[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REGULATORY REFORM SERIES, PART 7: THE EPA'S REGULATORY PLANNING,
ANALYSIS, AND MAJOR ACTIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 22, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-87
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-209 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
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
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky Chairman Emeritus
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
MARY BONO MACK, California FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GREG WALDEN, Oregon BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
LEE TERRY, Nebraska ANNA G. ESHOO, California
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina GENE GREEN, Texas
Vice Chairman DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma LOIS CAPPS, California
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California JAY INSLEE, Washington
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana JIM MATHESON, Utah
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington JOHN BARROW, Georgia
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana Islands
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky KATHY CASTOR, Florida
PETE OLSON, Texas
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
_____
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
Chairman
LEE TERRY, Nebraska DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina Ranking Member
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas KATHY CASTOR, Florida
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California GENE GREEN, Texas
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana Islands
CORY GARDNER, Colorado JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex
JOE BARTON, Texas officio)
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, opening statement.................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado, opening statement................................. 8
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, opening statement.................................... 9
Prepared statement............................................... 11
Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, opening statement....................................... 13
Prepared statement............................................... 14
Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, prepared statement............................. 17
Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois, opening statement........................... 25
Witness
Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.. 25
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Answers to submitted questions............................... 181
Additional answers for the record............................ 201
Submitted Material
Report, dated September 2011, ``Anti-Environment Votes in the
112th Congress,'' by Democratic staffs of Committee on Energy
and Commerce and Committee on Natural Resources, submitted by
Mr. Waxman..................................................... 39
Letter, dated September 20, 2011, from Nicholas A. Brown,
President & CEO, et al., Southwest Power Pool, Inc., to Ms.
Jackson, submitted by Mr. Burgess.............................. 78
Letter, dated June 16, 2011, from Mark McPherson, Chief of Staff,
Office of Administration and Resources Management,
Environmental Protection Agency, to Amer Al-Mudallal, National
Treasury Employee Union Chapter 280, submitted by Mr. Burgess.. 82
Letter, dated August 11, 2011, from Mike Strain, Commissioner,
Louisiana Department of Agriculture & Forestry, to Mathy
Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Environmental Protection Agency, submitted
by Mr. Scalise................................................. 87
Online article excerpt, ``Mercury Emission Control R&D,''
undated, Fossil Energy Office of Communications, Department of
Energy, submitted by Mr. Griffith.............................. 89
Majority staff slide presentation, submitted by Mr. Stearns...... 90
Report, dated August 2011, ``Improving Our Regulations: Final
Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews of Existing
Regulations,'' Environmental Protection Agency, submitted by
Ms. DeGette.................................................... 96
Article, dated August 18, 2011, ``CAP Analysis Disproves Claims
About the Economic Effects of Strengthened Ozone Protections,''
by the Center for American Progress, at ThinkProgress.org,
submitted by Ms. DeGette....................................... 158
Report, undated, ``Catalyzing American Ingenuity: The Role of
Government in Energy Innovation,'' American Energy Innovation
Council, submitted by Ms. DeGette.............................. 167
Report, dated February 2011, ``New Jobs--Cleaner Air: Employment
Effects Under Planned Changes to the EPA's Air Pollution
Rules,'' Ceres and the Political Economy Research Institute,
submitted by Ms. DeGette....................................... 173
REGULATORY REFORM SERIES, PART 7: THE EPA'S REGULATORY PLANNING,
ANALYSIS, AND MAJOR ACTIONS
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:07 a.m., in
room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cliff
Stearns (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Stearns, Murphy, Burgess,
Blackburn, Myrick, Bilbray, Gingrey, Scalise, Gardner,
Griffith, Barton, Upton (ex officio), DeGette, Schakowsky,
Castor, Markey, Christensen, Dingell, and Waxman (ex officio).
Staff present: Charlotte Baker, Press Secretary; Jim
Barnette, General Counsel; Anita Bradley, Senior Policy Advisor
to Chairman Emeritus; Patrick Currier, Counsel, Energy and
Power; Andy Duberstein, Special Assistant to Chairman Upton;
Todd Harrison, Chief Counsel, Oversight; Kirby Howard,
Legislative Clerk; Heidi King, Chief Economist; Carly
McWilliams, Legislative Clerk; Dave McCarthy, Chief Counsel,
Environment and Economy; Mary Neumayr, Senior Energy Counsel;
Krista Rosenthall, Counsel to Chairman Emeritus; Alan Slobodin,
Deputy Chief Counsel, Oversight; Sam Spector, Counsel,
Oversight; Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member, Oversight;
Kristin Amerling, Democratic Chief Counsel and Oversight Staff
Director; Alvin Banks, Democratic Investigator; Brian Cohen,
Democratic Investigations Staff Director and Senior Policy
Advisor; Jacqueline Cohen, Democratic Counsel; Greg Dotson,
Democratic Energy and Environment Staff Director; Kelley
Greenman, Democratic Legislative Assistant; Alexandra Teitz,
Democratic Senior Counsel, Environment and Energy; and Anne
Tindall, Democratic Counsel.
Mr. Stearns. Good morning, everybody. The Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations will come to order, and I will
open with my opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Ladies and gentlemen, this past January, President Obama
issued Executive Order 13563 to improve regulations and the
regulatory review process, noting that our regulatory system
``must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our
environment while promoting economic growth, innovation,
competitiveness, and job creation.''
With job creation and the Nation's economic recovery the
focal point, the subcommittee has sought to get a clearer
understanding of agency regulatory action under this
administration. Today, in our seventh hearing in this effort,
we will examine the EPA's regulatory planning, analysis, and
major actions taken.
While we agree with the principles outlined in the
Executive Order, we are disappointed that EPA does not seem to
have followed those principles. Time and time again over the
last 3 years, we have seen the EPA issue oppressive new
regulations that have dramatically raised the costs of doing
business in the United States, and, indeed, have driven
numerous American companies out of business altogether.
The EPA is unquestionably an important public health
regulatory agency, which has contributed to the tremendous
improvements in clean air, safe drinking water and
environmental quality over the past 40 years. It is also an
agency that wields tremendous influence over the essential
ingredients of economic recovery: the cost of manufacturing,
construction and power production, the reliability of energy,
the certainty of future rules and standards in the decisions
that drive the Nation's commerce.
Since the beginning of this administration, EPA has issued
or proposed a number of large, complex, and expensive rules.
The pace of these rulemakings is such that it is not always
clear EPA has fully considered or fully informed the public
about the potential negative consequences of its actions on the
United States economy, jobs creation, and our ability to
compete with countries around the world.
Now, consider the decision in the first weeks of the
administration to pursue an endangerment finding for greenhouse
gases. This formed the regulatory predicate for setting fuel
efficiency standards for cars and trucks, at an EPA-estimated
cost of about $60 billion. The President announced the prospect
of this new regulation at a Rose Garden ceremony. But there was
no public discussion about the fact that the new regulation
also would have automatically triggered new permitting
requirements required by the Clean Air Act for all stationary
sources of greenhouse gas emissions. These permitting
requirements meant that 82,000 stationary sources annually
would need to obtain preconstruction permits. Another 6.1
million sources would need to obtain operating permits. EPA
estimated that, absent a rulemaking to exempt the majority of
these sources, the permitting costs alone would be $193 billion
over just a 3-year period. The cost of ceasing operations or
not initiating new projects was never taken into account.
To avoid this absurd and self-imposed economic calamity,
EPA issued ``tailoring'' rules to exempt most, but not all
sources, but left open the possibility of sweeping more
entities into the new permitting regime at a later date. This
affects the entire U.S. economy, as the future of greenhouse
gas permitting exists under a cloud of uncertainty.
Now, in another case, in January 2010, EPA chose to
reconsider ground-level ozone standards set just recently in
2008. Although the proposed standards would potentially sweep
vast areas of the Nation into noncompliance and cost upwards of
$90 billion per year, the agency sought to rush and issue final
standards in just 8 months. The agency missed that deadline but
was still promising to issue final standards, until the
President himself, recognizing that issuing such a rule would
cause him severe electoral problems in the next election,
recently requested that the Administrator refrain from issuing
the ozone rule at this time. The President is on board,
however, with issuing onerous new regulations in 2013--after
the election.
Just yesterday, this committee reported legislation to
provide adequate time for EPA to develop standards for
hazardous air pollutants for boilers and cement plants, after
it became apparent that EPA's complex and admittedly rushed
rulemaking results in requirements simply unachievable in the
real world.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act and various other statutes, EPA appears to be
rushing forward with rulemakings that just don't make sense for
those who know what it takes to implement them and those
concerned with ensuring we simply have a vital economy.
It does not appear that the President's stated priorities
for thoughtful, transparent and sound rulemaking have taken
hold at the EPA. I am particularly interested in learning about
EPA's future regulatory plans and how the cumulative impacts of
its rules inform its planning. Does EPA consult adequately with
other agencies? Does EPA operate openly with affected
stakeholders, States, and the public? These are important
questions. I look forward to our discussion with the Honorable
Lisa Jackson.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stearns follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Stearns. With that, I recognize the distinguished
ranking member, Diana DeGette.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DEGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
convening this hearing.
I think that oversight directed towards ensuring efficient
and effective federal regulation is an important endeavor, and
I like to work with the majority to have efforts to root out
unnecessary and wasteful regulations. As a long-time member of
this distinguished subcommittee, I believe the purpose of this
committee is to investigate what can be done, not to forward a
political agenda, and so I know we are going to have a heated
discussion today, but I think we should keep it focused on
exactly what regulations we are talking about, what the purpose
is and in fact they are necessary.
To that end, I am delighted to welcome our witness today,
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Administrator Jackson oversees
implementation of some of the most important legislation ever
passed by Congress, and it is my view that she is one of the
most gutsy and effective members of the administration, so I am
glad to have her.
The main topic of the conversation today will be jobs. I
know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will
assert that environmental rules and regulations are stifling
jobs and harming economic growth, but this is simply not the
case. We need to keep in mind the purpose of the Clean Air Act:
To protect the health of Americans.
Now, in 2010 alone, the Clean Air Act prevented 160,000
premature deaths, millions of respiratory illnesses, 3 million
lost school days and 13 million lost workdays. By 2020, the
Clean Air Act's total benefit to the economy will reach $2
trillion, outweighing costs more than 30 to one.
The Clean Air Act and other environmental laws do something
else: They create millions of jobs and they could create
millions more jobs if it weren't for the inaction of this
Congress to pass climate change legislation. Compliance with
the Clean Air Act generates investment in design, manufacture,
installation and operation of equipment to reduce pollution.
The environmental technology and services sector has grown
steadily since the Act's adoption, generating $300 billion in
revenue and supporting nearly 1.7 million jobs in 2008 alone.
Clean Air Act rules recently announced by the EPA will only
add to this remarkable record. For example, investment spurred
by the Utility, Toxics and Cross-State Air Pollution Rules will
generate 1.5 million new jobs by 2015. These will be high-
paying, skilled, professional jobs that cannot be outsourced.
So Chairman, one of the biggest steps this committee could
take to boost the economy would be to pass long-overdue
legislation to combat climate change and usher in an era of
clean energy. Now, you don't need to be a Democrat to believe
this; you just need to live in a science-based world. Two years
ago when this committee passed landmark climate legislation, we
heard from business leaders that there were billions of dollars
sitting on the sidelines just waiting for clear rules of the
road to be drawn up for the Nation's energy future. I just met
with the Colorado rural electric folks yesterday, who told me
the same thing, and these business leaders continue to ask
Congress to act.
Just last week, for example, the America Energy Innovation
Council led by people like Bill Gates, venture capitalist John
Doerr and General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt implored the federal
government to invest in clean energy technologies. I want to
read to you from these leaders' recent report ``Catalyzing
Ingenuity:'' ``Innovation is the core of America's economic
strength and future prosperity. New ideas are the key to
fostering sustained economic growth, creating jobs in new
industries and continuing America's global leadership. Of all
the sectors in the economy where innovation has a critical role
to play, the energy sector stands out. Ready access to
reliable, affordable forms of energy is not only vital for the
functioning of the larger economy, it is also vital to people's
everyday lives. It also significantly impacts the country's
national security, environmental wellbeing and economic
competitiveness.''
Mr. Chairman, here is what these business leaders conclude:
``Unfortunately, the country has yet to embark on a clean
energy innovation program commensurate with the scale of the
national priorities that are at stake.''
Mr. Chairman, this committee should listen to these titans
of the economy. We should be passing legislation to unleash
American innovation and create American jobs in the new energy
economy. Instead, unfortunately, this Congress is sitting on
the sidelines pretending that scientific and economic realities
do not exist. In March, every single Republican member of this
committee voted against the overwhelming scientific consensus
to deny the very existence of global climate change. Many
Republican members are using the Solyndra debacle as an excuse
to all-out cut energy funding. This denial of reality is bad
for the economy and bad for the environment.
So I am glad to have this discussion about the rules and
regulatory reform efforts and I hope that we can come together
in a science-based discussion to talk about new energy and the
new economy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentlelady and recognize the
chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee, the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Throughout this year, this committee has focused its
oversight and legislation on identifying and mitigating the
job-destroying impacts of burdensome regulations, and through
its regulatory reform hearing series, this subcommittee's
examination of the President's regulatory principles has helped
to sharpen our focus on important gaps between the
administration's rhetoric and reality.
The rhetoric, which I agree with, is that we should
implement reasonable and achievable regs to protect the health,
safety and well-being of the American people, and we recognize
that well-being must include ensuring economic growth and
healthy job creation. The President has talked about the
importance of cost-benefit analysis to ensure that regulations
do more good than harm.
The reality, unfortunately, is a regulatory onslaught from
EPA that is destroying jobs and stifling economic growth with
financial burdens and uncertainty, and in some cases, the cost-
benefit analysis is completely absent. In other cases, the
devastating economic consequences of rules are flat-out
ignored.
Over the years, I have seen EPA conduct rulemakings on
important Clean Air Act provisions, but I have never seen so
many major rules from EPA at a pace and complexity as has
occurred during this administration. These have been complex
rules with profound impacts on energy production and
manufacturing--essential contributors to economic growth in
this country.
In some cases, such as the boiler and cement rules, we have
regs that are technically unachievable because EPA appears to
be doing too much too fast. In other cases, the agency lays out
rapid and changing deadlines and makes alterations to the
rulemakings that raise questions about regulatory judgment and
decision-making in the first place.
We want the EPA and the administration to comply with its
own principles as outlined in the President's Executive Order
on regulation. Today we are going to hear directly from
Administrator Jackson to learn just what steps she plans to
take to ensure that these actions will begin to match the
administration's regulatory rhetoric.
I yield to my friend, the chairman emeritus of the
committee, Mr. Barton.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Barton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome
again, Madam Administrator. It is good to have you with us.
There are many things that are ailing our country right
now, Madam Administrator, and it seems that your agency appears
to be at ground zero of a fair number of them. Since President
Obama took office and you became the Administrator at the
Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA has rushed to issue
rules on greenhouse gases, which the Congress rejected in the
last Congress; ozone, which our President just rejected several
weeks ago; coal ash, boiler ash and our boiler MACT and cement
industries, which those industries are strenuously objecting
to.
In my home State of Texas, last year the EPA revoked the
flexible air quality permit rules that had been in place for
almost 20 years starting with President Clinton, and just
recently the EPA announced a Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
where Texas, which wasn't even included in the rule 6 months
ago, is expected to assume somewhere between 25 and 40 percent
of the reductions. This is somewhat puzzling since our monitors
indicate that we are in compliance, and it is an EPA model that
seems to indicate that in certain States there might be a
problem.
The cost of all these rules is in the billions of dollars
annually, resulting in thousands of jobs lost. Just last week
in my State, in my Congressional district, a company that is
subject to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule announced the
closure of two mines and reduction or closure of two power
plants that in my district alone is probably going to cost in
the order of magnitude of 1,000 jobs.
We have a President who says that we need to create jobs,
not destroy jobs. We have a President who says we need a
regulatory environment that has a cost-benefit analysis. And
yet your agency, the EPA, seems to ignore these admonitions. It
is as if there is some evil genie at the EPA that is bound and
determined to put every regulation possible on the books as
soon as possible regardless of the economic consequences.
I hope today, Madam Administrator, that we can get into
some of these specific rules. We have a number of very specific
questions that we want to ask, and as always, we look forward
to having you answer them and tell us where your agency is.
With that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barton follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman yields back. There are 3
seconds.
Dr. Burgess, do you want to take 5, 10 seconds?
Mr. Burgess. Well, let me just submit my entire opening
statement for the record, but I do want to remind the
Administrator, as we have had to remind every Cabinet
Secretary, every head of the federal agencies, that although
you work for the Executive Branch, Congress is a coequal branch
of government. When we ask for stuff, you need to produce it.
We have been stonewalled in this committee over and over again,
and those days have to stop because the American people are
asking serious questions. They want answers, and it is up to
this committee to get those answers for them, and I will yield
back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burgess follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentleman, and now we recognize
the----
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, before you recognize me, I would
like to ask the gentleman from Texas to provide for us examples
of where you think EPA has stonewalled, not now but for the
record, because this statement has been made and I would like
to see verification.
