring products uh our product to market for everything from automobiles to electronics to AI.
▶ 1:53:57Um you you mentioned you describe wildfire smoke as an uncontrollable factor in meeting the new uh standards and I know this has been discussed already but um you know what kind of uh regulatory clarity or legislative action would help alleviate
▶ 1:54:11Thank you Congressman. I mean I think in this particular space we really need to look at cottifying the definitions further of natural versus human caused wildfire. These definitions will provide meaningful clarity to applicants and permittes. Uh thank you and chairman. I think the work that the Chevron deference case had um with clarity to this body to be specific is really important and I yield back.
▶ 1:54:36Gentleman yields. The chair now recognized the the gentleman from California, Mr. Peters, for five minutes for his questions.
▶ 1:54:41Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm really glad there's so much bipartisan support in about permit reform, which is something I've been interested in and passionate about for a long time. Um really happy with um the fix our forest act which uh was co-authored by uh chair Westerman and I uh make strong permitting reforms to forest management practices and project litigation increasing public participation and lowering air pollution. One of the concerns we have is underlying uh smoke uh pollution.
▶ 1:55:10That bill assuming we had full attendance was only two votes away from passing the house on suspension earlier this year. And I hope the Senate ask acts quickly to pass their version of the bill. Uh last Congress, I worked with Senators Kelly and Cruz on the Building Chips in America Act, which passed the House with more than twothirds of the vote and was signed into law by President Biden. That bill provided permitting certainty to semiconductor manufacturers are investing billions of dollars in America. And I was really happy to see the e-ermit Act, my bill with Rep.
▶ 1:55:38Johnson from South Dakota being discussed last week in natural resources. That bill would digitize the permitting process and increase both transparency and efficiency. I spent a lot of my time talking and complaining about the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA. Um, and the three bills I just described are great examples of very bipartisan smart reforms. A core part of my argument for reform on NEPA is that it's a procedural act.
▶ 1:56:04as one of the as one of the um uh witnesses said, it's a lot of paperwork, but it doesn't actually sub contain substantive environmental protections like the bedrock environmental laws, the Clean Clean Water Act, the Cleaner Air Act, uh the Endangered Species Act. Those laws actually prescribe um standards for compliance. They provide real protections against environmental harm. And so, I'm cautious about making changes to the standards, although I think I really would like to advance the speed.
▶ 1:56:32and uh we'll I would like to work together um as we as we go forward to make sure we do that. Miss Coons, I want to ask you um the bills before us are focusing on the per on permitting under the Clean Air Act. My my sense was that that wasn't really the issue that was causing your delays. Um can you speak to the environmental laws that were causing the delays for your project and maybe if you if you have an opinion about how the e-ermit act with some process reforms around deadlines and timelines could help you address those.
▶ 1:57:00Thank you, Congressman. From our perspective, the delays that we have seen uh to several of our projects are due to large in part the environmental impact review process as well as uh the duplicative and lengthy nature uh within that. And additionally, we have also seen long complicated reviews as it pertains to the clean air act specifically within the permitting process itself.
▶ 1:57:22So when we look at that, we believe that there are ways to modernize the permitting process when an applicant um is going through that that they can use modern tools, electronic databases to achieve accuracy and a more streamlined process.
▶ 1:57:36Right? I'm nervous about lowering standards. I want higher environmental standards, but I see no reason why we can't get there much more quickly with a lot less drag on industry and the economy, and that's my goal. Mr. Mayor is Zaki. Here's a Kelli. Uh based on your testimony, it seems we both agree on the need to manage our forests, uh including you using uh prescribed fire. Uh are there ways that the federal government can help reduce the regulatory burden on states that are trying to use prescribed fire as a wildfire tool?
▶ 1:58:06And do you have any opinion on whether the fire act, which we're discussing today, addresses those
▶ 1:58:12Representative Peter, thank thank you for that uh question. And yes, there are um we prescribed fires can help uh bring resilience to the landscape a great deal. So we are working with um our other agencies in Oregon to try expand the use of u prescribed fires where we run into trouble with the uh pres and right now the exceptional events uh exclusion is is a is a tool for us to uh reduce this but it's complicated
▶ 1:58:43that in for the 24-hour designation we submitted about a hundred um the exceptional event submittals here um to to to it's legitimately then some of that is requires a a almost a master's degration of of submission and it shouldn't be there's a you know my as far as almost burning down my monitoring uh site you know shouldn't require a whole lot of submission other than you know there wasn't so there there's
▶ 1:59:13there are ways that EPA can improve the the process of and and ease the submittal of um exceptional events and the burden for the for the agencies there there are the also some that are EPA considers not regulatory significant uh meaning it did not cause a um the area to be in nonattainment. Therefore, you don't flag that. I think that's important to to exclude them as well. That's an area that we need to focus.
