[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MASSACHUSETTS V. U.S. EPA: IMPLICATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
AND GLOBAL WARMING
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 8, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-7
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on
Energy Independence and Global Warming
globalwarming.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-082 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
AND GLOBAL WARMING
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JAY INSLEE, Washington Wisconsin
JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut Ranking Member
HILDA L. SOLIS, California JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, GREG WALDEN, Oregon
South Dakota CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
JOHN J. HALL, New York MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
------
Professional Staff
David Moulton, Staff Director
Aliya Brodsky, Chief Clerk
Thomas Weimer, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement............... 1
Prepared Statement........................................... 4
Hon. Earl Blumenauer, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Oregon, opening statement................................... 7
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver II, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri, opening statement........................... 7
Prepared Statement........................................... 9
Hon. Jay R. Inslee, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Washington, opening statement............................... 10
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, a Representative in Congress from
the State of South Dakota, opening statement................... 10
Witnesses
Panel I:
Honorable Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency............................ 12
Prepared Testimony....................................... 14
Honorable Nicole Nason, Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)...................... 33
Prepared Testimony....................................... 35
Panel II:
Honorable Jerry Brown, Attorney General, State of California. 60
Prepared Testimony....................................... 64
The Honorable Martha Coakley, Attorney General, Commonwealth
of Massachusetts........................................... 72
Prepared Testimony....................................... 76
MASSACHUSETTS V. U.S. EPA: IMPLICATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISON
---------- --
--------
FRIDAY, JUNE 8, 2007
House of Representatives,
Select Committee on Energy Independence
and Global Warming,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m. in room
2318, Rayburn, Hon. Edward J. Markey [chairman of the
Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Markey, Blumenauer, Inslee,
Herseth Sandlin and Cleaver.
The Chairman. Good morning, and thank you all very much for
being here today.
Today's hearing will focus on the aftermath of the landmark
Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, both within the
Bush administration and within Congress. In 1998, in response
to an inquiry by then Representative Tom DeLay, the Clinton
administration's Environmental Protection Agency said that it
believed that the Clean Air Act provided it with the authority
to regulate carbon dioxide. One year later, a group of
environmental and other advocacy organizations petitioned the
EPA to use this authority to set greenhouse gas standards for
cars. But it wasn't until 2003, when the Bush administration
had already embarked on a course of denial, delay and dismissal
of the risks of climate change and the need to address it, that
the EPA repudiated the Clinton administration's conclusion that
carbon dioxide was a pollutant that could be regulated and
denied the petition. That petition became the case known as
Massachusetts versus EPA.
Until April of this year, the Bush administration continued
to assert that it lacked authority to regulate carbon dioxide.
It continued to assert that the science was uncertain, that
voluntary programs to reduce emissions would be sufficient and
that rhetorical policy goals should take the place of binding
regulatory language.
It continued to fight the states who were pushing to move
ahead.
But all that changed when the Supreme Court ruled that
under the plain meaning of the Clean Air Act, carbon dioxide is
a pollutant and that EPA could not hide behind its smoke screen
any longer. In fact, under the Supreme Court's interpretation
of the Clean Air Act, EPA now has the duty to regulate as long
as it determines that emissions of carbon dioxide endanger
public health and welfare.
Never the less, the President has issued a new executive
order that effectively said start studying this problem and try
to finish it up right before I leave office. Six and a half
years into his administration, after the scientific consensus
on the dangers of climate change has become overwhelming, after
we hear that the earth has warmed so much that transportation
routes in Greenland that used to require dog sleds in the
winter now can be traveled by boat, the President sees no
urgency and is engaged in a stall.
Instead of moving to regulate against the threat of global
warming, he has decided that his cabinet is to spend the
remainder of his term talking about it.
And the signs that this issue isn't being taken seriously
enough by this administration don't end there.
Just last week, the head of NASA said that he wasn't sure
if global warming was a problem that we needed to wrestle with.
At this week's G-8 meeting the President indicated that all he
is willing to do is engage in fruitless discussions on the
nature of non-binding goals until the very end of his
administration, leaving his successor with the task of actually
doing something.
I hope that our Executive Branch witnesses will be able to
shed some light on the nature and stringency of the proposal
they are working on. But as the EPA and NHTSA lace up their
shoes and start to head over to the starting blocks, 12 States
are already sprinting to the finish line as they have already
promulgated regulations that reduce emissions from cars. They
have already concluded that the science is unequivocal, the
risk is real and the solutions are within our grasp.
Under the circumstances, it would be helpful to the planet
if our regulatory agencies would simply stop being obstacles to
other actors. If EPA would grant California's request to act,
other States could act as well.
I hope that Mr. Johnson will be able to shed some light on
the schedule of the approval process. I expect some witnesses
have also taken notes of the emergence of a legislative attempt
to block EPA from acting. The discussion draft pending in the
Energy and Commerce Committee, for example, would have the
effect of overturning Massachusetts versus EPA. Specifically,
that legislation would remove EPA's authority to set greenhouse
gas standards for cars and pre-empt States' rights to by
requiring EPA to deny California's request to move forward with
its own greenhouse gas program. In its place, that bill
proposes anemic fuel economy standards and opens the door to
allow fuel made from dirty coal into our transportation fuel
supply.
The legislation fails to meet the test established by
Speaker Pelosi earlier this year that any legislation we
approve must both address America's energy dependency without
increasing the threat of global warming and address the threat
of global warming without increasing our energy dependency.
So we have a moral obligation to ensure that we reduce our
dangerous dependency on imported oil from the Middle East by
making our cars and our trucks much more efficient, and we must
meet that challenge posed as well by global warming.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses both from the
Bush administration and its response to the Supreme Court
decision and to Congress's pending plans to reject that
decision altogether and from the States which will be
represented here as well.
That concludes the opening statements of the Chair.
I now turn to recognize the gentleman from Oregon, Mr.
Blumenauer, for an opening statement.
[The statement of Mr. Markey follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I deeply
appreciated your convening this hearing this morning.
As you have noted, given the draft of the--circulated out
of the Commerce Committee--underscores some of the problems
still at work here on Congress, and you and I, along with Mr.
Cleaver, Ms. Herseth, had an opportunity this last week,
starting in Greenland but going across Europe, dealing with
leaders, true leaders in coping with the problem of global
warming, underscoring the gap between the foot-dragging here
through EPA for the last 6 years aided and abetted by forces in
Congress that are still in denial.
It is critical that we have this conversation today. And I
do deeply appreciate it. I applaud your leadership and that of
our Speaker, who has made it clear that she, for one, has a
much different view.
The gap between the science, between what is happening with
foreign countries, where the United States torpedoed an
opportunity to have real progress just this week, to what we
are seeing, the lack of action by EPA for years is forcing at
the local and State level initiatives. My State of Oregon is
one that has joined with California in trying to deal
meaningfully. We have 522 cities and hundreds of college
campuses that have said, we are not waiting; we are going to
move forward.
But the mindset that we are seeing from the administration
and some forces in Congress, if we are not equal to the
challenge, are going to set us further behind, and a world that
looks to the United States for leadership will continue to be
perplexed and disappointed.
I am hopeful that we will be able to bring into tighter
focus these issues as a result of the hearing that you have
scheduled here today.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, particularly
the people who are fighting for the right for States to move
forward to step in where the Federal Government has been unable
and refused.
Thank you.
The Chairman. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Oregon, Mr. Cleaver, for an opening statement.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will have a
very short statement.
I, too, would like to express appreciation to you and
Speaker Pelosi for the visionary move that allowed us to see
firsthand in Greenland what is transpiring on this small ball
rolling around the sun we call earth, and it is truly alarming.
And as I have said many times recently, time is not on our
side.
On the front page of yesterday's Washington Post, which I
am sure the witnesses have seen, there is a photograph of a bay
in Greenland. We were in this spot about 7 and a half days ago.
And we had the opportunity to speak with Greenlanders, who are
not scientists. They are not Republicans or Democrats. They are
not policy wonks. They are not trying to get any pushback on
global warming. They are residents. Just a few of the 53,000
people who live there, and they are very clear: Their lives
have changed. Global warming is real. Places where they used to
sled, now they fish. And when you look at this bay and see the
blue and listen to the natives tell you that this is not
supposed to be blue at this time of the year--it never has
been--it is chilling.
And let me just conclude by saying, it was terribly
embarrassing to meet with legislators from other nations and to
hear them say that they have spoken with people in this
government who are still denying the science of global warming.
It is my hope, it is at this point my prayer, that we will
have a revolution in the way we think about this issue and
begin to join the 21st century.
I look forward to raising some questions with you during
that period.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Cleaver follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State,
Mr. Inslee.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
It is clear that we have had States really showing some
vision across the country to move to defeat the scourge of
global warming. And I think the States' message should be to
the Federal Government that old saying, ``lead, follow or get
out of the way.'' And frankly, this administration has not
lead, has not followed and has not gotten out of the way. And
we are determined to have a Federal Government that will lead,
much less not get out of the way.
And the reason is that States historically have helped lead
the country forward. You think about woman's suffrage. It was
Wyoming first in 1869 that moved forward followed by Colorado.
And these States, including California, and my State, and
Oregon and six others, have helped lead this country to a new
energy future. We are determined in the next several weeks to
have the Federal Government show some leadership finally.
I was in Europe talking to other members of other
governments last week with an energy subcommittee and was asked
to respond to Prime Minister Tony Blair as he spoke to an
interparliamentarian group in Berlin. And I had an exchange
with the Prime Minister. Basically, I was presenting the case
that the President's view that we can fight global warming with
volunteerism is just doomed to failure. You know, you can run a
bake sale based on voluntary activity. You cannot run a war on
global warming. It is sort of like the President wants to write
little frilly letters to oil companies saying, will you fellows
just stop polluting the planet, and expecting them to respond.
That is like expecting consumers to just volunteer to pay at
the pump. The voluntary system is not going to work here.
I asked the Prime Minister what he thought the best
argument was to try to get the White House and this
administration to finally understand why we need binding
commitments, why we need a cap-and-trade system, why we need
renewable portfolio standards. And I thought his answer was
instructive. He said, it is clear we need new technologies. And
to get new technologies, we need to drive investment into those
technologies. And to drive investment into those new
technologies, we need binding commitments to tell the investors
that they should move to clean energy in the future. And I
thought that was the right answer for the world, and it is the
right answer for America.
And I look forward in the next few weeks getting the
Federal Government to finally show some leadership.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Great. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from South Dakota, Ms.
Herseth Sandlin.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I wanted to thank you for having this
hearing, and I wanted to thank our witnesses. And Administrator
Johnson was in South Dakota a couple of years ago, shortly
after we passed the Policy Act in 2005, which I supported
primarily because of the renewable fuel standards that we had
for the first time that many of us from midwestern Great Plains
States had advocated for years and finally were able to get--
although we didn't get it quite at the level we would have
liked, I know that the administrator was taking steps at that
time to look at the regulations necessary as it related to the
production process in meeting the 7 and a half billion gallon
renewable fuel standard of which we will surpass based on
current projections by the end of this year, which I appreciate
the opportunity this morning to explore further with our
witnesses and with members of the committee.
The President's 35 billion gallon renewable--I wish it were
renewable, fuel standard requirement--I think the language is
alternative fuel standard. And so I look forward to exploring
the issue there as I have done with others at the White House
with regard to renewable fuels versus alternative fuels and the
importance of addressing a greenhouse gas reduction policy
federally which helps lead the way internationally as so many
of our discussions on the recent Congressional delegation trip
to Europe identified.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the hearing, and I
yield back.
The Chairman. All time for opening statements by members
has expired.
We will now turn to our panel.
Mr. Blumenauer. May I inquire?
I don't see any of our Republican colleagues here. Was
there any statement that was submitted for the record that
would help us clarify any of their positions or concerns about
the nature and extent of the hearing today?
The Chairman. I would have to, if the gentleman would
allow me, to inquire of the minority if there are any
statements.
But to be fair, today was a day that the Congress was
supposed to be in session. The Congress has now decided that it
will not meet today. And so I think many of the Republicans
have returned to their home districts as of last night, and I
think that is something that we should note in fairness.
If there are any statements that the minority wishes to
have included in the record, we will include it in the record.
But like I said, it is something that has to be noted.
STATEMENTS OF STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; AND NICOLE R. NASON,
ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
The Chairman. Let me turn to now recognize Stephen
Johnson. Stephen Johnson was sworn in as the 11th Administrator
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency just over
2 years ago, after 26 years at the EPA. Prior to becoming
administrator, he held several senior level positions,
including acting administrator, deputy administrator and held
several other senior level positions including acting admin--
including assistant administrator and other positions.
So we welcome you, Mr. Johnson, whenever you feel
comfortable, please begin.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN L. JOHNSON
Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Could you put on the microphone?
Mr. Johnson. Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you and members of
the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today
about climate change and energy security.
As you know, in Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court
made several findings regarding EPA's denial of a petition to
regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles under
the Clean Air Act. EPA is moving forward to meet the Supreme
Court's decision in a thoughtful, deliberative manner,
considering every appropriate option and every appropriate tool
at our disposal.
In that context, on May the 15th, President Bush directed
EPA and the Departments of Energy, Transportation and
Agriculture to coordinate our efforts in taking the first
regulatory step to address greenhouse gas emissions from cars.
The President called on us to base our work on his Twenty in
Ten plan, which would reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by 20
percent over the next 10 years. This announcement both
represents and responds to the Supreme Court's recent ruling
and provides a path forward in improving our energy security by
reducing U.S. dependence on oil.
Additionally, in keeping with EPA's commitment to address
the court's ruling expeditiously and responsibly, we signed a
formal notice that starts the public process for considering
the California waiver petition. We recently held two widely
attended public hearings, and the public comment period remains
open until June the 15th.