Mr. Burgess. And in particular dealing with Title 42
regulations, and I have asked these questions----
Mr. Waxman. I would like to see documentary information.
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman from California is recognized
for his opening statement for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This hearing is our seventh hearing on regulatory reform,
and we will be told by our colleagues across the aisle that EPA
needs to do a better job. We will hear them say they need to
better analyze regulations before finalizing them, they need to
listen to concerns about their proposals before acting.
But this hearing isn't really about regulatory reform. It
is just a continuation of a long series of attacks on our
environment and public health. This is the most anti-
environment House of Representatives in history. So far this
Congress, the House of Representatives has voted again and
again to block action to address climate change, to halt
efforts to reduce air and water pollution, to undermine
protections for public lands and coastal areas, and to weaken
the protection of the environment in other ways.
Mr. Chairman, my staff prepared a database last month on
every anti-environmental vote taken in this Congress. The tally
was 125. One hundred and twenty-five votes to weaken the Clean
Air Act and the Clean Water Act; to make our drinking water
less safe; to weaken environmental standards in dozens of
different ways. This is an appalling and dangerous
environmental record. And it should come as no surprise that
this record of anti-environmental votes shows little concern
for crafting well-analyzed policy that takes the views of all
stakeholders into account.
Today, the House will begin consideration of the TRAIN Act,
a bill whose passage will block actions to clean up smog, soot
and toxic air pollution from the Nation's power plants. When
this bill is considered, we will vote on amendments offered by
Chairman Whitfield and Representative Latta. The Whitfield
amendment will eviscerate the law's ability to require power
plants to install modern pollution controls. The Latta
amendment will reverse 40 years of clean air policy, allowing
our national goals for clean air to be determined by corporate
profits, not public health. They will not agree that we need to
have a hearing on the Latta amendment before reversing 40 years
of success with the Clean Air Act. The Republicans will not
clarify the bill on industrial boilers to prevent years and
years of litigation and delay.
We should hear from States, industry, public health groups,
clean air advocates and other stakeholders before voting on
these radical clean air amendments. These amendments are being
considered through an egregiously flawed process, a stark
change from the way this Committee has traditionally handled
important clean air legislation. We should at least understand
what they do before voting on them.
And we are sitting here criticizing the EPA for all the
work they put into their regulations before they issue them,
and yet we are going to pass laws, at least pass it through the
House, without a single moment of hearings just because some
representatives want to and maybe the Republican party wants to
respond to big business and forget about the safety and the
wellbeing and the health of the American people.
Well, today's hearing will provide an opportunity to hear
from the Administrator of the EPA, and I am pleased to welcome
Lisa Jackson. This is not the first time. I don't know how many
times she has had to appear before this committee. I don't
think she has time to do all the dreadful things the
Republicans are accusing her of doing because she is spending
most of her time here to listen to complaints from the
Republicans about regulations, some of which they haven't even
proposed and the Republicans want to repeal it.
I will ask the Administrator about the Whitfield and Latta
amendments and how dangerous they are to the American people.
That will serve as some opportunity to examine these issues,
and it will give us an opportunity to hear from the EPA
Administrator about the impacts of the entire Republican anti-
environment agenda.
Mr. Chairman, I have a minute left if any of my Democratic
colleagues--Ms. Schakowsky, I yield the balance of my time to
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Waxman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, here we are again, and I want to
reiterate just a bit what Representative Waxman has said.
Clearly, we are witnessing the most anti-environment House of
Representatives in American history.
My colleague from Texas, the former chairman of this
committee, was citing some of the things that have happened in
Texas as a reason to undo some of the regulations that you
proposed, but I just wanted to point out that under Governor
Rick Perry's tenure, Texas has become far and away the Nation's
largest CO2 emitter. If Texas were its own country,
as Mr. Perry has advocated in the past, it would be the eighth
biggest polluter in the world.
So it is high time that the Environmental Protection Agency
continued in what has been a bipartisan tradition of protecting
our environment, of protecting the health of Americans, and by
the way, not destroying jobs in any way but creating an
opportunity for new 21st century clean jobs, and I yield back.
Mr. Stearns. The gentlelady yields back. Time has expired--
--
Mr. Barton. Would the gentlelady yield to the former
chairman?
Mr. Stearns. All her time is expired, so we are going to
move now to swear in Madam Administrator.
Madam Administrator, you are aware that the committee is
holding an investigative hearing, and when doing so has had the
practice of taking testimony under oath. Do you have any
objection to testifying under oath?
Ms. Jackson. No.
Mr. Stearns. The chair then advises you that under the
rules of the House and the rules of the committee, you are
entitled to be advised by counsel. Do you desire to be advised
by counsel during your testimony today?
Ms. Jackson. No.
Mr. Stearns. In that case, if you would please rise and
raise your right hand, I will swear you in.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Stearns. You are now under oath and subject to the
penalties set forth in Title XVIII, Section 1001 of the United
States Code. You may now give a 5-minute summary of your
written statement. Please begin.
TESTIMONY OF LISA JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Jackson. Thank you. Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member
DeGette and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here today to testify on the Environmental
Protection Agency's regulatory process. It is a priority of the
EPA and of this administration to ensure that our regulatory
system is guided by science and that it protects human health
and the environment in a pragmatic and cost-effective manner.
One means by which this administration has made this
priority clear is through Executive Order 13563, which includes
a directive for federal agencies to develop a regulatory
retrospective plan for periodic review of existing significant
regulations. Under that directive, EPA has developed a plan
which includes 35 priority regulatory reviews. Recent reforms
already finalized or formally proposed are estimated to save up
to $1.5 billion over the next 5 years.
But let me clear: the core mission of the EPA is protection
of public health and the environment. That mission was
established in recognition of a fundamental fact of American
life: regulations can and do improve the lives of people. We
need these rules to hold polluters accountable and keep us
safe. For more than 40 years, the agency has carried out its
mission and established a proven track record that a healthy
environment and economic growth are not mutually exclusive.
The Clean Air Act is one of the most successful
environmental laws in American history and provides an
illustrative example of this point. For 40 years, the Nation's
Clean Air Act has made steady progress in reducing the threats
posed by pollution and allowing us to breathe easier. In the
last year alone, programs implemented pursuant to the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990 are estimated to have saved over 160,000
lives, spared Americans more than 100,000 hospital visits and
prevented millions of cases of respiratory problems including
bronchitis and asthma.
Few of the regulations that gave us these huge gains in
public health were uncontroversial at the time they were
developed. Most major rules have been adopted amidst claims
that they would be bad for the economy and bad for employment.
In contrast to doomsday predictions, history has shown again
and again that we can clean up pollution, create jobs and grow
our economy all at the same time. Over the same 40 years since
the Clean Air Act was passed, the gross domestic product of the
United States grew by more than 200 percent.
Some would have us believe that job killing describes EPA's
regulations. It is misleading to say that enforcement of our
Nation's environmental laws is bad for the economy and
employment; it isn't. Families should never have to choose
between a job and a healthy environment; they are entitled to
both.
We must regulate sensibly in a manner that does not create
undue burdens and that carefully considers both the benefits
and the costs. However, in doing so, we must not lose sight of
the reasons for implementation of environmental regulations.
These regulations are necessary to ensure that Americans have
clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. Americans are no
less entitled to a safe, clean environment during difficult
economic times than they are in a more prosperous economy.
As President Obama recently stated in his joint address to
Congress, what we can't do is let this economic crisis be used
as an excuse to wipe out the basic protections that Americans
have counted on for decades. We shouldn't be in a race to the
bottom where we try to offer the worst pollution standards.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Madam Administrator. I will open
with my questions.
I think as you can see from opening statements from our
side and the other side, this is a question of promoting
economic growth, innovation, competition and job creation. Is
that your understanding of the principles that the agency must
keep in mind when you make regulations?
Ms. Jackson. Well----
Mr. Stearns. Yes or no.
Ms. Jackson. Yes, but we must also implement the laws.
Mr. Stearns. On the first day of the administration, you
were directed to comply with a similar Executive Order 12866 in
a memo from the White House. Is that true?
Ms. Jackson. I believe that is right, sir.
Mr. Stearns. Do you agree that the regulatory system must
promote predictability and reduce uncertainty?
Ms. Jackson. I think that is the advantage of the
regulatory system.
Mr. Stearns. In the case of ground-level ozone standards
that you proposed in January 2010, were there discussions with
the White House about the impact of reconsidering this rule
prior to submitting a draft final rule to the White House?
Ms. Jackson. I am sorry. I didn't understand the question.
Mr. Stearns. OK. In January 2010, when ground-level ozone
standards were proposed, was there discussion between you and
the White House about simply the impact of what these would be
on this country?
Ms. Jackson. The proposal went through White House and
interagency review.
Mr. Stearns. Did you meet and participate in discussions
with the White House on those ozone standards?
Ms. Jackson. I am sure that staff in preparation of
interagency review did.
Mr. Stearns. Did you personally meet with the White House?
Ms. Jackson. On the proposed package in January of 2010,
not to my recollection, sir.
Mr. Stearns. OK. If you recollect differently, if you would
be kind enough to submit to this committee who participated in
those discussions, that would be helpful.
Was there any reaction from the White House on the proposed
ozone standards that were being proposed in January of 2010? Do
you recollect what the reaction was in the White House?
Ms. Jackson. The fact that the proposal went out shows that
it cleared interagency review and was signed by me for public
review.
Mr. Stearns. So you assumed the White House was on board
fully?
Ms. Jackson. I don't assume anything, sir. I am giving you
the facts as I know them.
Mr. Stearns. OK. So you are saying the White House
reactions, as much as you know them, were supportive?
Ms. Jackson. The agency exercised its discretion to make
rulemaking after an interagency review that was conducted and
led by the White House.
Mr. Stearns. I think there is a chief of staff memo which
you cited yourself in the proposed ozone reconsideration as
rationale for that reconsideration that was ultimately done. It
did not direct any agency to reconsider the regulations that
were being finalized, published. Did you consult with the White
House before you decided to reconsider the 2008 ozone standard?
Ms. Jackson. That is the same question you asked before
about the proposal, sir.
Mr. Stearns. OK.
Ms. Jackson. No, my answer is the same.
Mr. Stearns. Three weeks ago, the White House requested
that you reconsider issuing the Ozone Rule, noting that the
rule would not comport with the President's Executive Order and
that our regulatory system must promote predictability and
reduce uncertainty. Did you agree with the White House
decision?
Ms. Jackson. I respect the decision and I implemented it.
Mr. Stearns. Did you personally agree with it?
Ms. Jackson. Well, I don't think it is a secret that we--
that the recommendation we sent over and the package that we
sent over was something different.
Mr. Stearns. Yes, and the reason why you disagreed with the
White House is because you felt, was it that the standards you
thought were imperative to be implemented? Can you give us your
rationale why you still feel strongly that the ozone standards
should be----
Ms. Jackson. Mr. Chairman, you are putting words in my
mouth about what I feel, and my feelings----
Mr. Stearns. I am helping you out.
Ms. Jackson [continuing]. Aren't actually germane here.
Mr. Stearns. OK. What changed between the time you proposed
regulations in January 2010 and September 2, 2011, to warrant
reconsideration in your mind if you went along with it? I mean,
you are the Administrator. You have strong feelings on this.
You don't agree with the President. You are going ahead with
it. Can you make some kind of rationale why you are going ahead
with it now? I am trying to understand it.
Ms. Jackson. Well, the facts are that in between those two
time periods, the President requested that we reconsider and do
the reconsideration in light of new data that will come out
such that that reconsideration will happen in 2013.
Mr. Stearns. And what is that new data?
Ms. Jackson. That is new public health data that will look
at the connection between smog, ozone pollution and asthma and
other health indicators.
Mr. Stearns. Do you think this goes back to what I asked
you when I began my questions? Your idea, my idea is the agency
has the responsibility to promote economic growth, innovation,
competition and job creation? Do you think that was part of the
reasons why the President relaxed the standard on ozone
standards?
Ms. Jackson. Well, both the letter from Cass Sunstein and
the President's statement explain his rationale and they speak
for themselves.
Mr. Stearns. Did the White House propose this to you any
other time than just recently?
Ms. Jackson. Propose what, sir?
Mr. Stearns. Relaxation of the ozone standards.
Ms. Jackson. No, the----
Mr. Stearns. That was the first time they came to you?
Ms. Jackson. That was the first time they came to me? The
President's actions and his statement and the letter from Mr.
Sunstein was the official record of what happened with respect
to that package.
Mr. Stearns. All right. My time is expired.
The gentlelady is recognized, Ms. DeGette.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Jackson, let me try to clear up some of the
questioning about the new ozone standards that the chairman was
pursuing. On September 1st, the administration announced that
the EPA would not be revising the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for ozone. Is that right?
Ms. Jackson. That is right.
Ms. DeGette. And this decision, as you know, was
controversial. It created a number of extremely important new
questions about how we are going to handle the ozone standards
going forward. So I am wondering if you can tell us now sitting
here today about the next steps you are going to be taking to
ensure that States and localities have clear direction on what
they should be doing with regard to ozone standards. I think it
is important you clarify what you are going to be doing next.
Ms. Jackson. Yes, ma'am. So we are going to proceed with
the regular review in 2013 but simultaneously we are legally
required to implement the standard that is on the books. The
standard that is on the books now is the 2008 standard. It is
75 parts per billion, and EPA will be notifying States in the
days ahead of the path forward in implementing that standard.
Ms. DeGette. So what you are saying is that the intention
going forward that the EPA will enforce a 75 parts per billion
standard, the same as the Bush administration 2008 standard. Is
that correct?
Ms. Jackson. That is right. That is the legal standard on
the books.
Ms. DeGette. OK. And can you assure us that States and
localities will have sufficient time to meet those 2008
standards?
Ms. Jackson. We will do it in a commonsense way, minimizing
the burden on State and local governments.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Now, Administrator Jackson, the
chairman was asking you about what the process is within the
EPA about promulgating rules, and the EPA considers not just
the effect on human health but also the economic effect per the
Executive Order that he was talking about, correct?
Ms. Jackson. That is right. Our rules have always, at least
as long as I have been there, considered costs and benefits of
rules.
Ms. DeGette. So, you know, one of the things that
frustrates me and others is this sort of Sophie's choice that
has been articulated that I don't think is true, that you
either have to have jobs or high environmental standards, and I
want to talk about the Clean Air Act since we are talking about
the Clean Air Act as an example. Since the Clean Air Act was
signed in 1970, toxic air pollutants have gone down by 60
percent and saved hundreds of lives, and so that is the main
goal of the Clean Air Act, correct?
Ms. Jackson. The Clean Air Act's goal is to clean up the
air and therefore make people healthier.
Ms. DeGette. Right, but in addition, the economy has grown
since the Clean Air Act was promulgated. Is that correct?
Ms. Jackson. That is right. GDP has grown over 200 percent.
Ms. DeGette. So GDP has grown over 200 percent since the
Clean Air Act's passage, correct?
Ms. Jackson. That is correct.
Ms. DeGette. Also, can you talk to us about the effect of
the Clean Air Act on job creation?
Ms. Jackson. Certainly. There have been numerous studies
that show that the Clean Air Act has actually helped foster and
growth a pollution control industry in this country that
actually exports its innovations and technologies and of course
puts them to work here on the ground. When we ask someone to
spend money, millions or even billions, on pollution control,
those are jobs that are generally produced here, everything
from engineers to designers to welders to boilermakers.
Ms. DeGette. And in fact, I read a study that said just in
2008 all of those things generated $300 billion in revenue and
supported nearly 1.7 million jobs. I talked about that in my
opening. Are you aware of that study as well?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. DeGette. Now, I also read a study from the University
of Massachusetts that estimated that EPA's Utility, Toxics and
Cross-State Air Pollution Rules would generate 1.5 million new
jobs by 2015. Are you familiar with that study?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, generally.
Ms. DeGette. OK. And what kind of jobs will compliance with
those regulations create?
Ms. Jackson. Those regulations require companies to invest
in pollution controls, scrubbers or selective catalytic
reducers. They are everything from working with steelworkers or
pipe fitters or engineers, designers, those who actually
install and operate pollution control equipment or those who
retrofit equipment, and their jobs, because it is the utility
industry, it is the energy industry, it has to be done here. It
is something that we have to do here to invest in ourselves
and----
Ms. DeGette. Here in the United States?
Ms. Jackson. That is right.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stearns. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Barton. Thank you.
Madam Administrator, in your opening statement, you said
that the role of the EPA is to make sure that polluters are
accountable. Do you consider an industry that is in compliance
with EPA regulation to be a polluter?
Ms. Jackson. An industry can have a permit and be in
compliance with the permit and still be emitting pollution,
yes.
Mr. Barton. But in your definition of a polluter, if an
industry is actually complying, then why would you continue to
call them a polluter as if they weren't complying?
Ms. Jackson. Well, it is important for people to understand
that in order to operate, there is an assumption that some
amount of pollution into our air and water may have to happen.