▶ 1:59:39Great. I'm out of time. We just say, Mr. Chairman, I um I I'm reticent to lower standards, but I'm anxious to accelerate deadlines and timelines and hope I we can work together on that. I yield back.
▶ 1:59:49I thank the gentleman for his questions. The chair now recognizes gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez.
▶ 1:59:55Thank you, Chairman. The Clean Air Act helps our nation achieve both clean air and a strong economy. Hermitting is a key component of this bedrock environmental law, moving industry forward while promoting healthy air quality. And before we get into the permitting part of this conversation, Miss Powell, I quickly want to touch base on all the uh work that the Clean Air Act has done and the lives and health it's improved over the last several decades.
▶ 2:00:18Just quickly, would you agree that particular matter is among the most dangerous forms of air pollution and is linked to many serious health problems, including cancer, stroke, and heart disease?
▶ 2:00:28Yes, absolutely.
▶ 2:00:30And has the Clean Air Act worked to reduce the volume of particulate matter in our air?
▶ 2:00:35It has. It has been tremendously
▶ 2:00:38And so, but we shouldn't take that success for granted. And I think it's especially dangerous to think about any modifications to the Cleaner Act in this moment because in this Congress alone, Republicans have voted on a reconciliation bill that will take health care away from 15 million people, many of whom rely on Medicaid and state administered Medicaid programs to get their health care.
▶ 2:00:59So people that that may need Medicaid to be their lifeline to health care may also be in communities that are overburdened by adverse environmental consequence like air pollution, particulate matter. And so it seems like an especially dangerous time to be making modifications to the Clean Air Act when you're thinking about potentially 15 million people losing healthcare. Would you agree with that?
▶ 2:01:21I agree with that. And the fact that there's so many people that are at risk of losing health care or are inadequately getting health care right now means that they're more vulnerable to the effects of air pollution.
▶ 2:01:33That's right. And and I think about uh I represent parts of Newark uh including the Ironbound uh neighborhood. And what you see there in an overburned community is the asthma rates among children. So as successful as the Clean Air Act has been, there's still an immense amount of work to do. So we ensure that all communities and all children have clean air throughout this country. Would you agree with that?
▶ 2:01:53I would absolutely agree with that and we heard one testifier mentioning that there were diminishing returns from the act. That is absolutely not true. The act is is as important now as it has always been.
▶ 2:02:05Yeah, I agree with that. In June, uh Mr. John Wal from the Natural Resources Defense Council testified before this committee and said that he would support finding ways to expedite permitting rules and processes through updated guidance or regulation so long as the Clean Air Act is upheld and it critical protections remain in place. Miss Powell, would you agree with Mr. Walk's
▶ 2:02:28I would certainly revisions to regulations or policies as needed to make permitting more efficient. uh they're they're certainly worthy of consideration so long as they continue to protect public health. And
▶ 2:02:43that's exactly right. And that's what Mr. Peters and I were discussing earlier today because he's been a leading Democratic voice on permitting reform. We want to engage in the conversation about how we streamline some of these processes, but not at the expense of the health of our communities. Um, and just a quick followup, do you believe the bills in discussion here today would achieve those priorities of expediting permitting rules and processes through updated guidance and regulation?
▶ 2:03:09I do not. They are far more focused on stripping away fundamental clean air act protections that are needed to ensure that people across the country have healthy air quality.
▶ 2:03:20Right. and and we've touched on some of the issues that folks face when they're trying to work their way through these various regulations, but we also have to acknowledge the catastrophic staffing and funding cuts at the Trump administration's EPA. We have to acknowledge that we're not building capacity at state agencies that issue permits. Would you agree that that's a a route that we could take to make these processes more streamlined in an effective and thoughtful way?
▶ 2:03:46Manders, absolutely. That's when when we get down to it, it's a resource issue for states and and guidance.
▶ 2:03:52Yeah. And so that's what I think is so frustrating because we we fra the majority frames these conversations as we're looking at permitting reform, but they're really just cherrypicking things out of the Clean Air Act that aren't a holistic approach to how we actually address the challenges that industry are facing. And on this side of the aisle, we want to see renewable energy, clean energy get online quicker. So that's why we want to engage in the conversation, but this is not really the most artful way to do it.