As we continue our progressive yet practical strategy to
cut our domestic carbon footprint, the President also
understands that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a global
challenge. And on May 31st, the President offered a global
strategy.
Last week, the President called upon the world's 15 largest
emitters to set a global goal on a long-term greenhouse gas
reduction. The President proposed to convene a series of
meetings with other countries, including rapidly growing
economies like India and China to establish a new framework for
the post-2012 world. Under the framework, each country would
establish mid-term national targets and programs that reflect
their own current and future energy needs.
The President believes that by encouraging and sharing
cutting-edge technologies, major emitters can meet realistic
goals. Both domestically and internationally, this
administration is addressing the serious challenge of global
climate change. As you all know, in 2002, President Bush
committed to cut greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent through
the year 2012, a goal that we are on track to meet and even
possibly exceed.
According to the EPA data reported at the United Nations
framework convention on climate change, U.S. greenhouse gas
intensity declined by 1.9 percent in 2003; 2.4 percent in 2004;
and 2.4 percent in 2005. Put another way, from 2004 to 2005,
the U.S. economy increased by 3.2 percent while greenhouse gas
emissions increased by only 0.8 percent.
Under the President's leadership, we are seeing real
results. According to the International Energy Agency, from
2000 to 2004, U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide from fuel
consumption grew by 1.7 percent while our economy expanded by
nearly 10 percent. The U.S. had a lower percentage increase
than Japan, Canada, the original 15 countries of the European
Union, India or China. And in fact, only two of the original EU
15 countries in the Kyoto Protocol are on schedule to meet
their Kyoto targets.
Over the last 6 years, the Bush administration has invested
more than any other nation in the world, $37 billion, in a
comprehensive climate change agenda. EPA climate programs
include a wide array of domestic and international partnerships
which rely on voluntary measures to reduce greenhouse gas
intensity, spurring investments and removing barriers to the
introduction of clean technologies.
I would be happy to speak in greater detail about EPA's
many climate partnership programs.
Again, thank you. Thank you very much for the opportunity
to testify, and before I take questions, I would ask that my
full written statement be submitted for the record.
[The statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Without objection, it will be included in the
record.
Our other very distinguished witness on the first panel is
Nicole Nason, who began her duties as administrator of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration just over a year
ago after serving as the assistant secretary for governmental
affairs in the Department of Transportation since July of 2003.
We welcome you, and whenever you are ready, please begin.
STATEMENT OF NICOLE R. NASON
Ms. Nason. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to be here.
Since the administrator spoke about the Twenty in Ten, in
the interest of time, I thought I would confine my remarks to
CAFE this morning and that piece of the President's proposal.
A key component of the Twenty in Ten plan that the
President has proposed is to significantly boost fuel economy
for cars and for light trucks. The President's goal to raise
fuel efficiency would save 8.5 billion gallons of gasoline
annually in 2017.
Towards that end, the administration forwarded legislation
to Congress to grant the Secretary of Transportation the
authority to reform CAFE for passenger cars in February.
The Bush administration has a proven record in this area.
We have raised CAFE standards for light trucks for 7
consecutive years from 2005 to 2011. These higher standards are
expected to save 14 billion gallons of fuel and result in a net
reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 107 million metric
tons.
As important, the attribute-based CAFE structure that we
established promises fuel economy benefits without jeopardizing
safety or causing job loss or sacrificing consumer choice.
Basing our reforms on CAFE on the National Academy of Sciences,
we structured the CAFE program to make it more effective and
safer and fairer.
And we accomplished this by using a structure that
incentivizes manufacturers to add fuel-saving technologies
instead of downsizing vehicles. The reform has a number of
benefits. First, we believe it will result in more fuel savings
than under the old CAFE because now all automakers will have to
make their vehicles more fuel-efficient.
Second, the reform has the benefit of preserving consumer
choice. Under the old CAFE program, an automaker generally
manufacturers a certain quantity of smaller vehicles to balance
out the larger vehicles they have been selling. Our attribute-
based CAFE standard benefits new vehicle buyers by having all
five vehicles, small, medium and large, become more fuel
efficient.
We also tackled what the NAS called the safety penalty. The
National Academy of Sciences estimated that CAFE was partially
responsible for between 1,300 and 2,600 lives lost in 1 year
alone. They looked at 1993. Our restructuring of CAFE
incentivizes automakers to add fuel-saving technologies instead
of downsizing the vehicles, and we believe we are able to
minimize the safety impact.
Mr. Chairman, our effort to reform CAFE will guide the way
in meeting our next challenge.
As you know, as the administrator just spoke, the President
has directed the Departments of Transportation and EPA,
Agriculture and Energy to take steps towards regulations that
would cut gasoline consumption and thus reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. The steps called for in the executive order will
proceed in a manner consistent with sound science analysis of
benefits and cost, safety, and economic growth.
It is a complicated legal and technical matter. It will
take us some time to resolve, but the President has directed us
to compete this regulatory process by the end of 2008.
We have received most of the manufacturers' product plans
for cars, and we expect to receive their plans for light trucks
shortly.
Mr. Chairman, given the Supreme Court's interpretation of
the Clean Air Act, there are now, in effect, two agencies with
authority to regulate motor vehicle fuel economy and carbon
dioxide tailpipe emissions. And as the President stated, our
regulatory efforts are not a substitute for effective
legislation.
Accordingly, we continue to ask the Congress to enact the
President's Twenty in Ten proposal. It is the most responsible
way to raise fuel economy standards to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil and cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Thank you very much. I look forward to answering your
questions.
[The statement of Ms. Nason follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you very much. And now we will turn to
questions from the select committee.
The Chair will recognize himself.
Mr. Johnson, during the May 14th press conference on the
President's executive order, you quoted Justice Scalia's
dissenting view in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA where you
said that--where he said that if you were to determine that
there is endangerment associated with carbon dioxide emissions,
only then would EPA be required to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions from vehicles.
Do you believe that emissions of carbon dioxide from motor
vehicles endanger public health or welfare, Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. Well, Mr. Chairman, we believe that
greenhouse gas emissions and global change is a serious issue,
and as we prepare and draft our proposed regulation for
addressing greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, we will
be addressing the issue of endangerment. It is a process that
we have been following since 1990.
The Chairman. So you have been following it since 1990, but
you have yet to reach a conclusion as to whether or not the
CO2 does, in effect, endanger the public health or
welfare?
Mr. Johnson. Let me be clear. The process of addressing the
issue of endangerment on air pollutants we include as part of
our proposed regulation, and that is what I was referring to
since 1990.
The issue of global climate change, as you are probably
well aware, having read the Supreme Court decision, is an issue
that goes back to the late 1970s. In fact, in 1978, the Supreme
Court does an excellent job of going through the rather lengthy
history of the issue of global climate change, and they go back
to 1978.
The Chairman. Actually, it even goes back before that. I
think you just picked an arbitrary date.
But the question is to you, Mr. Johnson, whether or not you
agree with now the overwhelming consensus of science globally
that there is an endangerment to the public health and welfare
that is being caused by emittance of CO2 into the
atmosphere. That is squarely on your shoulders. And your answer
to that question, of course, is the central question here
today.
Is it an endangerment to the public health and welfare of
our country and the world that CO2 is being emitted
into the atmosphere?
Mr. Johnson. Global change is a very serious issue, and the
issue of endangerment under the Clean Air Act, particularly
under Sections 202 and 211, have to be taken into consideration
as part of our regulatory determination.
The Chairman. Is it a danger, Mr. Johnson? Is
CO2 a danger to the American public, in your
opinion?
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, global change is a very serious
issue----
The Chairman. Is it a danger to the American people, Mr.
Johnson, that CO2 in massive quantities is being
emitted into the atmosphere?
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. We will be laying out our
position on endangerment as part of our proposed regulation.
The Chairman. It is very difficult to believe, Mr. Johnson,
that you, as the environmental minister for the United States,
as the chief protecter of the environment for the United
States, have yet to come to a conclusion as to whether or not
CO2 is, in fact, a danger to our people and to the
people of the world.
You are the last major environmental minister in the
Western world that has not come to a decision on this. And we
should be the scientific leader, not the laggard, and to the
extent to which you are still deliberating allows for this
danger to build as an even greater threat to our people and to
the entire world.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, the issue of endangerment is a
legal term of art, as you know, that is invited in the Clean
Air Act, and as the agency has been practicing since 1990, that
its position on endangerment of an air pollutant is included as
part of its proposed rulemaking. And my note to you, again, is
we recognize that global warming, and greenhouse gas emissions,
is a serious issue and that we are addressing it through
drafting regulations, for controlling it through for new
automobiles, and the issue of endangerment will be part of our
proposed regulations.
The Chairman. I understand what you are saying, Mr.
Johnson. But your testimony is just further evidence that the
Bush administration is out of step with the science and with
the world on this issue of whether or not CO2
endangers our planet and the people in our country. And I think
that we are at a critical juncture at this point.
It was not helpful that the White House last week in
anticipation of the G-8 summit said that the Bush
administration's goals were aspirational for dealing with
greenhouse gasses. The Bush administration's goals are not
aspirational. They are procrastinational. They wanted to delay
dealing with this issue. They move now from a policy of denial
that there is a problem to delay in dealing with it, and the
very fact that you are not answering this question of
endangerment is just further evidence of that.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, it would be irresponsible of me
to make a final determination, from a regulatory perspective,
under the Clean Air Act without having an opportunity to
propose, go through notice and comment and then make a final
decision. I am abiding by what the law directs me to do and
that is to go through a public notice and comment process.
Oh, by the way, I think that is good government, and if you
look at the schedule in my 26-year history as a government
employee, to write a major regulation generally in my
experience takes 18 to 24 months. This is a very complex
regulation, and what the President has directed us to do is to
write a regulation and have it final by the end of 2008. That
is a very aggressive, yet we believe a practical, strategy for
addressing it.
The Chairman. Well, I believe that you and I are going to
disagree on that. In fact, I just have to take note at this
point that neither you nor your predecessors appeared for 6
years before the lead environmental committee in the House of
Representatives. And that is, in and of itself, a statement of
the relationship that existed between the Bush administration
and the Republican Congress. I mean, never before has there
been such a successful witness protection program ever built
that the EPA administrator did not have to appear before the
environmental committee before in the House of Representatives,
and this continued policy of delay here is something that
follows on that path.
Let me ask just one other question, and that goes to my
home State, and it is a successful case, Massachusetts v. EPA
and the decision which was rendered by the Supreme Court.
As you know, before the Energy and Commerce Committee,
there is now language which actually removes the authority
which the Supreme Court confirmed that you had--that the EPA
had to regulate CO2 by actually prohibiting EPA from
setting national vehicle tailpipe standards.
Do you support language which would remove from you the
authority to be able to deal with vehicle tailpipe standards?
Mr. Johnson. We have taken no position on the legislation,
but as my colleague from NHTSA pointed out, we prefer
legislative effects and certainly prefer the President's Twenty
in Ten legislative proposal because it provides--it is less
subject to litigation. It also provides certainty, and it also
helps to prevent future delay.
The Chairman. So you have no position on legislation
removing authority from your agency?
Mr. Johnson. We have not taken any position on that
legislation.
The Chairman. And a final question. It also forces you to
deny the State of California waiver requests to implement its
own vehicle greenhouse gas standards. Do you support these
provisions that remove your agency's authorities?
Mr. Johnson. Again, we have taken no position on the
legislation, the California petition, where we are reviewing
expeditiously and yet responsibly. The public comment period is
still open. It closes on June the 15th. And that is the status
of where we are at on the California petition.
The Chairman. And when are you going to rule on that?
Mr. Johnson. We have not made a determination of the date.
The Chairman. Actually, it is quite shocking that the lead
environmental agency in the United States does not have a view
on the defense of its own authority to protect the environment
as legislation is moving through the Congress. It is just
something I think at this time in our country in which would be
very disturbing to the American people if they knew that this
was the actual state of debate within the Bush administration
and between Congress and the Bush administration.
Let me turn now and recognize the gentleman from Oregon,
Mr. Blumenauer.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Johnson, is it the intensity of greenhouse gasses or
the greenhouse gasses that are providing the pollution that
concern us about global warming?
Mr. Johnson. Greenhouse gas emissions are what are
concerning us about global warming.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you.
You cited statistics this last year, it was only eight-
tenths of a percent, I believe, in terms of emissions, 1.7
percent increase in transportation. At these rates, how many
centuries will it take any of the other developed economies to
catch up with the United States to exceed us?
Mr. Johnson. Sir, what I do know is that, by analysis that
the agency has done, approximately by the year 2015, the
developing nations----
Mr. Blumenauer. I am talking about my specific----
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Will exceed--
Mr. Blumenauer. My specific question was, what you cited in
reference to developed countries, not China, which uses a
fraction, three metric tons per person as opposed to our 19
metric tons.
Mr. Johnson. You also have 1.3 billion----
Mr. Blumenauer. Absolutely. How many centuries would it
take a developed, any of the developed economies to pass us at
this rate?
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. I don't know the answer to that.
Mr. Blumenauer. Would you calculate that just to give us a
sense of perspective, how many centuries? Don't need to know
how many years. Just need to know how many centuries.
Is there any other developed country, other than China,
that has taken this laissez faire approach that you are
defending for the Bush administration? Is there any other
developed country that has an approach similar to what you are
advocating here today?
Mr. Johnson. First of all, I have to disagree----
Mr. Blumenauer. I don't want you to debate that. I want to
know if there is any other country that has a similar laissez
faire approach.
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Again, I beg to disagree with
your characterization. In fact, as a nation, we are in fact the
world's leader. We have spent $37 billion on advancing science
and technology. That is more than any----
Mr. Blumenauer. Mr. Johnson, I am asking specifically, and
you can't have a straight face and look at it on a per capita
basis, on a percentage basis, what other countries are doing.