What we do, what our laws require EPA and States to do in their
stead is to ratchet down that pollution in the interests of the
public health.
Mr. Barton. So would it be fair to say that in your
definition, the only industry that would not be a polluter
would be an industry that has no emissions at all, in other
words, it was shut down?
Ms. Jackson. If you don't emit pollution, then you are not
a polluter. That is not to say that the emission of some amount
of pollution is not permitted. That is the regulatory process.
Mr. Barton. Let me rephrase the question, Madam. Is it the
goal of the EPA to get to zero emissions, i.e., basically shut
down the U.S. economy?
Ms. Jackson. Of course not, sir.
Mr. Barton. That is the right answer.
You have appeared before this subcommittee and the full
committee a number of times this year, and in at least two of
those instances I have asked you to document some of these
health benefits that EPA spokespersons and yourself continue to
allude to as a reason for these new regulations. Unless your
agency supplied them to my office last night or this morning,
we have yet to receive them. Could you encourage them to
actually give us the documents that document these repeatedly
referred to health benefits?
Ms. Jackson. Well, sir, I will say that the regulatory
packages that we prepare include significant documentation of
both the benefits and the costs of----
Mr. Barton. You are not answering my question. I don't
think they exist.
Ms. Jackson. You don't think health benefits of clean air
exist?
Mr. Barton. No, I think health benefits from clean air do
exist. I don't think some of these documents that you refer to
exist or you would have complied with the request to submit
them.
Ms. Jackson. Sir, I will check on any requests for
outstanding documentation but I would also refer you to the
packages----
Mr. Barton. I am giving you a request right now. I have
given you respectful requests almost every time you have
appeared before the subcommittee or the full committee, and you
know, when you look in the footnotes of some these proposed
regulations, they refer to studies that are 10 to 15 years old,
usually very small studies, usually studies that are
independent with no real peer-reviewed verification, and then
we get these, you know, these huge cost-benefit comparison, and
in true science, you actually document what is going on. That
does not appear to be the case at your EPA. And if they exist,
then send them to us.
Ms. Jackson. I disagree, but I will check again to see what
else may be outstanding from your requests, respectfully.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Barton. All right. Let me make a comment on what
Chairman Waxman said in his opening statement, that we have
voted 125 times to weaken environmental regulation in this
Congress. That is not true. There is a difference between
voting to actually change or reduce an existing standard and
voting to delay or slow down our at least review a proposed
standard. This Congress has asked and voted to delay, review,
go back and check on regulations but I am not aware that we
have voted to actually change or weaken any standard that is
already in effect, and I think that is a distinction that is
worth nothing.
The regional administrator in Texas, Dr. Armand Davis, in
an op-ed in the Dallas Morning News earlier this week expressed
surprise that Texas industry in attempting to comply with this
cross-state air pollution regulation actually beginning to shut
down power plants and coalmines. He said in his op-ed that the
EPA had reached out numerous times and tried to consult with
and interact with the affected industries. Could you provide
logs of those meetings, emails and telephone conversations to
actually document the regional administrator's assertation that
he had been trying to work with the industries in Texas?
Because when I checked with the industry, they say that they
have had almost no interaction and were absolutely blindsided
by the inclusion of Texas in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
at the very last moment with no ability to impact the
regulation.
Ms. Jackson. Sir, I am happy to provide it. I would also
just point you to the record of the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule where EPA specifically took comment and received comment
and received comment from Texas industries and Texas regulators
about Texas's inclusion in both the----
Mr. Barton. After the fact. After the fact.
Ms. Jackson. No, no, sir, during the public comment period.
Mr. Barton. You couldn't have, because Texas wasn't
included in the rule.
Ms. Jackson. Sir, Texas----
Mr. Barton. There is a one-paragraph mention of Texas
possibly including at some future point. They were put into the
rule at the last moment.
Ms. Jackson. Sir, Texas has been complying with the CAIR
rule that the Bush administration put in place. The cross-state
rule is a replacement for that rule. We specifically took
comment----
Mr. Barton. I am very aware of that.
Ms. Jackson [continuing]. And put Texas on notice that
besides NOx, ozone, smog requirements, we took comment on what
would happen if they weren't in and what would happen if they
were. So we have information submitted by Texas regulators and
Texas companies----
Mr. Barton. Well, if you will just comply with my----
Mr. Waxman. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman's time has expired and the
gentleman from California, the ranking member, Mr. Waxman, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When you propose a rule, you have to establish a record of
the scientific basis for your findings. Isn't that correct?
Ms. Jackson. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Waxman. And that relies on work that has been done by
scientists, often, maybe always, peer reviewed. Is that
correct?
Ms. Jackson. That is right. That work goes through peer
review before we put it in the record for our rules.
Mr. Waxman. And so if Mr. Barton wants to get the
scientific backing for your rules, he can just simply look at
the record?
Ms. Jackson. Well, yes, although of course if there is
additional information we owe him, I will look to ensure he
gets it.
Mr. Waxman. Well, I have talked to Mr. Barton, and as I
understand it, there is a lot of scientific research that has
been peer reviewed on the question of the impact of carbon
emissions, global warming, climate change, and yet Mr. Barton
doesn't believe in the science, nor does anybody else on the
other side of the aisle. They have all voted that they reject
the idea that science has come up with this conclusion and they
reject the science as well.
We hear about job-killing regulations, and I haven't seen
anybody substantiate the job-killing part of the regulations,
but we know that a lot of this pollution kills people, and we
have that well documented. Isn't that an accurate statement?
Ms. Jackson. That is accurate, sir.
Mr. Waxman. I would like to ask you about the TRAIN Act,
which will soon be debated on the House Floor, as a matter of
fact, today.
Mr. Barton. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Waxman. No, I won't. I only have a limited time.
Mr. Barton. I would like to see----
Mr. Waxman. The bill reported from the committee----
Mr. Barton [continuing]. One document----
Mr. Stearns. Regular order.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, regular order.
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Waxman. I want to ask you about the amendment that is
going to be offered by Mr. Whitfield. The reported from the
committee would indefinitely delay critical public health
protections to reduce soot, smog, mercury and other toxic air
pollution from power plants but the Whitfield Floor amendment
goes much further. It would nullify EPA's final Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule and proposed Mercury Air Toxics Rule and it
requires EPA to start from scratch on both rules, which have
already been years in the making.
Administrator Jackson, how long have we been waiting for
old, uncontrolled power plants to finally clean up and how do
these power plants compare with other sources of pollution?
Ms. Jackson. The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act first
called for power plant--toxics from power plants to be
addressed. The Good Neighbor provisions in the rule I believe
were added then as well, which is the basis for the Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule. Power plants are the largest emitters in
our country of soot and smog and mercury, and for that reason,
the prior administration, the Bush administration, tried to
address through the Clean Air Interstate Rule and the Clean Air
Mercury Rule, rules that were later overturned in court because
they did not comply with the law and did not do an adequate
job.
Mr. Waxman. The Whitfield amendment would ensure that power
plants would not have to control toxic air pollution for at
least 7 years or reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide for
at least 8 years, and those are minimum delays because the
amendment would eliminate all Clean Air Act deadlines for the
rules. In addition to these delays, the Whitfield amendment
changes the underlying Clean Air Act authorities for the rules.
I am concerned that these changes would block EPA from ever
reissuing the rules for air toxics. The Whitfield amendment
replaces the Clean Air Act's proven standard-setting criteria
with an entirely new approach for power plants that appears to
be completely unworkable. It requires EPA to set standards
based on the 12 percent of power plants that are best
performing in the aggregate for all toxic pollutants.
Administrator Jackson, this would require you to decide whether
a plant that emits more neurotoxins but less carcinogens is
better or worse performing than a plant that emits more
carcinogens but less neurotoxins. Is there any scientific basis
for you to make such a decision and how is such a decision
likely to fare in the courts?
Ms. Jackson. Well, sir, I think it would weaken and
possibly destroy our ability to ever address those toxins,
toxic pollutants because that is not the way they work in our
body. You know, those pollutants all act together and we have
good science that documents the health effects of mercury and
arsenic and lead and hydrochloric acid but to try to pick
between one or the other, I fear would simply make the rules
subject to being overturned and we would not get those
protections.
Mr. Waxman. This amendment would change the criteria for
addressing pollution that is generated in one State but is
blown by the wind and causes unhealthy air quality in a
downwind State. States can't require polluters in upwind States
to clean up so the Clean Air Act includes a Good Neighbor
provision directing EPA to ensure that upwind States clean up
pollution that causes unhealthy air beyond their State
boundaries. The Whitfield amendment includes an amazing
provision that prohibits the EPA from relying on modeling for
any rule to address cross-state pollution. Administrator
Jackson, if EPA can't rely on modeling, what effect would this
have on the agency's ability to issue another cross-state
pollution rule to address ozone and particulate problems in
downwind States?
Ms. Jackson. Sir, if we are required to only use monitoring
data, which of course we use, but without the modeling to go
along with it, I don't believe we will be able to issue a
regional cross-state rule in the future ever because we simply
have to be able to use scientific modeling to address upwind
sources of pollution.
Mr. Waxman. And how are these rules that the Whitfield
amendment would strike, how are these rules--why are they so
important to public health?
Ms. Jackson. Well, I think looking at the mercury rule, for
example, we talk about 6,800 to 17,000 avoided premature deaths
a year once implemented, 120,000 avoided asthma attacks per
year. The cross-state air pollution, $120 billion to $280
billion in benefits, which represent 13,000 to 34.000 avoided
premature deaths and 400,000 avoided asthma attacks every year.
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that Mr. Barton
characterized the report. I would like to offer my report to be
in the record, and that is the 125 in our tally votes to weaken
the Clean Air Act.
Mr. Stearns. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized,
Mr. Murphy, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much, and welcome here,
Administrator Jackson.
On this discussion of premature deaths, et cetera, I am
trying to get some accuracy of this from a scientific
standpoint. Now, EPA is responsible for setting the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard at a level to protect public
health including sensitive subgroups with an adequate margin of
safety. Am I correct?
Ms. Jackson. Yes.
Mr. Murphy. And the current annual standard for fine
particulate matter is 15 micrograms per cubic meter?
Ms. Jackson. Yes.
Mr. Murphy. Recent review suggests EPA might consider
lowering it further to a level of 11. Am I correct?
Ms. Jackson. Sir, we have not made any regulatory
determination. That science is ongoing.
Mr. Murphy. Are you considering a level of 11?
Ms. Jackson. We are required by law to review that level
every 5 years.
Mr. Murphy. And these standards are based on review of
science. Am I correct in that too?
Ms. Jackson. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Murphy. Are external science advisors involved in that
or is it all within the agency?
Ms. Jackson. Yes. Congress mandated that there be an
external advisory board, the Clean Air Science Advisory Board,
I believe is their name.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you. In EPA's recent regulatory impact
analyses for Utility MACT, Boiler MACT and Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule, most of the deaths the EPA says are caused by
particulate matter are at air quality levels much cleaner than
the air standards require. So I would like to show you a chart
with some EPA estimates, a bar chart of estimate in mortality
by air quality, if we could have that show up on the screen. We
have marked the level of the current particulate matter
standard, and as you see, most of the estimated mortality is
below the protective standards, to the left of that line.
Now, let me look at the next slide. To make this easier,
here is another bar chart. The tall bar represents EPA's
estimate of deaths from all causes occurring where the air is
cleaner than the current ambient air quality standard, and the
short bar represents EPA's estimate of the deaths from all
causes occurring at levels less clean than the ambient air
quality standards.
So a couple questions on that, Ms. Jackson. EPA's own
documents raise an interesting question. Is it true that when
you estimate the benefit of your regulations, you are assuming
that clean air also kills people?
Ms. Jackson. Sir, the whole point of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards is to define what is clean air. People
deserve to know what level of air will actually make them less
sick and avoid those premature deaths.
Mr. Murphy. And I am just trying to get to the science
because it looks like clean air also is in the category of what
has happened to this definition. So the EPA always in the
particulate matter risk assessment report that ``We do not have
information characterizing'' deaths for people whose air was
determined to be clean by national standards. So reading EPA's
own document, it sounds like that there is not evidence that
clean air is associated with deaths. So could you please share
with the committee any studies that show a causal or
associative relationship between fine particulate matter and
deaths at levels below what EPA calls lowest measured level? Is
that something you could provide for us?
Ms. Jackson. I am happy to provide whatever science we have
that shows the correlation, which is quite clear. It is not an
assumed correlation between soot and death. When people breathe
in high levels of soot or even moderate levels, that is why we
are looking at the National Ambient Air Quality Standard. It
causes premature death. People die before they should.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Now, in the past I believe EPA has
said that they don't necessarily take into account the
regulations' economic impact or job impact but you waxed
extensively on the issue of jobs created by pollution control
industry. You said we export and growth pollution control
industry, welders, designers, boilermakers. I might add that my
boilermakers would like to be putting some cleaner power plants
here in the United States. And also it was brought up that the
GDP has grown 200 percent since passage. Is this the cause and
effect that by passing the Clean Air Act, we have caused a 200
percent growth in our economy?
Ms. Jackson. No, sir, that wasn't my point. My point was,
in contrast to people who say that the Clean Air Act is a job
killer, the Clean Air Act has been around for 40 years and our
economy has been fine.
Mr. Murphy. But is it cause and effect? Are we causing--
because here is my question. In the last 10 years, we have lost
2.8 million jobs to China, and I think we would all agree, I
mean, 16 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world are in
China, and we have lost a lot of jobs to China, and I think we
would agree, their air quality standards are not good, and my
concern also is, a lot of our manufacturers and others who find
it cheaper for lots of reasons, not just air quality, I would
put that in part of the mix of the issues along with currency
manipulation, reverse engineering, cheating, et cetera. That
may be one of the factors involved with costs of energy and
compliance in this country. So my concern is, instead of just
looking at the aspect of jobs being created related to the
pollution control industry, which I think is important, I also
want to make sure we are evaluating jobs lost if companies are
leaving the Nation, going there and then not only reimporting
products but reimporting pollution. Is that something that your
agency can give us some information on?
Ms. Jackson. We do look at jobs impacts, especially for the
rules that have been under discussion so far this morning. Let
me also say that there are studies by economists that show that
the cost of environmental regulation, the kinds of things we
are talking about, are not really determinative of a company's
decision. Labor costs, currency costs, some of the things you
mentioned, are much more important. These are very, very
small----
Mr. Murphy. I just want to make sure we are also looking at
the--I mean, it was somewhere in the last century, someone
referred to Pittsburgh as Hell with the lid off because of
levels of pollution, and pretty nasty pollution. It is now
quite a remarkably clean city. Unfortunately, that also means
we don't have a steel mill in Pittsburgh at all anymore too.
But if you could provide that information?
One other thing in my remaining time. Last March when you
were here, I asked you on a different topic related to our
natural gas industry in Pennsylvania if you could provide us
some information, recommendations and evaluation if you think
Pennsylvania's laws regarding natural gas are not adequate or
if the enforcement is not adequate. I am still waiting for that
document. If you would be so kind as to give me information, I
would like to advance it to Pennsylvania with some
recommendations, or I would be glad to talk to you about that
further later on.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman's time is expired.
The gentlelady, Ms. Schakowsky, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to suggest that the gentleman from
Pennsylvania I think made a very good argument that when we
negotiate trade agreements, that environmental concerns ought
to be part of that, that we want to make sure that not only are
we looking at the benefits or detriment to commerce but that
the world environment is also in those trade agreements.
I wanted to get back to the mercury and air toxic rules
that actually are being considered for overturning essentially
or at least diminishing on the floor today, and there were
actually, my understanding is, 800,000 comments in favor of
those rules that were submitted and wondered if you could
respond to the reaction to the rules that were offered.
Ms. Jackson. Yes, I can't confirm the exact number for you,
ma'am, but, you know, the idea of cutting mercury pollution is
very popular with the American people, and most Americans are
shocked when they find that power plants are allowed to emit
unlimited amounts of mercury and other toxics like arsenic and
lead into their communities. They want the power, of course,
but they have even said that they understand that we need to
invest to ensure we have clean power in our communities because
they don't want their children exposed to toxic mercury, they
don't want those impacts on their neurological development.
Ms. Schakowsky. And that is what I wanted to ask you about.
If you could describe for us what are the public health
consequences of what we are seeing today, the Republican
efforts to kill this rule?
Ms. Jackson. Without a doubt, if this rule is delayed or,
God forbid, killed in any way, there will be more premature
deaths, more hospital admissions, more people getting sick
because of increased levels of everything from mercury to soot,
as we heard earlier, to arsenic, to lead, to hydrochloric acid
to hydrofluoric acid. In the case of the cross-state air
pollution, the entire third of the country, which is quite
populated--I think it is a third or more of our population will
be subject to air pollution that they can do nothing about
because EPA's hands are tied and cannot stop upwind sources
from affecting people, especially our children and our elderly,
who are more susceptible to those premature deaths and those
asthma and bronchitis attacks.
