[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EPA'S PROPOSED OZONE RULE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 12, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-53
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-556 WASHINGTON : 2015
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREG WALDEN, Oregon GENE GREEN, Texas
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas LOIS CAPPS, California
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Vice Chairman JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DORIS O. MATSUI, California
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington KATHY CASTOR, Florida
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey JERRY McNERNEY, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky PETER WELCH, Vermont
PETE OLSON, Texas BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
BILLY LONG, Missouri Massachusetts
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina TONY CARDENAS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
BILL FLORES, Texas
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
Subcommittee on Energy and Power
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
Chairman
PETE OLSON, Texas BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois JERRY McNERNEY, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania PAUL TONKO, New York
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREGG HARPER, Vice Chairman GENE GREEN, Texas
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia LOIS CAPPS, California
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois KATHY CASTOR, Florida
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio PETER WELCH, Vermont
BILLY LONG, Missouri JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
BILL FLORES, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma officio)
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
JOE BARTON, Texas
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement.................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 4
Hon. Pete Olson, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, opening statement....................................... 5
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 5
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, opening statement.................................... 46
Witnesses
Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator, Air and Radiation,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency........................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Answers to submitted questions............................... 73
Submitted Material
Resolution of Cabarrus Regional Chamber of Commerce.............. 48
Resolution of Rowan County Board of Commissioners................ 49
Resolution of Cabarrus-Rowan Urban Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization................................................... 51
Statement of public health and medical organizations............. 53
Statement of National Association of Clean Air Agencies.......... 55
Results of a survey by the Association of Air Pollution Control
Agencies....................................................... 59
Article entitled, ``Challenges of a lowered U.S. ozone standard,"
in Science, June 5, 2015....................................... 71
Comments by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality on
EPA's Proposed Ozone Rule \1\.................................. 46
----------
\1\ Available at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/if/if03/
20150612/103590/hhrg-114-if03-20150612-sd005.pdf
EPA'S PROPOSED OZONE RULE
----------
FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Power,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:45 a.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Whitfield, Olson, Shimkus, Harper,
McKinley, Griffith, Johnson, Long, Ellmers, Flores, Mullin,
Hudson, Upton (ex officio), Rush, McNerney, Green, Capps,
Castor, Welch, Loebsack, and Pallone (ex officio).
Staff Present: Will Batson, Legislative Clerk; Sean Bonyun,
Communications Director; Leighton Brown, Press Assistant;
Allison Busbee, Policy Coordinator, Energy & Power; Melissa
Froelich, Counsel, CMT; Tom Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel,
Energy & Power, A.T. Johnston, Senior Policy Advisor; Mary
Neumayr, Senior Energy Counsel; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary;
Christine Brennan, Minority Press Secretary; Michael Goo,
Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment; Caitlin
Haberman, Minority Professional Staff Member; Rick Kessler,
Minority Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and
Environment; John Marshall, Minority Policy Coordinator;
Alexander Ratner, Minority Policy Analyst; and Tim Robinson,
Minority Chief Counsel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Whitfield. I would like to bring the hearing to order.
This morning's hearing is going to be focused on EPA's
proposed ozone rule.
I would like to recognize myself for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
The proposed rule would lower the standard from the current
75 parts per billion down to 65 ppb or 70 ppb, but the Agency
is also taking comments on 60 parts per billion.
These proposed levels are so low that, in some parts of the
country, they are at or near background levels. The proposed
levels are so low that even EPA admits that it is not fully
known in some areas how to achieve full compliance. In other
words, they have to use unknown controls to do it, to meet
those standards.
The marginal costs of ratcheting down the existing standard
go through the roof, and the EPA estimates that a 65-to-70-
parts-per-billion standard would cost $3.9 to $15 billion
annually and that at 60 ppb would cost $39 billion annually.
Independent estimates are much higher, including a National
Association of Manufacturers study that puts the cost of a 65-
parts-per-billion standard at $140 billion a year, which would
make this the Agency's most expensive regulation ever.
This study also estimates 1.4 million fewer jobs and the
household cost averaging $830 per year. These costs come on top
of all of the other rules we have seen from this
administration, many of which also impact the energy and
manufacturing sectors.
Moreover, this rule is yet another chapter in the
administration's effort to force more extreme climate policies
on the American people. I would like to just name a few of
them. We have done the Utility MACT, the Boiler MACT, the
Cement MACT, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, the PM, the
111(d), the 111(b), the Tier 3, all on top of this proposed
ozone rule.
I would also like to point out that today in America there
are 230 counties not in compliance with the 2008 standard. And
I might also add that EPA is just now getting around to
providing implementing guidance for the States for the 2008
rule.
Now, these counties not meeting the new standard would be
designated as nonattainment. As I said, there are 230 counties
today in nonattainment around the country.
EPA estimates that fully 358 counties that currently have
monitors would be in nonattainment if they go to 70 parts per
billion and 558 counties would be in noncompliance at 65 parts
per billion based on recent data. Now, this does not include
counties nearby or without ozone monitors that may also be
designated by EPA to be in nonattainment.
Now, a nonattainment designation is like a self-imposed
recession for some areas. In such counties, it becomes
extremely difficult to obtain a new permit to build a factory,
to expand a factory or a power plant, and even permits for
existing facilities would be impacted.
Just last week, in a survey of manufacturers, over half of
them, in fact, 53 percent, said they were not likely to
continue with a new plant or expansion if it is located in a
nonattainment area.
The same permitting challenges apply for roads and other
large infrastructure projects. In effect, almost all new major
job-creating economic activity is jeopardized until the
nonattainment area meets the standard, which could take years,
if not decades.
Even the mere possibility that a location could later be
designated to be in nonattainment is enough to scare off
prospective employers. So the proposed rule may already be
doing damage.
Now, there is something wrong with our system when you have
Los Angeles, San Joaquin Valley, major parts of California,
that have the most stringent environment standards in the
country and, on top of that, EPA and those areas--San Joaquin
Valley, Los Angeles--may never be in compliance. And they are
certainly not in compliance today and have been out of
compliance since the beginning of the Clean Air Act. So we have
a system that is not working very well.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Ed Whitfield
This morning we will begin our examination of EPA's
proposed new National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for
ozone. We will start with a focus on the agency's perspective,
and I welcome Acting Assistant Administrator McCabe. Next
Tuesday we will explore other perspectives on this proposed
rule, including those of the job-creating businesses on which
the compliance burdens would fall.
Before we get into the proposed new rule, I want to touch
on a few historical points I think are relevant to the
conversation. The regulation of criteria pollutants, including
ozone, is a core component of the Clean Air Act. The agency
adopted ozone standards in 1971, 1979, and 1997. These
regulations have resulted in major reductions, and ozone levels
have declined by more than 30 percent since 1980.
In 2008, the Bush EPA finalized an even stricter ozone
standard, the agency's fourth. However, the Obama EPA itself
has significantly delayed implementation of this rule. In fact,
the agency delayed issuing the implementing regulations until
last March. As a result of this late start, state and local
governments are only in the very preliminary stages of
compliance, which will take many more years.
In my view, the ozone problem in America is well on its way
towards resolution, and to the extent that EPA identifies
public health concerns they are largely in areas out of
compliance with the existing standard. However, rather than
focus on implementing the requirements already on the books,
the agency seems intent on setting a new rule that would bind
future administrations.
The proposed rule would lower the standard from the current
75 parts per billion (ppb) down to 65 or 70 ppb, but the agency
also took comment on 60 ppb. These proposed levels are so low
that in some parts of the country they are at or near
background levels. The proposed levels are so low that even EPA
admits that it is not fully known how to achieve compliance.
The marginal costs of ratcheting down the existing standard
go through the roof. EPA estimates that a 65 to 70 ppb standard
would cost $3.9 to $15 billion annually, and that a 60 ppb
standard would cost $39 billion annually. Independent estimates
are much higher, including a National Association of
Manufacturers' (NAM) study that puts the cost of a 65 ppb
standard at $140 billion per year, which would make it the
agency's most expensive regulation ever. This study also
estimates 1.4 million fewer jobs and household costs averaging
$830 per year.
These costs come on top of all the other rules we have seen
from the Obama EPA, many of which also impact the energy and
manufacturing sectors. Moreover, this rule is yet another
chapter in the Administration's effort to force more extreme
climate policies on the American people. Those counties not
meeting the new standard would be designated as nonattainment.
EPA estimates that fully 358 counties that currently have
monitors would be in non-attainment at 70 ppb, and 558 counties
at 65 ppb based on recent data. This does not include counties
nearby or without ozone monitors that may also be designated by
EPA to be in nonattainment.
A nonattainment designation is like a self-imposed
recession. In such counties it becomes extremely difficult to
obtain a new permit, build a factory or power plant, and even
permits for expansions at existing facilities are impacted.
Just this week, in a survey of manufacturers, over half said
they were not likely to continue with a new plant or expansion
if it was located in a nonattainment area.
The same permitting challenges apply for roads and other
large infrastructure projects. In effect, almost all new major
job-creating economic activity is jeopardized until the
nonattainment area meets the standard, which could take years
if not decades. Even the mere possibility that a location could
later be designated to be in nonattainment is enough to scare
off prospective employers, so the proposed rule may already be
doing damage.
To me, this proposed ozone rule is Exhibit A of
skyrocketing marginal costs and diminishing marginal returns.
Implementation of the current standard has essentially not yet
begun. At a minimum, EPA should focus on implementing the ozone
rule already on the books before imposing a new one.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time I would like to recognize the
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for his 5-minute
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, for holding
this hearing on EPA's proposed ozone standard.
I also want to welcome EPA Acting Assistant Administrator
Janet McCabe and thank her for testifying before the
subcommittee again.
Since 1970, the cornerstone of the Clean Air Act has been a
set of health-based air quality standards which help to ensure
that all Americans can breathe healthy air. EPA must set each
air quality standard based on science and medical evidence
alone.
Essentially, the standard sets the level of pollution that
is safe to breathe. This structure has been extraordinarily
effective in cleaning the air and protecting public health,
including the health of children and seniors.
But the current 75-parts-per-billion ozone standard has
fallen short. Since 2008, the ozone standard has been weaker
than the facts would allow.
As such, the Independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee made crystal-clear that, in order to adequately
protect public health, EPA must strengthen the ozone standard
to ensure an adequate margin of safety for all individuals. But
these recommendations, unfortunately, were ignored by the Bush
administration.
To correct this flagrant disregard for the facts, EPA has
now proposed, based on yet another exhaustive review of the
scientific evidence, to revise the standard to fall within the
range of 65 to 70 parts per billion, as recommended by the
Scientific Advisory Committee.
EPA's decision is fully consistent with the law and the
scientific evidence, and there are a litany of adverse health
impacts that will be avoided with the stronger standard, nearly
a million asthma attacks in children, millions of missed school
days, and thousands of premature deaths.