We are the largest economy in the world. We are the largest
greenhouse gas emitter in the world. We have put more
greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere than any other country in
the world.
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. The comparison you are giving is
beside the point.
Mr. Blumenauer. My question is, is there any other
developed country that has a similar approach that you are
advocating?
Mr. Johnson. What I do know is that the countries that are
certainly part of the Kyoto Protocol, there are only two that
are meeting their targets. The others are not. For example----
Mr. Blumenauer. So your answer is, you don't know. You
don't know. You can't name a single name of a developed country
that is approaching. This is what your answer is.
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. What I am citing----
Mr. Blumenauer. Can you report back to us with an answer,
which, if any, country that is embracing a similar approach?
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. I would be happy to.
Mr. Blumenauer. I would very much appreciate that.
You know, I had some other questions, but the one that just
overwhelms me, at this point, you spent 27 years in the EPA?
Mr. Johnson. 26.
Mr. Blumenauer. Do you have any concerns about the morale,
the credibility, the capability of that agency as a result of
the leadership that you are providing now, the testimony you
are providing now, the approach that is being advocated by this
administration? Does it--do you have any concern about its
future credibility, the employee morale, the ability to be able
to be up to the environmental tasks?
Mr. Johnson. Sir, I am very proud of the outstanding
employees and the work that the Environmental Protection Agency
has done and continues to do.
In fact, for example, our Energy Star Program that we in
the Department of Energy administered last year, in 2006,
citizens of the United States saved almost $14 billion in
energy costs while saving greenhouse gas equivalents to 25
million automobiles. That is the number of automobiles in the
State of California and Illinois combined. That is a program.
Our Smart Wise Program dealing with trucks and others, 550
companies have signed up, and we have significant savings and
greenhouse gas emissions from that----
Mr. Blumenauer. That was not my question. My question was,
do you have any concern with the testimony you are giving with
the foot-dragging from EPA, with our being out of step with the
rest of the world, do you have any concern about what that does
for the morale, the professionalism and the credibility of EPA?
Not a few projects here or there that pale by comparison with
what you can do down the street. Go to the Norweigian embassy.
Go to Denmark in terms--do you have any concerns about what
impact this has on the functioning of EPA?
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Well, sir, I think we have a very
aggressive and yet practical strategy for addressing climate
change that is delivering real results, and I would also like
to point out that EPA, in the independent survey, was noted
this year as being one of the top 10 best places to work in the
Federal Government. And that is a fact I am very proud of, and
we are continuing along that way.
Mr. Blumenauer. May say more about the Bush administration
than the EPA, but thank you very much.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr.
Cleaver.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am not going to get into an argument about whether the
United States is the headlight or the taillight with regard to
dealing with this problem of climate change. I think people
around the world already have pretty much answered that
question.
But during the Supreme Court case, the EPA argued that if
it were granted the authority to regulate greenhouse gasses
under the CAA, it would be unwise, quote, unwise to do so at
this time. The EPA made the claims that doing so could conflict
with the current administration's efforts to address climate
change, particularly concerning international climate
negotiations.
So, Mr. Johnson, in your opinion, why would the EPA
consider coordination by the EPA with the President's climate
change initiative to be potentially conflicting?
Mr. Johnson. Well, sir, one is that we certainly, and I
certainly accept the Supreme Court's decision that
CO2 is a pollutant and that we are moving forward
with regulating CO2 from new automobiles under the
Clean Air Act. This is--the court's decision is very complex.
We are moving forward in an expeditious but responsible way for
addressing greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, and
certainly we are considering the impact on other sources, such
as stationary sources.
Mr. Cleaver. I have so many questions that it is difficult
to follow up because I need to ask you so many questions. I am
frankly confused about this, and as I mentioned earlier, a
little embarrassed because we seem to be behind the rest of the
world.
Can you just quickly give your opinion as to why the 27
nations of the EU are already moving and in many instances
moving legislatively to deal with this issue and we are not? I
mean, how much time do you think we have to begin to address
this issue, and if--well, answer those first, please.
Mr. Johnson. First of all, I believe the U.S. is a global
leader in dealing with global climate change.
Mr. Cleaver. Do you think anybody else in the world
believes that?
Mr. Johnson. I certainly believe that at the very--I am
very pleased that we reached an agreement at the G-8 and that
it has been agreed that there will be a process for rapidly
developing a new comprehensive post-2012 agreement. There is an
agreement to establish a long-term global goal to substantially
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and there was an agreement by
each nation which would be the ones deciding on how is the best
way to achieve that. And as I said, we have a very aggressive
plan in the United States. We are beginning to write
regulations to control greenhouse gas emissions from new
automobiles and a number of partnership programs that are
developing real results, and we are making progress.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you.
I am frustrated. And I am frustrated only because, you
know, I would like to have a candid exchange, and I am not sure
that this is happening.
On March 13th of this year, a draft bill aimed at moving
the United Kingdom to a low carbon economy was introduced, and
without exception, the MPs that we met with last week all
indicated that it was going to be approved. And in the measure,
they set a 60 percent goal of--I am sorry, the measure would
require mandatory 60 percent cut in the UK's carbon emissions
by 2050 compared to the 1990 levels.
And so when I see nations moving ahead like that, I am
having difficulty trying to conclude that we are the world
leader, and we won't even admit that there is global warming.
Do you admit--do you concur that there is, in fact, global
warming?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, as I said and as the President said since
2001, there is concern for greenhouse gas emissions and concern
over global warming. That is why we have invested $37 billion
as a nation to understand and to address it.
Mr. Cleaver. How much longer is the understanding period?
Mr. Johnson. Well, as I said, sir, we have been moving
forward since 2001 and we, with the President's directive, are
taking the first steps to regulate greenhouse gas emissions
from new automobiles.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you.
The Chairman. If I might just follow up with the gentleman
on one question.
You can't have it both ways, Mr. Johnson. You are touting
the fact that you are starting to write regulations for
tailpipe emissions yet you have no view on whether or not the
Congress should eliminate your authority to do so.
Which is it?
Mr. Johnson. Well, I leave that decision up to Congress,
and certainly as the administration----
The Chairman. You are saying it would be fine if the
Congress removed from you----
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. That is not what it said.
The Chairman. Yes, it is. You are saying it is up to
Congress. You don't have a view. You are going to sit there
mute.
Mr. Johnson. We don't have a position as an administration,
sir. That is what I said.
The Chairman. You are the environmental minister for the
United States. There is a proposal to take away your authority
to regulate CO2 coming from tailpipe emissions. You
are touting right now that you are starting to write
regulations on it, and you are saying to us that you don't have
a view on whether or not Congress should take away your
authority?
Mr. Johnson. You are asking me to take a view of a specific
piece of legislation which we have not taken a position on, and
that is what I keep repeating that we have not taken a position
on.
There are many ways to address environmental issues, and
that can be done through a variety of mechanisms, whether it is
through NHTSA and CAFE, through EPA and the Clean Air Act or
other pieces of legislation.
The Chairman. Your silence, Mr. Johnson, is deafening
because it is a silence that the entire administration has had
towards these issues for the entire 6 and a half years that it
has been in office.
Let me turn now and recognize the gentleman from Washington
State, Mr. Inslee.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson, could you give us your response to the NASA
report of May 30th, 2007, about the earth's climate?
Mr. Johnson. I am not personally familiar with that
specific report.
Mr. Inslee. This is a report, the headline is, Research
Finds That Earth's Climate is Approaching a, quote, Dangerous,
close quote, Point.
You have read that, I assume?
Mr. Johnson. Well, the reports that I have read are the
IPCC, the International Program on Climate Change, and
certainly as an administration, we have not only invested in
those through money and our own scientists, but certainly we
support what the IPCC reports say.
Mr. Inslee. That is impressive, but you are telling me that
the director of the environmental ministry of the United States
has not read the report just a few weeks ago indicating the
United States is coming to tipping points? And did you not read
the conclusions of the lead author James Hansen who said,
quote, if global emissions of carbon dioxide continue to rise
at the rate of the past decade, this research shows there will
be disastrous effects, including increasingly rapid sea level
rise, increased frequency of droughts and floods, and increased
stress on wildlife and plants to rapidly shifting climate
zones, close quote.
Now are you telling me you are unfamiliar with that
research? That is a pretty simple question.
Mr. Johnson. If you would like me to answer the question, I
would be happy to.
Mr. Inslee. Yes or no would be handy.
Mr. Johnson. What I am telling you, according to the IPCC,
extreme weather, climate and sea level impacts due to climate
change are very likely.
Mr. Inslee. I just want to make sure that I understand this
and so does the American public.
Are you telling me that the lead minister of the
environmental agency, the United States, the director of the
EPA is unfamiliar with the most recent NASA research which
indicated we are approaching a tipping point which could tip
the climatic system in the world within 10 years. I want to
know, did you read that or not?
Mr. Johnson. I have not read that report.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. I appreciate that.
And your policies are consistent with not reading the
science coming out of the Federal Government.
Mr. Johnson. That is a very unfair characterization, sir.
Mr. Inslee. Well, I read it.
Mr. Johnson. Well, good for you. Did you read the IPCC
report?
Mr. Inslee. Yes, I have, and in quite considerable detail.
Let me ask you this: When--under President Bush's policies
and your policies, when will the--when will we reach a tipping
point which will tip us into major climactic shifts in the
world? When will that occur?
Mr. Johnson. It is still an issue of scientific debate.
Mr. Inslee. And when, according to your targets, when will
the world reach doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial
levels?
Mr. Johnson. Again, depending on whose projections--I don't
have a specific date, but a number of scientists have various
opinions on when that might occur.
Mr. Inslee. And tell me this, when do you believe it should
be allowed to occur? What is the target that you believe that
the world should have to eliminate this catastrophic threat?
What targets should we have and what year?
Mr. Johnson. That is precisely why the President proposed
at the G-8 summit to bring people together to establish what
that target should be and what steps then each nation should
take to help achieve that target.
Mr. Inslee. We have been reading these reports now for over
a decade. Are you telling me that the lead person for the
Environmental Protection Agency cannot give us a target that
the world should have to limit the amount of carbon dioxide to
prevent these catastrophic effects? Is that what you are
telling me? You can't give me a number or date.
Mr. Johnson. I won't give you a number. I am saying there
are many opinions, and we think that it is important for the
nations, both developed and developing nations, to get together
to identify what that goal or that target should be and then
take steps at the national level.
Mr. Inslee. And where does the United States' position on
that, what should the target be?
Mr. Johnson. We have not made a position on that.
Mr. Inslee. We have paid a lot of tax money. You have told
me we spent $35 billion, and you can't come up with a number
that the United States should propound? Is that what you are
telling me? Where did that money go?
Mr. Johnson. What I am saying is, we have not identified a
specific number. We think there is a lot of science that leads
to a wide range of numbers, and that is why we think that it is
important for us to discuss it in an international context.
Mr. Inslee. I can tell you that my constituents are grossly
embarrassed by that response that the leading nation in the
world technologically, who took a man to the moon, cannot
establish an international target or the head of the EPA who
can't give us what the target should be is grossly
unsatisfactory. And it is like saying that, you know, we are
going to have a meeting next year to talk about whether or not
we should try to get Osama bin Ladin.
We should have a clear target by now in the United States,
and I cannot for the life of me understand why you can't give
us what you think should be safe for Americans on that level.
And I hope some day you can do that because we intend to create
one in the United States Congress.
My time has expired.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from South Dakota, Ms.
Herseth Sandlin.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I indicated in my opening statement, the area I would
like to pursue with you are these perhaps interim regulatory
systems that the administration plans to take, but I would
assume with the notion that it would inform the legislative
process that we are debating here in Congress with regard to
the dual objective with energy independence and reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. One piece of the administration's
Twenty in Ten plan is the alternative fuel standard that would
require 35 billion gallons of alternative renewable fuels
available by 2017, and I strongly supported, as I mentioned in
my opening statement, the 7\1/2\ billion gallon standard in the
2005 Energy Policy Act. So I appreciate the additional
initiative from the administration, and I know in visiting
directly with the President, he feels strongly about this
initiative, and he doesn't want to do anything to undercut his
own initiative.
So I would raise with you the question I raised with him
and other members of his staff about the issue of the
particular mix of energy sources that the administration
envisions in satisfying this requirement.
If you could comment on that, Administrator Johnson, and
any conversations you have had as the agencies work together,
perhaps Secretary Johanns has voiced interest or concerns about
this particular mix. And then, you, in your position
particular, are you considering the relative greenhouse gas
footprints of the fuels in that portfolio?
Mr. Johnson. The answer is yes to your--to the last
question.
As part of our developing our proposed regulation for
addressing greenhouse gases from automobiles, there are really
two ways of addressing----
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Before I get to that, though, I want
to talk precisely about the energy mix. And so what is
anticipated in the 35 billion gallon initiative? Because I do
have a question for you as it relates to Minnesota.
And when we get to these State initiatives, what they are
doing and how your agency is responding. But when you say, yes,
you are considering the different footprints, may I inquire,
further elaboration that relates to renewable energy sources,
such as cellulosic ethanol versus coal to liquid in meeting
that 35 billion gallon target.
Mr. Johnson. With regard to the legislation and the 35
billion gallons, the legislation was presented and certainly
announced in the State of the Union and was focused on two
things: one, energy security and, second, addressing
environmental concerns, particularly global climate change. In
our proposal, we were--I would perhaps refer to it as
technology neutral. That is, that we identified a number of
technologies, ranging from corn ethanol to soybean bio diesel
to cellulosic ethanol as well as, as you point out, coal to
liquid. And in our proposal, we were being technology neutral
but believe that with advances in technology both for
cellulosic as well as even in coal to liquid, that we would see
improvements both in the technology being more cost-effective
as well as also addressing environmental concerns particularly
in the area of coal to liquid.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. But our experience tells us that if
you look just at the renewable fuels standard of 7.5 billion
gallons and how we structured different tax incentives, that
one fuel can overwhelm another. We have seen that with ethanol
versus bio diesel, which is why I proposed separate standards
for those fuels and carb-outs for cellulosic ethanol. Have
there been any discussions with your agency and others about
separating out, understanding what motivates the technology-
neutral position, but how as these technologies are advancing,
that we don't have, you know, the possibility of coal to
liquid, which doesn't have the kind of footprint in terms of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions that ethanol production does,
cellulosic ethanol in particular about separating out the
renewable--the standards for which we are reaching an aggregate
of 35 billion?