▶ 2:04:20And it's misleading to tell the American people we're going to sit here and have a conversation about energy about, excuse me, about permitting reform when it's really hand selected approaches that undermine the Clean Air Act when, as we previously discussed, there's so much more work that we have to do to ensure that every American, especially every American child, is breathing clean air. We can do that work together. I would love to do in a bipartisan way, but um in my opinion, that's not what we're we're doing here today. So, thank you all so much for coming. By the way, my wife's from Indiana. So, go Hoosiers.
▶ 2:04:52The gentleman yields. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Carter, for five minutes for his
▶ 2:04:59No, no, no. I'm sorry. Mr. Lansman from
▶ 2:05:03This guy. Uh no worries. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, yeah, there's clearly I I um I think there's a commitment uh to do bipartisan permitting reform. It does require both sides to get in a room and and hash out those details and and there are folks on both sides uh that have worked on this.
▶ 2:05:28It's not clear to me that that we're we're talking about a bipartisan permitting bill, but I wanted to get to uh get at a few things. Um we are talking in in large part about you know clean air, clean water and there are serious questions about whether or not these reforms would in fact lead to dirtier air and dirtier water uh which we want to avoid.
▶ 2:05:58Uh, one of the things uh that makes a huge difference right now is the office of research and development at the the EPA. They only do clean air and water work. Uh, and I've got a big OD office in my district. Amazing human beings, incredible scientists and researchers, and they help businesses and uh deal with clean air and clean water uh uh concerns.
▶ 2:06:28Um, I was frustrated, uh, as you can imagine, by the EPA's decision to shutter the Office of Research and Development and threaten the jobs of nearly 1,200 dedicated public servants. Uh, it is, I'd argue, the R OD, the scientific backbone of of the EPA.
▶ 2:06:49Um, Miss Pal, how did the EPA's work within OAD before the EPA or the administrator's decision around OARD? How did it support the EB EPA's ability to address uh toxic air pollution?
▶ 2:07:07The Office of Research and Development played an absolutely essential role in helping evaluate the health effects of air toxics. And I have an example that's been really important in the state of Georgia where I'm based. In around 2016, OAD assessed ethylene oxide that comes from medical sterilizers and determined that ethylene oxide is far more carcinogenic than had previously been thought.
▶ 2:07:33The state of Georgia took that information and they moved forward quickly to put in place strong standards in permits. They established them in permits to regulate ethylene oxide. and the state legislature acted as well based on that information to adopt strong legislation. EPA took that information and and strengthened their federal standard.
▶ 2:07:55Unfortunately, that's one of the standards that the president has recently exempted many facilities from and is talking about rolling back. But OAD played a really important role in helping people understand the risks presented by that pollutant and identified communities at risk all across the country.
▶ 2:08:14Yeah, I was over there touring the other day and it's uh it's amazing how much they do for local communities again companies but also to your point state legislatores and that's where a lot of the permitting reform happens right and so I'm curious um this is a question for uh Mr. Mzak Mzaki is that right? Yeah. Thank you. Sorry.
▶ 2:08:38Um can you talk a little bit about the specific tools or expertise that OAD uh has provided to states um like yours? Would states face challenges implementing Clean Air Act requirements if those resources were scaled back if it was harder to get OD resources?
▶ 2:08:57Represent Landon. Absolutely. Um they provide crucial resources for uh state permitting agencies. Um you know such as modeling tools. Um we rely on we assess the impact of emissions based on um atmospheric models that all are uh perfected and and uh improved through ORD research. Uh emissions inventory uh tools that come along with them and basic science u they provide guidance.
▶ 2:09:26I think that's the for us to have better tools we need.
▶ 2:09:30Can I just ask you and then everybody else it's also very important for OD these scientists to remain independent right I mean to to remain uh independent from political appointees and and potential pressure from them. Yes or no?
▶ 2:09:45Miss Pow. Okay. Yes. Yes. Sure. All right. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
▶ 2:10:00The gentleman yields.
▶ 2:10:04I will now recognize myself for five minutes for questions. Um, Mr. Woods, I think everybody here should know, if they don't know already, that we're in an arms race for artificial intelligence and quantum computing with with China. And um in order to to meet that, we're going to have to have some permitting reform. We're going to have to make some some reforms across the board to some of our environmental laws. I think we can do that with no harm uh to environmental quality.