These are meaningful real-world benefits, but I have little
doubt that today we will hear much about cost. Yet, a unanimous
United States Supreme Court opinion written by Justice Scalia,
no less, made it clear that EPA's approach for determining a
safe level of air pollution is correct and costs may not be
considered.
And that is why Congress designed the Clean Air Act. The
standard is set based on the health science, and economic costs
are only considered later when determining the best way to
implement the standard. In other words, EPA sets the goal for
clean air and the States develop the lowest cost way to meet
it.
Although EPA may not consider costs in setting the
standard, EPA has, nevertheless, worked with the Office of
Management and Budget to prepare a careful analysis of the
projected costs and benefits associated with reducing ozone.
EPA estimates that the benefits associated with the new ozone
standards would range from $13 to $38 billion annually,
outweighing the cost by approximately three to one.
Industry has prepared dubious and grossly inflated
estimates of the projected costs, but they fail to consider any
of the benefits. That paints a completely one-sided picture of
the costs of cleaning our air, one that ignores the real costs
that are borne by those who breathe, especially children whose
lungs are developing and who breathe greater volumes of air for
their size.
We will also hear that EPA's proposed ozone standard will
have dire consequences for economic growth. And these doomsday
claims about the costs of clean air are nothing new.
The history of the Clean Air Act has a history of
exaggerated claims by industry that have never come true. The
reality is that, over the past 40 years, the Clean Air Act has
produced tremendous public health benefits while supporting
America's economic growth.
EPA's ozone standard is long overdue. We need to let EPA do
its job to reach the goal of the Clean Air Act, clean air for
all Americans. And I look forward to Ms. McCabe's testimony.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
At this time I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Olson, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE OLSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Olson. I thank the chair. And I will be very brief.
I spent long hours going over comments that EPA received
about this new ozone rule. And there was a common theme: ``Will
I lose my job?'' Questions came from big cities, members of the
Atlanta Chamber or the Greater Houston Partnership. They came
from family farms and ranches, members of the Iowa Farm Bureau
or the Nebraska home builders.
A mom-and-pop store in Pennsylvania wrote EPA: ``Parents
tell our children, `Eat your peas, then you can have dessert.'
EPA says, `Eat your peas, then you can have more peas.'''
The worst came from EPA's workhorses, the state agencies
who make this rule work. They have questions about the science
used for the health impacts. They worry if they can build new
roads. These voices come from all of America, and I hope EPA
starts listening.
And if one of my colleagues on my side wants some time, I
will yield. If not, I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
At this time I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Rush, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this
hearing today on the EPA's proposed ozone rule.
And I also want to welcome back Ms. McCabe, the Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation at EPA. She has
always given us her best, and I always am pleasured to hear her
insightful and forthright testimony before this subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, today, as has been duly noted, we are here to
discuss the proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
ozone, which the EPA is legally mandated to put forth by the
Clean Air Act.
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set primary National
Ambient Air Quality Standards at concentration levels
sufficient to protect the public health with an adequate margin
of safety for certain pollutants that endanger public health
and the environment.
We know that the EPA establishes these standards based on
medical and scientific evidence as well as the recommendations
provided by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which,
Mr. Chairman, you know is an independent scientific review
committee.
The EPA is required to base these standards, which must be
reviewed every 5 years, solely on consideration of public
health, and they must accurately reflect the latest scientific
knowledge, Mr. Chairman.
We know that, in 2008, the Bush administration failed to
heed the unanimous recommendations of the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee, ignoring the ozone air quality standards to
between 60 and 70 points per million.
Instead, the EPA under President Bush set the standard at
75 ppb, despite the advice of the Scientific Advisory Committee
that a 60-to-70-ppb standard would be more protective of public
health.
The Obama administration also initially failed to
reconsider the ozone standard in 2009 until being ordered to do
so by the courts in April of last year due to a lawsuit brought
forth by environmental and public health groups.
So that leads us to ask the questions, Mr. Chairman: Why is
this rule so very important? And why did the court force the
EPA to act?
Well, we know that there are serious health effects caused
by the ozone, and the EPA's proposal will improve air quality
and result in significant public health benefits. Children, the
elderly, and people with respiratory diseases such as asthma
will be impacted directly by this rule.
The EPA estimates that there are currently 25.9 million
people in the U.S. with asthma, including 7.1 million children.
And, Mr. Chairman, my city of Chicago has been and is
disproportionately impacted by asthma and the effect that ozone
has on asthma. The most recent study shows that Cook County,
Illinois, is home to over 113,000 children and over 340,000
adults with asthma.
And, Mr. Chairman, I don't know what value can be placed on
preventing all of these dire circumstances, all these
illnesses, all these premature deaths and emergency room
visits, but I know that the people who sent me here to
represent them are some of the ones who would be impacted by
this procedure and by this action most of all.
So I look forward to engaging Ms. McCabe on the rationale
behind this proposal. And, Mr. Chairman, I think I am out of
time. So I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
time.
At this time, Ms. McCabe, I want to thank you for coming
here early this morning, at 9:30 a.m. And, once again, we
apologize for the delay. But we are delighted that Janet McCabe
is with us, the Acting Assistant Administrator at EPA.
And you are recognized for 5 minutes for your statement on
the ozone rule.
STATEMENT OF HON. JANET MCCABE, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
AIR AND RADIATION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. McCabe. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member
Rush, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on EPA's proposed updates to the
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. I will try to be
brief so we can get to your questions.
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards every 5 years to make sure that
they continue to protect public health with an adequate margin
of safety. For at-risk groups, including, as Ranking Member
Rush has noted, the estimated 25.9 million people who have
asthma in the United States, of whom 7.1 million are children,
this is critical work.
For this review, EPA examined the thousands of scientific
studies, including more than 1,000 new studies published since
EPA last revised the standards in 2008. Based on the law, a
thorough review of all of that science, the recommendation of
the Agency's independent scientific advisors and the assessment
of EPA scientists and technical experts, the Administrator's
judgment was that the current standard of 75 parts per billion
is not adequate to protect the public health. So she proposed
to strengthen those standards to within a range of 65 to 70
parts per billion to better protect Americans' health and
welfare.
The Agency invited comments on all aspects of the proposal,
including alternative levels as low as 60 parts per billion,
and also acknowledged interest among some stakeholders in
offering comment on retaining the existing standard.
We also propose to update the Air Quality Index for ozone
to reflect a revised standard if one is finalized. The AQI is
the tool that gives Americans realtime information about air
quality each day so they can make informed choices to protect
themselves and their families.
Ozone seasons are lasting longer than they used to. So EPA
proposed to lengthen the ozone monitoring season for 33 states
to match the season when ozone levels can be elevated.
To protect the environment from damaging levels of ground-
level ozone, as required by the Clean Air Act, the EPA has also
proposed to revise the secondary standard.
Based upon new studies that add to the evidence that
repeated exposure to ozone reduces growth and has other harmful
effects on plants and trees, the Administrator judged that a
secondary standard within the range of 65 to 75 parts per
billion, the same as the primary standard proposal, would
protect the public welfare, particularly against harm to trees,
plants, and ecosystems.
In addition, we have proposed to make updates to monitoring
and permitting requirements, smooth the transition to any
revised standards, maximize effectiveness in the State, local,
tribal and Federal monitoring programs, and give areas new
flexibilities to meet local needs for monitoring ozone
precursors. All of these updates are designed to ensure that
Americans are alerted when ozone approaches levels that may be
unhealthy, especially for sensitive people.
The Administrator's proposal to strengthen the standards is
designed to better protect children and families from the
health effects of ozone pollution. For example, we estimate
that meeting a level in the range of 65 to 70 parts per billion
would prevent an estimated 330,000 to 1 million missed school
days, 320,000 to 960,000 asthma attacks in children, and 710 to
4,300 or more premature deaths per year.
Implementing a NAAQS has always been and will continue to
be a Federal, state, and tribal partnership. EPA stands ready
to do our part to assist states and tribes with pollution
control programs and to streamline implementation.
Local communities, states, tribes, and EPA have already
shown that we can reduce ground-level ozone while our economy
continues to thrive. We have reduced air pollution in this
country by nearly 70 percent, and our economy has tripled since
1970. We fully expect this progress to continue.
Existing and proposed Federal measures like vehicle
standards, power plant rules, are leading to substantial
reductions in ozone nationwide, which will help improve air
quality and help many areas meet any revised standards.
We received over 430,000 comments during the 90-day public
comment period, and we are reviewing those comments as we work
towards completing the final standards by October 1 of this
year.
Thank you very much. And I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McCabe follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Ms. McCabe, very much.
And I recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions.
Many of us believe that the Clean Air Act needs to be
changed. I say that because, just as Mr. Rush mentioned, you
mentioned, EPA looks at impact on health care by making it more
stringent, these ozone rules, for example, and you eliminate so
many cases of asthma, so many premature deaths, whatever,
whatever, which is important.
But under the act you do not have any responsibility to
look at those pockets of the country that are in noncompliance
and the impact that these stringent controls have on jobs. And
we have had economist after economist come in here and talk
about loss of jobs and the impact that that has on health care
for children, for infants.
And, yet, EPA, every time they come up here, it is all
about the benefits, the benefits, the benefits. And there are
detriments to these actions because, as you know, when an area
is in noncompliance, they can't build a new plant unless they
can get a permit. They can't built infrastructure projects. And
it does have an effect on jobs.
Now, fortunately, areas like Los Angeles that have never
been in compliance, you know, they rely on the entertainment
industry and high tech and so forth. So they don't have to
worry about manufacturing jobs or basic industry jobs.
But how do you account for the fact, for example, that Los
Angeles is still in noncompliance and your own rule states
that, some of these areas, the only way they will ever be in
compliance under even the 2008 rule is they have to use unknown
controls, controls that we don't know what it is.
And you do understand--I mean, your own testimony, your own
documentation, shows that many parts of the country are going
to be in noncompliance, whether it is 70 ppb or 65 ppb. And
even President Obama tried to prevent the implementation. He
delayed implementation of the most recent review.
And now, of course, environmentalist groups who do a good
job, they have a role to play, but they are driving EPA because
they are always going in to court. And under the strict
construction of the language, sometimes which is quite
nebulous, the courts say, ``You cannot delay.''
So many of us are really frustrated that these
environmental groups are driving the decisions because of the
strict language in the original Clean Air Act. So I hope you
get a sense of the frustration of many parts of the country.
In Kentucky, we are going to have 11 more counties in
noncompliance at 70 ppb. We are going to have 23 more at 65
ppb. And every major city in Kentucky will be in noncompliance
at some of these levels.
So are you concerned that, after all this time, areas like
Los Angeles and San Joaquin still can't even meet the old
standards?
Ms. McCabe. Chairman Whitfield, there is a lot in your
question there, and I will try to address as much of it as I
can.