Mr. Johnson. In some of our scenarios that we ran to
determine this ambitious goal of 35 billion gallons, we looked
at a variety of combinations, and we believe that certainly
cellulosic ethanol plays a very significant role in helping
us--helping the Nation achieve 35 billion gallons.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Do you believe that we can achieve 35
billion gallons with renewable fuel sources alone, or do we
need alternative and need coal to liquid?
Mr. Johnson. Well, those are part of the discussions that
we need to have. We think there is opportunity for all,
certainly from an environmental perspective. And as we move
forward on the regulation of fuel for addressing greenhouse
gases under the Clean Air Act, certainly the carbon footprint
will be an issue that we have to address. The greenhouse gas
emission is something we have to address for all of the
alternative fuels.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire one
additional--if I may ask--one additional follow-up question?
The Chairman. Please.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. On the issue of the State initiatives,
I know some of the focus done on California's initiative, we
may be pursuing that more with the next panel. Could you
provide me and the rest of the committee an update on your work
with the State of Minnesota as it relates to evaluating the
greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles with higher blends of
ethanol, currently only in 10 percent ethanol blend is approved
but the Minnesota State legislature has acted in a way that
would increase that blend to 20 percent ethanol. And if you
could address that both as it relates to what you are doing
with new automobiles in your regulatory authority but also
existing automobiles in the fleet, those that are maybe only a
decade old versus those which are pre-1995?
Mr. Johnson. I would be pleased to. Would you like me to
respond now?
Mr. Chairman, we are actively working with the State to--
and in fact, this summer, we are expecting data to help us
better understand the 20 percent and the questions that we need
to address to make sure that the 20 percent blend doesn't have
a negative impact on emissions or the equipment. And we are
working with all the stakeholders, including the State as well
as the automobile industry fuel manufacturers and others,
Department of Energy and others to make sure. So we are very,
very much interested in and reviewing and considering the
proposal.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. And we
will go for a second round here. There are some other questions
I think that the committee really has to unearth before we
reach the second panel. Let me ask you, Mr. Johnson, if you are
going to regulate fuels by setting an alternative fuel
standard--following up on Ms. Herseth Sandlin's question--if
you are going to regulate fuels by setting an alternative fuels
standard under section 211 of the Clean Air Act, you have to
have made an endangerment finding. How can you reconcile an
endangerment finding with the promotion of coal to liquids
which has dramatically higher greenhouse gas emissions than
renewable fuels, and has the administration been making that
proposal to the Congress?
Mr. Johnson. Well, as part of--sir, as part of--Mr.
Chairman, as part of our analysis of developing our proposed
regulation, we will be evaluating the coal to liquid as well as
other alternative fuels to make sure that they will meet what
we end up proposing for regulating greenhouse gases in new
automobiles. So that is a very important question and an
important consideration.
The Chairman. Well, I think it is a conflict for the
administration. First, you are saying you haven't had time to
make an endangerment finding, but simultaneously, you are
proposing a coal-to-liquids program for the United States. And
it just seems to me that you have got a responsibility to issue
your endangerment finding and do so soon, given the fact that
Congress is now considering your coal-to-liquids proposal. And
I think that there is an urgency to it. You have no time really
left, and if Congress moves forward on it, it would be because
you didn't resolve this conflict. And it is squarely on your
shoulders to decide whether or not this coal to liquids is
something that is going to endanger us with additional
CO2 emissions. Mr. Johnson, you have pointed out
that, assuming you do move forward with a rulemaking, as a
result of the Supreme Court decision, you will be required to
find the carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles endanger public
health or welfare in order to do so. Assuming that you do make
that finding, is it safe to say that EPA would also have
concluded that carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and
other stationary sources pose such a danger and that emissions
therefore also must be regulated under the Clean Air Act?
Mr. Johnson. Sir, the Supreme Court's decision, which, as
you know, as we have been discussing focuses on motor vehicles
and with regard to impact on other sources under the Clean Air
Act, we are in the process of evaluating that now.
The Chairman. Just to put a fine point on this, if it is a
danger if CO2 is a danger coming from tailpipes,
would it not also be a danger coming from utilities or coming
from industrial stationary sources?
Mr. Johnson. From a legal standpoint and under the terms
under the Clean Air Act, that is one of the important questions
that we are reviewing right now.
The Chairman. A rose is a rose. CO2 is
CO2, Mr. Johnson. It would really be helpful to us
if you could just give us some confidence that, if you find
that CO2 is a problem coming out of tailpipes, that
you also think it is a problem coming out of the utilities or
out of other industrial stationary sources. That is not a
satisfactory answer.
Let me turn to you, Ms. Nason. The Bush Administration,
President Bush, in his State of the Union Address, recommended
that we increase the fuel economy standards by 4 percent per
year over the next 10 years. Let me just show you a chart, Ms.
Nason, because I think this can be helpful to you so you can
understand why this proposal is so important and why this
Massachusetts v. EPA decision and the California statute are so
important. In 1977, we reached 46 percent dependence upon
imported oil. It ramped up very quickly from a very small
percentage over a 7-year period to 46.5 percent dependence on
imported oil. But the Congress passed a law, a law saying that
the fuel economy standards for the American automotive fleet
had to be doubled over a 10-year period. And so while it was at
13.5 miles per gallon in 1975, it mandated that, by 1986, it be
doubled to 27 miles per gallon. And you can see what happened
after that law went into effect. We dropped down by 1985 and
1986 to only 27 percent dependence upon imported oil. And our
consumption of oil dropped, and as a result, the carbon
footprint coming from our automotive sector dropped
dramatically.
However, then, unfortunately until today, a 20-year period,
no significant increases in fuel economy standards has been
promulgated. And in fact, we have now slipped backwards from
the standard we reached in 1986, back from 27 back to about 25
miles per gallon. And so, as a result, we are now 60 percent
dependent upon imported oil. In other words, we increased from
27 percent dependence on imported oil to 60 percent dependence
on imported oil in just 20 years.
Now we have 170,000 young men and women over in Iraq; 1.6
million Americans have now served over there in Iraq; 1.6
million Americans have gone over there. And while the
administration has used some justification for being over
there, we now realize it wasn't a nuclear weapons program. They
knew for sure before the war started that there was no nuclear
weapons program in Iraq and that there was no al Qaeda
connection. This place has a source of oil. The Middle East is
a place that we, in fact, receive our oil from becomes
increasingly important.
If we increased to 35 miles per gallon, which is 4 percent
per year, that actually backs out all of the oil which we
import from the Persian Gulf. And so the President's proposal
becomes very important. In the past, while rhetorically saying
the right things, we have found, many of these environmentally
related issues, the actions have not followed. So my first
question to you, Ms. Nason, is, does the President want you to
mandate that this 35 miles per gallon standard be reached by
2017, 2018 or 2019? A mandate, Ms. Nason.
Ms. Nason. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, could I
just talk about the chart for one second?
The Chairman. Sure.
Ms. Nason. As you know, most of oil used that we bring in
is gasoline; it is about 45 percent, another roughly 15 for
diesel. So transportation accounts for our greatest use of oil.
One of the things that we saw happen in the fleet in the 1980s,
again, as you know, is that the mix changed dramatically from
cars to light trucks. And there was a far greater percentage.
It is half now, light trucks versus cars, compared to where it
was in the 1970s and into the early 1980s. And so that did
change. While we have seen greater fuel economy in cars, the
increase in the fleet of light trucks, SUVs as cars for people
did have an impact on overall fuel economy, as I know you know.
And the President's proposal, the 8.5 billion gallons that he
talked about in the State of the Union, and really the only way
to get there is to do roughly a 4 percent increase in CAFE year
over year to 2017, which is the Twenty in Ten proposal does not
contain 4 percent in writing as we have discussed. It is a
goal. It is a target. It is something that we take obviously
very seriously and we would work very hard to meet. But it is
not something that we have put in writing in the statute
because the President has also said that he would like to see
us do a full comprehensive rulemaking, weigh all of the factors
that we need to weigh and that our target should be 4 percent,
but we didn't put it in writing in the Twenty in Ten proposal.
The Chairman. Yes. That is the problem. And the problem is
that the administration has yet to say anything about the
proposal which is before the Congress right now in draft form,
which calls for an increase of only 1.7 percent per year
through the year 2022. So would this administration oppose--
would you oppose any legislation which will undermine your goal
of 4 percent? In other words, will this administration oppose
language which sets a goal not of 4 percent but of only 1.7
percent?
Ms. Nason. I think the best answer I can give you at the
moment, Mr. Chairman, is that as we have said, we really would
like to work with the Congress to get the authority to reform
the program. I think the place we do have agreement--I have
looked at your legislation and others--is on reforming the
program. I think where we have disagreement is on stringency
levels. I hope----
The Chairman. See here is the problem with the President
and with your agency, Ms. Nason. What he wants to be able to
say in the State of the Union is that this is a goal which is
achievable for our country. It is critical for the national
security of our country, but he is not willing to mandate it.
And in fact, if Congress wants to cut his goal in half, which
is what it is now saying, this administration won't say
anything about it, has no recommendation on it. And so we wind
up with the administration setting a goal, but it is not
mandated, having Congress propose something, some key Congress
people propose that they cut the goal in half, have the
administration say nothing about it, and then we are supposed
to believe that this administration cares about, one, this huge
importation of oil from OPEC and this rise in concern about
global warming. And it doesn't square, Ms. Nason. The actions
of the President do not square up with the promise that he has
made to the American people on these issues.
Let me ask one other question. Mr. Johnson has been given
authority under EPA v. Massachusetts to regulate
CO2. The legislation which is now pending before the
Energy Committee would strip Mr. Johnson of his ability to
regulate and strip his ability to give to the States their
ability to regulate. Do you support that legislation? Do you
believe that the EPA is not a proper place to have jurisdiction
over this issue?
Ms. Nason. Well, I think we are working very well together
as the President directed for Twenty in Ten. If you are asking
what I do support, I support Twenty in Ten. That is the
President's proposal.
The Chairman. I am asking now about this very critical
jurisdictional issue which is at the heart of this hearing and
at the heart of the legislative debate which we are having
right now in this city. Do you support this legislation which
would strip the authority from EPA and proposing exclusively in
your own agency?
Ms. Nason. In the draft committee report?
The Chairman. That is correct.
Ms. Nason. I think, as Mr. Johnson, the administrator, has
made clear, sir, we don't have the official administration
position on the draft legislation in any of the other bills
that we see going through the House and Senate, but we do look
forward to working with you to try to get legislation through
this Congress.
The Chairman. Is the goal of your agency, the mandate of
your agency to look after the health of our country?
Ms. Nason. No, sir.
The Chairman. It is not, is it?
Ms. Nason. No.
The Chairman. No. Mr. Johnson's agency has the
responsibility to look after the health of our country. If
CO2 is found to be a pollutant and it is something
which is endangering the health and welfare of our country, he
has a responsibility to do something about it. You, on the
other hand, have a responsibility to increase the fuel economy
of our vehicles while ensuring that safety is maintained. That
is a different responsibility. Do you have a problem with Mr.
Johnson having the authority to be able to protect the health
of our country?
Ms. Nason. I have no problem with the administrator.
The Chairman. Well, I am talking about him having the
authority to protect the health and welfare of our country. Do
you have a problem with that, Ms. Nason?
Ms. Nason. With health and welfare, no, sir, no, I have no
problem.
The Chairman. Well, there is language in the draft bill
which we are now going to be considering in Congress next week
which would strip Mr. Johnson of his ability to deal with that
issue. So that is a problem, and that is something that
obviously concerns this panel very greatly and I would hope
that it would concern the President, although I'm not really
assured that he has drawn his attention to it. Let me turn and
recognize the gentleman from Oregon if he has any questions.
Mr. Blumenauer. Mr. Chairman, I do. But Mr. Inslee has a
plane to catch before I do.
The Chairman. Let me recognize the gentleman from
Washington State.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. The world is rapidly reaching a
consensus that we have to stop CO2 from going beyond
a doubling of CO2 from preindustrial levels. And
eventually, even your administration will reach that
conclusion, I am confident. But your administration continues
to insist that we can cut our emissions of CO2 in
half or more, which we have to do to reach that target, by
voluntary mechanisms. That somehow if the President just asks
American industrial leaders to cut their CO2, sends
them a nice letter on nice stationary, that they will just
voluntarily cut their CO2. But when your
administration wants to test our kids in No Child Left Behind,
not a voluntary program, don't get to make that decision. We
require our kids to perform. Why does your administration
require fifth graders to perform but expects voluntary
decisions by CEOs of the largest corporations in the world to
sort of volunteer to solve this problem?
Mr. Johnson. Well let me first comment that again, we have
a wide array of partnership programs that are delivering
results. In addition as we have been talking about, we are in
the process of writing regulations, mandatory regulations to
control greenhouse gases from new automobiles. And so what our
overall approach is includes an array of partnership programs.
It includes now this mandatory program of addressing greenhouse
gas emissions from new automobiles.