Ms. Schakowsky. We will also see adverse effects to
wildlife as well, right? So there is----
Ms. Jackson. Yes. I don't mean to minimize it, but the
environment from the loads of those pollutants is harmed. Of
course, the example most Americans know is acid rain, the idea
that the SOx pollution, the SO2 goes into our
atmosphere, comes down in the form of rain that is acidic and
it changes the chemistry of our lakes and harms our forests and
our plants and wildlife.
Ms. Schakowsky. I also wanted to reemphasize something I
heard you say earlier, that there was actually a Congressional
mandate in 1990 to do this.
Ms. Jackson. That is right.
Ms. Schakowsky. And so we have failed for 21 years to
actually live up to that mandate?
Ms. Jackson. We have not until this point been able to make
rules that have survived court challenge, and every one of
those years of delay is more mercury. Mercury accumulates in
the environment, so once it is there, it is deposited and
stays. The way you are exposed to mercury is, you eat fish, and
the way it gets there is that it comes out of the air, it
deposits into our lakes and streams.
Ms. Schakowsky. I wanted to also ask you about the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule. Why did the EPA find it necessary to
act to ameliorate cross-state air pollution? What would be the
impact of the Republican efforts to repeal this rule?
Ms. Jackson. Well, as I mentioned, first we were compelled
to do so by the courts. The courts overturned the Clean Air
Interstate Rule, which was promulgated in the last
administration, in the Bush administration, and in remanding it
gave it back to EPA and said I will let this rule stand because
I don't want to lose the health benefits of this rule such that
they are and the market because it is a marked-based program
while EPA fixes it. The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule is the
replacement for that rule, and the reason it is important is
because of the 13,000 to 34,000 premature deaths avoided and
the 400,000 avoided asthma attacks. Those are just two of the
significant and severe public health impacts that will be lost
if we lose or delay those rules.
Ms. Schakowsky. I thank you, and I thank you for the work
that you are doing.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentlelady, and the gentlelady
from Tennessee, Ms. Blackburn, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Madam
Administrator, thank you for being with us this morning.
There has been some discussion about the generalities, and
I want to talk with you about the specifics. I think we have
had some discussion of where does the rubber meet the road and
how do these rules and regulations affect companies and affect
employees, and I have got an example. This is the labeling
requirements for EPA container rules that went into effect on
August 27, 2011. It is, I think, a great example of the
negative impact that the regulations are having on our economy
and specifically Buckman Labs, which is an international
chemical company located in Tennessee. To be compliant with
these new labeling regulations from the EPA container rule,
Buckman Labs had to change all of their targeted micro--their
labels and send them to the EPA for approval. Not surprisingly,
EPA did not send some of the new labels back to Buckman until
just one week before the new regulation went into effect and
then Buckman Labs had to rush the EPA-approved labels to their
clients for approval as well as 50 States where the product is
sold just so that they could continue to maintain existing
business. This was not for new business, this was for existing
business. And to put this into perspective, we aren't talking
about just a small handful of labels, we are talking about
4,000 labels that had to be reviewed and had to be changed to
meet compliance, requiring the hiring of temporary employees
whose sole job is to work on compliance for this one rule.
So did this new labeling rule actually change the contents
of the product?
Ms. Jackson. I would have to look into the specifics, but I
assume it is a pesticide labeling rule, so I would look but I
would suppose not. Perhaps you know.
Mrs. Blackburn. You are correct. It did not. It didn't. Was
there any type of economic impact study conducted before this
new rule went into effect and how many jobs it was protected to
create or projected to create?
Ms. Jackson. I can get you specifics on the rule. I don't
have them in front of me. It sounds like some people got hired,
though, which is a good thing.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mrs. Blackburn. Well, I think that what we are seeing is
that the cost of compliance goes up, which means that these
companies are not hiring new workers. The cost of 4,000 labels,
the slowing of the process of business--Buckman Labs and the
microbicides issue and the re-labeling issue is a perfect
example of how this slows the wheels of commerce and how it is
added cost and an added expense for these companies, who are
trying to create jobs, and, you know, this is money that could
have been spent for R&D. It is money that could have been spent
for additional employees in this process, but yet they had to
go through this compliance.
Now, yesterday they received notice that five more chemical
product labels must be altered to meet the EPA label language
changes that will require them that they are going to have to
spend more time and more money to go through the process again.
Can you see how the uncertainty or do you have an understanding
of how the uncertainty that your agency is causing is affecting
the businesses that are in my State?
Ms. Jackson. Certainly, I would not argue that regulations
and standard setting for safety and health don't have impacts
on business, but we are happy to look at the specific issue,
but remember that the pesticide laws and regulations are for
the safety of the users of those pesticides so whatever is
being----
Mrs. Blackburn. Ms. Jackson, we are all for clean air,
clean water and a safe environment. There is no argument about
that. What we are looking at is the cost-benefit analysis of
this. We are looking at the added burden, which indicates to
Buckman Labs it didn't change what the composition is. It
didn't change any of the content. It was an added regulation.
This is specifically the point.
You know, you can't argue about the fact that we are all
for clean air, clean water and a clean environment. What we are
saying is the manner in which all of these new regulations, you
have put over nearly 1,000 new regulations since you all went
in at the EPA. The cost to our small businesses now, Chamber of
Commerce says, is about $10,000 per employee. The cost to
families who are losing their jobs--we started our job creator
listening sessions the first of the year and working with our
small businesses and our employers in our district, the
overreach of the EPA comes up regularly, and it is of concern
to us. I yield back.
Mr. Stearns. Dr. Christensen is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome,
Administrator Jackson.
Let me just say before I ask my question that as a
representative of a district with one of the highest
concentrations of greenhouse gases, I really thank EPA for its
continued support and help to people of the Virgin Islands, and
also as a member of a racial minority whose communities are
often where some of the most polluting industries are placed,
we thank you for your commitment to environmental justice. And
I have had the opportunity to see you work and see how you
always work toward solutions to protect health and safety while
still ensuring and even stimulating economic growth in
communities across the country, and the Congressional Black
Caucus looks forward to recognizing your work this weekend.
Ms. Jackson. It is quite an honor.
Mrs. Christensen. So despite, you know, the agency's
tremendous record when it comes to producing sensible
regulations that protect the environment while stimulating
innovation that drives economic growth, that is not what we are
hearing from the other side of the aisle. Republicans on the
committee and in the House appear to be living in an alternate
reality when it comes to environmental regulation. For example,
in a markup of legislation last week that would stymie your
agency's efforts to protect the air we breathe and bring
regulations implementing Clean Air Act into compliance with the
finally after all this time, Representative Burgess suggested
that EPA'S Boiler MACT Rule, and I am quoting here ``would not
provide one scintilla of improvement in the air we breathe.''
Ms. Jackson, your agency's rulemaking process for Boiler
MACT Rule was extensive and issued a 232-page impact analysis.
Is Mr. Burgess correct that the Boiler MACT Rule you
promulgated would not improve air quality one scintilla?
Ms. Jackson. No, that is not correct.
Mrs. Christensen. OK. Would you care to elaborate?
Ms. Jackson. Sure. EPA estimates show that for every $5
spent on reducing pollution on pollution control, there are $12
worth of public health benefits. That is in reduced mercury,
soot and other toxic pollutants.
Mrs. Christensen. And, you know, he is not alone in his
refusal to accept scientific facts supporting EPA regulatory
action. At a hearing in this committee earlier this year,
former Chairman Barton spoke strongly against Clean Air Act
regulations that would address dangerous emissions from power
plants, and in opposing these regulations he suggested that
mercury emissions, which you have heard a lot about this
morning, cause no threat to human health. You have spoken
generally about the mercury, the impact of mercury and the fact
that it is cumulative in the environment. Would you say
something about the impact, especially on the health of
children?
Ms. Jackson. Certainly. Mercury, as I noted, is a
neurotoxin. It affects developing brain cells and it can affect
those cells whether a child has been born or is still in the
womb, and lowered IQ points are generally the way that mercury
impacts are measured. Recently, EPA Science Advisory Board
peer-reviewed data to show that those impacts are real.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Administrator Jackson. I
believe it is our fundamental duty to protect our children
against these dangers, and the only way to argue otherwise is
really to ignore decades of science on mercury emissions.
Unfortunately, denying basic scientific facts seems to have
become a requirement for the other side of the aisle serving on
the committee. I don't have to remind you that in March of this
year, every single Republican member of this committee voted to
deny the very existence of global warming. So Administrator
Jackson, is there any legitimate scientific debate about the
existence of global warming?
Ms. Jackson. Climate change, global warming has been
reviewed by numerous scientific panels and the results remain
the same, which is that the climate is changing and that human
activities and particularly emissions of global-warming gases
or climate-forcing gases are a primary cause.
Mrs. Christensen. And as you stated, you know, according to
a study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences, 97
percent of scientists believe not simply that climate change
exists but that humans are causing it. Notwithstanding that
overwhelming scientific consensus, my colleagues on the other
side are throwing in their lot with a handful of radical
outliers in order to block meaningful governmental action to
protect our children from rising temperatures, rising tides and
the devastating consequences. So denying the problem exists is
not a way to solve it.
Let me ask one more question. Would reducing or terminating
the ``lowest priority programs'' in accordance with the
Accountable Government Initiative result in cost savings
significant enough to justify the termination of those
programs?
Ms. Jackson. I would have to ask you to be a little bit
more specific. We are certainly committed to making sure that
we are as efficient as possible with our budget, and our budget
is such that we can't fund every single program that we are
actually required by law to implement, so we are making those
kinds of hard choices right now.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, and thank you for your
testimony and thank you for being here.
Mr. Stearns. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So much has been said on the other side that I need to
refute and yet there are some things that I need to get out
here. First off, it would be of great help to me if you would
provide us the actuarial data that you are using to support the
statement that 34,000 lives would be lost if your regulations
do not go forward and then I would further ask the question, I
am sure you made the President aware of this, does the
President not care about the health of Americans by delaying
the Ozone Rule?
Ms. Jackson. Sir, the President can speak for himself, but
I think his statement makes clear why he made the decision he
made.
Mr. Burgess. Well, you know, that is part of the point. Of
course, there was a recent Nobel scientist who resigned from
America's membership in the American Physical Society because
of the position that that society took on global warming, and I
think paraphrasing his statement, we can sit around for hours
and argue about the constant mass of a proton but we are not
able to discuss whether or not the validity of the science on
climate change is valid or not. And, you know, people of good
will and good intention can disagree about things. Chairman
Waxman--ranking member--said that we don't believe in the
science. Well, yes, that is right. I mean, I believe in God.
The science actually should be proven, and if it is true
science, it should be provable and that is what the argument is
about.
Now, let me ask you this because it is important on this
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule because it does affect Texas in
a big way. We were faced with the possibility of rolling
blackouts this last August because of the electricity usage
during the month of August and now we are told that with the
introduction of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule in the time
frame as provided by the rulemaking at the EPA that eight to 18
power plants may be shuttered on January 1st, and that will put
obviously a significant restriction on the ability to deliver
electricity in the State of Texas, and I would argue that that
is going to have a significant impact on public health because
as we all know, people can die in the cold but they really can
die in large numbers in un-air-conditioned homes during the hot
summer months.
Did you coordinate, the EPA, did you coordinate with FERC
as to the implementation of this rule as the discussions were
going forward?
Ms. Jackson. Sir, in looking at our--EPA did a reliability
analysis and asked FERC and the Department of Energy to review
that.
Mr. Burgess. How did you coordinate the information that
was provided?
Ms. Jackson. As EPA did its analysis, we asked for review
and comment on the analysis that we did.
Mr. Burgess. And did we just ignore FERC's recommendations?
Because they don't seem to be completely coincident with the
decisions that you made.
Ms. Jackson. No, not at all, sir. In fact, in my own
personal conversations with Chairman Wellinghoff and others at
DOE, what we have assured them is that we would work with
States and others to ensure the Clean Air Act's perfect record
of never having caused a reliability incident in its 40-year
history.
Mr. Burgess. Let me ask you this. Will you provide for this
committee all of the relevant memos, communications, letters,
emails that are available?
Ms. Jackson. Certainly, sir.
Mr. Burgess. And what time frame might we expect those?
Ms. Jackson. As soon as we can, sir.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Burgess. I might suggest that there is a time frame
that could be suggested to you but I will leave that up to the
chairman.
Now, I have here a letter to you from the Southwest Power
Pool, a regional transmission organization, on electrical
reliability, and the Southwestern Power Pool supports a more
flexible approach to meeting the emission requirements under
CSAPR and they cite several operators who are of similar
opinion. They go on to say that EPA must be provide time to
allow the industry to plan an approach to comply with its rules
in a reliable and reasonable fashion. As it stands now, the
southwest pool and its members may be placed in the untenable
position of deciding which agency's rules to violate, EPA or
the FERC's. Putting an industry with a critical infrastructure
in the position of choosing which agency's rules to violate is
bad public policy. Editorial comment: I agree. They also
suggest that the EPA delay CSAPR's effective date by at least a
year to allow for investigating, planning and developing
solutions. What would be the problem with delaying for a year?
Ms. Jackson. The rule is flexible enough. Because it is a
market-based program that is intended to replace a rule that
was remanded to EPA by the courts, we are under obligation to--
--
Mr. Burgess. I am running out of time. With all due
respect, people in the industry do not agree with you. I am not
sure FERC agrees with you.
Ms. Jackson. Sir, in 40 years, the Clean Air Act has never
caused a reliability problem. I am confident that this rule can
be implemented in a way that lets businesses make the decisions
they need but doesn't sacrifice public health.
Mr. Burgess. And what if you are wrong? Are you infallible?
Ms. Jackson. Of course I am not, but the 40-year history
shouldn't be ignored, sir, just because of doomsday scenarios
by those who want to stop the public health protections in this
rule.
Mr. Burgess. Well, and I disagree that they want to stop
the public health protections, and that is the overreach of
which the agency is guilty, but will you provide us the
response to the letter to the Southwestern Power Pool that they
have posed to you?
Ms. Jackson. If they were submitted during the public
comment period, we may already have it, but I am happy to give
you a response if it exists.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Michigan, the chairman emeritus of the
full committee, Mr. Dingell, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesy.
Ms. Jackson, welcome. I want to thank you for your visit to
southeast Michigan last month and your tour of the Detroit
River International Refuge, of which you know I am very
interested. I have a number of questions to which I would hope
you would answer yes or no.
One, does EPA take public comments into consideration
during its rulemaking?
Ms. Jackson. Yes.
Mr. Dingell. Does EPA allow industry representatives to
provide comments during the rulemaking process?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dingell. Does EPA take into account during the
rulemaking process a cost analysis of the proposed rule's
effect on industry and the costs of that?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dingell. Now, as I remember the writing of the
legislation, the EPA is required to in writing these rules to
come first to its decisions on the basis of health, and then to
come to further decisions on how the rule will be implemented
on the basis of other things as well, in other words, cost and
impact on industry and things of that kind. Is that right?
Ms. Jackson. That is generally correct, sir, yes.
Mr. Dingell. And so if I am correct, then the TRAIN Act
would change the sequence of those things. The first decision
would be cost of the rule and the second decision would then be
how the health of people is going to be affected by the
different circumstances in which the rule is directed. Is that
right?
Ms. Jackson. I believe that is right, or it may be the
Latta amendment that would amend the TRAIN Act to do that.
Mr. Dingell. Now, would you briefly state what effect you
think there would be if the cost basis analysis is done before
the scientific health benefit analysis?
Ms. Jackson. I think it would require the American people
to be kept in the dark about what is happening to their health
and about what is clean air. It is analogous to a doctor not
giving a diagnosis to a patient because the patient might not
be able to afford the treatment. The American people have the
right to know whether the air they breathe is healthy or
unhealthy.
Mr. Dingell. Well, now, how are you going to assess the
costs if you don't know what the problem you are addressing
might be? I am trying to understand. We are going to have a big
proceeding to define cost and then after we have defined the
cost we are going to decide about the health and what we are
going to do. I find this rather curious. How are we going to be
able to assess the cost if we don't know what is going to be
required to be done?
Ms. Jackson. I see. I am not sure, sir. I haven't--I don't
know what the thinking is.
Mr. Dingell. Just for my own curiosity, there have been a
lot of major changes proposed to the Clean Air Act, and I am
sure you will remember that over the years I have not been
entirely happy about either the Clean Air Act or the
administration of it by EPA. But how many times have you been
called upon by the Congress to testify on these proposed
changes?
Ms. Jackson. I believe it is approaching a dozen, sir, but
we can get you the exact number.
Mr. Dingell. Please, if you would. Now, as I mentioned, my
colleagues on the committee know I have had some very major
disagreements with EPA over the rules, and there are a lot of
serious issues that need to be addressed in the Clean Air Act
and other policies, and from time to time I have been worried
that the industry will bear an undue burden as a result of EPA
rules. Those concerns still exist today in places.