▶ 2:10:34I worked uh in a previous life. I worked for two international engineering companies, one of which is combustion engineering, their environmental systems division. and I have a pretty good understanding of what has to be done to to maintain our air quality, water quality, land quality.
▶ 2:10:50U what how do you think it would impact our ability to build out our data centers and particularly to power those data centers if we don't have some sensible regulatory reform, permitting Yeah, I think in the absence it'll be a real challenge and obviously you have you know competition between states and even in localities and and sometimes these environmental matters and non-attainment with a national ambient air quality standard or other issue uh can be an important determination in economic development um and where and site site selection that
▶ 2:11:21is really critical. I think has been has been echoed by by several panelists. Uh as we drive those investments overseas, whether it's in the form of coal fired power plants or data centers or anything else, we're increasingly able to uh characterize the degree to which those emissions still impact us to an increasing degree. And we brought our standards down. I think there's some real real potential ripple effects of not having those investments made.
▶ 2:11:41But part of this effort to to win this arms race includes our ability to secure our own supply chain and refine critical minerals, refine rare earth elements. Miss Coons, you're planning to expand Micron. Does does your product require any refined rare earth elements?
▶ 2:11:59Uh, at this time I'm not an expert in that particular subject. So, we will have our uh team get back to you.
▶ 2:12:04Okay. Well, I can tell you with a pretty high degree of certainty that you won't be able to make semiconductors, microchips, a number of other products without refined rare earth elements. And if if China decided to cut us off, we get 94% of those from China. There's only there's not a single major refinery for rare earth elements in the entire western hemisphere. There's only nine in the world. Eight of them are in China and one is in Malaysia.
▶ 2:12:30In order to build these processing and refining facilities, it's it's going to require an additional uh increase in power output. Not just in addition to what we need for the data centers. Mr. Iden, we've we've talked about the consequences from u not reforming the outdated provisions of Clean Air Act for semiconductor plants and large projects.
▶ 2:12:53Wouldn't you say that also applies to um our ability to provide power for these processing refining facilities?
▶ 2:13:01Thank you, Mr. Chair. Absolutely. It does impact that. And Arizona, for those of you who don't know, is is responsible for 80% of the US copper supply. We are a mining state. It's one of the key components of our economy and the need for power uh before you can even think about building a refinery, before you can think about building smelters, it needs to be settled. And you know, the the question of availability, reliability, and affordability on on power is everything right now. And and permitting reform plays into that perfectly. I can speak on behalf of our state utilities.
▶ 2:13:30They're constantly looking for permitting reform. Well, I'd just like to state for the record, at least from my side of the aisle, that while we support renewable energy, we're not in a a race to to lead the world in renewable energy, we're in an arms race. Again, as I've already said, uh to u win this arms race for artificial intelligence and quantum computing, Mr.
▶ 2:13:54Jevia, how do current outdated provisions and flaws in the Clean Air Act impact our ability to to to meet growing energy needs and to win this arms race?
▶ 2:14:06I mean, as as we talked about here, there is a need for uh process improvement in the permitting process. And right now, we know that we can deploy behind the meter power generation solutions for data centers. We know what the best available technology is to control those emissions and we face in certain jurisdictions lengthy timelines ahead of being able to deploy that power simply for permitting review. So we I think an easy reform is to identify that we we know what these solutions are.
▶ 2:14:36We know what emission limits should be whether that's going through a PSD backed program or a non-attainment layer review. Um and so we should be able to begin deploying much faster uh with with the data that we have available. Well, I would u say this in closing in terms of my questions is that China understands our environmental laws better than we do and they constantly use them. They support environmental groups to use them against us because they know what race they need to win and it's not the race to renewables.
▶ 2:15:05It's the race to to master artificial intelligence and quantum computing. And now recognize the gentleman from Georgia. Buddy, can you take the chair?
▶ 2:15:16Um Mr. Joyce, can you take chair?
▶ 2:15:28You ready? Okay. Well, thank you'all very much for being here. I know it's been a long day for you and we appreciate you staying here. This is um something that's extremely important. I tell people all the time when um when business people come into my office, regardless of what sector of our economy it is, whether it be health care, whether it be energy or or technology, it's always the same thing. Permitting, regulations, crushing us, crushing us.