Mr. Inslee. But your proposal will specifically reject what
the rest of the industrialized world has embraced, at least in
the European Union, cap-and-trade system to have a mandatory
enforceable cap on CO2. You have rejected a
renewable portfolio standard which would give Americans the
guarantee that they will have renewable clean energy. You have
rejected meaningful enforceable standards for green building
requirements. You have rejected virtually every significant
thing other than baby steps at best at most. Isn't that
correct?
Mr. Johnson. That is not correct.
Mr. Inslee. Well, are you going to embrace the cap-and-
trade system?
Mr. Johnson. Let's start--let's start with the list. We
have not rejected a renewable fuel portfolio standard. In fact,
it wasn't that many weeks ago that I signed the final
regulation imposing the 7.5 billion gallon requirement on the
United States.
Mr. Inslee. So are you suggesting----
Mr. Johnson. And we are, as part of our regulation of
dealing with automobile greenhouse gas emissions. There are
only two ways--there is no special catalytic converter that you
can put on an automobile or a light truck to address greenhouse
gas emissions. There are two ways, one to address the fuel and
to address the engine efficiency.
Mr. Inslee [continuing]. Sir, I don't have a lot of time
and there is a plane. Are you suggesting to Congress that we
adopt a renewable portfolio standard to give Americans the
assurance we will have a certain degree of electricity from
clean renewable energy sources?
Mr. Johnson. I believe that we should be working together
to achieve our energy security goals and environmental goals.
Mr. Inslee. Will the President sign a bill that has a
renewable portfolio standard in it?
Mr. Johnson. I look forward to working with you to address
that issue.
Mr. Inslee. Will the President sign a bill that has a cap-
and-trade system in it?
Mr. Johnson. No.
Mr. Inslee. Well, that is unfortunate. And I think you are
premature, and I hope you are. Because the world is looking for
America to reclaim leadership, the country that established
democracy, the country that put a man on the moon, to have the
White House stand in the schoolhouse door of the most effective
thing we can do to preserve the environment for our kids. And I
hope you have a check with the President. I hope you are not
authorized to say that. Because if we are going to have a
meaningful dialogue with the White House, they have got to keep
that door open because it is the single most effective thing we
can do for our grandkids. And I hope you go back and check with
the White House and say, you know, maybe I spoke a little too
soon in answering that question because I heard the President
say he wants to turn over a new leaf when he was in Europe the
other day, and I hope that happens for my grandkids and yours.
So I just hope you have that conversation. I have one other
question. Maybe I don't. I think that you made enough points.
Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. I think he
made his point very well. The gentleman from Oregon, Mr.
Blumenauer.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you for allowing me to shift. I will
just be very brief. I just have two additional followups. I am
listening to, Mr. Johnson, your rhetoric about the commitment
and the progress that is being made. I believe I read a GAO
report that you have missed 34 consecutive deadlines for
upgrading appliance efficiency standards. This administration
has missed 34 consecutive deadlines for appliance efficiency?
Mr. Johnson. We have been working effectively with the
Department of Energy to help establish efficiency standards,
and there are some technical issues.
Mr. Blumenauer. Has this administration missed 34
consecutive deadlines for increasing appliance efficiency
standards?
Mr. Johnson. I would have to get back to you for the
record, sir.
Mr. Blumenauer. In the ballpark, is the GAO in the
ballpark?
Mr. Johnson. I am familiar with the GAO report. On the
specifics----
Mr. Blumenauer. Do any of the smart people behind you know
if it is?
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Well, the Department of Energy
has the responsibility for promulgating, is what my note says.
Mr. Blumenauer. Yeah. So you are going to punt. I would
just respectfully suggest that actions do speak louder than
words, and the failure of this administration to meet 34
consecutive deadlines for increasing appliance efficiency
speaks volumes about the commitment of things that would
actually make a difference. A sense of urgency, and it is
another reason why I am--it is hard to take what you are saying
at face value when the little tiny steps that are already
established in law, this administration can't figure out how to
do. I can understand 1 out of 10, maybe 2 out of 10, you know,
batting only .400--you know, but 0 for 34 strikes me that you
and the administration aren't serious, which leads me to my
other question in advance of hearing from Attorney General
Brown and others. You have not yet announced a timeline for
making a final decision on the waiver request; is that true?
Mr. Johnson. That is correct.
Mr. Blumenauer. Can you give us some hint of what the
timeline is going to be? You have been sitting on this now,
doing whatever you are doing, for 10 weeks since the decision.
It has been bubbling since 2005. Do people have to sue again to
get a deadline?
Mr. Johnson. Well, as I mentioned, we are expeditiously and
responsibly following the statutory process, which requires a
hearing. The State of California asked for----
Mr. Blumenauer. I don't want to have to repeat what you
have already said. That is why I asked, do you have a deadline
that these people can count on. Is it going to be 3 weeks, 3
months?
Mr. Johnson. What I have said to the State of California
and to others is that I want to wait until the close of the
comment period, which is next Friday, have an opportunity to
assess the nature of the comments, and then we will make a
specific decision as to the timing of when we will make a
decision.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman very much. And I would
note that I am the author of the 1987 appliance efficiency law
that the administration has missed all 34 deadlines in 6.5
years in imposing higher standards of efficiency for all of
those appliance devices which we use in our country. And of
course, because they missed all 34 deadlines over 6.5 years,
dozen of new coal-fired plants have to be built to generate the
electricity for the less efficient appliances, which we use in
our country, contributing, endangering our atmosphere with
those additional emissions for refrigerators, stoves, whatever
that could have been, much more efficient. Let me turn and
recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver.
Mr. Cleaver. And those coal plants are producing about
520,000 tons of nitrogen oxide which is polluting the
atmosphere equal to about 500,000 automobiles. But I want to
return to the lawsuit of the Supreme Court case. You argued,
Mr. Johnson, that the regulation of CO2 would
require a regulation of fuel economy standards, which the EU
stated is the jurisdiction of this Nation. But the Supreme
Court then responded by saying that it recognized the multi
agency efforts were needed to address certain issues. And then
the court stated, and I quote, the fact that the DOT's mandate
to promote energy efficiency by setting mile standards may
overlap with the EPA's environmental responsibilities in no way
licenses EPA to shirk its duty to protect the public health and
welfare, unquote.
So I would like to ask both of you, actually, recognizing
the Supreme Court decision, is there now ongoing work between
the two agencies since the court decision? And what direction
is it going, if in fact there has been a response to the
Supreme Court's directive.
Mr. Johnson. One word answer is yes. We are working
together post the Supreme Court decision.
Mr. Cleaver. I am sorry?
Mr. Johnson. I said, yes, we are working together post the
Supreme Court decision. And it is following what the
President's executive order directing us to do, and that is to
work together to develop a regulation that will regulate
greenhouse gas emissions from new automobiles.
Mr. Cleaver. Were you working together prior to the Supreme
Court's decision on this?
Mr. Johnson. Well, we work very closely together because
one of EPA's roles and responsibilities as part of fuel economy
is to calculate fuel economy. That is the window sticker in the
windows. And as I am sure you are probably well aware, I issued
a rule last December which actually significantly improves that
window sticker for the 2008 model year. And we work together in
the CAFE program. We do tests. The automobile industry do
emission tests. We share that information with our colleagues
at NHTSA and Department of Transportation to enable them to
monitor and calculate CAFE. So we have a longstanding
relationship together.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you. The reason I raise the question is
the fact that your attorneys suggested that it was the DOT's
responsibility, arguing before the Supreme Court, which would
also suggest that there was not prior work together.
Mr. Johnson. Well, we have been working together for years.
Air pollutants and engine efficiency as well as fuels.
Mr. Cleaver. Why would your attorneys argue that it was the
DOT's responsibility?
Mr. Johnson. My recollection is that----
Mr. Cleaver. I mean, I have it right here.
Mr. Johnson. It was my recollection because of CAFE,
because Department of Transportation is responsible for the
CAFE standard, not the EPA.
Mr. Cleaver. Ms. Nason, is that----
Ms. Nason. Yes, Congressman. I think there was concern
about not having overlapping regulations. And as you just said,
the Supreme Court's word, there was overlap, yes. There may be
overlap in the obligations now, but we are certain that the
agencies can work together.
Mr. Cleaver. Seamlessly?
Ms. Nason. And we are. We can't enforce CAFE without the
help of the EPA even before this. So that is how we are working
together to do that. That was the President's directive, May
14.
Mr. Cleaver. Well, I am glad this is being televised
because I think the people around the Nation are weeping with
joy because two Federal agencies are working together and
holding hands, walking under the moonlight.
My final question relates to deforestation. Scientists
have--of course, if we don't agree that the scientists--some
dumb scientists have concluded that the loss of natural forests
around the world contributes more to global emissions each year
than the transport sector. And so if that is--do you agree with
that, Mr. Johnson, before I----
Mr. Johnson. EPA does not have responsibility for the
forests of our Nation or for global forests but----
Mr. Cleaver. I understand that.
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. But certainly from an
administration perspective, we are concerned about global
deforestation, and I believe that, across the globe, steps need
to be taken to avoid deforestation.
Mr. Cleaver. That is the most cost-effective way to reduce
emissions; don't you agree?
Mr. Johnson. It is a way--it is one of the tools in the
toolbox, yes.
Mr. Cleaver. I don't know of anything that is more cost-
effective than saying we are not going to cut down a tree, and
so I am just wondering, what international effort is underway,
or is there any dialogue going on on the subject in terms of
the deforestation around the globe?
Mr. Johnson. I would--if I could, sir, get back, for the
record, to you. As I said, it is not EPA's responsibility, but
I would certainly be happy to have our colleagues that are--I
know that our State Department and others are intimately
involved in helping to address this issue, and we will have a
response back to you.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you. It is my hope that--I mean there
has been a lot said over the last week or so from the
administration, and it is my hope that, at some point, there
will be more done than said. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentlelady from South Dakota.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just real
quickly, follow-up observation from the comments and questions
from Mr. Inslee and Mr. Blumenauer. And then just a follow-up
question for you, Administrator Johnson, along the lines I was
pursuing earlier. When we were in Brussels a couple of weeks
ago with Speaker Pelosi, I raised the issue with President
Barroso about an interim target the European Union had set for
renewable fuel usage for 2005 and the fact that they missed
that target. And I asked President Barroso and others in the
room what the reasons were for missing that target. And the
explanation was the fact that it was voluntary, and no one took
it seriously. And given our own experience with a mandatory cap
and trade for sulfur dioxide emissions, given our own
experience that President Bush seems to acknowledge with a 7.5
billion gallon renewable fuel standard, it is now up to his
initiative, the 35 billion alternative fuel standard. I do
hope, as Mr. Inslee stated, that that indicates some
willingness of President Bush to work with us as we move
forward to recognize the importance of mandatory policies that
reach the objectives and the importance of making them
mandatory to meet the objectives, whether it is greenhouse gas
emissions, reductions, and again, our own experience here in
the United States with a cap-and-trade system as well as with
these fuels, alternative fuel mandates.
My follow-up question for you on the Minnesota studies that
are going on, I know you had mentioned that we would be getting
data some time this summer. But does EPA have any sort of
timeline or deadline for then assessing that data and making a
decision about whether or not to approve something other than a
10 percent blend of ethanol with gasoline.
Mr. Johnson. We don't because part of the reason we don't
know when the data are going to come in or what the nature and
extent of the data are. As I said, we are working very
cooperatively with the States and others to help address the
issue.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. But some of the data will be available
this summer.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, but again, I don't know what will be or
won't be, and will it be sufficient to make a determination?
Again, we are operating in an open and transparent way to
address the issues of, again, emissions as well as the engine
and whether in fact it can accommodate a higher blend of
ethanol. Certainly, you know, our hope is that the engineering
and all the answers will point us in the direction of the
ability to do higher blends. We certainly support E85 for
example because it has--it is good for the economy. It is good
from an energy security standpoint, and it has a better
environmental profile.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well, I agree with you on all that.
But given we are still struggling to get E85 pumps available
across the country, we have to deal with the existing domestic
fleet as Detroit manufactures more flex-fuel vehicles, and many
of us believe that the data will support the existing domestic
fleet can take something higher than an E10 blend. So I would
appreciate it if you could keep this committee, as well as the
committees of jurisdiction I know are similarly interested in
this issue, apprised once the data comes in this summer so that
we can also evaluate what the initial studies and analysis
looks like. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Johnson. We would be pleased to do so.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. And Ms. Nason, let me just do one
final line of questioning. The four of us who are here, along
with Speaker Pelosi, visited, first, Greenland 10 days ago to
observe this incredible phenomenon which is occurring, this
rapidly intensifying pace of melt and movement of the ice cap
and glaciers and icebergs, that, if it ever happened, would
lead to a 20-foot rise in the sea levels of the world. It is a
frightening experience. I recommend to you, Mr. Johnson, that
you go to it and that you see what is happening in Greenland,
to you as well, Ms. Nason, so that you can understand fully the
danger, not just to those that live in Greenland but to those
that live in the United States, those that live in Florida,
those that live on the coast lines of our country, if this
phenomenon ever did occur. And if we are going to stop it, we
have to start it now. If we are going to protect people from
something that happens 50 and 100 years from now, we have to
start now. And by the way, 70 percent of all people who will be
alive--70 percent of the people alive today will be alive in
the year 2015. We are not doing it for some theoretic group of
people; 70 percent of all people living today. We have a
responsibility to protect them.
When we were in Europe what we found was that they are
mandating in Europe a 43.4-miles-per-gallon standard by the
year 2012, Ms. Nason. They are already at 35 miles per gallon.
You are telling us today that you can't commit to a 35-mile-
per-gallon standard 10 years from now, that you can't commit
that it will be mandatory. And yet the Europeans are going to
meet a 43.4-mile-per-gallon standard by 2012, only 5 years from
now. And not only BMW and Daimler Chrysler and Volkswagen, but
Ford and General Motors have said they would meet the European
standard. And Ford and General Motors are the leading
automotive companies in terms of sales in Europe. Why, Ms.