I have to say that I am disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that
this committee has decided not to address these issues head on
through legislation. Instead, we have been running around
following false paper trails, taking issues out of context,
ignoring policies already in place instead of finding
legitimate and balanced solutions to protect the economy and
the environment and having hearings in which we address the
concerns of industry to find what the specific concerns are and
what the particular actions of this committee should be to
address those concerns and see to it that we are addressing
with proper focus and diligence the questions of protecting the
economy, jobs and at the same time addressing the problems in
the environment.
I note that my time is up and I thank you for your
courtesy, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stearns. Dr. Gingrey is recognized for 5 minutes, the
gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Gingrey. Madam Administrator, thank you for appearing
before the committee. Your response to the gentleman from
Michigan in regard to what comes first in consideration of the
EPA rulemaking and your response was health and protecting the
health of the American people comes first, and I think your
response also to what comes second was other things including
cost. Is that correct? Was that essentially your response to
the gentleman from Michigan's line of questioning?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, with respect to the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and the Clean Air Act.
Mr. Dingell. If the gentleman would yield, that is required
in the statute and something that caused me a lot of trouble.
Mr. Gingrey. Reclaiming my time, and I appreciate that, but
the EPA--and this is the reason I bring this up--the EPA counts
benefits from protecting people from clean air. They don't
actually believe there is a risk at those levels but they are
counting the benefits so we are concerned about overstating the
benefits in regard to health and understating the risks to the
economy. Yes or no, is it true that the Administrator of EPA,
yourself, has the responsibility to set ambient air quality
standards to protect the public health including sensitive
subgroups with an adequate margin of safety?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gingrey. And again, yes or no, is it true that the
Administrator, yourself, considers advice from EPA staff and
also advice from the science advisors on the Clean Air Act
Science Advisory Committee in setting those standards?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gingrey. Now, EPA staff and their particulate matter
report say that there is no evidence of health effects at
levels much lower than the EPA calls the ``lowest measured
level.'' Is that your understanding?
Ms. Jackson. Sir, that wouldn't make sense to me, that
below the lowest measured level there be no effects or effects
that would be hard to attribute because you couldn't measure
the pollutant.
Mr. Gingrey. Right. So the answer is yes, and I thank you
for that.
Now, according to the most recent particulate matter risk
assessment, EPA estimates, and I quote that ``total particulate
matter 2.5 micron related premature mortality ranges from
63,000 and 88,000 each year above the lowest measured level.''
Of course, that is a large number. Would you agree, 63,000 to
88,000?
Ms. Jackson. It is a lot of premature deaths.
Mr. Gingrey. It represents in fact, Madam Administrator,
between 3 and 4 percent of all deaths in the United States
annually.
But now I turn to the recent Transport Rule which of course
we have concerns over and to its estimates of benefits which
involve almost all particulate matter and note that the benefit
ranged between 130,000 and 320,000 deaths per year. That is
quite different from EPA's own integrated science assessment.
So how do you explain that?
Ms. Jackson. I am sorry.
Mr. Gingrey. Well, let me say it again. The most recent
Transport Rule and to its estimate of benefits, which involve
all particulate matter, and note that the benefits range
between 130,000 and 320,000 deaths per year. As I said, that is
quite different from 63,000 to 88,000 from EPA's own integrated
science assessment. How do you explain that delta?
Ms. Jackson. The number I have, sir, is 13,000 to 34,000
avoided premature deaths under the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule. Perhaps our numbers should be reconciled, but that is
what I have and I believe that is directly from the rule and
their regulatory impact analysis.
Mr. Gingrey. Well, I would like, Madam Administrator, for
you to clarify that for me and I would appreciate that very
much, because the question becomes--and as I said at the
outset--is the EPA modifying the numbers to exaggerate the
benefits? Is the EPA claiming benefits below the level where
the data support such claims? How can EPA promulgate rules and
put out numbers that represent two- and threefold increases
over the agency's own scientific assessment? Will you agree,
Madam Administrator, that this does raise legitimate questions
about overestimating the health benefits?
Ms. Jackson. No, respectfully, because I don't believe I
agree with your numbers, sir, so I can't agree with your
premise.
Mr. Gingrey. Well----
Ms. Jackson. You know, it was briefed not long ago by
scientists who said simply--these are scientists who study fine
particle pollution--that if you could reduce the levels down to
levels that would be considered doable technologically, you
could have an impact on public health----
Mr. Gingrey. Well, let me interrupt you just for a second,
Madam Administrator, with all due respect, and I do respect
you--I have only got--in fact, in fact, I am a little bit over
time, but it is really, it is kind of like this business of the
stimulus bill saving jobs. It didn't grow jobs but of saving
jobs, and you put out numbers in regard to saving lives. That
is much more important, and that has to be accurate.
So thank you for getting that information to me in a timely
manner, and I know I have gone over so I yield back.
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman's time is expired.
I recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor. I
welcome her to the hearing.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam
Administrator.
You know, coming from Florida, we really appreciate our
clean water and clean air because jobs and the economy are
directly tied to having clean air and clean water, and I just
have to--you know, this past week on Monday was the 1-year
anniversary of finally sealing, closing off the BP Deepwater
Horizon well, and there is no better example to explain why
rational regulations need to be in place to protect not just
the environment but when the environment is tied to the economy
and jobs, and I know of the last 30 years even, we have seen a
very predictable pattern of when the EPA goes to carry out the
direction of the Congress under the law and the will of the
American people, there is this typical tug of war that then
ensues. You will propose a regulation and then certain
industries will weigh in, local citizens, maybe the heart and
lung associations, and I think this is very healthy. I think a
robust exchange of ideas and looking at all of these
regulations is essential to getting to the right result. It can
be messy and it can be very contentious sometimes and sometimes
folks here in Washington have very high-paid lobbyists that can
weigh in, and it is important to have a balance when people at
home that oftentimes don't have the same voice. But I think if
EPA sticks to the science and if you fairly consider all
industry points of view and you consider rational alternatives,
is there a less costly alternative, I think if we follow the
science, we will get to the right point. And I have a couple of
examples. When EPA announced plans to control benzene emissions
from chemical production plants, you know, remember that
industry claimed pollution controls would cost over $350,000
per plant, but instead, technological innovation led to
replacement of benzene with other chemicals and the compliance
costs turned out to be zero.
Administrator Jackson, is this the sort of innovation--is
this sort of innovation unusual in the face of new
environmental regulation?
Ms. Jackson. No, and indeed, to the contrary, it is the
pattern. For example, the industry overstated the per-ton cost
of the acid-rain trading program by a factor of four, and what
happens is that once industry puts its mind to complying
instead of fighting, they learn to do it in a way that is more
cost-effective than the current technology and we get both
cleaner air and water and jobs as well.
Ms. Castor. Then there is a great example just in the home
district from decades ago. We had a coal-fired power plant by
the local electric company. They were in litigation, and you
know, rather than proceed down litigation, the business took a
hard look at the new technologies available to clean the air
and to settle that they invested in the new technology on
scrubbers, and this has been the best business decision for
them. Not only has it earned them great PR but has cleaned the
air. It is right on Tampa Bay. The health of Tampa Bay has
improved. We don't have as much atmospheric deposition coming
on to the water, and I think oftentimes the science and
technology proves out to be the best business decision.
Another example, when EPA announced limits on
chlorofluorocarbons in vehicle air conditioners, the auto
industry insisted they would add up to $1,200 to the price of
every car, but the real cost turned out to be as low as $40. So
in that case, did the benefits to eliminating
chlorofluorocarbons outweigh this $40 cost, in your opinion?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, I am sure they did, although I don't know
the exact ratio, but because the cost was so much less--they
already had weighed it when we posed the rule but the happy
coincident of innovation is that it is much cheaper than we
expected.
Ms. Castor. Why do you think this is the case? Why do
affected industries and their high-paid lobbyists up here, why
do they so often overestimate the costs?
Ms. Jackson. You know, there has become this dance that is
done inside Washington where we propose public health
protections in accordance with the law and then the costs are
overstated, and even though the history shows that that is not
the impact, it seems to me to be devoid of concern for the real
people who would be most affected, and that is the American
people who want clean air and clean water, and of course they
want jobs as well, and I believe we can have all three.
Ms. Castor. I agree. I don't think they are mutually
exclusive, and a lot of these examples prove that out.
Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Stearns. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Bilbray, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilbray. Administrator Jackson, has there been an air
district anywhere in the country, not in the world, that has
reduced its total emissions more than the South Coast Air Basin
in Los Angeles?
Ms. Jackson. I can double-check that but they have made
significant reductions, sir. They still have significant
challenges but they have made reductions.
Mr. Bilbray. Right. The question is, is there another
nonattainment area anywhere in the country that has more
regulatory control over emissions than Los Angeles, the South
Coast Air Basin?
Ms. Jackson. California, because of their specific
challenges, I think has older and probably more well-
established air pollution regulations in general.
Mr. Bilbray. And are you aware also too that California and
the Air Resources Board and the air districts have been the
leader not just nationally but worldwide in air pollution
reduction and technology?
Ms. Jackson. And technology and moving forward on trying to
address public health issues.
Mr. Bilbray. And you are aware that we have one of the
highest, second only to Nevada, unemployment right now, 12-
point plus?
Ms. Jackson. I am sorry, sir.
Mr. Bilbray. OK. Look, both sides can talk about denial of
impacts, health-wise, economic. Let us be upfront. Anybody that
straight-faced says we can do these regulations and they will
help the environment and drive the economy is still playing in
our 1970 illusion that there isn't an impact on both sides, and
I don't think either side should be in denial that there is a
cost to the economy and a benefit to the environment, and if
you retreat on some of these environmental issues, there is
going to be an impact on the environment and health and a
benefit to the economy. It goes back and forth. The concept
that we can pull this off, we have been playing this game in
California long enough. We have tried to do--we have done
extraordinary things in California to try to make both work
out. There is a cost, and there is a cost both ways, and I
think that seriously we need to address that.
Now, let me ask you--and that is why the dialog here gets
polarized. I want to bring this back to, there is cost and
benefit. Don't deny the cost; don't deny the benefit. Now, my
question is, in the 1970s, isn't it true that through
environmental regs and fuel efficiency regs, the federal
government drove the private sector towards diesel operation
for about 5 to 6 years? They converted their fleet largely over
to diesel?
Ms. Jackson. I can't confirm that, sir.
Mr. Bilbray. OK. Well, I will confirm it for you because I
think those of us that are old enough to remember that will
remember that hideous experiment. That was an environmental
regulation that drove the private sector to diesel, which you
and I know is a very, very toxic emission, a very big health
issue, and it was a major economic and environmental mistake
that we made, and there are impacts of that.
I would like to shift over from the other side as somebody
who has been on the rulemaking, actually been in the
regulations. What is the responsibility or what is the
participation of local and State and county government
operations in the implementation of these rules, and I will
point that out. You are the Environmental Protection Agency.
You are not the EDA. You are not the Economic Destruction
Agency. What is the local and State responsibility in
addressing air pollution and toxic emissions and what is their
major goal in participation in this project? And please make it
short.
Ms. Jackson. OK. At a minimum, State governments are
primarily responsible for implementation of most aspects of the
federal Clean Air Act. Some States have their own laws, and in
the case of California, local and county governments do----
Mr. Bilbray. How much reduction have we had in government
operations and procedures in emissions in a nonattainment area
like the L.A. Air Basin in comparison to the private sector
reduction? Wouldn't you agree that probably overwhelmingly in
the 90 percent that the private sector has reduced their
emissions proportionally that the reduction has been in the
private sector and the public sector has been less than very
aggressive at reducing our emissions and our operations to
reduce our footprint?
Ms. Jackson. Sir, I am not sure I understand the question,
but the private sector has not done it voluntarily.
Mr. Bilbray. Let me give you this. The EPA had a scientist
coming out of Kansas that could tell you that you could reduce
the emissions from autos by 20 percent with a single
regulation. Don't you think the EPA would be very interested in
looking at implementing those rules?
Ms. Jackson. Of course. We are always looking for ways----
Mr. Bilbray. What are you doing about indirect--the mobile
sources caused by inappropriate traffic control by city, county
and local and State government?
Ms. Jackson. Sir, we are implementing the Clean Air Act and
we allow States to come up with implementation plans to
determine how best to reduce most forms of air pollution. The
mercury and air toxic standards are different because they are
under a different section of the Clean Air Act.
Mr. Bilbray. I move right back over. In other words, local
governments, State government get to--our job is to make the
private sector clean up their act where you can get identified
single mobile source that government controls that we have done
nothing as a comprehensive approach to reduce it because we
focus on cracking down on the private sector, who are the job
generators, while we are given a free ride.
And Mr. Chairman, I point this out because that 20 percent
that we could reduce in government is 20 percent that the
private sector wouldn't have to do while they are laying off
employees, and that is the kind of responsible environmental
strategy I would like to see both sides of the aisle finally be
brave enough to approach.
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman's time is expired.
The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This week, the Republicans have stepped up their assault on
clean air and clean energy. Both this committee and the full
House have begun a legislative repeal-a-thon that denies the
science, delays the regulations and deters efforts to protect
the health and security of millions of Americans. Take today's
Floor action. We are having 100-year floods every few years. We
have had tornados rip through the country, killing people and
destroying property. Hurricanes have caused floods, massive
power outages and deaths. Texas is on fire. Forty-eight states
have made emergency declarations so far this year. Now, we have
set all-time records of 83 major disasters declared this year
with 3 months of the year still left to go.
The planet is warming and the weather is worsening. We see
it here with our hurricanes, floods, fires and tornados. We see
it overseas where famine in Somalia threatens civil war, and
how does the tea party respond? ``Maybe we can find the
money,'' they say, for disaster relief for people who are
suffering, for people who are desperate, for people who have
lives who have been altered permanently by these disasters, but
we are going to make the taxpayer pay. Do the Republicans say
we are going to pay by cutting the hundreds of billions of
dollars we spend on our nuclear weapons program because we all
know we don't need to build any more nuclear weapons? Oh, no.
They wouldn't do that. Are we going to cut the tens of billions
of dollars in subsidies we give to Big Oil and Coal as they
report record profits? Oh, no, we can't touch those, they say.
We can't even talk about cutting those programs. What can we
talk about? We can talk about, they say, cutting the clean car
factory funds. We can talk about cutting the incentives to make
super-efficient cars that don't need the oil sold by potentates
in Saudi Arabia and CEOs in Texas. We can talk about cutting
the program that could remove the need for the very same oil
that creates the greenhouse gases that are warming up the
planet and causing the disasters that cost more and more money
to remedy as each year goes by.
And as if all this wasn't enough, the Republicans are also
waging an all-out war on the Clean Air Act. This committee and
the House has already passed legislation to prevent the EPA
from doing anything to reduce the amount of oil used by our
cars and trucks. And this week in this committee and on the
floor, we are considering bills to require endless study of the
cumulative impacts of all EPA air regulations on all
industries, and then just for good measure, we are going to
pass legislation that repeals the regulations that have already
been set, extend the deadlines for implementation of the rest
and weaken the very underpinnings of the Clean Air Act.
The Republicans are providing the American people with a
false choice. We do not have to choose between air quality and
air conditioning. We do not have to choose between concrete and
cancer. We do not have to choose between manufacturing and
mercury poisoning or asthma or cardiac arrest. We do not have
to choose. In their insistence that we consider the cumulative
impacts of all these regulations, there are some other
cumulative impacts of their actions that Republicans refuse to
acknowledge.
Administrator Jackson, Republicans are cutting programs to
incentivize the development of advanced technology vehicles
that could run without using a single drop of oil. They also
passed legislation preventing EPA from moving forward to
require a 54.5-miles-per-gallon fuel economy standard by 2025.
When you look at this cumulatively as Republicans say we must,
do you think these actions would help or hurt our efforts to
reduce our dependence on foreign oil and back out that which we
take from OPEC and funds those countries' governments?
Ms. Jackson. I think efforts to make us more dependent on
gasoline hurt our Nation's energy independence, sir.
Mr. Markey. Cumulatively, what are the benefits of cleaning
up particulate matter? Does that help or hurt our efforts to
battle cancer, to battle the impact that it has upon the health
of people in our country?
Ms. Jackson. Particulate matter causes premature deaths. It
doesn't make you sick. It is directly causal to dying sooner
than you should. So the impacts of delaying efforts, cost-
effective efforts, I might add, to address particulate matter
are more people dying sooner than they should.
Mr. Markey. How would you compare it to the fight against
cancer, reducing particulate matter?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, I was briefed not long ago. If we could
reduce particulate matter to healthy levels, it would have the
same impact as finding a cure for cancer in our country.
Mr. Markey. Can you say that sentence one more time?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, sir. If we could reduce particulate
matter to levels that are healthy, we would have an identical
impact to finding a cure for cancer.
Mr. Markey. That is a pretty good cumulative impact.
Ms. Jackson. Well, and the difference is, we know how to do
that.
Mr. Markey. And the Republicans are also proposing to delay
and weaken standards that would remove toxic chemicals like
mercury, benzene, cancer-causing dioxin and lead from
industrial polluters. Your regulations clean up cement plants.