There are certainly parts of the country where meeting the
health standard has been extremely challenging due to a variety
of factors, including particular challenges in southern
California. What that means is that millions of people who live
in those areas are exposed to unhealthy air.
The good news is that air quality has improved in southern
California as well as all across the country----
Mr. Whitfield. But they are still in noncompliance.
Ms. McCabe. They do not meet the standard, but there are
way fewer days and the levels are lower and the area is making
progress in a way that still supports a vital local economic
and----
Mr. Whitfield. How much time does Los Angeles have to
comply? I don't know if they are severe or extreme. But how
many years do they have to comply?
Ms. McCabe. Los Angeles is in the extreme category. And if
the standard is revised this fall, they would have until 2037
to meet that standard.
What that means is the area has a lot of time to bring
reductions into place and----
Mr. Whitfield. But they have been working on it for 15 or
18 years. They are not even in compliance today.
Ms. McCabe. That is right. The air is still not healthy
there for the citizens to breathe.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, I see my time has expired. But many of
us feel very strongly you should just continue to implement
this existing rule for a while and give the country time to
catch up, since even your implementing guidance has not been
issued until just recently.
I recognize the gentleman from Illinois for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Assistant Administrator McCabe, in your written testimony,
you note that nationally, since 1980, average ozone levels have
fallen by a third. Additionally, 90 percent of the areas
originally identified as not meeting the ozone standards set in
1997 now meet those standards, 97 percent.
What would you say to the argument that we have already
reduced our average ozone levels enough and further lowering
the standards from 75 to 70 or even 65 would not give us the
additional health benefits as opposed to the cost of trying to
reach those higher standards?
Ms. McCabe. Yes. Well, Congress in the Clean Air Act
directed EPA every 5 years to look at the science and make a
determination about whether the current level is adequate to
protect the public health.
And based on all of that review in a very open process with
external peer review all along the way, the Administrator made
the determination that 75 parts per billion is not sufficiently
protective.
That is based on all of this science that we have seen that
shows that people suffer the effects of ozone air pollution at
levels below 75 parts per billion. That is her job to do under
the Clean Air Act, and that is what our proposal is all about.
Mr. Rush. Well, you also point out that, since 1980, we
have reduced our air pollution by nearly 70 percent and our
economy has tripled. And we know that, by law, EPA cannot
consider the cost of implementing either the primary or
secondary air quality standards, but only can consider the
health benefits.
Has there been any cost-benefit analysis by the EPA or any
other agency either before, during, or after the proposal?
Ms. McCabe. Ranking Member Rush, you are correct to point
out that there is a separation that Congress laid out in the
Clean Air Act between deciding what the science says is
important for safe and healthy air and deciding how to meet
that standard, which the states are in charge of because it is
their air quality, their sources, with considerable help from
the Federal Government.
So we don't know exactly how the states will go about
meeting the standard because we know that they will--as they
have over the years, they will find cost-effective ways to do
that with the help of rules provided by the Federal Government.
But we do provide, as part of the rulemaking process, a
regulatory impact analysis, an RIA, to show illustrative costs.
And that goes through the review of the Office of Management
and Budget and is done consistently with the obligations and
the requirements that they put on us to do those sorts of
economic reviews.
Mr. Rush. Ms. McCabe, the chairman talked about Los Angeles
and other places. What is your viewpoint? Why do they stand
out? And what direction is the EPA going to try to bring them
more into compliance?
Ms. McCabe. There are a lot of pretty unique features that
make southern California very challenging for air quality.
It is obviously a very populated area. So there is a lot of
activity there that creates emissions. But there is also the
unique geography and topography, of being the mountains and the
ocean and the meteorology there, that just makes it very
challenging.
As a result, EPA, as well as really progressive and smart
and innovative agencies and businesses in California, have
really led the way in figuring out how to reduce emissions in
cost-effective ways to protect the citizens and improve air
quality there.
And EPA, in fact, has provided significant support and
assistance through grant programs, through technology
assistance over the years, and certainly will continue to do
that in order to bring the kinds of programs that need to be in
place there.
One of the advantages of that is that the innovations in
California have helped the rest of the country in terms of
bringing new ideas and new approaches into use in ways that can
benefit the rest of the country and benefit the economy.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time I recognize the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Olson. I thank the chair.
Welcome back, Ms. McCabe.
We all know that much of the ozone in America is beyond our
control. EPA calls this background ozone. Some of this ozone is
natural, blows from other countries.
I have a slide here. This was Houston. Some of that is not
our ozone. Some belongs to Mexico. We get it because of annual
crop burnings.
I have another poster. Last time Ms. McCarthy was here I
showed her this map of ozone pouring into America from China
and Asia.
In your proposal, you admit that natural ozone and ozone
from Mexico and China can be a huge problem. Your rule says,
``There are times where ozone levels approach or exceed the
concentration levels being proposed in large part due to
background sources.''
In small Needville, Texas, you are saying that ozone we
can't control makes us violate your new rules. That seems very
unfair, ma'am.
My first question is: Is it true that nearly one-half of
the ozone in America is here naturally or comes from overseas?
Ms. McCabe. I don't know that I would agree with that
formulation exactly. We do address the background issue, and
background levels vary across the country and they vary across
different times of year. And, as you note, they come from a
variety of sources.
I will note that the Clean Air Act does not hold States
responsible for pollution that they do not control, and there
are provisions and mechanisms in the Clean Air Act to help
States that----
Mr. Olson. Ma'am, I am sorry. I have only have 5 minutes
and thousands of questions back home people have asked. So I
have got to cut you off. I apologize.
And, also, your answer goes against your own data. I will
give you copies of the EPA's data that says foreign ozone is
all over this country.
We know that natural and foreign ozone are not going away
and are likely to get much, much bigger. That means we must
squeeze more and squeeze more from smaller and smaller sources
of ozone. EPA can't say how this can be achieved. You don't
know.
Is it true the EPA says that much of the technology needed
to meet these new rules are unknown today? Is that true? Yes or
no.
Ms. McCabe. I wouldn't characterize it as much of the
technology. We do recognize that, in some parts of the country,
there may need to be controls identified that are not in
existence today.
But there are many controls that are in existence today
that can be implemented that will reduce the air pollution that
causes ozone.
Mr. Olson. Ma'am, one example: EPA admits that 43 percent
of NOx controls needed in the northeast are now unknown. Stark
contrast to your answer.
One other question: Is it true that EPA won't even consider
whether an ozone rule is achievable? Is that true? In your
formulation, will you consider is this achievable? Can we do
this with technology?
Ms. McCabe. Our job under the Clean Air Act is to identify
the standard that is necessary to protect the public health.
That is what this rule is about, is letting the American people
know what is safe and healthy air for them to breathe.
Mr. Olson. So you can't take into account achieve-ability.
You just can't do that.
By law, is that what you are saying, ma'am?
Ms. McCabe. The Supreme Court has spoken to this, and this
is about the science and about what is healthy for the American
people.
Mr. Olson. Well, it sounds like we need to change that law.
One final question, ma'am. The law does not require, as you
know, EPA to change the ozone rule every 5 years. You just have
to review it, as you said in your opening comments.
You say you have to change the current rule because the
2008 rule doesn't protect human health, and, yet, back home the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality points out that your
own modeling in your ``Health and Risk Exposure Assessment,
appendix 7, page 73-2'' would result in more deaths in Houston,
Texas, with a lower standard.
TCEQ concludes that our EPA can't read their own data or
you are accepting a lower ozone standard that makes health
worse.
Any comments about that fact, ma'am?
Ms. McCabe. I would very much disagree with the way TCEQ
characterized the data. And if you look at the entire body of
data, you will see that the health benefits of the proposed
ozone standard are substantial.
We welcome everybody's comments on the rule, and TCEQ has
provided a lot of analysis which we are looking very closely
at.
Mr. Olson. I will make you a deal. Get a copy of our
assessment. Have it to you today, ma'am. Thank you very much.
Yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. Time has expired.
At this time I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
McNerney, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Ms. McCabe.
Early in your testimony and, also, in response to Mr.
Rush's question, you said that you looked at thousands of
reports, a thousand more recent reports, and it concluded that,
to protect the health and safety of the communities, 75 was a
little too high.
Now, are we splitting hairs here or are we talking about
large-scale effects?
Ms. McCabe. We are talking about millions of people that
are suffering the effects of ozone pollution that at a lower
level would not suffer those effects.
Mr. McNerney. So one of the EPA's primary missions is to
protect the health of this country and our communities.
Wasn't there a rule recently that ensured that the EPA must
look at health and safety of the community first before looking
at economic impacts?
Ms. McCabe. That is exactly what courts have said with
regard to setting these air quality standards. Yes.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
The chairman mentioned San Joaquin Valley, which is my
home.
So I appreciate your attention, Mr. Chairman.
But I have seen over the last several years improvement
year by year in the air quality in our community, and I think a
lot of this is due to the kind of standards that the EPA has
initiated.
And one of the things that we do is incentivize some of the
old diesel equipment to be replaced by new diesel equipment,
but that takes time.
That is not something we can require all the farmers or
diesel truck owners to do over a period of a year or two. It
takes time. So I appreciate that we are going to continue to
look at those and keep those standards in place.
And I just want to say the Bay Area contributes a lot of
the ozone to the San Joaquin Valley. Sort of like what Mr.
Olson was saying, we get a lot of it from outside of our
region.
So we ask you to take special consideration to that in
helping us make those attainments and then the sort of
penalties that are assessed when you don't make those
attainments. And I appreciate Mr. Olson's comments on that.
What is the EPA going to do or how is the EPA going to
assess drought impacts on air pollution and ozone?
Ms. McCabe. Yes. So we know that the drought situation is
incredibly severe and challenging and troubling in California
and elsewhere. That can contribute to poor air quality because
of increased dust. But we also have tools in the Clean Air Act
that can allow States to evaluate their air quality as it is
being influenced by natural conditions such as that.
And we are working closely with the States to make sure
that our guidance and expectations are current with situations
like drought and wildfires, which are also a challenge, to make
sure that States aren't responsible for natural conditions and
that sort of thing that can create ozone situations.
Mr. McNerney. Would you confirm my observation that the air
quality is improving in the San Joaquin Valley?
Ms. McCabe. Yes, sir. Yes. I certainly would.
Mr. McNerney. Do you have something you could say here
about that?
Ms. McCabe. Well, I don't have figures with me,
Congressman, although I would be happy to get those to you. But
certainly over recent years air quality has been improving, and
it is due to the kinds of programs that you mentioned:
replacing older, dirtier engines with cleaner, newer ones and
working very closely with the agricultural community and
everybody in the San Joaquin Valley to find sensible things to
do.
Mr. McNerney. So nonattainment doesn't penalize us in the
sense of backtracking the actual air quality in the region?