Nason, can't we meet that standard? Why can't we at least say
we will do 10 years from now what the EU is doing today?
Ms. Nason. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was in Germany
last November and then in Japan last week, and I am going to
Brussels next week to meet with essentially the NHTSA
counterpart woman over there. They had had voluntary standards
in place, which my understanding was the manufacturers had all
said they couldn't possibly meet. And this was one of the
difficulties that they were having. In Germany, they were
saying they couldn't meet the European standards, and we had
some very I think interesting discussions with the Japanese
government about their CAFE and how they would like to see
changes. I haven't seen Ford or GM say that they could meet 43
miles a gallon. That would be very interesting.
The Chairman. I talked to the American Chamber of Commerce
in Europe, and they said they are meeting the standard. As a
matter of fact, every American company that does business in
Europe has signed off on and said, they will meet the goals
that the EU is setting for a cap-and-trade system for emissions
across all industries as well, that all the American companies
doing business over there, which are all of our biggest
companies, will meet that European standard.
Ms. Nason. They have different--as you know, they certainly
have a different fuel mix, fleet mix in Europe. I think half
the fleet in Europe are diesels, and most of those diesels
wouldn't meet the clean diesel requirements of the United
States. So there are alternative ways that they could meet a
standard that they might not be able to meet in the United
States. As you know there is far greater penetration of diesels
in the marketplace in Europe, and I think they are looking to
bring clean diesels to the United States. I have seen--
Chrysler, for example, is looking to make their Jeep line
diesels, borrowing perhaps on what Daimler had been doing in
Europe with the Mercedes diesels. So I do think that technology
is going to make the difference in how they can meet the
standards in the U.S.
The Chairman. We are not looking for us to take on a task
that is impossible.
Let me just ask you one final question. The Ford Escape SUV
hybrid gets 36 miles per gallon. Is the Ford Escape SUV hybrid
less safe than the Ford Escape SUV?
Ms. Nason. No, sir.
The Chairman. No. It is the same safety but with 40 percent
higher mileage. So we are not really asking for you, Ms. Nason,
to take on this responsibility to ask our automotive industry
to do something that is impossible. It is something that they
are already doing. We are asking you to set this goal for 2017
or 2018 that can meet that national challenge, and it is
critical that you do it. We didn't hear the right answers today
with regard to it being mandated or it being 35 miles per
gallon. What we have heard here today is that initiatives to
reduce carbon emissions, such as tailpipe standards or even
fuel economy standards, are being stalled while initiatives
that increase carbon emissions, such as coal to liquids, are
being encouraged. I suggest that President Bush is in danger of
cementing his place in history as an environmental Emperor
Nero, a man who fiddled as civilization burned down around him.
And it is very important that this administration understand
the threat that this planet is now under.
We thank both of you for your testimony here today. We will
be working in close conjunction with you for the next year and
a half. Speaker Pelosi has made it quite clear that she wants
to see a dramatic reduction in imported oil, and she also wants
a mandatory cap-and-trade system pass the United States
Congress and to be placed upon the desk of the President. That
is going to require the two of you sitting here to be the
central players in accomplishing these goals. So we hope--and
we know that this will be the first of many visits that you
have back before the Select Committee on Energy Independence
and Global Warming, and we thank you for your testimony.
And now we will move to our second panel. Our second panel
is here in order to ensure that we get to the heart of the
matter in Massachusetts v. EPA and the California statute.
Our second panel couldn't be more distinguished.
STATEMENTS OF JERRY BROWN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA; AND
MARTHA COAKLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS
The Chairman. We will first recognize former California
Governor and now attorney general of California, Jerry Brown,
who has a long history of public service that cannot be
overstated. He is someone who, from the beginning of his
career, has been identified with the environmental movement and
the protection of the environment in our country. We welcome
you, Governor Brown. Whenever you are ready, please begin.
STATEMENT OF JERRY BROWN
Mr. Brown. Thank you. It is kind of hard to know where to
begin after having listened to that exercise in obfuscation. I
don't blame the deputies of the Bush Administration since,
obviously, they are under discipline and under orders to stall
and stonewall, which I guess they have done about as good a job
as you could expect. I did examine the administrator's
testimony with some care, and I guess the central fallacy is
very well stated on page four where he says--and he mentioned
similar sentiments during his testimony--quote, this is a
complicated legal and technical matter that will take time to
fully resolve. Well, not in California, because we have already
resolved it. We have resolved the technical issues and the
legal issues. We have a comprehensive plan ready to go to
control emissions of greenhouse gases from automobiles. We are
in the process of working up and then promulgating a
comprehensive controlled strategy to cover power plants and
industrial emitters and all other sources of greenhouse gases
that California has the authority to regulate.
It is clear from the evidence that the Bush Administration
has been opposing efforts. I thought it was interesting, your
comments about appliance efficiency standards. When I was
Governor, my energy commission adopted appliance energy
efficiency standards and building efficiency standards, by the
way, in 19--, I think it was 1983, by the time it became final.
And then the Reagan administration adopted a no-standard
standard to preempt it. So this is an old story.
In fact, it is a very old story about the waiver because,
back in the good old days when we had a movie actor
representing California by the name of George Murphy, and he
defended the California waiver against the gentleman from
Dearborn, Michigan, and the honorable Congressman argued very
strenuously. But his measure to gut the California waiver was
defeated, and the legislative history will clearly demonstrate
and portray that Senator Murphy--and there was another
Congressman by the name of Smith--all felt California had a
pioneering role to play, and that was the purpose of the
waiver, to enable California to lead the nation, to set
standards and that--that view was then reaffirmed and extended
in subsequent years when the Clean Air Act was amended to allow
other States, like Massachusetts and Oregon, to copy California
once the standard was enacted. So we actually have two
standards. We have a national standard, which often is no
standard, and we have the California standard, and the 50
States and the 49 other States can pick.
I think we have to recognize here that this is not so easy.
I notice the administrator comment that some of the European
countries and signatories to the Kyoto protocol weren't doing
so well. Well, nobody is doing so well, including the people of
this earth, this world that we are living in, because
CO2 is rising. According to the National Academy of
Science, CO2 rose about almost three times faster in
the last 4 years than had been previously thought. So things
are getting worse, and the fact that the administrator tells
you that the emissions only grew by .8 percent and the
intensity has gone down doesn't mean too much when you realize
that vehicle miles driven are going up; coal plants are on the
horizon here in great numbers; and then you have China building
a coal plant every week. We are facing a very difficult
problem.
And if you listen and you really step back and look at this
testimony, you want to know--your meeting, what is our view of
Bush's response? What is California doing? Well, I think the
President's response is laid out here. And when I use the word
obfuscation, I lay it out very carefully. There is a lot of
little stuff here. There is this and that, and maybe this 37
billion, I am not sure what it goes to. It may be helpful; it
may not. But the key term has to be measurement of carbon, a
measurable target that will be a cap that will express a
comprehensive cap for the country as part of a larger cap for
the world. But we have to start with our own country. We need
that cap, and then by sector, there will be a subsidiary cap.
Now when it comes to transportation, that is, 28 percent of the
greenhouse gas in America comes from transportation. And
automobiles are about 20 percent of that if you take into
account the upstream emissions that are required just to build
the cars and to get to produce the fuel. So you have to look at
a lifecycle measurement.
California has already embarked upon a low carbon fuel
standard. And that standard that is being spearheaded by
Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Air Resources Board
sets a 10 percent reduction within a fixed period of time. So I
think the real question here and the real challenge is to get
an agreement on, what are the total amount of greenhouse gases
that are being produced, what is our yearly goal to reduce
them? What is each sector's contribution? And unless you have a
measurable goal, unless you have auditing and in a way that you
can enforce your goal, it is not only rhetoric; it is
obfuscation. And it is really dissembling. It is hard to know
if anything at all was gained at the G-8 when President Bush
said, okay, now we are going to do something; we are committed
to coming out with some nonbinding goals. He is getting, in
effect, caught up in this whole global warming discussion, but
he is coming kicking and screaming. And it is going to take the
Congress and it is going to take the States and it is going to
take a lot of grassroots organizations to move the ball
forward.
We are fighting a political battle here. It is financed in
great measure by automobile companies. They have sued the
little State of Vermont. They overwhelmed them with the highest
paid lawyers in America. And why was Vermont sued? Because they
dared adopt the California standards. The automobile companies
aren't waiting for the EPA to grant a waiver. They are already
trying to destroy the standards through litigation. We are
facing a lawsuit in Fresno, California, on the same topic.
Rhode Island is being sued because they have dared to adopt the
standards. Every State that adopts the California standards--
and there are now 12 of them--will be sued, will have to face
millions of dollars of legal onslaught paid for by General
Motors and the other members of the Automobile Alliance. But
not content with their lawsuits and their over- lawyering this
issue, they have now gone to the Commerce Committee, and they
are pushing a legislative short-circuiting of the legal
process. That is really incredible for such a prominent
industry.
Now I just want to go to the heart of the matter here
because we heard the woman from NHTSA talk about it, and they
invoked the talisman of consumer choice. Consumers 20 years ago
didn't know that they needed SUVs and minivans, only 10 percent
of the cars sold. Now, she acknowledges, it is 50 percent. That
is just sovereign consumer choice. Not exactly. This is massive
propaganda and manipulation in the form of advertising to
promote a certain profile of automobile that suits a certain
profit profile.
And I understand, that is good old American economy. It is
the market system, and that is fine from that point of view.
But unless this Congress can curb that choice, just like we do
in other areas--we don't have unlimited choice about everything
we do. We have social and moral restraints. When we see the
danger of climate change and the disruption that is going to
happen to our lives, the rapid snow melt in California which
will destroy our levees, impede our agriculture; the increase
in ozone that will affect the children's lungs and respiratory
disease in the elderly; erosion of our beaches. This is real
stuff, not to mention the elimination of low-lying countries,
like a good part of Bangladesh and other countries in the
Pacific. This is serious stuff here. And in order for that--for
us to do anything, we are going to have to have restraints. We
are going to have to have rules. That is what Congress is all
about. And I think we have to recognize that it is going to
take some changes.
Technology is very important, but it is not the only thing.
Technology has a number of choices. We have to build different
vehicles, different engines, but also different fuels. And
whatever we can do to that, we have to do it. There are three
things that are obvious: One, we have to reduce carbon in our
fuels. We have to reduce fossil fuel consumption by efficiency,
by technological invention. Number two, we need renewable
energies. And number three, we have to be able to sequester and
cap--not cap but prevent carbon from getting into the
atmosphere from the burning of coal. It may not be here today,
but it is worth spending billions of dollars because we have to
get there. You have to do all three, and you have to do all
three to the maximum degree, as fast as you can. And what you
saw today was--I suppose you know two good--two good
administrators. I don't want to say bureaucrats but they are
good people. And they are doing what they are told to do or I
suppose they will be fired just like the U.S. attorneys. I do
think that there is some responsibility on the part of the
administrator to follow the law, not what George Bush tells
him, not what Cheney may say, not a little message from a White
House staffer. I do think there is a legal requirement to
follow the law.
If they follow the law, California will get a waiver; the
EPA will promulgate regulations to control greenhouse gases
across a broad front. So just in conclusion, I would say this,
this is not easy stuff. It is going to be tough. If he gives us
a waiver--and when I read this testimony, it looks like he is
in total stall mode under orders of the President. If that is
true, we will sue him. Governor Schwarzenegger has already
announced that. I am his lawyer. We will be there the first day
we can. But, of course, they can stall. Even if he gives the
waiver, the automobile companies are suing us. So it is going
to take a couple years to get this done, and ultimately, it is
up to you. We need Congress to settle this problem. But in the
meantime, we have to do everything we can to get our waiver in
California, to get other States to adopt it, to get the fuels,
to get the cars and to do the job across the whole sector. We
are committed, and I am committed to every legal, political and
consumer activist initiative to get this job done.
And I just want the automobile companies to know that there
is a price to be paid for their sabotage of the California
waiver. California is the biggest automobile market. And I
would just hope that the president of General Motors and other
companies who refuse to meet with me are listening because I
take this very, very seriously. And I am not going to lay down
on this. I am going to fight with every political and legal
strategy that I can envision during the next several years when
I still have enough energy to go at them. But they have an
adversary, and we have been at this thing. When I was Governor,
we had the same cast of characters fighting this when we wanted
to reduce emissions on oxides and nitrogen and other--the
catalytic converter. It is the same cast. It is the same
problems. It is the same money. And we in California have even
more resources now, and we are going to get at it.
It is no longer just Democrats. We have Republican
Governors in Connecticut, in California. I think we can have
other Republican Governors around with Democrats. So it isn't a
party thing. The Democrats are split in Congress. The
Republicans hopefully will make up for the defecting Democrats.
And together we are going to take this country back from
Cheney's oil mentality and Bush's whatever--Texas short-sighted
mismanagement of so many things that we are now suffering from.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Governor, very much. And I think
that when it comes to your political energy, if there ever was
such a thing as a renewable energy source, you are it. I don't
think anyone is worried about you running out of energy in this
battle on this issue.
Now we turn to our other attorney general, the attorney
general from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, my own attorney
general. And she has had an incredibly distinguished career.
She has been the District Attorney of Middlesex County, the
largest county in New England, one of the largest counties in
the United States. She lives in Medford, Massachusetts, which
is where my district office is. But most significantly, the
case Massachusetts v. EPA, the most important environmental
decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court of the United
States was won by Massachusetts. And Attorney General Coakley
here today is obviously a central player in this whole debate
globally over whether or not we are going to deal with this
issue.
It is our honor to have you with us today, General Coakley,
and we look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MARTHA COAKLEY
Ms. Coakley. Thank you, Chairman Markey and Congressman
Blumenauer.