When you look at these health effects cumulatively as
Republicans insist we must and the tea party insists we must,
would we be avoiding the thousands of deaths that would
otherwise occur----
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Jackson. And that is $2 trillion in health benefits a
year beginning in 2020, sir, and that is just some of the
rules.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentleman. I am glad he finally
got to his question.
Mr. Markey. Well, I was asking--well, let just say this for
the sake of the discussion. Mr. Bilbray did not ask his
question until 1:05 after the time, and Mr. Gingrey did not ask
his question until 26 seconds after his time.
Mr. Stearns. I am glad you noticed.
Mr. Markey. But if you would have notified them as well,
then I think I probably would have understood what the rules
were.
Mr. Stearns. And there are no rules. You can do what you
want on your 5 minutes.
Mr. Markey. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Griffith from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you.
When you say reduce particulate matter to levels that are
healthy, what is that level?
Ms. Jackson. I don't have it in my head right now but we
will get it to you, sir.
Mr. Griffith. And can you tell me when you are getting that
information at what point in history we were at that level?
Because isn't it not true that a lot of particulate matter
exists from natural causes?
Ms. Jackson. Some amount of fine particulate matter, but
most of the natural causes of particulate matter are coarser
and, you know, so dust, when you hear about dust storms. There
is some particulate matter, of course, that is emitted
naturally.
Mr. Griffith. So if you could give me a date as to when the
earth achieved that maximum healthy level, I would appreciate
that, at some point back in the past. I am sure your scientists
can help you with that.
In regard to mercury, we have heard a lot about mercury
today but the Department of Energy says when it goes back and
looks at mercury, and this was just found on the Department of
Energy's Web site, that even in 1995, coal-fired power plants
in the United States contributed less than 1 percent of the
world's mercury in the air, and that since that time we have
actually dropped, and I guess my question is, because we hear
this all the time in this committee, that we must be against
clean air, that we must be--you know, because we don't support
all the EPA proposals that we must be for dirty air. In fact, I
believe Chairman Emeritus Waxman said yesterday this was Dirty
Air Week, the Republicans had declared this Dirty Air Week in
the legislature. And so I guess I have to ask, even though I
know the answer in advance, you would not submit that being
opposed to some of your regulations means that you are against
clean air, would you?
Ms. Jackson. It certainly depends on the regulation, sir.
Mr. Griffith. You would not submit that the President is
against clean air because he opposed your proposed Ozone Rule,
would you?
Ms. Jackson. No, sir.
Mr. Griffith. I wouldn't think so. Or clean water. Wouldn't
that be correct?
Ms. Jackson. No.
Mr. Griffith. All right. And so when people make blanket
statements that because they oppose an EPA--some of us oppose
an EPA regulation, that doesn't mean that we are necessarily in
favor of dirty air, does it?
Ms. Jackson. It depends on the regulation, sir.
Mr. Griffith. All right. Clearly, on ozone, we wouldn't
have been in that category.
And in regard also, there was a comment earlier that
somebody wanted to know, you know, we call these job-killing
regulations, they want to know where the jobs are, and I can
submit to you some jobs from the 9th district of Virginia that
have been lost by virtue of some proposed regulations if they
go into full effect, but isn't it true that your own analysis
shows that the boiler MACT and cement MACT proposals will in
fact cost jobs. Is that not correct? They create some clean
energy jobs but they also have a certain----
Ms. Jackson. That is not entirely correct, sir. The jobs
analysis for the boiler MACT----
Mr. Griffith. Well, either people are going to lose jobs or
they aren't. Do they lose jobs or not?
Ms. Jackson. Well, sir, we do an analysis. There is a
range, and it ranges from a gain of 6,500 jobs to a loss of
3,100. It is not a perfect science to look at this, but jobs
analysis that we do, we try to be as precise as we can.
Mr. Griffith. But you are aware that in regard to some of
your rules that various power plants across the country have
already announced shutdowns of power plants and a net loss of
jobs? You are aware of that, are you not?
Ms. Jackson. Many of those plants are making business
decisions.
Mr. Griffith. Are you aware that they are laying off
people?
Ms. Jackson. I am aware of the fact that plants need to
make business decisions so that they can stop polluting the
air.
Mr. Griffith. Can I then assume that you are not--I mean, I
am just asking a simple question. Either you are aware of----
Ms. Jackson. I am aware of the announcements.
Mr. Griffith. You are aware of the announcements. Thank
you.
Ms. Jackson. I don't necessarily believe their
announcements are always fair or accurate.
Mr. Griffith. OK. But you are aware that they have
announced layoffs and communities are concerned about the
layoffs of high-paying jobs in my district, rural areas where
high-paying jobs are not common? You would agree with that?
Ms. Jackson. I am aware of their announcements, and I know
that some of what is in their announcements isn't accurate or
fair.
Mr. Griffith. Do you think that the Department of Energy is
accurate and fair when it says that only 1 percent of the
mercury in the world's atmosphere is coming from coal-fired
power plants in the United States of America? Are you aware of
that?
Ms. Jackson. I heard you say it. I would like to see their
Web site before I agreed to it.
Mr. Griffith. All right. But do you all have data that
indicates similarly that since 1995 without these regulations
going into effect the amounts of mercury in the air in the
United States has actually diminished, and some other
regulations----
Ms. Jackson. It is a good point, sir. Almost half of the
power plants in this country currently comply with the
regulations that we are scheduled to adopt in November, so it
can be done. It can be done cost-effectively. It is actually a
matter of fairness. Some plants are emitting mercury and others
have already addressed that pollution.
Mr. Griffith. And in fairness, some of that deals with
municipal waste incinerators, because I have never been one of
those who says that the EPA doesn't have a purpose or does some
good and that that is part of the reason that mercury has
dropped in this country, but we are already at fairly low
levels and the balance that we have to make as policymakers, as
your President made on the Ozone Rule, is between deciding
whether the gain is worth the cost and when the cost is people
not having jobs and being in poverty as we have seen that rise
in this country, you can understand why many of us are
concerned about the rising poverty. You can agree that that is
a negative, would you not?
Ms. Jackson. In your considerations, I would ask you to
look at benefits that are between $59 billion and $140 billion
for a rule that costs $10 billion in the year 2016. That is
what the benefits of the Mercury and Air Toxics Rules are
estimated to be.
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Administrator Jackson.
Ms. Jackson. What did you do to your leg?
Mr. Scalise. I tore my ACL playing basketball last week.
Ms. Jackson. Did you kick the TV when the Saints lost to
the Packers?
Mr. Scalise. The Packers game was a little rough, but we
had redemption against the Bears and we are going to do well
this weekend too.
Ms. Jackson. That is right.
Mr. Scalise. I am glad we can agree on that. We definitely
do.
I wanted to ask you, you know, we have been talking about
clean air, clean water, and all of us, I think it has been laid
out very clearly, all of us support clean air and clean water.
I think what we are trying to get at here is where is that
balance and has there been a crossing of that balance as it
relates to some of the rules and regulations we have seen
coming out of EPA. I know I am equally concerned about clean
air and clean water. I am also concerned about jobs, and during
the break, a lot of us went back home, got to meet with a lot
of our small business owners, talking to people who are there
on the front line of job creation, and there was a recurring
theme I heard from every single small business owner I talked
to and, you know, you ask them, what kinds of things need to
happen, what can we do to help you create jobs, and
surprisingly, the recurring theme was, they said the
regulations and laws coming out of Washington and this
administration are their biggest impediment to creating jobs,
and so I think it is very important that we look at these
regulations that are coming out and saying, you know, what is
the justification. And it seems that a lot of times these
numbers are attached and, you know, each rule and regulation is
going to save lives and each rule and regulation is going to
stop people from being sick, you know, and those are all lofty
goals, but unfortunately, it seems like they are numbers that
are being arbitrarily thrown out just to justify a radical
regulation that really has nothing to do with improving health
and safety and, you know, I will start with the ozone ruling.
What were the justifications that you made when you came out
and proposed that rule? How many lives was that going to save?
How many sick days was that going to prevent?
Ms. Jackson. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards are
based on peer-reviewed data that look at the health impacts, so
it is made based on determining what constitutes a safe level--
--
Mr. Scalise. So for that ruling, did you have numbers
assessed to how many, whether it was lives saved? Did you say
how many people were not going to have to go to the emergency
room? Did you have numbers like that for that rule?
Ms. Jackson. As I recall, sir, but we will double-check and
get you that data, what we look at trying to assess where,
whether the number 75, 70, what have you, where in that
spectrum you protect human health with an adequate margin of
safety, so----
Mr. Scalise. I would imagine when you came out with that
rule and you proposed that rule, you said this is going to do
some things to protect public health, right?
Ms. Jackson. It is the implementation of the standards over
time. So as we heard earlier, you pick the health-based
standard and then over time you implement the standard to
achieve that level.
Mr. Scalise. And so I am using that as an example because,
you know, for those of us that agree with it, before the
President made his decision and came out with his Executive
Order saying we are not going to go forward with that, there
would have been people on the other side who said, oh, you
know, you all just don't care about public health, look at all
those lives we would have saved, you know, and you all are
trying to block that rule from coming out, and then all of a
sudden the President even says you went too far. That rule,
that regulation would not have done those things. I have got to
imagine--I am not going to speak for the President and you are
not either, but I have got to imagine that the President had to
disagree with your assessment that that would have saved lives
or improved health because he wouldn't have rejected that rule
if he thought rejecting that rule would make people more sick.
And so I would just hope as the tone goes forward that as
we are looking at these rules and regulations that we know are
killing jobs, our job creators out there across the country are
telling us how many jobs in each of their businesses these
rules are killing. You know, you want to talk about health and
safety, these are people that don't have jobs, they don't have
health insurance, they don't have a lot of things because they
don't have that job, and then you look at the assessments that
are made by EPA, and even the President acknowledged clearly
that the things that you are saying weren't accurate at least
to his belief, our belief because he rescinded the rule. He
wouldn't have rescinded the rule if he thought that was going
to do something to improve health.
So I hope as we are looking at these rules we can at least
have an understanding that all these things should be put on
the table, and just because somebody comes out and says we are
going to save 20,000 hospital visits, that doesn't mean you are
going to save 20,000 hospital visits.
Mr. Bilbray. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Scalise. You said that about other things.
Mr. Bilbray. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Scalise. I would be happy to.
Mr. Bilbray. I think in all fairness, though, the President
is saying, wouldn't you agree, that really was right now with
the way the economy is, the way the jobs are, now is not the
time to implement this, and in all fairness, he is not saying
somewhere in the future you might----
Mr. Scalise. Well, and I will reclaim my time, because what
the President is saying, if the President really thought that
implementing that rule would save lives or improve people's
health and stop people from going to the emergency room, I
really don't think he would have gone forward with it, you
know, and he can correct me, you can correct me if you have
heard differently.
Ms. Jackson. I am not going to speak for the country. I
will simply say that not every deregulatory push works out well
for the country or the environment. In 2009, a company called
another federal agency's rules an unnecessary burden. That
agency wasn't EPA, it was the Minerals Management Service, and
that company was Transocean, and we know what happened there.
Mr. Scalise. We saw that they cut corners, and that had
nothing to do with----
Ms. Jackson. No, they----
Mr. Scalise. They actually----
Ms. Jackson [continuing]. Protesting regulation of their
work.
Mr. Scalise. And there are companies that we all know have
played by all of the rules and they are being shut down today
even though they didn't do anything wrong. And so while you may
want to carry out your agenda, even the President has
acknowledged that you have gone too far, and we have got to be
concerned about jobs.
I just want to put this into the record and ask a final
question as my time is running out, specifically to talk about
the Spill Prevention Containment and Countermeasure Rule that
has been extended to farms, and then your agency--it was going
to be a 5-year implementation. Your agency rolled that back or
expedited and said in 2 years they have got to comply, meaning
November of this year. Our small farmers out there are going to
have put containment. They don't even know how much it is going
to cost them, containment measures. Our Commissioner of
Agriculture has asked your agency over a month ago if you would
review--the Commissioner sent you a letter--if you would review
either rescinding the rule or giving them an extension. They
haven't heard back. I would hope you would look at that, and I
would be happy to get you a copy of the letter, but look at the
rule in general, what this is going to do, what kind of impact
that regulation is going to do to our local farmers.
Ms. Jackson. I am happy to do that, and the reason that I
think we are looking at it very hard is because with the
flooding in the Midwest and in other parts of the country, a
lot of folks have not had time to comply with it.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
But it is an oil spill prevention rule as well, so----
Mr. Scalise. Right, but in a lot of----
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Scalise. The States do their own containment, and I
would hope you would look at that letter, and I am sure others
are out there too, and look at extending that or just
rescinding it altogether.
I appreciate it, and I yield back my time.
Mr. Stearns. We will put your document in. I think the
minority would like to look at your document first before we
ask unanimous consent to do so.
Ms. DeGette. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. Stearns. Madam Administrator, we are going to do a
second round. You have been kind enough to be here--oh, Mr.
Gardner, the gentleman from Colorado--I thought you had spoken,
I am sorry--is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Administrator Jackson, for your time today.
I have been told that EPA's Office of Compliance and
Enforcement Assurance is verbally asking active hard-rock mines
to voluntarily grant blanket access to EPA personnel to conduct
site investigations under CERCLA. They have been described--
representatives of EPA have described the proposed inspections
as part of an ongoing national enforcement initiative focused
on hard-rock mining. Are these inspections related to EPA's
stated intention under CERCLA 108(b) to promulgate a rule
imposing additional financial assurance requirements in hard-
rock mines?
Ms. Jackson. Not by your description, sir. It sounds more
like this is as a result of a national enforcement initiative
to reduce pollution from mineral processing, but I can double-
check that for you.
Mr. Gardner. So they are not a part of the financial
assurance?
Ms. Jackson. Not to my knowledge but I can certainly
confirm that for you.
Mr. Gardner. And then could you clear up confusion about
the reason for these inspections? Are they part of the national
enforcement initiative or are they to support EPA's CERCLA
108(b) rulemaking?
Ms. Jackson. I believe they are the former, sir, but I will
confirm that.
Mr. Gardner. Is there any link between the two?
Ms. Jackson. Not to my knowledge, sir, but I am happy to
check on that for you.
Mr. Gardner. I would appreciate that. How do these
inspections relate to EPA's CERCLA Section 108(b) rulemaking?
Ms. Jackson. I don't believe they are related, but I will
double-check that for you.
Mr. Gardner. And would you provide for the record copies of
policies, guidance or other documents or records related to
development by EPA of any program or initiative to identify
hard-rock mining or mineral process sites that may be inspected
or visited by EPA representatives and/or any contractors of the
EPA under CERCLA Section 104(b) or as part of development of a
rule pursuant to CERCLA that would impose financial assurance
requirements on facilities in the hard-rock mining industry?
Ms. Jackson. Certainly, sir.
Mr. Gardner. Thank you. And do you happen to have any of
that material with you today?
Ms. Jackson. No, sir.
Mr. Gardner. And I know the committee had called the office
and warned that this question was coming. Will any of the data
or information gathered during these inspections be used in the
rulemaking process under CERCLA Section 108(b)?
Ms. Jackson. I am sorry. Could you repeat the question?
Mr. Gardner. Will any of the data or information that is
gathered during these inspections be used in the rulemaking
process under CERCLA Section 108(b)?
Ms. Jackson. I don't believe so but that is the same
question. I will double-check.
Mr. Gardner. OK. And then how much money right now has been
budgeted for this national hard-rock mining enforcement
initiative for fiscal year 2012?
Ms. Jackson. Let us see if I have it in any of the
background I have. I don't know that I have a line item for
that. If it is possible to get it, we are happy to get it for
you. It is budged under our Office of Enforcement.
Mr. Gardner. If you could get that, that would be great.
And do you have any idea what is budgeted for CERCLA 108(b)
rulemaking?
Ms. Jackson. We will get you that as well.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Gardner. Thank you. And I have been told as well that
these companies obviously may be facing some costs of these
inspections and the companies inspected will spend considerable
time working with EPA, their contractors and others showing
them onsite resources necessary to gather the information,
reports, meetings, EPA personnel et cetera, and will these
inspected companies be expected to bear any of the costs, the
direct costs for EPA personnel and EPA contractors to visit the
sites inspected under this initiative?
Ms. Jackson. Enforcement cases are generally brought for
violations of the law, and when they are, the penalties are
generally assessed as penalties but not necessarily unless
there are court cases is reimbursement sought.
Mr. Gardner. So these just seem to be inspections. Are you
aware of this initiative at all?
Ms. Jackson. Certainly, generally, every year the EPA
acknowledges what its federal priorities are for reducing
pollution and for enforcement, and this is one of our
priorities.
Mr. Gardner. So is this just an inspection or an
enforcement action?
Ms. Jackson. Well, you do an inspection, and if nothing is
wrong, there is no need for enforcement.
Mr. Gardner. So is this a plan then to go into a number of
these mines in different regions just to go in and inspect?
Ms. Jackson. Certainly. Part of our authority allows us to
go in and determine compliance with federal laws.