Ms. McCabe. No. No. Not at all. It is all moving in the
right direction.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Could you explain the difference between secondary
standards and primary standards.
Ms. McCabe. Yes. Primary standards are focused on
protecting human health. Secondary standards are focused, as
the Clean Air Act says, in protecting public welfare.
So those are other things that we care about, as people who
live in this country: economic impacts, effects on ecosystems,
effects on crops, effects on buildings, the other things that
make our economy and our quality of life what it is.
Mr. McNerney. OK. So then you said you are going to set the
primary and secondary standards the same with regard to ozone.
Ms. McCabe. Well, it turns out we do an independent
analysis of the information that exists on human health and
then on these secondary impacts and there is an extensive
discussion of that in the preamble in the proposal.
And our Clean Air Act Science Advisory Committee spoke to
that directly. Our review of the science shows that a standard
set in the range of 65 to 70 will provide the protection that
the science tells us the welfare impacts require.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time I recognize the gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Assistant Administrator, welcome. It is good to have
you back.
Just personally, just you as an individual, don't you
believe that having a good-paying job with health benefits is
also protective of human health?
Ms. McCabe. I think it is important for everybody to have a
job and----
Mr. Shimkus. And healthcare benefits of some sort.
Ms. McCabe. Yes, I do. Of course I do.
Mr. Shimkus. And that is part of our--I mean, when you hear
the questions and the responses back and forth, that is kind of
our--part of our challenge is--especially as I follow up on
this question, is that you all, as an EPA, don't really have
the authority to evaluate that with respect to your primary
mission, which is protective of human health via the air
regulations. Right?
I mean, you just can't weigh in. You are not making those
cost-benefit analyses. We say we are to some extent, but they
are so far down the decision tree that many of us believe that
they just don't happen.
So let me go to another question based upon a comment you
made. Because a lot of this is--75 parts per billion in 2008,
many states have not met those yet, but now we are ratcheting
down even more and there is a lot of uncertainty. Now that will
move on to my third question once I get there.
But in your response you talked about background is
different in different areas. So are you considering a
different regulation standard based upon the variance of
background? So could one area of the country have a 70 parts
per billion and another one have a 65 parts per billion? And
if----
Ms. McCabe. Well----
Mr. Shimkus. Yes. Answer the question. I can follow up.
Ms. McCabe. Yes. Sure.
Well, the standard is supposed to reflect what is safe for
people to breathe. And so a child living in Florida and a child
living in Oregon should be entitled to the----
Mr. Shimkus. But background is background. Background is
there without, in essence, human contact.
Ms. McCabe. That is right. And that comes into play when
states are putting their plans together and EPA is working with
states to figure out how much time and what needs to be done in
order to reach those standards so that areas that have more----
Mr. Shimkus. But if an area has 70-parts-per-billion
background, you can't get them to 65----
Ms. McCabe. But----
Mr. Shimkus [continuing]. Through the power of government.
Ms. McCabe. But there are two very important elements to
the standard. One is for the people who live in that area to
know whether the air that they are breathing is healthy or not.
Mr. Shimkus. So they should move. Is that the answer? Get
out of that 70-parts-per-billion area because it is not
healthy.
Ms. McCabe. No. But they should know that, when the air
quality is bad, that they might want to----
Mr. Shimkus. What should they do? It is naturally
occurring. That is the background.
Ms. McCabe. Right. But understand, too, that ozone changes
from day to day and there are----
Mr. Shimkus. So they should take a vacation during those
days. You see our problem. I think--in rolling this out, I
would hope that--background is important. Background should be
a standard. We should not try to have government force
something that is not naturally occurring based upon nature
without man's intervention.
Ms. McCabe. If I could clarify a point on the background
because I think people may be thinking that this is pervasive,
in fact, across the country, most of the ozone that is
contributing to high values is locally or regionally created.
There are very few areas, very few parts of this country,
where background can get as high as approaching the level----
Mr. Shimkus. OK. But you understand our concern, even if it
is very low possibility. If--anyway, I want to move on to the
last question.
We just finished our congressional baseball game last
night. We lost again. But it makes me think about what Chairman
Whitfield was addressing. Had we started the game and then
halfway through the game the strike zone changed or in the
second inning the number of outs changed or the fourth inning
the foul lines changed or the outfield walls got moved in, that
would make for a very frustrating, impossible game. Don't you
agree?
Ms. McCabe. But this is about--ozone is not about rules. It
is about science.
Mr. Shimkus. This is about Utility MACT, Boiler MACT,
Cement Rule, Cross-State Air Pollution, 111(d), 111(b), ozone,
different standards, particulate matter, Tier 3.
We are changing the rules on the fly, and the people who
are creating jobs in this country cannot manage it. That is our
problem with what is going on with the EPA.
And I yield back my time.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time I recognize the gentlelady from
California, Mrs. Capps, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing.
Thank you, Ms. McCabe, for your testimony.
And maybe it is a bias because I have been a public health
nurse a long time, but when it comes to air quality, I believe
our focus must be primarily on protecting public health.
This is the standard set by Congress in the Clean Air Act.
It is a standard that has been upheld by the Supreme Court and
for good reason. Clean air has very real and significant
impacts on the health and well-being of all Americans.
And this was underscored by our Ranking Member Bobby Rush
from Chicago, where they know a thing or two about air
pollution, too. Healthier children, parents, and employees
translate into very real economic benefits.
I would say to my colleague Mr. Shimkus, who made a case in
the other direction, that good jobs with health benefits, which
he was arguing for, are even better in the context of clean
air. And even polluters benefit from healthier employees taking
fewer sick days.
So my question is just asking you to elaborate on this
fact. What is the economic value?
Ms. McCabe. Yes. It is absolutely true. And I think many
agree that a clean and healthy environment is very positive for
the economy as well as for public health.
Our illustrative analysis shows that, at a standard of 60
parts per billion, there would be benefits in the range of $6.4
to $13 billion to the economy and, for 65 parts per billion,
$19 to $38 billion.
And that comes from some of the things that you have cited,
which is fewer missed school days, less missed work, fewer
visits to the emergency room and that sort of thing.
Mrs. Capps. Right. Some oppose strengthening ozone
standards--and we have heard it today--because it would
increase the number of nonattainment areas.
Ms. McCabe, does the Clean Air Act require EPA to set ozone
standards based on how many areas currently meet that standard
or based on protecting public health?
Ms. McCabe. It is based on protecting public health.
Mrs. Capps. And for those areas that need to make
improvements--and many of these are in my home State of
California--what resources are available to help lower the
ozone layers?
I think the word ``smog'' was invented in the Los Angeles
area. I live just a tiny bit to the north of it, but we still
struggle every day.
Are these areas on their own or does the Federal Government
provide assistance?
Ms. McCabe. Absolutely. This is a partnership between the
Federal Government and the State governments. The Federal
Government assists in a number of ways.
One is by promulgating national rules like Tier 3 to apply
to automobiles nationwide, bring tremendous benefits, and other
rules that make sense to do at a national level.
We also help the States by providing financial assistance
and support, technical assistance and grants. And your area has
certainly benefited from those sorts of programs that can be
very targeted to the specific needs of a particular area.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you.
And, as you know well--and I would like to turn to the
topic of climate change just briefly--this is increasingly
impacting all aspects of our economy and our daily lives.
Storms are getting stronger. Floods are getting worse.
Droughts, as I know very well in California now, and wildfires
are getting more severe. And climate change also increases the
levels of ozone in the air we breathe.
Would you explain just very simply how climate change is
expected to impact ozone levels. And how will this affect our
human health?
Ms. McCabe. Sure. As the climate gets warmer--warm
conditions are what is conducive to ozone formation. So it can
lead to increased ozone formation. And, circularly, ozone is
also a climate pollutant. So it helps contribute to the kinds
of effects that we are seeing.
Mrs. Capps. And then, just briefly, finally, I hear so
often the industry as well as some here in Congress cite high
cost estimates as the reason to oppose strengthening
environmental public health standards. It is the same argument
being used against the proposed ozone standards.
While I believe cost of new regulations should certainly be
considered and there is a way that you are talking about doing
that, these costs must also be weighed against the benefits. It
is important to remember that health benefits represent real
people and real lives saved.
So how do the estimated health benefits of EPA's proposed
ozone standards compare to the costs? In other words, what is
that balance----
Ms. McCabe. Yes. As we laid out in our illustrative case,
the benefits outweigh the costs by $3 to every $1 that is
spent.
Mrs. Capps. And this is based on studies that actually do
demonstrate this?
Ms. McCabe. It is based on all the information that is
available to us about the things that people are likely to do
and the cost benefits associated with the health benefits.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you very much.
And I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time I recognize the gentleman from
Mississippi, Mr. Harper, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being here today. Seems like you do hang out
here quite a bit. So it is good to have you back.
Ms. McCabe. I do. I am happy to.
Mr. Harper. Well, look, just a quick question.
If we were able to somehow eliminate all ground-level
ozone, there would still be people that would have respiratory
illnesses. You would agree with that, wouldn't you?
Ms. McCabe. Sure. Thereare lots of things that contribute
to respiratory illness.
Mr. Harper. Sure. And as we learn how to measure more
minute levels of any type of item, that is something that I
know we have to look at.
But I am really concerned, as we look at this, if we revise
the current ozone standards, how that is going to affect
transportation conformity requirements.
And so if you could just briefly say what is transportation
conformity, what does that mean?
Ms. McCabe. Transportation conformity is a provision in the
act that wants to make sure that as States and municipalities
are working to improve their air quality, that transportation
planning is taken into account and that transportation planning
takes air quality into account so that areas won't undermine
their efforts to improve air quality inadvertently through
transportation projects that could increase air pollution.
Mr. Harper. So states and localities will have that
responsibility.
Ms. McCabe. They do have that now.
Mr. Harper. Obviously.
Ms. McCabe. And working with the Federal Government.
Mr. Harper. And in order to make that demonstration----
Ms. McCabe. Yes.
Mr. Harper [continuing]. What kind of modeling tools will
these cities need to use?
Ms. McCabe. Well, there are tools that are in existence now
and tools that EPA and Federal highway provide so that we work
with the States on to analyze those impacts.
Mr. Harper. Well, how----
Ms. McCabe. We have been doing this for a long time.
Mr. Harper. How reasonable or what type of situation is it
for smaller cities? What about those that have that? Are you
expecting the smaller cities to do the same analysis, and is
that reasonable, and what are you anticipating?
Ms. McCabe. We would certainly provide any assistance that
we needed to for any community. This is a focus in larger
communities, more populous communities, but we would provide
whatever assistance was needed to help.
Mr. Harper. So if the focus is for larger communities, are
you planning on extending it to every community?
Ms. McCabe. The Clean Air Act provides the areas that need
to look at transportation conformity. So we would follow the
guidance and the requirements in the act and the regulations.