▶ 2:15:53It's really putting a a bind on the on the business world and and it's something that we need to address. And I give the example quite often and I don't think it's apples and oranges. I think it's very relevant. I have the honor and privilege of representing the first congressional district of Georgia, including the port of Savannah, the entire coast of Georgia. We um deepened that port from 42 foot to 47 foot.
▶ 2:16:18And we went from we did that and the Savannah Harbor expansion project and finished that project in March of 2022. The permitting for that project started in 1996. I mean, that's just ridiculous. In that period of time, China has started in and completed three ports. So, it is something we need to address and that's what we're trying to do. We're talking about the Clean Air Act and that's one of the um landmark pieces of legislation that must be reformed if we're going to tackle this issue.
▶ 2:16:49You know, it's been three decades since anything has really been changed, since any real changes have been made to the Clean Air Act. And Miss Coons, based on your testimony, you are all too familiar with how stringent the PM2.5 standards are hampering development in America. In June, we had another hearing that included my bill, the Clear Act, which would prevent EPA from penalizing exceptional events such as wildfires or preventative actions such as prescribed burns.
▶ 2:17:16when looking at the um the when looking at the Clean Air Act, can you tell me about how wildfires in and around Idaho impact your ability to compete to to comply with the Clean Air Act?
▶ 2:17:28Thank you, Congressman. From our perspective, when we look at wildfire specifically, we're urging for more codification around the definitions of human versus natural events and can which can only help the permitting and application process by removing the uncertainty and lack of clarity within this space.
▶ 2:17:48That that's certainly true. I mean, you know, if if you're going from 12 to 9 like been proposed and the baseline is at 8 and you have a wildfire, I mean, there you don't have any chance there. and and that's what a lot of the companies and the businesses are are concerned about. What are some of the consequences we might see in terms of domestic AI development if we don't amend the Clean Air Act or if we don't handle NAS? Thank you, Congressman.
▶ 2:18:14Um, I can't speak specifically to the AI development broadly, but what I can say is that we are the only US-based memory manufacturer with leading edge technology that supports uh everything from AI to mobile to automobile.
▶ 2:18:31Great. Mr. Woods, you work as a commissioner for the Idaho or excuse me, for the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. So, that must mean that you're familiar with the implementation process for NAS. What um in June I introduced Clear Act and that does a lot to help states comply with NESK including giving states a year to make changes to the state implementation plans and extending the review timeline from 5 years to 10 years allowing for the economic feasibility attainment
▶ 2:19:01to be considered and much more. Do you feel like these potential changes would allow you to do your job more effectively and make expectations of your department more realistic?
▶ 2:19:11Uh the short answer is yes. And I think there's a strong state unanimous probably opinion that uh EPA never meets any of their deadlines. I used to to work in EPA's office of air and radiation, we get sued almost every day. And so when EPA doesn't meet those deadlines, uh it means that somebody else is dictating them to them. Um and for us, I think the implementation tools when an act is amended are incredibly important. For for some of our criteria, pollutants like carbon monoxide, the underlying science hasn't changed much in 20 years, which is why we haven't changed those standards. For others, we've taken 12 or 13 years.
▶ 2:19:40So, I think those changes would be incredibly important for state planning as we have a lot of those obligations as the core implementers of the Clean Air Act.
▶ 2:19:47Let me ask you, Mr. Woods, um the fire act, I think, is a great piece of um common sense legislation. What do what do you what's your response to that?
▶ 2:19:55I I I agree. I think there are a number of uh categories of exceptional events in which uh there should be as Mr. Marazily uh mentioned kind of no-brainers, right? when there's a fire happening in an area clearly and there's increasingly uh those I I will say whether it's for criteria pollutants or greenhouse gases when we start to look at the impact of catastrophic wildfire on air quality a week or two of uh catastrophic wildfire in California emits more greenhouse gases in an entire year of all energy related activity in Indiana.
▶ 2:20:23So those things are incredibly impactful and so the ability to ensure that prescribed fire active forest management can reduce the likelihood of those catastrophic wildfires on the whole will result in a dramatic improvement in air quality that's been the leading driver of increases in PM in any part of the country. And so that that I think gets to that core of that issue. Well, thank you and again thank all of you for being here today. But I want to stress one last point and that is that um Americans don't have to have to choose between clean air and developing our economy.
▶ 2:20:51We can do both and I hope we will do both. So, thank you all for being here and I yield back.
▶ 2:20:56The gentleman yields. I now recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. Look relieved. I will be the last. It's been a long day, but your testimony is important to each and every one of us. The need for permitting reform has never been more pressing. I think you know that. Across the country, projects are stalled due to burdensome and unworkable Economic growth has been stunted by outdated provisions.