Mr. Gardner. And is this part of CERCLA? This initiative,
is it part of your CERCLA efforts?
Ms. Jackson. I believe they would look for violations of
all environmental laws including potentially violations of
CERCLA law, but it would not be limited necessarily to that. It
could be the Clean Water Act, it could be the Clean Air Act.
Mr. Gardner. So are these--do you have a listing of the
mines that you intend to inspect?
Ms. Jackson. I don't know if such a list exists, but if it
does, it may well be enforcement confidential since telling
someone you are coming is a good way of assuring that you may
not get a true picture of what they are really doing.
Mr. Gardner. And then just a couple questions on energy
prices. Do your regulations have an impact on electricity
price?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gardner. What is an acceptable price increase for
electricity?
Ms. Jackson. Well, what we generally do is look at a price
increase to determine impacts on the economy and also on
reliability issues, and so what we know--I can't answer your
question, but what we know is that the rules that have been
discussed this morning, both final and proposed, have very low
impacts on electricity prices.
Mr. Gardner. But when a rule increases electricity prices 5
percent, would that be acceptable?
Ms. Jackson. Sir, it would depend on the rule. We look at
costs and benefits and we also look at how those costs and
benefits roll out over time, and often----
Mr. Gardner. So it might be acceptable? A 5 percent
increase might be acceptable?
Ms. Jackson. It could potentially be.
Mr. Gardner. What about 10 percent? Could a 10 percent
price increase be acceptable?
Ms. Jackson. That is a hypothetical that I simply cannot
answer.
Mr. Gardner. Who bears the burden most in our society with
increased electricity prices?
Ms. Jackson. Who bears the burden?
Mr. Gardner. Yes, who do you think it hurts the most?
Ms. Jackson. The ratepayers pay for electricity.
Mr. Gardner. Does it hurt poor more than a disproportionate
share of our population?
Ms. Jackson. Of course, for people for whom energy is a
large section of what they spend, then----
Mr. Gardner. The answer is yes, increased electricity
prices impact poor more than----
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Gardner [continguing]. The rest of the population.
Mr. Stearns. You are welcome to answer that.
Ms. Jackson. Yes, it can if a greater portion of their
disposable income is used for energy, then they can be hurt
more, certainly.
Mr. Stearns. We are now finished the first round. We are
going to have another round. As you can see, there are fewer
members so it will go quicker, and I will start with my
questions.
A small businessperson came up to me and talked to me about
the EPA rule called the mud rule. I am not sure you or anybody
else knows about it. In the event of construction of a site,
there is stormwater that washes off or may wash off. EPA has
stipulated exactly how construction of the site including the
layout of the mud has to be, and of course, this increases the
cost of construction and creates liability, particularly in
light of the fact that EPA says if you don't comply, it is
$37,500 every day for every infraction. Don't you think those
kind of penalties are deterring business operations and it is
important with a struggling economy that you don't put that
fear that you could have $37,000, almost $40,000-a-day fee for
how you structure mud when you are doing construction for a
stormwater washout that may or may not occur?
Ms. Jackson. Sir, the majority of water pollution in this
country is caused by stormwater runoff and so the Nation's
Clean Water Act asked EPA to develop national standards. It is
important to note a couple of things----
Mr. Stearns. Do you know about the mud rule?
Ms. Jackson. Well, I know that States implement stormwater
rules----
Mr. Stearns. I mean, if you don't--I would be surprised if
you do know about it. Do you know about it?
Ms. Jackson. Of course I know about stormwater regulations.
Mr. Stearns. No, no, about the mud rule. Have you ever
heard of it?
Ms. Jackson. Well, he may call it the mud rule but----
Mr. Stearns. But you think it is stormwater rule? OK.
Ms. Jackson. Sure, because when you mix water with dirt,
some people call that mud, I guess.
Mr. Stearns. But in light of the fact you just said
yourself here that we have had 40 years of impact of the clean
air bill and it has worked pretty good, and yet you seem to be
pretty strong on increasing more regulation even with your own
admission that the Clean Air Act has been working for over 40
years. I mean, it is just--but I am trying to give you an
example, a specific example where the stormwater act is really
creating problems and scary for small people that are in
construction.
Ms. Jackson. Well, and the $37,000 or whatever figure he
cited per day, sir, I would be happy to talk to him, but those
are probably the statutory maximum penalties under the Clean
Water Act, and I am not aware of any specific incident where
that has been levied and certainly I am happy to look into your
constituents' concerns.
Mr. Stearns. How many employees do you have?
Ms. Jackson. We have somewhere over 17,000. I think we may
be as high as 18,000.
Mr. Stearns. I think it is almost 18,000. And what is your
yearly budget?
Ms. Jackson. It depends on you, but I believe our budget
this year is $8.4 billion or $8.5 billion.
Mr. Stearns. In those 18,000 employees, do you do town
meetings? Do you ever get around to see those 18,000 employees?
I mean, do you have a strong feeling that those 18,000 people
are needed? I mean, we just had an admission that the Clean Air
Act is working, it has worked over 40 years. Do you think we
need to continue to have 18,000 employees at the EPA?
Ms. Jackson. I think we should operate as a----
Mr. Stearns. Do you think you should have more?
Ms. Jackson. No, sir, I am not advocating for more
employees, and in fact, I am sure as you will see in budget
discussions, EPA has been losing employees.
Mr. Stearns. Would you agree that the EPA has a
responsibility to communicate with the appropriate experts when
assessing the impact of its rules? I think you would agree with
that.
Ms. Jackson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stearns. Would you agree that the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, FERC, is the authority on electric
reliability in the federal government? Would you agree with
that?
Ms. Jackson. I think that is a fair statement.
Mr. Stearns. Do you believe that the EPA with respect to
electric reliability has the same level of expertise,
engineering skills and knowledge of electricity markets and
systems as FERC staff?
Ms. Jackson. No, but I do think we know our rules better
than FERC staff, so it requires us to work together to look
at----
Mr. Stearns. So you don't think FERC knows the rules better
than you do?
Ms. Jackson. No, no, I said our rules. I think they know
their rules and I think we know our rules and I think we have
to work together to----
Mr. Stearns. Well, what about with respect to electric
reliability?
Ms. Jackson. Well, that is their domain and so----
Mr. Stearns. And so you would agree. I think we have a
slide here. I think it is slide number 5. If you look at the
estimates--do you have a copy there? She does. I think we just
gave you a copy. Look at the estimates from FERC assessing the
cumulative impacts of the EPA Power Sector Rules compared to
EPA's analysis. Which should the public trust?
Ms. Jackson. Well, sir, I am familiar with that particular
FERC study and I know that the chairman has already testified
that it is based on bad information. It looks at proposed rules
that were never adopted and it looks at worst-case scenarios
that aren't accurate, so I don't think that it should look at
this data as being as accurate as EPA's in this case.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Chairman, where did this chart come from?
It doesn't have an attribution.
Mr. Stearns. Is there an attribution for the chart? I think
it is FERC staff that gave us this.
Let me just, before I finish here, just make an
observation. On this side of the aisle, the Democrats keep
saying the Republicans don't care about clean air and clean
water because we oppose some EPA regulations, but I have given
you the mud rule, for example, where the Republicans do object
to that. You know, but the President himself has come out
against these proposed ozone rules, and could you say under
that scenario what the Democrats are saying, just because the
President came out against the ozone rules that the President
is against clean air? Is the President against clean water? Of
course not. Of course not. So I think it is hyperboloid for the
Democrats here to indicate that the Republicans don't care
about clean air.
But the question is, that the President and I think that
the Republicans agree, is the continued fading in this country
that EPA regulations are continuing to hurt this economy and
costing us jobs and there has to be a balance, and I think the
Republicans drink the same water, we breathe the same air as
Democrats, and so does the President. We don't accuse him of
the things that the Democrats are accusing us of, and frankly,
the President recognizes as Republicans do that we need to
throttle some of these regulations so we can get this economy
going again, and with that, my time is expired.
Ms. Jackson. Mr. Chairman, the President supports the
mercury and air toxic standards and he supports the Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule strongly.
Mr. Stearns. Well, I understand, but this Ozone Rule that
you wanted to propose, which he has asked you to stop, is an
indication to me that he can't be--because of this, you can't
accuse him of being against clean air or clean water is what my
point is, and the Democrats are just saying because we are
against some of these regulations including something like the
mud rule that, you know--I mean, it just doesn't make sense.
With that, I recognize the gentlelady from Colorado.
Ms. DeGette. Sorry, Mr. Chairman, we are trying to figure
out the genesis of these slides that you guys have been using
today. We will keep working on that.
Mr. Stearns. I think there is attribution in all of them.
Ms. DeGette. Well, no, there is not, but we will figure it
out.
Mr. Stearns. Well, most of them.
Ms. DeGette. I don't want to take my time to niggle about
the slides.
I want to ask you, Ms. Jackson, my friend from northern
Colorado was asking you about, do utility rates, if they go up,
do they disproportionately affect the poor, and obviously that
is true if they are paying a larger percent of their income. I
wonder if you could talk very briefly about the effect of
pollution on the health of poor people. Does in particular
particulate pollution but other types of pollution
disproportionately affect the poor, and if so, why?
Ms. Jackson. Well, you mean their budgets, of course, and
so for the same reason for those who are poor who don't have as
much money to spend on health care, on either prevention or
dealing with the health effects of pollution--asthma,
bronchitis, of course premature death. It has a huge toll in
lives and in sickness and in missed days of work, missed days
of school, missed opportunities to learn.
Ms. DeGette. But also, as you know, I represent a very
urban district, and there are large pockets of poor people in
my district and I see numerous studies over the year that
indicate poor people are disproportionately affected by
pollution because they live in areas that tend to have more
factories. In fact, we have several Superfund sites in my
district, neighborhoods that have been contaminated by
factories, and the children have higher incidences of asthma
and other kinds of illnesses because they are closer to
industrial areas. Are you aware of those studies, Ms. Jackson?
Ms. Jackson. I am, and I agree that they show that poor
people are disproportionately impacted by pollution because of
where they live and because of sources of pollution in their
communities.
Ms. DeGette. Now, Mr. Gingrey had asked you--I have noticed
a trend today of sort of the seminal question gets asked after
the time has expired, thereby limiting your response to that
question, and Mr. Gingrey asked you a question about the health
effects of particulate pollution but then he didn't let you
answer the question. So I want to ask you if you can tell us
right now what your answer to that question is about the health
effects of lowering the amount of particulates in the air?
Ms. Jackson. Without a doubt, it is a fact. It has been
proven by independent peer-reviewed science that particulate
pollution kills. It causes premature death, and that has been--
that is not EPA scientists, those are independent scientists.
It is subject to peer review, which is the standard by which
good science is judged and it is backed up by public health
officials.
Ms. DeGette. Now, when your agency promulgates rules, do
you make up the scientific studies to support those rules or do
you rely in promulgating rules on independent scientific
analyses?
Ms. Jackson. We rely on independent, peer-reviewed, often
re-reviewed scientific analysis.
Ms. DeGette. And in my initial set of questions, I think I
asked you, you also do make a cost-benefit analysis, correct?
Ms. Jackson. That is right. All of our rules go with
information on costs and benefits, and we are very proud of the
fact that under this administration, we also do jobs analysis.
Ms. DeGette. Now, the rules that you have promulgated, do
the cost-benefit analyses seem to indicate that a large number,
many more jobs would be lost than the health benefits to
Americans?
Ms. Jackson. No. In fact, the job losses when they occur or
estimated in these rules are minimal, and in some cases, for
example, the mercury rule, the proposal, there was a 31,000
short-term construction job estimate and a 9,000 net long-term
utility job increases, so those are actual job increases.
Ms. DeGette. Now, when you do these cost-benefit analyses,
do you also account for the number of jobs that would be
created in the industries that develop and manufacture the
technologies to comply with the rules or are those just
additional jobs that come outside of that cost-benefit
analysis?
Ms. Jackson. No. When we do the jobs analysis, we look at
that, but in the benefits analysis, I don't believe we look at
jobs benefits. We look at public health benefits in our
benefits. I will double-check that.
Ms. DeGette. That would be helpful.
One last question. Mr. Bilbray seemed to imply that because
unemployment is high in California right now, it is because of
the environmental standards that were enacted by the State of
California some 20 or 30 years ago. Has the EPA seen any
connection to current unemployment in California to the
California environmental standards?
Ms. Jackson. I am unaware of any--I am not aware of any
economic study or any economist who is trying to link the
current unemployment status in California or anywhere in this
country to EPA regulatory action.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much.
Mr. Stearns. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, and thank Madam Administrator for
still being here. We appreciate that.
I want to rephrase a question that I asked you in the first
round. In your opinion, is it better to have a plant in
compliance with existing regulations continue to operate or to
shut that plant down because it cannot comply because of the
cost of a proposed regulation?
Ms. Jackson. In my opinion, that is rarely a choice that
needs to be made either with time or through a market-based
mechanism.
Mr. Barton. Well, answer the question. Which is better?
Because that is the question that hundreds, if not thousands,
of individuals in the private sector are going to be deciding
in the coming years if all these proposed EPA regulations go
into effect.
Ms. Jackson. Well, our job analysis doesn't show that, sir.
I mean, that----
Mr. Barton. Well, in my home State of Texas just last week,
one company, one company announced the closure of two lignite
coalmines and probably two coal-fired power plants in or near
my Congressional district just last week.
Ms. Jackson. I realize that and I realize what the company
said, and I know the company is Luminant and, you know, I would
quote the headline from the Houston Chronicle which says
``Don't blame EPA over Luminant woes.'' Luminant has financial
issues that date back far beyond the EPA public health
standards.
Mr. Barton. That is the $64 question, Madam Administrator.
Is there any evidence of any criteria pollutant that is
currently regulated by the Clean Air Act that is increasing in
frequency in the United States?
Ms. Jackson. Is there any--could you--I am sorry. Could you
repeat it?
Mr. Barton. Is there any evidence, monitored data evidence,
of any criteria pollutant under the Clean Air Act that is
increasing in density, in other words, that the air is getting
dirtier anywhere in the United States?
Ms. Jackson. No, but there are----
Mr. Barton. No.
Ms. Jackson [continuing]. Places where----
Mr. Barton. No.
Ms. Jackson [continuing]. There is nonattainment with
criteria pollutant standards in the United States, Houston
being a great example, Dallas another one, sir.
Mr. Barton. In both of those cases, if the EPA had not
strengthened the ozone standard in the last several years,
those would be in compliance, and in any event, they are coming
into compliance. So, you know, this Republican initiative in
this Congress is not to roll back regulation. We are not
lowering standards. We are not reducing standards. We are
basically saying let us take a timeout until the economy can
regain its footing, and that is what the President acknowledged
when he pulled back on the ozone standard that you had
announced. On that standard, Madam Administrator, did you
support the President's decision to pull it back or did you
oppose it?
Ms. Jackson. I respected the decision when he made it, and
we are implementing----
Mr. Barton. I know that, but before it was made, you had
some input into his decision. Did you support him rolling it
back or did you oppose him rolling it back?
Ms. Jackson. That is not the accurate question.
Mr. Barton. It is the question I am asking.
Ms. Jackson. I recommended something differently. He made a
decision. I respect his decision.
Mr. Barton. So you opposed his decision?
Ms. Jackson. No, no, no. That is not right. I am
implementing the decision the President made.
Mr. Barton. I understand that. Your job is to implement----
Ms. Jackson. I made a different recommendation. That is no
secret. But I am implementing it.
Mr. Barton. What was your recommendation?
Ms. Jackson. I recommended a level lower than the current
level of 75, sir, and it was----
Mr. Barton. I am sorry?
Ms. Jackson. It was 70.
Mr. Barton. You recommended a different level?
Ms. Jackson. That is right, sir.
Mr. Barton. Now, I want to comment on something that
Chairman Waxman said about the amendment, the Whitfield
amendment. We have a requirement in that that as regulations
are proposed, they use monitored data when available. Why would
you oppose using monitored data when it is available as opposed
to modeled data, which is not based on the real world?
Ms. Jackson. It is not whether I oppose it if it is
available. It is saying only monitoring data. In that case, you
set a standard for rulemaking----
Mr. Barton. Well, you have----
Ms. Jackson. Let me just answer the question, Mr. Barton.
That is impossible to meet and so you would forego all the
health benefits----
Mr. Barton. That is not true.
Ms. Jackson [continuing]. For the eastern third of the
country. You would indeed.
Mr. Barton. There is not a power plant----
Ms. Jackson. It is my expert belief----
Mr. Barton [continuing]. Or a chemical plant----
Ms. Jackson [continuing]. As head of the EPA is that you--
--
Mr. Barton [continuing]. In this country that----
Ms. Jackson [continuing]. Would not have a cross-state
rule.
Mr. Barton [continuing]. Isn't monitored 24/7.