Mr. Harper. So if EPA allowed existing Federal measures to
work, existing now, wouldn't many cities avoid having to do
these time-consuming transportation conformity analyses?
Ms. McCabe. Well, we actually are--RIA looks at the--what
we expect to happen to air quality in the future, looking at
the rules that are in place now and the ones that are under
development now, and we show that the vast majority of the
areas that right now would have levels exceeding these
standards by 2025 will come into attainment of those standards
through these measures.
Mr. Harper. We have lots of important issues.
And one of those issues is what to do about our highway,
bridges, infrastructure, issues that we have in this country,
and then many of those need to be repaired. We need new ones
that need to be built. Stringent ozone standards, obviously,
are going to make it harder for States to show that proposed
highway projects conform with ozone standards.
Has EPA considered the economic and safety impacts that
could result if these more stringent ozone standards block
crucial transportation projects?
Ms. McCabe. I don't think that we anticipate or have
historically seen that conformity blocks important
transportation projects, especially ones that are needed for
safety reasons.
Mr. Harper. Well, you haven't seen that under the current,
but if we have more stringent requirements and that causes
additional cost, can you explain that?
Ms. McCabe. I don't expect that the system would work
differently in any areas. We don't expect a lot of new areas to
be coming into nonattainment under these standards, so the
areas are generally familiar with and already working with the
transportation conformity system. But all of the provisions
that are in there about making sure that important safety
projects go forward and other important projects go forward,
those will all continue to apply.
Mr. Harper. Thank you. And I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Ms. McCabe. Has previously EPA ever delayed the
NAAQS standard?
Ms. McCabe. The NAAQS standard?
Mr. Green. Yes.
Ms. McCabe. There is the NO2 standard, maybe
that is what you are referring to. EPA, in the past, has not
always met its deadlines, I would say, on----
Mr. Green. OK. Well, that is the other thing. If EPA hadn't
delayed the standards when the law required EPA to review the
ozone standard again, what would be the regular timeline? Would
it be 2015?
Ms. McCabe. The last time the ozone standard was revised
was in 2008. Clean Air Act says every 5 years. So 2013 would
have been 5 years.
Mr. Green. OK. In your testimony, you stated EPA examined
thousands of scientific studies, including more than 1,000 new
studies published since EPA last revised the standard. The
ozone NAAQS proposal, EPA acknowledged there is a brandnew
scientific data the EPA couldn't consider. Also, EPA states
there are significant uncertainties regarding some of the
studies that EPA did include regarding lowering the standard.
Most importantly, by 2017, the following standards will be
in place that would significantly affect ozone and precursors.
Ozone NAAQS at 75 parts per billion, Tier 3 vehicle emission
standards, mercury and air toxic standards, from the Utility
MACT, new source performance standards for volatile organic
compounds, and particulate matter that NAAQS is important
because EPA acknowledges reduction of particulate matter would
account for two-thirds or three-fourths of those ozone NAAQS
benefits.
Why is lowering the standard not more appropriate after the
75-parts-per-billion standard has time to take effect and EPA
reviews all the new and related information and data, say,
2017?
Ms. McCabe. Well, because the Clean Air Act gives us a
timetable of every 5 years, and we are late on that, and
because this is about letting the American people know what is
healthy air quality for them.
Mr. Green. Well, in earlier NAAQS, the EPA stated in
earlier decisions, based on the applicable statutory
requirements and the volume of material requiring careful
evaluation, the EPA estimates it will be take 2 to 3 years to
incorporate over 1,000 new health studies and criteria
documents. Given various legal constraints and the fact that
EPA has already missed deadlines for completion of ozone review
cycles, the Administrator concluded that the best course of
action would be to complete the current review based on the
existing air standard and proceed as rapidly as possible with
the next review. Why would EPA not make a similar decision now
since we are in 2015 now?
Ms. McCabe. Because we are now in that regular review, we
are past our statutory deadline, and in fact, we are subject to
a court schedule to finalize this rule.
Mr. Green. Well, my earlier question, there have been times
that EPA has delayed it in the past. Is that true?
Ms. McCabe. On our regularly required 5-year review----
Mr. Green. Yes.
Ms. McCabe [continuing]. There have been times when we have
not met that deadline. I think you are referring to the ozone
reconsideration, which was not a mandatory requirement under
the Clean Air Act. But for our mandatory 5-year review cycle,
we have not deliberately delayed. We have missed deadlines, and
we are in that situation now.
Mr. Green. I guess the concern I have, and you have heard
it from other members, is that we haven't met the current
standard, and yet we are getting ready to see some really
things happen. And so to put a new standard on with all this is
maybe starting too early before we see what the benefits are of
the other things that the industries and everyone else is
complying with.
And, again, EPA has delayed it in the past. But, for a 2-
year delay, while all these other things come into play, and we
will have better data then to be able to look at it.
Ms. McCabe. I will say, Congressman Green, that the effect
of those various measures will affect air quality. And so if a
standard is revised, and folks need to look at which areas do
and don't meet the standard, all of those programs, like
mercury and air toxic standard, Tier 3, will be bringing air
quality down so that fewer areas will be in nonattainment, and
those programs will provide assistance in order to improve air
quality in those areas.
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, one of my concerns is that part of
our particulate matter in my area is because of the lack of
infrastructure improvements. And so we can actually be
hindering those infrastructure improvements if we make it more
difficult. But, anyway, I am out of time, but I appreciate you
being here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time, I will recognize the gentleman
from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What is the
timeframe on getting some written--because I don't think we are
going to be under 5 minutes to be able to get through our
questions. Is there a timeframe to be able to submit written
questions?
Mr. Whitfield. Yes, 10 days.
Mr. McKinley. OK. Within 10 days, thank you.
Welcome back. My question is that should a rule like this,
that helps public health, be withheld? Be withheld because of a
regulatory burden that we have been referring to here?
Ms. McCabe. I am not sure I understand your question,
Congressman.
Mr. McKinley. Well, if there is regulatory burden that is
going to be imposed with this, should the EPA withhold the bill
or the rule?
Ms. McCabe. Well, the Clean Air Act directs EPA to set the
standards, and the Supreme Court has said that that is our job
to do and that the issues related to implementation are a
separate matter of separate consideration not to be considered
in determining what the proper public health level is.
Mr. McKinley. So the Court has ruled on that, but I am just
curious because it goes back that--and you have heard it
several times mentioned here that the President did step in and
say there were some--this was going to cause regulatory burden.
And, therefore, he asked that the rule be held back for a
period of time. That is an accurate statement, isn't it, that
the President did intercede?
Ms. McCabe. That was in a reconsideration event, which is--
--
Mr. McKinley. OK. That was in 2011. I am just curious. So I
guess part of me is--part of the question is, what has changed?
If he felt that this rule should not have proceeded because it
had regulatory burdens with it, what has improved since 2011
that is it going to be less burdensome to industry?
Ms. McCabe. No. The decision to----
Mr. McKinley. Just those were his words.
Ms. McCabe. The decision----
Mr. McKinley. He just said if it has a regulatory burden, I
think we should hold it back.
Ms. McCabe. I respectfully I disagree that that is what he
said, Congressman. That decision was made in the context of
knowing that there would be the required 5-year review, and the
decision there was to defer and stop with the reconsideration
process in deference to the review that we are doing right now.
Mr. McKinley. He just said that: I underscore the
importance of reducing regulatory burden and regulatory
uncertainty. I have requested the Administrator Jackson to
withdraw the draft ozone standards.
I think that is interesting because I am curious to see
what has changed, how the economy is improved or the regulatory
burden is less. But you have answered about as much--I have
just limited questions here, time on this. I am just curious a
little bit about how a county is supposed to work in actual
functioning through it.
I have got up to my 20 counties that I represent, 75
percent of those counties are going to be in noncompliance if
you go to 65--75 percent. So how are they supposed to--in a
real world, not from academia, but how are they supposed to
function when they are going to be in a nonattainment county?
Seventy-five percent of my counties, 15 of those counties are
going to be in nonattainment--what are they supposed to do?
Ms. McCabe. Well, there are counties all across the country
that have experienced poor air quality, have been designated
nonattainment in the past, and states work with those counties
to get programs in place to improve air quality in those areas.
Mr. McKinley. Can you give me an example? Give me--you are
talking----
Ms. McCabe. Yes.
Mr. McKinley. 30,000 feet.
Ms. McCabe. OK.
Mr. McKinley. Just go down to how are they going to change
the air quality in Jefferson County, West Virginia that has a--
right now is at 81?
Ms. McCabe. OK. Well, I can talk better about my own home
State of Indiana.
Mr. McKinley. No, please just talk--these are just three
counties in a row that they average 73, so there are already
going to be so far over. Are we telling them and their kids and
their families, when they sit at that kitchen table and they
can't get a job, it is because their air quality is--it was
fine at 75, but now that they get the 65, there are no jobs
coming to West Virginia?
Ms. McCabe. So what states do in nonattainment situations
is they look at the local sources of air pollution and put in
place sensible measures to reduce those, and it might be local
industry. It might be transportation.
Mr. McKinley. OK. Local industry. You're telling me that
local industry change how it produces.
Ms. McCabe. Industry has controlled air pollution
remarkably over the years. I come from Indiana. I was the air
director there. We have an area in northwest Indiana that----
Mr. McKinley. We have some counties like Tyler County, and
they may have just--well, I won't give--we have some counties
that just have one industry.
Ms. McCabe. Right.
Mr. McKinley. And yet they are in nonattainment.
Ms. McCabe. And there are many counties for which--from
which the air pollution is not generated right within that
county, but it is generated regionally.
Mr. McKinley. Right.
Ms. McCabe. That is why States work with metropolitan
areas. That is why the Clean Air Act has provisions to make
sure that if upwind States are contributing to downwind States,
that those upwind States take responsibility, that is why EPA
moves forward with Federal programs, such as the Tier 3, which
makes motor vehicle traffic much cleaner everywhere, including
in your State.
Mr. McKinley. OK. I will get back to you. I would like to
have more of a written answer from you because I have got a
series.
I want to follow a metric here. How are we going to go down
through to make these--so there are job opportunities.
I want to close very quickly. Why are the tribes excluded
from this regulation?
Ms. McCabe. The tribes aren't excluded. The tribes have the
opportunity to regulate themselves, and if not, then EPA----
Mr. McKinley. But the proposal says that the tribes are not
obligated to adopt or implement any of the ambient air quality
standards for ozone. In addition, tribes are not obligated to
conduct ambient monitoring for ozone or adopt the ambient
monitoring requirements. That sounds like an exemption to me.
Ms. McCabe. No. The Federal Government implements the
standards in Indian country, unless the tribe chooses to seek
to do it itself. So the standards apply in Indian country.
Regulations get put in place in Indian country. It is just that
the Federal Government has the initial responsibility to do
that.