▶ 2:21:28It's costing American jobs. It's costing American energy and it's certainly threatening our national security. We continue to face the consequences of tightening regulations despite the fact that the US emissions have consistently decreased over the past 10 years, resulting in America's air quality rating absolutely among the best in the world.
▶ 2:21:55To keep America globally competitive, we must ensure that common sense, attainable standards prevail. Mr. Siden, can you explain the potential consequences that might result from outdated provisions of the Clean Air Act and secondly, how they will impact industries and their ability to build right here in the United States?
▶ 2:22:18Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question. And and yes, I'll I will do my best. It's always hard to quantify all the the costs, but we at the chamber and the members I represent consider very serious consequences will happen if this is not modifi if if this is not modernized or modified or changed because we have we've seen a stall in companies willing to make decisions willing to plan ahead.
▶ 2:22:39Uh when you're talking multi-billion dollar investments, when you're talking semiconductors, AI, all the things that we're in this arms race for right now, those decisions aren't made nine months at a time, 90 days at a time, they're made years in advance. And we need certainty to cement the investments we're going to get for those years. And and you are correct. I don't know a single one of those members who wants to skirt any environmental standard. They are the best corporate stewards. We we're proud to represent them and they want to they want to follow all the rules and and go above and beyond. But there is just no certainty and things change and the planning for that makes it very difficult.
▶ 2:23:09So if this is not modernized, we are going to see us being unfairly hamstrung in our competition with other countries including our foreign adversaries. And that huge foreign adversary specifically when it comes to AI is China. Overburdensome regulations threaten us globally and that's why I had to mention China and they encourage companies to build in other countries like China. Miss Coons Micron is a leader in one of the fastest growing global industries.
▶ 2:23:39I have a two-part question. What consequences will the US face if we fail to enact meaningful permitting reform? And how urgent is it need for that permitting reform if the US wants to remain globally competitive?
▶ 2:23:54Thank you, Congressman. What we've experienced is a very lengthy permitting process that's been occurring for over the last two and a half years, and we need reform in this particular space so that we can maintain our US Do you feel that if that reform is in place that you will once again be competitive? Not just competitive here, but competitive worldwide.
▶ 2:24:17Yes, I mean I can speak to my expertise within the permitting space and what I can tell you is for our US investments, these extended timelines impact our manufacturing processes and our abilities to bring chips to market. So reforming and ensuring that we have a streamlined permitting process will only help continue to make the semiconductor industry more successful.
▶ 2:24:37Miss Coons, do you feel that seeding investment opportunities to foreign adver ad advers ad adversaries who do not have the same clean air requirements not only harms us in the US economically, but it's actually incompatible with the ultimate goal of protecting the environment?
▶ 2:24:56Thank you, chair or congressman. Um, I can speak to my own experience within the US permitting space um for the purposes of health and safety in the environment. And what I can tell you again is that delays and extended timelines in this will impact our manufacturing processes.
▶ 2:25:13We have also seen how the uncertainty of when the new source review process will be triggered and how the expense of undertaking in NSR review has discouraged much needed investment. Mr. Gibia new source review has been used to prevent new economic development in the country and even the retrofit of existing industrial facilities to actually reduce their emissions.
▶ 2:25:38How would narrow NSR reforms reduce regulatory burdens on our economy while still protecting human health and still protecting the environment?
▶ 2:25:48Thank you for the question. I think we need to acknowledge that there is a broad regulatory landscape that new source review fits within and largely it has become outdated between new source performance standards and state permitting requirements. Uh it has become a duplicative uh and and slows down our our ability to deploy uh technologies that we know are available
▶ 2:26:08and that duplicative nature certainly slows our ability to be competitive. It is imperative to balance our public health and I as a doctor recognize that and clean air goals and I again as a doctor recognize that with the need to attract innovation and economic development in critical industries.
▶ 2:26:27If we don't take that immediate action to provide regulatory relief, we will lose out on investment to China and to other competitors, undermining the global competitiveness and putting our economy our economy ultimately at risk. Thank again. I thank all of the witnesses for this long day and for being here till the end.
▶ 2:26:53I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the documents included on the staff hearing documents list without objection so ordered. I remind members that they have 10 business days to submit questions for the record and I ask the witnesses to do their best to submit responses within 10 business days of receipts of these questions. Without objection, the subcommittee is now adjourned.