Ms. Jackson. Yes, but to determine whether or not the
sulfur dioxide emissions coming from plants in Texas are
affecting Illinois or affecting Louisiana, we do modeling, and
that modeling is reviewed----
Mr. Barton. That is not what the amendment says. You can
use a model but you input monitored data. You input real data
into the model. You don't use modeled data. That is what we are
trying to get at. And in the case of this Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule for Texas, it is the EPA modeled data, not the
monitored data in the State of Texas or in Illinois or
Michigan. The monitored data says they are in compliance. The
EPA modeled data says in two cases they may not be.
Ms. Jackson. The modeled data show that the transport from
the plants in Texas are affecting and causing, will cause
noncompliance downwind. Air blows across the country from west
to east and the emissions in Texas, the second highest source
of SO2 in the country----
Mr. Barton. And most of the time----
Ms. Jackson [continuing]. Affect places other than Texas.
Mr. Barton. Most of the time in Texas, the prevailing winds
are from the north to the south, Madam Administrator, not from
the south to the north.
Ms. Jackson. OK. Then you take my home area of New Orleans.
I mean, yes, but it does blow. The wind blows pollution across
and around the country.
Mr. Barton. My time is expired.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentleman.
The gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schakowsky. I wanted first to correct what I think was
implicit, Mr. Chairman, in what you were saying, that somehow
FERC opposed the rules that are affecting power plants, and I
just want to quote some of the testimony at a September 14th
hearing of our Energy and Commerce Committee. The experts did
set the record straight. The Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission chairman, Jon Wellinghoff, told the committee: ``We
do not need to stop these rules from going forward. I think
these rules are appropriate. These rules in fact do what needs
to be done in this country.'' And FERC Commissioner John Norris
testified: ``I believe that the EPA has adequately addressed
reliability concerns and its statutory obligations with the
rules established to date and I have no reason to believe that
it cannot continue to so as it finalizes proposed rules.'' We
had former DOE Assistant Secretary for Policy saying there is
no reason to delay the implementation of the Clean Air
Transport Rule or Utility Toxics Rule. So we had actually heard
testimony that I think counters the implication that you were
making.
But here is what I want to ask you, Madam Administrator.
You identified 35 regulations that will be subject to a near-
term review process designed to streamline and update the rules
administered by the EPA. Is that right?
Ms. Jackson. That is right.
Ms. Schakowsky. And I am wondering if you might be able to
highlight a few of the rules that you intend to update.
Ms. Jackson. We have 16 short-term reviews that we are
taking work on this calendar year, 2011. Those include
equipment leak detection and repair rules to reduce the burden;
that suggestion came from API, the American Petroleum
Institute; increasing regulatory certainty for farmers, that is
working with USDA and States; electronic reporting, which I
believe came in from the regulated sector under a variety of
statutes, vehicle regulations, harmonizing requirements and the
list goes on. I could certainly submit it.
Ms. Schakowsky. And actually, I would like to make sure
that part of the record does include, Mr. Chairman, a list of
the 35 regulations that will be subject to near-term review.
Mr. Stearns. Does the gentlelady have a copy of those?
Ms. Schakowsky. Can we get those?
Ms. Jackson. I can certainly--can I just keep them until
the hearing is over and give them to you?
Mr. Stearns. Sure. You can certainly send them in to us.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Ms. Schakowsky. So I guess the point I wanted to make is
that regulatory efficiency and effectiveness is a part of your
agency's processes, always has been, if I am right, a part of
your processes. Is that correct?
Ms. Jackson. It has been, but we are also complying with
the President's order to do a retrospective look back and that
will be done every 5 years.
Ms. Schakowsky. So can you discuss how that retrospective
makes the regulatory process more efficient?
Ms. Jackson. Well, as the President said, regulations are
on the books and it makes good sense for agencies to constantly
be scrubbing through them to ensure that as technology changes,
as we moved into a computer age, for example, or as a great
example, cars that now have secondary vapor recovery on their
gas tank, having it on the actual pump, it just becomes
redundant. So there is clearly opportunities which we found in
our 20 public meetings and two public comment periods for
places to make our rules more efficient and less burdensome.
Ms. Schakowsky. So there was some question about whether
industry has that kind of input, and you actually went out and
solicited that not just in the comment periods but beforehand?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, we had 20 different meetings around the
country to solicit input. We also had a Web site that went up
very early on and we had two public comment periods.
Ms. Schakowsky. I also just wanted to point out that in
your testimony, you report that agency reforms proposed or
finalized prior to the President's Executive Order are going to
save $1.5 billion over the next 5 years. So I want to
congratulate you on an impressive record, and again, any
implication that the EPA is looking just to maintain in place
or even propose regulations that are redundant and any way not
necessary to your mission is just not true. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Stearns. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again,
Administrator Jackson, let me thank you for your indulging us a
second round of questions today.
You may be familiar that members of the Texas delegation on
a bipartisan basis on this committee met with Mr. Sunstein of
Office of Management and Budget right before the August recess
concerning the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the seeming
insensitivity to the problems that are going to exist in our
State, so have you communicated with Mr. Sunstein in the Office
of Management and Budget about these regulations and the burden
that they impose?
Ms. Jackson. I am aware that the meeting happened and I
believe we had staff from the relevant program at the meeting.
Mr. Burgess. And so what should members of the Texas
delegation expect as a result of your discussions with Mr.
Sunstein?
Ms. Jackson. Well, we have also, not me personally but my
deputy met with, I believe, members of the delegation, I
believe that is right, last week but I know he also met with
TCQ, ERCOT. We have several meetings, I have been in two, with
Luminant itself, and we also of course have companies like NRG
in Texas who say they can comply. So we are in discussions with
a number of entities in Texas on that----
Mr. Burgess. Will you provide us, the committee staff, with
the minutes and memos and emails concerning those meetings
between yourself and the Office of Management and Budget?
Ms. Jackson. I didn't say I had--personal meeting? I did
not have any, but is there anything with my staff, absolutely.
Mr. Burgess. But your staff has, the agency has, and can we
have the access to that information, the committee staff here?
Ms. Jackson. I believe so, as long as it exists, we can get
it to you.
Mr. Burgess. Let me--you testified in response to an
earlier question about, I think Mr. Stearns asked you about----
Ms. Jackson. Oh, and to be clear, you mean minutes of the
meeting with the Texas delegation?
Mr. Burgess. No, minutes of meetings or communications
between----
Ms. Jackson. Oh, between us and the White House? That I am
not sure we can provide, but we can certainly look and see. If
we get a request----
Mr. Burgess. I mean, it seems that if the White House is
serious about regulatory reform, this is something where all
parties should be anxious to work together, and it shouldn't be
this adversarial relationship to try to get a problem solved.
So people ask us to work together. I am asking you if we can
work together to get this information so we can see how to
solve a problem that is going to exist in my State. We were
faced with several afternoons of possible blackouts last month.
I don't want us to face real blackouts next summer because of
the closure of coal-fired power plants to comply with the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. Does that seem unreasonable?
Ms. Jackson. No, not at all, sir.
Mr. Burgess. Very well.
Ms. Jackson. But I cannot promise you documents that may
exist that are White House documents. They may be privileged.
We can get you information regarding meetings we have had with
delegation, ERCOT, TCQ and the company to the extent they are
not privileged because we are in negotiations with them.
Mr. Burgess. I would appreciate that. Of course, the White
House should be anxious be they are the ones who issued the
rules for regulatory relief earlier this year. So it seems like
they should be anxious to work with us.
Now, you testified in answer to Chairman Stearns' question
about the number of employees at EPA, and I believe the number
is somewhere between 17,000 and 18,000. Can you tell us how
many employees have been hired under Title 42 provisions?
Ms. Jackson. I don't have the number directly with me but
we will get it to you. I think we already have gotten it to you
before, so----
Mr. Burgess. Will you provide us that information?
Actually, the information was provided to a member of the
National Treasury Union in response to a Freedom of Information
Act request.
The follow-up question to that is, can you provide us with
a forward-looking statement as to how many Title 42 employees
you are going to require in the future? How many do you
anticipate having to hire within the next fiscal year?
Ms. Jackson. Well, some of that will depend on, you know,
when people decide to leave, which we can't know until they
make those announcements. But from a general standpoint, Title
42, which allows us to pay certain rates to very highly
qualified scientists, is very closely controlled in our agency
and it goes through a process of approval to ensure that we are
justified.
Mr. Burgess. And we as the Oversight Committee would like
to ensure that those rules are being--that their compliance is
in existence, and some of the job descriptions or job titles
don't suggest that they are highly qualified scientists. They
may be, forgive me, but relatively run-of-the-mill scientists.
So if we are paying top dollar for biologists in this
employment environment, maybe we ought to have an additional
look at that.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask, I have a couple of
unanimous consent requests. The first is to have the letter
from the Southwest Power Pool to Administrator Jackson made
part of the record.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Chairman, perhaps Mr. Burgess could
provide us with copies of those letters to review? And so
pending that, I will reserve my right to object.
Mr. Burgess. Very well. And also, the letter to a member of
the National Treasury Employee Union, Chapter 280, from the
Environmental Protection Agency about the Title 42 question. I
would also like to have that made----
Ms. DeGette. Once again, I will reserve the right to
object.
Mr. Burgess. --part of the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will reserve the right to submit additional questions in
writing, and I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman yields back. Time is expired.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Jackson, aren't you concerned that the EPA
rule published on March 21, 2011, that defines secondary
materials that are solid waste rather than fuels when burned is
going to create a disincentive to burn alternative fuels in
boilers or cement kilns?
Ms. Jackson. I have had discussions with my staff about
potential unintended consequences with that rule, and we are
discussing it as recently as this week.
Mr. Griffith. And so you would agree that it is probably
not the best environmental result to suddenly throw lots of
landfill material like tires and tons of biomass that could
have been used at paper mills into the solid waste-system or
into the landfills?
Ms. Jackson. Sir, we are still discussing it. I would agree
that we need to be careful that there are no unintended
consequences like those you may be describing, but I also want
to make sure that air pollution--that air quality is protected.
Mr. Griffith. Yes, ma'am. And let me stretch out a little
bit and let me ask you this. Did the Solyndra plant in
California have to comply with any EPA regulations that you are
aware of?
Ms. Jackson. Sir, I am happy to look but I don't know off
the top of my head.
Mr. Griffith. If you would look at that and also look to
see if there are any delayed implementations or modifications
of any EPA regulations, I would appreciate that, if you would.
Ms. Jackson. I am happy to get that information for you.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Griffith. And along those lines, were you involved in
any of the discussions at the White House or the DOE in regard
to Solyndra prior to 2011?
Ms. Jackson. None, sir.
Mr. Griffith. All right. I appreciate that. And I am just
wondering if you had an opportunity to see the Commerce
Department's analysis in regard to some of the EPA rules and
regulations because while it is not available to the public,
apparently there is a Commerce Department analysis that is
being circulated that would indicate, particularly in regard to
boiler MACT, that job losses could be between 40,000 and
60,000. Have you seen that document?
Ms. Jackson. I have seen references to unfounded studies
but I can tell you, our range is 6,500 jobs created to 3,000
jobs lost.
Mr. Griffith. And most of the jobs if there is creation of
jobs are going to be jobs in retrofitting the boilers. They are
not going to be new manufacturing jobs. Isn't that correct?
Ms. Jackson. Well, there are boilermakers, but there could
be manufacturing of the pollution control equipment, baghouses,
scrubbers. I actually met yesterday with a company that is
building a factory. They make baghouses, and that is one of the
technologies that would be put in place. They are hiring
thousands of people I think in North Carolina.
Mr. Griffith. And did I gather from your answer earlier
that you all are still working on the situation with the
definition of materials that are solid wastes in regard to
boiler MACT and incinerators?
Ms. Jackson. I have nothing to tell you today but you asked
whether I had concern, and we are still continuing those
discussions.
Mr. Griffith. OK. And have you all acquired all the
relevant data that you need to make those decisions?
Ms. Jackson. If you have any, we are happy to take it, sir,
especially from you, but I believe the staff have lots of data
from the industry and have heard their concerns.
Mr. Griffith. All right. I appreciate that and yield back
my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stearns. All right. The gentleman yields back the
balance of his time.
I think we have finished. We just have some concluding
remarks by the ranking member and myself, but we have a number
of documents that we want to put in the record by unanimous
consent. I will allow the gentlelady from Colorado to indicate
which ones she has approved, and we will put them in by
unanimous consent.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to make a
record, we have got the documents that Mr. Burgess had just
referred to. One of them is a letter dated September 20, 2011,
from the Southwest Power Pool. The other one is a document,
Title 42 hiring practices at the U.S. EPA, that was apparently
produced as the result of a FOIA request. So we won't object to
those documents. There is a letter from the Louisiana
Department of Agriculture and Forestry dated August 11, 2001,
that Mr. Scalise had requested, and we don't object to that.
There is, it looks like a page from the DOE Web site about
mercury emission control R&D. We don't object to that.
Then we have what appear to be three portions of EPA
documents. We have got a cover sheet on each one, and then we
have got portions of the documents. I must say that I was
tempted to object to these on the basis that they are just
incomplete, they are just portions of it, but as long as it is
with the caveat that we all understand that they are just
select portions of these documents, I won't object to those.
And then finally, we have a little packet that was given to
me and they are kind of different things, so I am going to
reference each one. The first one is a chart. It says ``Figure
6-14, Percent of Total PM-Related Mortalities Avoided by
Baseline Air Quality Level.'' This appears to be one slide----
Mr. Stearns. Is it possible you could approve these
without----
Ms. DeGette. No, sir.
Mr. Stearns [continuing]. Giving your interpretation of
each one?
Mr. DeGette. No, I want to give a record as to what they
are because some of them are subjective----
Mr. Stearns. I mean, just list them, but you are now giving
your interpretation of each one.
Ms. DeGette. Well, in that case, I will just object to
having it put in the record.
Mr. Stearns. Well, I don't see why you would object. These
are all----
Mr. DeGette. Because I will tell you why, because they are
from different places and I don't want people to give an
inaccurate view of where they are from. The first document is
one slide from a larger document on the EPA. The second page of
that is a graph that was prepared by the majority committee
staff. The third and fourth pages of this document are just
charts or just quotes taken out of other documents prepared by
the majority committee staff, and the final page 5 of that
document is apparently a chart that was provided to the
committee by FERC. So they are all from different sources. I
just want to make that record, and with that caveat, I won't
object to those, to that document.
And then I have got a couple of documents as well. There is
the document August 2011 by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, ``Improving Our Regulations: Final Plan for Periodic
Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulations.'' This contains
all of the different regulations that someone had asked the
Administrator to provide to this committee, so I would ask
unanimous consent that that be placed in the record.
Mr. Stearns. By unanimous consent, all the documents you
have mentioned will be placed into the record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. DeGette. Then I have two final documents, Mr. Chairman.
These are both the studies that I mentioned in my opening
statement about the positive job effect that environmental
regulations can have, and I would ask--we have showed those to
your staff and I would ask unanimous consent that those be
entered into the record.
Mr. Stearns. And they all have sources, right?
Ms. DeGette. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stearns. By unanimous consent, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Stearns. We have concluded our questioning. We are
going to adjourn shortly. Does the gentlelady from Colorado
have any concluding remarks?
Ms. DeGette. Yes, sir, I do. I just want to reiterate our
thanks to the Administrator for coming today, and I would also
like to note after having sat here for now almost 3 hours, I
haven't heard any evidence that the EPA regulations that are
being proposed are actually having a detrimental effect on jobs
in this country, and in fact, as the studies I just entered
into the record indicate, thousands of new jobs in the clean
energy environment will be created in addition to the thousands
and thousands of lives that will be saved because of better
environment, and the millions of people whose other respiratory
illnesses and so on will be diminished because of these.
So I just want to say it is easy to talk about regulatory
reform, and nobody in this room including Administrator Jackson
believes that we should have overly burdensome regulations. On
the other hand, we need to look clearly at science when
determining what those regulations should be and we need to
balance in a scientific and careful way job creation and the
preservation of public health. I think that is what the EPA is
trying to do. I commend them for a very difficult, difficult
evaluation and I urge them to keep it up because we need to
protect the health of Americans while at the same time
preserving our economy and creating jobs. Thank you.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentlelady.
I would just say in conclusion that the fact that the
President opposed the EPA's proposed Ozone Rule would
demonstrate that what the gentlelady indicated earlier, that
the President also is worried about over-regulation coming from
EPA and he had to step in, and I think Republicans are glad
that he shares our same opinion.
I think it was clearly demonstrated by Mr. Barton from
Texas that the EPA has hurt jobs in Texas. He cited a couple
power plants. The EPA Administrator thinks that is not true but
the evidence is that it has killed two large companies over
there and he also talked about plants in his Congressional
district.
I think the third point we pointed out is that no one is
accusing anyone of trying to dirty America, whether it water or
air. We are all on the same team. But we believe that over-
regulation by the EPA's 18,000-plus employees could damage the
economy, and obviously the President agrees. What we worry
about is the EPA must be justifying regulation by claiming
benefits much, much larger than the science advisors' estimates
of public health risk, and that violates the Executive Order
and kills jobs. The President issued an edict from the White
House saying he wants to roll back regulations. EPA is making
an effort. I ask them to continue to do so.
And with that, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]