Mr. McKinley. I know I am way over time. I would just be
curious how they are going to change their operation. Thank
you.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time has expired, and he can
submit those questions.
At this time, I recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Ms.
Castor, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for calling this hearing.
And welcome.
Listening to my colleagues' comments today takes me back to
a time when I was younger. Now, the Clean Air Act was
originally adopted by the Congress in the 1960s. Is that right?
Ms. McCabe. Yes.
Ms. Castor. And there have been significant amendments in
the 1970s and especially in 1990. And, I think back to we have
all kind of lived through this era. And I don't think anyone
can argue that America is better off because we breathe cleaner
air. And we have been able to balance environmental progress
with economic progress. We have the strongest economy in the
world today.
Yes, we have our challenges. We have had our setbacks, but
we have been able to combine environmental progress, cleaner
air, cleaner water, oversight of chemicals with economic
progress and good jobs. I remember very well in the late 1960s
and 1970s walking outside in my home in Tampa, Florida, and the
air was awful. And we are a warm climate, so we have very
smoggy days.
Now, it is much better. It is noticeably better. And anyone
that lived in the 1960s and 1970s, whether you were in an
industrial area or not, you understand the progress that we
have made. So I want to thank you for your attention to cleaner
air that we breathe. What a privilege it is to live in a
country that has been able to show such environmental
stewardship and balance it against economic progress.
And that is the history of this country, and I am confident
that we can continue to make that kind of progress.
Now, Ms. McCabe, what is the ozone standard right now?
Ms. McCabe. Seventy-five parts per billion.
Ms. Castor. And what does that mean exactly?
Ms. McCabe. That means that in a billion units of air, no
more than 75 of those should be ozone in order to provide
healthy air quality.
Ms. Castor. And how long has it been at 75?
Ms. McCabe. That was adopted in 2008.
Ms. Castor. And what was it before that time?
Ms. McCabe. It was 85.
Ms. Castor. And now the proposal, EPA's proposal directed
by the Court, directed by the Congress in statute is to go
where now?
Ms. McCabe. What the Administrator proposed was a level
somewhere between 65 and 75 parts per billion.
Ms. Castor. And that was after significant discussion by
the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. What is the Clean
Air Scientific Advisory Committee?
Ms. McCabe. That is an external expert advisory panel that
EPA convenes and has assisted us with all reviews of National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. So it is a special panel
convened to review all of the science that EPA develops, our
Office of Research and Development, and the Office of Air and
Radiation. And they go through a very lengthy process of
reviewing multiple documents, both science documents and then
policy documents, and give us feedback on the science that we
are looking at.
Ms. Castor. So they considered all sorts of levels?
Ms. McCabe. So, yes, right, right. And they looked at all
the studies that we looked at. They considered all of that
information and our evaluation of it.
Ms. Castor. And, in fact, that committee indicated that--
and it concluded that--there is adequate scientific evidence to
recommend a range of levels for a revised primary ozone
standard from 70 parts per billion to 60 parts per billion. And
with regard to the upper bound of 70 parts per billion, the
committee said, based on the scientific evidence, a level of 70
parts per billion provides little margin of safety for
protection of public health, particularly for sensitive
subpopulations like children, elderly folks with respiratory
problems.
Although a level of 70 parts per billion is more protective
of public health than the current standard, it may not meet the
statutory requirement to protect public health with an adequate
margin of safety. What are they saying there?
Ms. McCabe. Well, they are acknowledging, first of all,
that it is the Administrator's job to make this judgment about
what protects the public health with an adequate margin of
safety. What they are saying is that they looked at all of this
information and that they see evidence in the science record
from the level of 70 down to a level of 60 that shows adverse
impacts on public health from ozone at these levels of
exposure. And what they are saying is that at the top end of
the range, there is less cushion, there is less margin of
safety than at lower levels within that range.
Ms. Castor. So this was taken into account as you develop--
as the Administrator developed the proposal.
Ms. McCabe. It was.
Ms. Castor. And when you consider that the public health
benefits for children, the elderly, respiratory diseases, we
all know someone in our family or we know someone with asthma--
26 million people in the U.S. are estimated to have asthma, 7
million children--certainly we can continue the environmental
progress to improve the public health and balance it against
the economic needs of the country. I think this is the United
States of America, and it can be done, so thank you for staying
true to the law.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. McCabe. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Griffith, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
As you know, I represent a fairly rural district, includes
the Appalachian Mountains, Appalachian Trail, Blue Ridge
Mountains, a stone's throw from the Smokies. My understanding
is, is that under EPA requirements, in order to construct a new
source of emissions or expand an existing source, there is a
need to find offsets. Is that accurate?
Ms. McCabe. It depends on how an area is designated. So
areas that are the least polluted areas in terms of ozone, it
changes as the area gets more and more severely polluted.
Mr. Griffith. OK. Kentucky's air regulator has raised
concerns about the impacts on rural counties. In particular, he
stated the statutory and regulatory offset requirements would
severely restrict economic development in these rural counties
since, by definition, the areas have no existing offset
emissions available for any new sources. Rural counties would
be disproportionately negatively impacted with little
opportunity for economic development.
For rural counties, would states be able to seek relief
from some of these offset requirements?
Ms. McCabe. There is actually a provision in the Clean Air
Act that specifically focused on rural counties that may be in
nonattainment because of transported air pollution. So we would
work with any state that wanted to come forward and talk about
rural counties.
Mr. Griffith. You represented or you said transported
ozone. The problem that I fear that some of my areas may have
with the newer requirements as well is that it is not
transported, but it is natural. As you know, trees produce
volatile organic compounds, which combined with sunlight,
produce ozone. Thus the name Smoky Mountains. Thus the name
Blue Ridge Mountains because the mountains themselves with
their trees produce ozones. So it is not necessarily
transported ozone. It is ozone because we are in fact rural and
have trees that produce some of this. It is not 80 percent, as
Ronald Reagan once said, but it is a significant contributor,
particularly in the rural areas like mine in the eastern
Appalachians.
In fact, Scientific American in a June 1, 2014, story
singled out or said, according to their research, black gum,
poplar oak, and willow are significant producers of volatile
organic compounds. So is there anything that would give us that
offset, or do we have to go out into the forest, national or
private, and say you got to cut the black gum, the poplar, the
oak, and the willow, but it is OK to leave the birch, the
linden, and the tulip, which apparently are low producers of
VOCs, or volatile organic compounds?
Ms. McCabe. Well, as I mentioned in response to a previous
question, what our science shows is that the areas that have
significant challenges with background ozone are in the Rocky
Mountains, the higher elevation areas. We are not seeing that
kind of a situation with background in other areas of the
country.
Mr. Griffith. So you think the central Appalachians will be
OK?
Ms. McCabe. I do.
Mr. Griffith. But what about this offset? If it is not
transported, would that rule also cover naturally occurring
ozone?
Ms. McCabe. So as we look forward, I would be happy to get
you this information----
Mr. Griffith. Please do.
Ms. McCabe [continuing]. Mr. Griffith, on Virginia,
particularly, but as we look at areas that are likely to be in
nonattainment, we will look at air quality in future years to
make those determinations, and I don't think we are seeing
widespread nonattainment in rural areas. But in those areas
where we do, there are opportunities there to work with those
areas.
Mr. Griffith. All right. I appreciate the opportunity to
work on it. I am concerned about it.
I am going to have to ask you some of these questions
offline because time is precious and we don't get but so much,
but if you could get us just some basic process on what the
states have to do. What is the process for reviewing the state
implementation plans? What is the range of time this process
can take to complete, months or years? And if the EPA doesn't
approve--and I guess this is one I would ask you to answer at
this time--if the EPA doesn't approve a state's implementation
plan, what happens to the state? Does it become subject to a
Federal plan? And would there then be litigation between the
States and the EPA over that?
Ms. McCabe. Yes. So the Clean Air Act lays out a lot of
steps, depending on the severity of the area that dictates how
much time the states have. But, typically, if an area is
considered--most areas the last time around were designated as
marginal nonattainment, which means that they were not obliged
to do a plan because they were expected to come into attainment
and many do.
For ones that are moderate or above, they typically have 3
years to put a plan together. EPA works with those states to
try to make sure that those plans are going to be approvable
when they----
Mr. Griffith. What happens if their state plan is not
approved?
Ms. McCabe. Generally, we work back and forth with the
state to get it to a place where it is approvable.
Mr. Griffith. But what if it is not, what do you do?
Ms. McCabe. Well----
Mr. Griffith. Do you come up with a Federal plan?
Ms. McCabe. If a state really didn't want to make a plan
that was approvable, which most states do, the Clean Air Act
does provide that EPA would step into a Federal plan. But I
have to say that that is very, very rare in this situation
because--both because states want to do their plans because
they are possible to do them and because we work hard with the
states to make sure they can be successful.
Mr. Griffith. And I have got to go. But in those places
where they don't want to because you have made the standard so
low, you may see more litigation. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time, I recognize the gentleman from
New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Some of my colleagues are quick to argue that EPA's
proposed ozone standard will hurt the economy, but history tell
us that cleaning up pollution can benefit the economy as well
as human health and the environment. Since its enactment in
1970, the Clean Air Act provides a perfect example of how we
can make steady progress in cleaning up the air while growing
the economy.
So, Ms. McCabe, do we have to choose between clean air and
economic growth? What does the history of the Clean Air Act
tell us about our ability to cut pollution while building the
economy?
Ms. McCabe. It actually shows us that the two things go
hand in hand. We have reduced pollution dramatically, air
pollution dramatically in this country. The economy has grown.
We have also shown that this country has--and businesses in
this country have innovated, have come up with pollution-
control technologies that employ American workers and make us
leaders in the world on selling this kind of technology.
Mr. Pallone. When we talk about air pollution regulation,
my Republican colleagues often focus on cost, but they aren't
talking about the cost from exposure to unsafe air. They are
talking about the cost of polluters of actually cleaning up
their act.
So, again, Ms. McCabe, how do the costs and benefits of
implementing the proposed ozone standards stack up?
Ms. McCabe. Well, we look at both. We lay both of those
out, and in our analysis that we put out with our proposed
rule, it showed that the benefits of this rule would outweigh
the costs by three to one.
Mr. Pallone. And along those lines, the National
Association of Manufacturers estimates the cost of this rule
would be $140 billion annually, making the new ozone standard
the most expensive rulemaking in history. My understanding is
that EPA's cost estimate--approved by the Office of Management
and Budget--was much lower. So would you tell us how much does
EPA expect this standard to cost?
Ms. McCabe. Yes, our estimates--and, again, these are
illustrative because the States will make their own choices--
but our estimates are that at a level of 65 parts per billion,
it would be in the range of 19 to 38 billion in the first
standard of 70 parts per billion--oh, sorry. I said that
completely wrong.