And Governor Brown, Massachusetts, will be right with you
in the battle, as many of the States will, around this
particular issue. I appreciate the invitation for General Brown
and I to talk to you today. I have submitted written testimony.
I am going to be brief this morning but would ask that the
committee accept the written testimony as part of this hearing,
and I cannot resist a very brief----
The Chairman. Without objection, that will be included in
the record.
Ms. Coakley [continuing]. Thank you. I cannot resist a
brief fish story around the global warming issue. I recall I
had the great good fortune in the summer of 1974 to work for
Congressman Silvio Conte, who is from western Massachusetts,
where I grew up, and one of his big issues was cleaning up the
Connecticut River, getting rid of the PCBs, bringing salmon
back to the Connecticut River. He was successful in doing that.
That was a good result, salmon in the Connecticut River.
I read, Congressman Markey, that after your trip to Cannon
Mountain to look at some of the effects in New England of
global warming that the local fishermen off of New Hampshire
and Maine indicated that for the first time they were seeing
bluefish. They had never seen them north of Cape Cod, a very
tangible result, a true fish story, but not a good one, and a
harbinger of what we are facing.
As the Supreme Court recognized this past April, States
will be directly harmed by climate change. Particularly in
Massachusetts, we are losing 200 miles of coastline to rising
seas. States across the country are concerned about threats to
water supply, the increase in severe weather events that are
costing all of us.
General Brown mentioned some of the effects in California.
This commonwealth, Massachusetts, recognizes global warming
needs immediate attention. In fact, it needs it yesterday. To
this end, we are engaged in regional greenhouse gas initiatives
and a market-based cap and trade program for power plant
emissions. We are committed to investing in renewable energy
and are leading with proposals for green public buildings and
expansion of public transportation.
Meanwhile, we have been waiting and eager for the Federal
Government to take a leadership role in our necessary fight
against global warming. One of the committee members earlier
indicated that the Federal Government should lead, follow or
get out of the way. It is a huge issue. On this particular
issue--as I might note that it is on others, consumer
protection, submortgage lending--the Federal Government has,
frankly, been a huge disappointment in this issue. We have been
long waiting for the Environmental Protection Agency to adopt
motor vehicle emission standards that would allow States to
address the leading cause of global warming. Given the decision
in Massachusetts v. EPA and Congressman Markey's opening
remarks, I won't belabor the history of the case. But it is
important to note that the United States has been for a long
time--since 1992--part of the Rio Treaty, and it commits the
United States and other developed countries to reduce emissions
and presumably to take leadership in that.
Congressman Markey outlined the history where, frankly, not
much happened, particularly recently with environmental groups
filing the rulemaking petition in 1999. That was the basis of
the suit that Massachusetts was lead counsel for, and I think
it is ironic that, in this day and age, Massachusetts and other
States have had to file a lawsuit to demonstrate to the
Environmental Protection Agency that its job actually includes
protecting the environment.
Simply put, the EPA cannot plausibly say that the statutory
trigger for commencing regulation that emissions are
endangering public health and welfare has not been met. They
refuse to do that today. It still flies in the face of common
sense and all the evidence that they see before them. We are
heartened, I will say, that the White House and EPA appeared to
acknowledge this in their characterizations of the impact of
the court's ruling and in their promises that regulations
controlling greenhouse gas emissions will be forthcoming.
However, we are disheartened, as I believe we were today,
that the EPA has stressed the need for lengthy periods of time
both to digest the Supreme Court decision--and I would note
that the Supreme Court decision is not that complicated; it is
pretty straightforward in what it decides in terms of standing,
the authority of the EPA and their need to articulate some
reason why they can't issue these regulations. They have
indicated that they need to embark on a period of exhaustive
deliberation with other agencies about what to do next. We are
also discouraged by the EPA's reluctance to commit to firm
proposals or any timelines for action.
If they are serious about attacking the problem of global
climate change, then there are two specific things that they
should pursue immediately. They should begin immediately a
formal process to conclude that endangerment threshold has been
crossed. Starting that process is simple. It requires no
further deliberation on their part. They need merely to publish
a notice in the Federal Register and to--that they proposed to
determine that these emissions cause--contribute to air
pollution which may be reasonably anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare. By beginning the process now, the EPA
does not forfeit any right to deliberate over the more
difficult regulatory design issues involved in actually setting
the applicable emission standards.
However, a continued unwillingness even to start that
process says that their promises about being concerned about
global warming are illusory only. Secondly, once that public
comment process concludes next week, the EPA should grant
California's request for a section 209 waiver for State motor
vehicle regulation as expediently as possible. I want to
emphasize, as General Brown did, how important the EPA's
approval of the waiver is for the States, including the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which has adopted the California
regulations.
While California has notified the EPA they will sue if they
don't rule on the waiver by October, there is simply no reason
for the EPA to wait that long. They should decide it more
quickly. They should give a timeline on when they are going to
decide. And I, frankly, think that General Brown and I speak
for our colleagues when we say, we would like nothing better
than to see any further litigation by State attorneys general
on this issue obviated. We do have other things to do as
attorneys general than to bring to the attention of the Federal
Government that it is not doing its job. And so that is an
important issue, I know, for California and for all of us who
say: Lead, follow or get out of the way because they can't have
it every way.
You know, the Supreme Court ruling has induced many
industry groups to call for a more comprehensive and a market-
based approach to replace a sector-by-sector command and
control regulation under the Clean Air Act. We welcome in
Massachusetts the engagement of the affected industries and the
legislative debates, and we hope that they will work to help
produce an efficacious result. And we emphasize that while
Congress can improve upon the regulatory approaches that the
Clean Air Act provides, we are very firm in believing that the
current law allows the EPA to immediately go a long way to
addressing the problem now.
As Congress considers additional legislative approaches, we
urge it to reject the language that Congressman Boucher,
Chairman of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee of the
Energy and Commerce Committee, unveiled last Friday and held a
hearing on yesterday. I address that more at length in my
written testimony. It would be taking a step backward to
proceed with that legislation.
It would be taking a step backward, and while individual
States continue to work or lessen environmental impact,
Congress could take a major step in the right direction by
passing legislation to significantly increase our fuel economy
standards without hampering States' emission efforts or
marginalizing the EPA's authority, helping both our environment
and consumers' wallets.
We specifically urge Congress to respect and support the
role of States in developing solutions. We need to find
creative ways to structure such a program that allows for
States to continue to play a leadership role without placing
excessive burdens on local industries, and we suggest, for
example, if a national cap and trade emission trading program
were enacted, emission credits could be distributed on a State-
by-State basis, allowing each State to set aside additional
reductions should they so choose.
I wanted to thank you again for allowing us this
opportunity both to submit written testimony and orally today.
We appreciate in Massachusetts the critical work that you are
undertaking, not just for our Nation, but for our planet.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you so much, and thank you both for
your testimony.
Attorney General Coakley, let me ask you this question: You
referred to the hearing which this Select Committee on Global
Warming had earlier this week up on Cannon Mountain up in New
Hampshire. We heard testimony there at Cannon Mountain that the
temperature in New England in the winter has actually warmed up
4.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1970. We were told by scientists
that the weather in Boston now in the winter is now the weather
that Philadelphia had in 1970; if this pace of warming
increases, that we will continue to go down the eastern
seaboard of the United States trying to find a comparable city;
and that perhaps in the future, we will have to rename the
White Mountains to the Mountains Formerly Called the White
Mountains because there will be no snow.
Now, in your case that you brought, Massachusetts v. EPA,
could you lay out the danger to Massachusetts which you made to
the Supreme Court and why it not only affects Massachusetts,
but other States in our country?
Ms. Coakley. As you know, it was a huge issue, or one of
the issues, as to whether or not Massachusetts had suffered
harm or could show harm, and the principal facts that we
pointed to were what I indicated earlier about the coastline of
Massachusetts, that because of the rise in ocean temperature
and the receding coastline, we have actually lost 200 miles of
coastline. We anticipate that that will continue if this
problem is not abated.
In a way that creates additional issues, obviously, as
General Brown indicated, around storms, weather disasters,
contamination of water supplies. I mean, it is not by accident,
I guess, that the two States on the coast will feel these
effects early already and probably be damaged the most, but
they will affect everybody in the country as those effects
continue to mount. And the concerning thing is--and I think,
again, for this Supreme Court to recognize that Massachusetts
was correct that the Bush administration was not doing its job,
I think, speaks for itself. Their acknowledgment that we had
met the standing by the actual danger and the anticipated
danger supported by scientific documentation indicated, I
think, the real danger that we face now, but more importantly
if we do not start this process, we can expect it to continue
unabated.
And your questions to the EPA about rates, of how are we
going to bring these greenhouse emission rates down, clearly
does not indicate a timetable that begins to address in an
effective and safe way the issues that we are facing now
because of global warming.
The Chairman. Now, were you surprised when Administrator
Johnson on May 14th in his press conference announced that he
was looking to Justice Scalia's dissent in Massachusetts v. EPA
as the standard that he was going to use as to how the EPA
would proceed?
Ms. Coakley. Well, when you lose a case, I know as a lawyer
you often look to the dissent for some comfort, but it is not
the law of the land. And it is discouraging to see again the
failure to acknowledge, even after all of these years and even
after the Supreme Court has spoken, that they don't have a
timetable, they don't have a way to proceed in a quick and
efficacious way, which calls into question what they really
want to accomplish. I think there is no other conclusion that
you can draw not only before the lawsuit, but after the
lawsuit.
And that is why this hearing today is so important, because
they need to be held to standards that will allow them to
proceed to protect the environment and allow us to proceed on
ways--as General Brown outlined, we have already begun to be
effective in controlling these greenhouse gas emissions.
The Chairman. Now, Attorney General Brown, there is, as has
been noted, a piece of draft legislation that has now been
introduced into the Congress. And we are having--and there is a
debate over whether or not language in that draft legislation
would, in fact, prohibit the EPA Administrator Mr. Johnson from
giving California the ability to be able to regulate
CO2 emissions from tailpipes. The proponents of the
legislation say that it would not prohibit it.
Can you give us your reading of that draft legislation and
what the implications are for your ability to protect the
citizens of your State?
Mr. Brown. If I am not mistaken, Chairman Dingell wrote a
letter to the attorney generals and admitted that the draft
would eliminate EPA's ability to grant a waiver to California
to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars. So it is right
in his letter, and I believe that he also said that EPA
couldn't regulate greenhouse gases with respect to cars.
So he wants to put it over in NHTSA. That is where he wants
to situate it, and that is a very different set of standards,
because, as you mentioned earlier, it is not dealing with
health, it is not dealing with emissions. It is dealing with
fuel efficiency, safety, and feasibility and the well-being of
the industry. So those are totally different standards.
It is very clear here that the Congress has to deal with
the fact that--well, we have--it is Bush won't do it. He won't
let his EPA do it, and there is a movement in Congress. If we
just focus on auto emissions, it is coming from the Auto
Alliance, which has a plan to sabotage any efforts to impose
restrictions on them. That is the--you can't sugarcoat it any
other way.
So there we are. It is going to take--ultimately it is
going to take Congress to clarify and to get a national
standard. In the meantime, though, it might be easiest to get a
California standard, because it looks like EPA is moving in a
much more circuitous route. I think they are taking deliberate
speed to heart, and ``deliberate speed'' doesn't mean fast. It
means decades of failure to act. That is what it meant in the
civil rights era, and it seems to be the same word that they
are invoking, that he is invoking in this particular area.
The Chairman. Let me go back to you, Attorney General
Coakley. When it comes to Massachusetts v. EPA,there is similar
language in this proposed legislation which could potentially
strip the EPA of the authority which was given to it as part of
your victory in Massachusetts v. EPA. But those who are
propounding this legislation say that is not so.
Can you give us your reading of what this legislation would
do to the victory Massachusetts won at the Supreme Court?
Ms. Coakley. I agree with General Brown on that matter, and
my staff, including Assistant Attorney Jim Milkey, who, by the
way, made the argument before the Supreme Court very
effectively and convinced them, particularly on standard
issues, that that legislation would strip the EPA effectively
of the ability to regulate it. And I think that the committee
has clearly noted and General Brown has noted that although
they may have parallel tracks, NHTSA and EPA have very
different hats to wear and mandates, and they may be at odds in
trying to promote fuel-efficiency standards, for instance, coal
to liquids, or other issues that do not provide for the concern
that we have, which is the protection of the EPA.
We believe that they are not inconsistent results, and they
should go hand in hand, but this is not an administration that
seems to feel that way, and their response to saying we don't
want agencies with overlapping responsibility is to file this
bill that would then take it away from the EPA.
That is the completely wrong response. If there is
overlapping responsibility, then so be it. Let those agencies
work it out, or let Congress decide, but don't take it away
from the agency that has, as its mandate, the need to protect
the environment.
It is a clear end run around, and I think General Brown is
right in terms of what is going on here.
The Chairman. Is your reading the same as Attorney General
Coakley's, Mr. Brown, that Massachusetts v. EPA has eviscerated
that legislation?
Mr. Brown. To the extent that--yes. I want to limit my
focus on the automobile area, but it is--clearly the goal of
that draft legislation is to transfer from the EPA to the
Transportation Department the responsibility to deal with
efficiency. And there is no conflict. As the Massachusetts
attorney general just said, the EPA is regulating emissions of
greenhouse gases. The NHTSA is dealing with automobile
efficiency. But even there, we have to be honest about it that
we are suing NHTSA. They are in court, too. I was in court 2
months ago in the ninth circuit objecting to their paltry and
pathetic 1-mile-per-gallon increase. And as a matter of fact,
our experts are saying it is going to increase fuel consumption
because they are privileging cars by weight. So the bigger your
car, the less you have to reduce.
So they are going the exact wrong direction invoking safety
in this consumer choice business, but they are not dealing with
the facts, and that is why, to cut through all of the smoke and
the fog, I noticed that the environmental defense in their
testimony yesterday had a very simple number: 434 million
metric tons of carbon in 2005 came from the U.S. auto sector.