The costs range from 3.9 billion to 15 billion, depending
on where the standard is.
Mr. Pallone. So this, based on your experience, that $140
billion price tag doesn't seem reasonable to you?
Ms. McCabe. It does not match our evaluation.
Mr. Pallone. Yes. I mean, this concentration of cost, I
think, has been misguided. Over the history of the Clean Air
Act, industry has consistently exaggerated the potential cost
of controlling pollution.
How have these doomsday predictions measured up to reality?
Ms. McCabe. Well, they haven't, given the information that
folks have in front of them. In 1997, there were similar claims
made that 1997 standards were going to kill the economy, and
that absolutely hasn't come true.
Mr. Pallone. You know, I just wanted to ask you something
based on some of my Republican colleagues. And I am not trying
to be critical of them, but can you confirm this? Can you
confirm that under EPA's projections for West Virginia and
Virginia, there will be zero counties in 2025 that will exceed
65 or 70 parts per billion? Does that sound right to you?
Ms. McCabe. That does sound right to me.
Mr. Pallone. OK. I have a little over a minute. Let me just
get to some other questions about health- and science-based
standards.
The Clean Air Act requires that EPA review the science
behind the National Ambient Air Quality Standards every 5 years
to ensure the best information is used. EPA examined thousands
of scientific studies when reviewing the ozone standard, and
given this body of evidence, what are some of the health
impacts associated with breathing air that contains ozone? And
what groups of people are most at risk from breathing air
containing ozone?
Ms. McCabe. So ozone can have a range of impacts on the
respiratory system, inflammation of the lungs exacerbated,
asthma, and this is especially significant for people who have
asthma, for children, for the elderly, for people with
compromised respiratory systems. The studies also show an
association between premature mortality and exposure to ozone.
Mr. Pallone. So I understand that the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee and EPA scientists recommended that the
Agency strengthen the ozone standard from 75 parts per billion
to a level within the range of 60 to 70. So the Administrator
has proposed to strengthen the standard to a level within the
range of 65 to 70.
Is the proposed ozone level an aggressive or overzealous
action by EPA as some may claim?
Ms. McCabe. We believe that the range that the
Administrator proposed is very well supported by the scientific
information and affirmed, as you just noted, by our external
peer-review panel.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time, I recognize the gentleman from
Missouri, Mr. Long, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. McCabe, at the same time the EPA is moving forward with
its proposed, or excuse me, with its proposed ozone rule, it is
also proposing its clean power plan, which would require states
to prepare plans to submit to the EPA.
How can we realistically expect the EPA to manage several
new rounds of state plan revisions that will be needed with the
new ozone standard at the same time that they are reviewing
plans for the clean power plan?
Ms. McCabe. Well, these are----
Mr. Long. That is going to take a lot of money and a lot of
people, isn't it? And do you have those people and that money?
Ms. McCabe. These are important programs that the Clean Air
Act directs us to implement, so we expect to use our resources
to work with the states to get this work done.
Mr. Long. You expect to, but is it practical? Is it
feasible? I mean, a lot of people want to do a lot of things,
have lofty goals, but when push comes to shove, they can't get
it done. Do you realistically think that this is something that
the Agency can handle?
Ms. McCabe. I do, Congressman. This is our job to do, and
we will make sure that we get it done.
Mr. Long. OK. I know it is your job, but I just question
how it can possibly, how you can have the resources, the time--
you are behind on several things already--the time, the money,
and the employees to accomplish the goal.
Ms. McCabe. Some of this work is overlapping as well, some
of the technical work that we do in terms of air quality
modeling, and it is efficient to do some of these things
together. So----
Mr. Long. Some of the state plan revisions overlap?
Ms. McCabe. So the technical work that underlies the work
that EPA and the States need to do in order to implement these
programs.
Mr. Long. OK. A few months ago, I met with some city
officials from Springfield, Missouri, which is my hometown. I
represent Springfield; Branson, Missouri; Joplin, Missouri;
southwest part of Missouri. And they are one of the most
forward-thinking cities and done more work on an integrated
plan than about anyone. In fact, they were invited out to I
believe it was Alexandria, and just them and one other city, I
can't remember now the other city, but there was only two
cities in the United States that were invited out to present
how they did their plan and what they do.
But, anyway, they discussed this integrated plan for
implementing mandates from the Environmental Protection Agency,
and after analyzing the cost of the mandates over the next 20
years, and I have heard some people speculate that, here today,
that things are never as bad as they seem, but if this was even
50 percent accurate, it is not doable. It is devastating. And
they found that complying with the EPA mandates would cost each
individual in my district, each of my 751,000 constituents,
$46,000. Now, you can cut that in half if you would like and
say 23, but anyway, and cut it in half again if you would like,
but it is not feasible. It is not doable.
Missouri alone is looking at billions of dollars in
compliance cost with the proposed ozone regulation and
financial impact that it will have on everything from
manufacturing to transportation. And it is going to, like I
say, have an impact on each one of my constituents.
Do you all look at the comprehensive financial and economic
impact to these regulations at all that they are going to have
on the states and our constituents?
Ms. McCabe. Well, I am not familiar with exactly the study
that you are talking about, Congressman, so I can't speak to
that.
Mr. Long. I will get it to you. Integrated plan for the
city of Springfield for the next 20 years, I will be glad to
provide that to you and your staff.
But let's say that you were familiar with it. At what
point--my question is, do you all look at the economic impact?
Ms. McCabe. So each rule looks at its impacts in light of
the rules that have come before it, and so there is an
understanding of the rules and the impacts, both benefits and
costs, that are associated with trying to use programs.
Mr. Long. But there is a weight given to cost?
Ms. McCabe. I am sorry?
Mr. Long. There is a weight, there is a consideration given
to the cost?
Ms. McCabe. Whenever we do regulations, there is an
evaluation of cost and of benefits.
Mr. Long. OK. I guess that that is--I am about out of time
anyway, and Morgan stole some of my notes, I think, and asked
some of my questions.
So, anyway, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time, the chair recognizes the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Flores, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator McCabe, thank you for joining us today. How
does the market price risk? I mean, if you know something and
you know what the cost is of something, it has a price, and you
know that price. But if you don't know something, then the
price is higher because you have risk, right?
Ms. McCabe. I----
Mr. Flores. Yes. OK. In 2010, the EPA, when they proposed
going to 60 parts per billion, said that that would cost $90
billion, cost the economy $90 billion. In 2014, you reduced it
to $40 billion. What happened over that 4-year period to make
the cost go down?
Ms. McCabe. So I think what you are comparing is the
proposal that was put out under the ozone reconsideration
compared with the most recent one.
Mr. Flores. Now, just tell me what made it go down.
Ms. McCabe. Yes. So, in that first one, we were looking at
a change of the standard from the previous standard of 85 parts
per billion to that level of in the range of 60 to 70.
Mr. Flores. So this is not a 75 to 60.
Ms. McCabe. That is right.
Mr. Flores. OK. All right.
Ms. McCabe. Because that was a reconsideration of the prior
standard.
Mr. Flores. OK. Thank you. And in your proposal to go to
either 70 or 65, a significant amount of the control technology
doesn't exist today, and that is where the risk question comes
in. So do you know what it costs to offset a ton of ozone in
the Galveston-Houston area today?
Ms. McCabe. I don't.
Mr. Flores. It is about $170,000 a ton. So where did EPA
price its unknown risk technology on a per ton of what is
ozone?
Ms. McCabe. So we looked across the types----
Mr. Flores. Just give me a number.
Ms. McCabe. Oh, the number?
Mr. Flores. Yes, just give me a number.
Ms. McCabe. I believe it was----
Mr. Flores. About $15,000.
Ms. McCabe. That is what I was going to say.
Mr. Flores. Yes, $15,000. So if we know in Texas what the
cost to offset a ton of ozone is and it is $170,000, where did
we come up with $15,000 for imaginary technology that doesn't
exist? Where in the world did that come from?
Ms. McCabe. By looking at the history of the costs of
pollution control technology over the years, and this is
actually a conservative estimate based on the actual cost to
control pollution that we have seen over time.
Mr. Flores. Is that a publicly available document?
Ms. McCabe. All of our assumptions are publicly available.
Mr. Flores. Well, let me say that it doesn't pass the smell
test when we know today what the cost is for an offset, and
then you have imaginary technology that does not exist, and we
just price it at a fire sale, give it a Wal-Mart price. That is
crazy.
Let's talk about background ozone for a minute. Here is a
map, background ozone map. Texas has about 70 parts per billion
on average, 72 parts per billion, of background ozone. So if
you take the level to 65, what is Texas supposed to do, get a
big vacuum and send it down to the ozone hole in Antarctica or
what?
Ms. McCabe. Well, I am not familiar with that map, but that
number doesn't sound right to me, Congressman.
Mr. Flores. Well, that is all right. OK. Let's use
something a little bit more discreet. How about Rocky Mountain
National Park has a background of 77.
Ms. McCabe. Yes.
Mr. Flores. There is no industry in Rocky Mountain National
Park.
Ms. McCabe. As I mentioned, there are--particularly in that
part of the country, there are a few areas where we are seeing
high background.
Mr. Flores. So what do you do? You said you had to have a
national standard a minute ago, so how are you going to clean
up Rocky National Park to take it to 65?
Ms. McCabe. Well, it is not responsible for cleaning up air
pollution that it doesn't create, and the Clean Air Act
provides mechanisms to make sure that----
Mr. Flores. So what is the mechanism? How do you clean up
Rocky Mountain National Park?
Ms. McCabe. To the extent that pollution is coming from
places that we can control.
Mr. Flores. Well, in this case, it is not.
Ms. McCabe. Well----
Mr. Flores. And 77-parts-per-billion background means, by
definition, is not being produced there, it is coming from
somewhere else.
Ms. McCabe. Right, so----
Mr. Flores. Natural occurring causes, or China.
Ms. McCabe. It it is coming from motor vehicles around the
country that--where that air pollution is coming into that
area, our rules will help reduce that if it is coming----
Mr. Flores. Let's talk about RFS for a minute. Under your
2010 regulatory impact analysis of the renewal fuel standard,
the EPA concluded that the program would contribute to ozone as
a consequence of increased ethanol use.
Disregarding that all together, EPA recently proposed that
its latest targets for RFS through 2016 would lead to higher
levels of ethanol. And according to the studies of the Journal
of Geophysical Research that measured emissions of ozone
forming VOCs from methanol refineries, it is five times higher
than the EPA's original estimate.