Now, there it is. How much of the 434-, which is based on the
whole cycle from beginning to end, are they going to cut? Is it
going to be 432- next year? Is it going up? Is it going down?
By how much?
So the big thing I think you have to watch out for is the
squid process where they emit all of this ink to block any kind
of assault on their status quo effort. So I want to just know
434-, when does it go down? That is all we have got to know,
and what are the means to get it down? What does it cost? What
does it take?
And I even said, hey, if the automobile companies need some
money because they are so mismanaged, I say give them a few
billion, because I think it is more important to cut greenhouse
gases than it is to--you know, to fight with these automobile
companies. If they need a handout, they should own up to the
fact they can't do it without a handout. They line up like
everybody else who is needy and has various issues, and we will
help them.
But the main thing is that 434 million metric tons, and get
it down as soon as you can in the most intelligent market-based
way that you can. That is what cap and trade is about.
And by the way, I want to mention the other thing: oil
dependency; 9 million barrels a day. On a carbon content basis,
65 percent is imported; 65 percent, if you take the carbon
content of the petroleum that we are using, comes from foreign
countries, 9 million. That is pretty bad.
So how do we get that down? How do we save American
consumers' money, and how do we get the carbon out of it? It is
that simple. If they don't give you a measure, a mechanism to
enforce it, that is baloney. It is that simple. And I think the
biggest enemy here is complexity and obfuscation, and we have
got to get simple, simple, simple. How many grams are you
taking out of the atmosphere? If you have to talk that
language, then it is worthless. It is worse than worthless. He
feels like he is doing something good. He should not sleep at
night, the guy who was here.
Ms. Coakley. You keyed into why it is important, although
Massachusetts v. EPA is actually about motor vehicles. The
reason why it has broader implications for that, and the reason
why it is so important for them to make the determination that
CO2 is dangerous to that endangerment process is
because if that is done, then they can't say, well, no, this
should be handled by the transportation--by NHTSA. It really is
an issue around environmental protection, not just fuel
economy. And we have to make sure we keep our eye on that ball
and not let them play a shell game with these issues.
The Chairman. I thank both of you. And I just add this in a
parenthetical, and I think it is important for people to know
this, that the United States only has 3 percent of the oil
reserves in the world. OPEC has 70 percent of the oil reserves
in the world. We already import 60 percent of our oil from
countries we should not be importing it from. Much of that
money is used to then support al Qaeda and other efforts that
we then have to increase our defense budget to protect against.
That is our weakness, having only 3 percent of the oil
resources, but we are a technological giant. That is our
strength. And if the EPA and if NHTSA would propound the
regulations that would unleash this technological revolution,
then we would be using our strength against OPEC and to solve
this problem of global warming. But until they are willing to
recognize the danger that we are under and the solution, we
have big problems.
Now let me turn and recognize the gentleman from Oregon,
Mr. Blumenauer.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I found the hearing today to be very useful.
I deeply appreciate our witnesses to sort of bookend the other
side of the equation with what I agree with Mr. Brown was sort
of an embarrassing presentation. I really am deeply concerned
about EPA as an institution, the hundreds of dedicated men and
women that I work with who work there that have a mission to
protect the health, to protect the environment.
What I would like--I just have one question that I would
pose to each of you. Imagine for a moment that we had an
administration and an Administrator that was focused on
complying with the decision and its mandate to protect the
public health, that has been presumably having smart people
looking at this since 2005. I understand California has had
experience with waivers granted by EPA dozens of times, dozens
of times. I don't think any one of them was ever rejected.
If we get back in the mindset that they are going to comply
with the law and they are going to protect public health and
the environment, how fast could this be accomplished?
I wonder if both of you would comment on how fast, how it
would be done in an ideal world if their commitment was
protecting the environment, complying with the law.
Ms. Coakley. I will take a stab at that, General Brown.
As I indicated earlier, and my folks informed me they
should have begun right after Massachusetts v. EPA, the
determination of the endangerment process, and from that begin
to establish the regulations that they feel are appropriate
once they made that finding. Whether that takes 6 months or 8
months I am not sure, but they could do it at least that
quickly, it seems to me, because they have been working on
these issues, and they have before them----
Mr. Blumenauer. And they have the body of all of the
evidence and research and work that went into the crafting of
the California proposal.
Ms. Coakley. Exactly. So they have the endangerment funding
threshold. They have hearings, and then they issue the
regulations. But while they are doing that, they can also grant
California the waiver so that the processes are proceeding
immediately, some parallel, to allow the States to set the way
in which we can proceed in a way that doesn't interfere with
industry trade and work at the Federal and State level to start
this process, as I said yesterday.
The very concerning thing is all of this talk about the
need to deliberate, and it is complicated and whatever. If they
wanted to do it, they could do it ASAP.
Mr. Brown. Well, California has a goal of 30 percent
reduction in auto emission greenhouse gases by 2016, and that
procession is complete. The regulations are ready to go as soon
as EPA gives us the green light.
In terms of overall greenhouse gas reduction, we have a
goal of 25 percent. Now, that--those regulations have not been
finished, and that will take another year or 2 to get done, but
we are on track.
And I don't want to minimize that this is something easy. I
think it is difficult. I think the European countries have had
a difficult time. Japan, Germany, France, England, they have
all had a tough time.
So I think what really has to happen is that we get a
cooperative spirit to reduce to the maximum degree that is
truly feasible, and I don't think we have that commitment. It
is really a stall to allow companies, in this case the auto
companies, to make as much money as they can because they are
having a tough time. They are losing money. They are cutting
jobs. I am very sympathetic with that, but they have got to
fight this. This is for them. They are not going to stop. And
that pressure then feeds into your deliberations and into the
EPA and into the Bush administration, and there is where it is.
I think we have to do the best job we can, get a scientific
and technical and market consensus and try to go. Right now, it
is a blockage. It is obfuscation. We don't want liquid from
coal. That is not going to work. You don't want paltry CAFE
standards like NHTSA has adopted for light trucks. I mean, we
need a top-to-bottom honest discussion about what can be done,
and just be practical about it. I am not saying be unrealistic,
but I don't think we are even there yet.
I think what is now is this stall, kind of smoke and
mirrors kind of thing, and that prevents doing what we could do
which, when we get that clarity, it will still be hard, and
that is why I think we have got to get first to the point what
is the amount that we are emitting, what is the goal that we
can reduce, and what are the sector-by-sector game plans in
order to get there. And I am very concerned that it is going to
be a couple of years before we even get to agreeing on what the
game plan is. Right now it looks like we are going to have to
exchange warfare for the next couple of years, and that is very
unfortunate.
Mr. Blumenauer. I am very confident of the work that Mr.
Markey is guiding with this committee that we can mark more
rapid progress. The leadership of Speaker Pelosi, I think, is
intensely focused on moving us forward.
But the work that you are doing, I think, can help provide
a framework. And I think I understand how it can be moved
forward.
I would hope that we could work with you, your staff, and
our staff to be able to have a clear, simple explanation of how
this could, dare I use the term, be fast-tracked, fast-tracked
administratively, or if something needs to happen legislatively
to make sure that you are not in limbo, you are able to move
forward. And speaking as one of the residents of one of the
States that is part of this coalition with you, we all have a
stake in your success.
So if you could help us frame that with more precision, I
think it would be very helpful for us to be able to support
your efforts.
Ms. Coakley. We can do that.
Mr. Brown. I will--we have some very good scientists,
technology people, lawyers in California working on these very
issues. When I go back today, I am going to do exactly what you
are saying. I will give you a blueprint for what you should do.
And we have the capability to do that. We will write it up, and
we will--we will get it to you as soon as we can. It will be
thoughtful, it will be practical, and it will be honest; and
maybe you can share it with our environmental protection
Administrator.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I really don't have any questions. I wanted to express--
well, first of all, I apologize for having to leave. I am
actually running between two committee hearings right now.
Mr. Blumenauer. You are here with us now.
Mr. Cleaver. I am back here now. Thank you.
Are you interested, General Brown, in becoming the EPA
Administrator?
Mr. Brown. No. I like my independent role.
Mr. Cleaver. That is a powerful statement you just made. I
appreciate that.
I hope that we can, as I heard you saying, take use of your
commitment and energy in this area to deal with this growing
problem.
As a former mayor, you know that this is the number one
issue of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. They set the priority
for this year, and climate change, dealing with this issue on a
local level is their priority. They will be dealing with this
in their summer meeting in Los Angeles, and then we will--we
have been asked to come to a field hearing later in Seattle.
So I think there are people all around the country. There
is some cause for optimism from our perspective, not from
listening to what we heard earlier, but certainly as you look
at the mayors, you know the U.S. Conference of Mayors is a
bipartisan group, and they voted unanimously to name climate
change as the number one issue.
And so I am, to some degree, optimistic that the government
may not lead the way, but I think the people are far ahead of
the government, this government, and we will put--the people
are going to push us and push some sections of our government
into action.
So I thank you both of you for coming, and I apologize for
not having been here.
The Chairman. Great.
Well, let us then sum up. Let us let each of the attorneys
general who are with us give us their 2-minute summations to
the jury here in terms of what they believe that Congress
should do with the pending legislation before us and what their
recommendations generally are to the Congress.
So we begin. So let us begin the final statements with you,
Attorney General Coakley.
Ms. Coakley. My summation may not be all that different
from what we argued in the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v.
EPA, which is this administration has the authority and now the
obligation to issue regulations around motor vehicle emissions,
and unless they can and will do that immediately, Congress has
to take action.
The draft discussion pending, we believe, is
counterproductive and takes us backwards. So we are not in
favor of that bill.
And we would suggest further that what is very important
for us at the State level is to allow, as California has led
the way, to obtain those waivers so we can proceed to do what
we are doing and work collaboratively with Congress on whatever
legislation it feels is appropriate. And I believe that can be
done in a way that gives industry predictability, that can
involve them, in fact, in a way that lets them feel that they
won't be done sector by sector, but that everybody has an
interest--whether they are in government, they are in private
practice, whether they are involved in Washington--has an
interest in making sure that we address this problem.
And it is too serious, and it is too important, and it is
not speculative. It is a real issue that we need to start to
address today, and we look forward to working with you and your
staff on this committee and providing what guidance we can.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Attorney General Brown.
Mr. Brown. I believe the most important point is to
recognize the seriousness of climate disruption; that although
there is always uncertainty in scientific modeling and
evidence, the risk is so catastrophic--there is a risk, rather,
of catastrophe, and that risk is not 2 percent or 5 percent, it
is a substantial risk. And insurance against that is really
what we are asking.
And I would say in the contour of this administration's
remarks, there seems to be no recognition of the magnitude of
the threat that we are facing, and, therefore, their response
is appropriately tepid for their nonrecognition of what it is
that we are facing. So that recognition has to be the first
thing.
Number two, in dealing with global warming, we have a
necessity to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and that is
something that every American feels very strongly about and we
have to keep front and center.
And then thirdly, I believe, protecting the EPA's
authority, and that authority, of course, includes the waiver
potential for California, and, if necessary, to block bad
legislation. Do no harm, I would say, has to be the first
objective and then be--as circumstances permit, get some
positive legislation. But it may not be possible in the next 18
months. It may take longer. I mean, if President Bush thinks it
takes 18 months to get his own agencies to come up with a plan,
it wouldn't be surprising if it took Congress longer than that,
because there is more divergency there. But whatever, I think
it is pretty clear what has to happen.
Massachusetts won a great victory. That victory has to be
protected. It cannot be end-run or sabotaged without great
harm. So I think our goal, what has to be done, is clear.
And the final point I would make is we need to state this
problem in clear numerical measures of carbon and how much
carbon are we taking out each year. That is the goal. And that
should be able to be spoken in a matter of a few words and so
everybody knows what the goal is, everybody knows where we are.
That is the report card. And I think it speaks volumes that the
Administrator and the representative of NHTSA did not speak in
a measurable report-card-like way, measure us if you see this,
that there were lots of different points.
So I think it has to be simplified by metric tons of carbon
linked with reducing oil dependency. That, to me, is where we
have to go and then do as best we can given the technology and
the costs that are entailed.
The Chairman. We thank both of you for your eloquent
testimony, but also for your vigorous protection of the laws of
your States and actually of the country, because you are
fighting to give the EPA the authority which it needs in order
to affect our country.
Just so we are clear here, Massachusetts v. EPA protects
California and the other 48 States. But similarly, the
California statute, which you are here to testify to protect,
Attorney General Brown, has been adopted by Massachusetts and
11 or 12 other States. So this effort coming out of the States
is what is now applying the pressure to the Bush
administration. But it is also coming from the mayors, it is
coming from the universities, and it is coming from individuals
all across our country, and similarly coming from the United
Nations and their reports on global warming and the threat to
our planet, but to the United States and its citizens as well.
Speaker Pelosi in our trip as a Select Committee on Global
Warming 10 days ago visited Greenland and its ice cap, which is
the epicenter of the threat to the planet. We were \7/10\ of a
mile high on a block of ice on this ice cap, which is hundreds
of miles long and wide. And it was a five or six Empire State
buildings high block of ice. It is melting. It is moving
towards the sea. If it does that, ultimately it would lead to a
20-foot increase in the sea level of the world.
Speaker Pelosi was told by those in Greenland that she was
the highest-ranking American public official to ever visit
Greenland. What a shame our EPA Administrator has yet to visit.
And she has made it quite clear that she is not going to allow
for an interference in California law or a law which will give
the EPA the ability to be able to act on these issues.
But it is your efforts at the State level that has created
now this conflict with the Bush administration. And
Massachusetts and California have been in the lead, and we
thank you for that. And the two individuals here are the living
embodiment of this effort. We thank you for your efforts.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]