So the EPA, on one hand, is saying: OK, you have got to
reduce to 65 to 70 parts per billion. On the other hand, you
are trying to cram more ethanol in the system, which has a five
times worse ozone impact on the economy than does the
production of regular gasoline. I will submit the rest of my
questions in writing.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
At this time, I recognize the gentleman from North
Carolina, Mr. Hudson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Administrator, for being here today. I
represent rural North Carolina. I grew up with a love for the
outdoors, and I certainly understand our--the importance of
protecting the environment. But like many of my colleagues, I
do have concerns about this proposed rule, and I thought it was
fascinating my colleague from Florida, Ms. Castor said that the
air in Tampa, Florida, is clean, that it used to be polluted
but now it is clean. But I looked up Hillsborough County,
Florida, and the ozone levels are 71. So even by her definition
it is clean, I believe her, but even Tampa, Florida, would be
out of attainment.
And what I really want to talk about is one of my counties,
Montgomery County, North Carolina. It is a very rural county. A
majority of the county is part of Uwharrie National Forest.
This county has been disseminated with job loss. We have lost
manufacturing jobs. There is no major significant industry in
the county. Yet this county has 66 parts per billion in ozone,
so it would be out of attainment if the standard were 65.
And, again, this is a beautiful county. It has got two
rivers. It has got a lake. The air quality is wonderful. It is
a rural beautiful community. What would the EPA do with a
county in a situation like that?
Ms. McCabe. Well, I think we need to be careful about
making assumptions about which counties will be and won't be
nonattainment, because we don't know that. We don't know what a
final standard will be if a decision is made to revise it, but
also those decisions will be made based on future air-quality
data. The numbers that I believe you are citing are based on
air-quality data from 2011 to 2013.
We will use current, most recent air-quality data when we
make those decisions. And air quality is trending in a good
direction. So I think we need to not assume an area will or
won't be nonattainment based on information that is from prior
years.
Mr. Hudson. So do you think the level will stay above 70?
Ms. McCabe. Which level?
Mr. Hudson. That EPA sets for air quality?
Ms. McCabe. No, I am not speaking to what decision might be
finally made. I am speaking to the information that people are
citing about whether areas based on air quality now will be in
attainment if there is a revision to the standard, and we just
don't know that.
That being said, we have talked, and I understand the
comments that many of the members have made about being
concerned about rural areas. And we do have the ability to work
with those areas. The Clean Air Act does recognize that there
are areas that don't control their air quality, and the Clean
Air Act doesn't hold those areas responsible for reducing
pollution if it is not being produced there.
Mr. Hudson. Well, I appreciate that. And, obviously, a
county like Montgomery County desperately needs jobs, and if we
get to a nonattainment situation where we can't hire new
people, we can't attract new industry, it is devastating.
So what specifically would Montgomery County, North
Carolina, do if hypothetically it were in nonattainment? Do we
file a lawsuit against a local city? Or, I mean, how do you----
Ms. McCabe. Well, programs like the motor vehicle standards
will improve air quality everywhere in the country where motor
vehicles are used. This is an example of how the Federal-State
partnership works where Federal programs bring cleaner air all
across the country and will take care of the air pollution in
many areas where there is not a lot of local industry that is
contributing.
Mr. Hudson. So we would have to give up our pickup trucks
and Suburbans? Is that----
Ms. McCabe. No, no, no. As the fleet turns over, as people
buy newer cars, the fuels are getting cleaner, and so air
quality will improve.
Mr. Hudson. What percentage do you think motor vehicles
contribute to that?
Ms. McCabe. Well, motor vehicles generally contribute about
a third of the air pollution in the country, and see it is not
just cars driven in Montgomery County. It is cars driven in the
region that are contributing to regional air pollution.
Mr. Hudson. Well, I appreciate that.
And, Mr. Chairman, I have three resolutions I would like to
insert in the record: One is from Cabarrus Regional Chamber of
Commerce; another is from Rowan County Board of Commissioners;
and a third is from the Cabarrus-Rowan Urban Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization. All these organizations oppose this new
standard, and I seek unanimous consent to have them inserted in
the record at this time.
Mr. Whitfield. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Hudson. Well, thank you. I would again thank you for
your testimony, but I just have concerns that we are setting
standards so low that they are not attainable, and when rural
areas that aren't near industrial areas or not near big cities
can't reach the attainment, a significant portion, 10 of the 12
rural counties in my district, I think we may be using the
wrong metric. So that is my concern. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
At this time, I recognize the gentlelady from North
Carolina, Mrs. Ellmers, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Ms. McCabe, for being with us today.
I just want to start off, as my colleague from North
Carolina was pointing out, basically the concerns that we have
in North Carolina, just in our home state alone, this rule will
kill over 13,000 jobs a year and decrease the state's GDP
drastically at a time when we can afford it the least. This
proposal raises serious concerns, and I look forward to this
discussion. I definitely have some questions for you.
Starting off with, in September of 2011, President Obama
requested that your agency withdraw its proposed ozone standard
based on his ``concerns about the importance of reducing
regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as
our economy continues to recover.''
Your agency agreed to withdraw the proposed standard, and
now you are issuing the revised standard. Can you tell us what
changes you made to decrease the regulatory burden which now
allows you to move forward?
Ms. McCabe. Well, first, let me explain that at that time,
the Agency was engaged in a reconsideration of the 2008 ozone
standard, which was not a mandatory duty. We are under a
mandatory duty to relook at the standard every 5 years. It was
last reviewed in 2008, so this is our required review.
Mrs. Ellmers. So there are less regulations now?
Ms. McCabe. This is about science. This particular decision
is about science and public health and what the science says
about what is healthy in the air to breathe. Implementation----
Mrs. Ellmers. Not to interrupt you, but to point out that
the President said that he was asking for you to decrease the
amount of regulations. What regulations have you decreased
which can move us forward? I understand you are looking at the
science. I am a nurse. I understand science. But what is it
that you have done to make this process move forward so that we
can all come together and work on it?
Ms. McCabe. Well, we put out regulations like the Tier 3
regulation that I mentioned a minute ago, which will bring
improved air quality all across the country. That is--things
that States won't have to do themselves.
Mrs. Ellmers. Is that less cumbersome than what existed in
2008?
Ms. McCabe. It is a provision that will help states and
municipalities meet the ozone standard.
Mrs. Ellmers. OK. Moving on.
The first question that any economic developer asks when
locating new plants or considering expansion of an existing
plant is the attainment status, and I know my colleague from
North Carolina, we were having this conversation just a moment
ago.
Areas designated as nonattainment are immediately excluded
from consideration. The Clean Air Act requires that the Clean
Air Scientific Advisory Committee to advise the Administrator
of any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or
energy effects which may result from various strategies for
attainment and maintenance of such National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
Given the adverse economic impact of a revised standard,
why are you not requiring CASAC to take all of these things
into consideration in regard to economic development?
Ms. McCabe. In setting the health standard, we have been
specifically directed by the Supreme Court that looking at the
implementation implications is not part of setting the health
standard. And so in this----
Mrs. Ellmers. So the Supreme Court told you that economic
development is not significant and should not be considered.
Ms. McCabe. Is not relevant to the setting of the public
health standard.
Mrs. Ellmers. OK. Moving on.
Nonattainment designation indiscriminately reduces
development, including development associated with military
bases. This is particularly important for North Carolina as we
have many strong military presence there.
This standard of the level at the near national background
as is currently being considered will potentially limit
military expansion and place at risk our military readiness.
How is your Agency planning on ensuring that your revised ozone
standard will not jeopardize national security?
Ms. McCabe. Congresswoman, I am not aware of any instance
in which the ozone standard has interfered with our military
readiness.
Mrs. Ellmers. Well, then I would love to work with your
office because my understanding is there are some situations
especially affecting some of our North Carolina bases now that
this will dramatically affect, so I would like to continue that
conversation.
Ms. McCabe. We will be glad to follow up.
Mrs. Ellmers. Great. Now, lastly, and I have got 31
seconds. Part of this continued problem is how are
manufacturers going to be able to deal with this technology. If
a manufacturer simply cannot meet these standards, what are
their options? Are they to buy expensive offsets? Are they to
close their doors? What do we do? How do we help our
manufacturers?
Ms. McCabe. We work with the states and with the business
industry, we look at where the pollution is coming from, and we
develop programs that are targeted towards addressing the most
cost-effective reductions, and that is what we have done
through the whole history of the Clean Air Act, where
manufacturing has moved forward, has implemented new
technologies, has been able to grow.
Mrs. Ellmers. Do existing controls exist right now to
achieve the 60-parts-per-billion standard or the 65-parts-per-
billion standard?
Ms. McCabe. Well, keep in mind the Administrator has not
proposed the 60 parts per billion standard. When we looked at
the range of 65 to 70, which is what she proposed----
Mrs. Ellmers. Yes.
Ms. McCabe. We identified a number of already existing
controls that will get----
Mrs. Ellmers. What are those existing controls?
Ms. McCabe. Things like cleaner engines, scrubbers, NAAQS
controls, lower VOC paints and coatings, a variety of
technologies that have been developed over the years that many
areas are not yet employing that could be employed.
Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentlelady's time has expired.
At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
Johnson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Ms. McCabe, thanks for joining us again today. You
know, increased access to low-cost sustainable domestic natural
gas production has helped tremendously in fueling the
manufacturing renaissance in this country. This expansion has
resulted not only in cleaner gas and electricity for
manufacturers but also provides a new source of natural gas
liquids, which are essential feed stocks in many major
manufacturing applications, such as chemicals and plastics.
A study conducted by the consulting firm NERA, frequently
contracted by the Department of Energy, among others, shows
dramatic cost increases in the price of natural gas under a 60-
parts-per-billion standard. The study projects a 52-percent
increase in the cost of natural gas for industrial use under a
60-parts-per-billion standard.
So quick question. Can we expect our manufacturing
renaissance to continue under this type of scenario?
Ms. McCabe. I can't speak to that study specifically, but I
know that there certainly has been a significant increase in
the development of natural gas. It is a very important----
Mr. Johnson. We know that, but what I am asking you is when
we are essentially taxing it with these standards. And I might
point out to you that in a recent trip that we made to Europe,
ratepayers, businesses and residential ratepayers in Europe are
taking a strong second look at their energy profiles because of
this exact problem, making their businesses noncompetitive and
their unwillingness to pay the exorbitant high prices for
energy that is going to result from a rule like this.
So how can we expect the manufacturing renaissance to
continue when we are taxing essentially the very energy that is
providing that renaissance?
Ms. McCabe. Well, I don't think we are taxing the energy--
--
Mr. Johnson. Well, sure you are. If you get a 52-percent
increase in the cost of natural gas under a 62-parts-per-
billion standard, that is essentially a tax.
Ms. McCabe. Well, I----
Mr. Johnson. You can call it whatever you want to, but it
is a tax on the industry.
Ms. McCabe. Well, I am not sure that I agree with the----
Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, we will agree to disagree. Let me
move on. Let me focus on how the EPA has calculated the
benefits of its proposed ozone standard. And here is the issue
in a nutshell: Instead of calculating only the benefits from
reducing nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, the
constituents of ozone, which are emitted from cars, trucks, and
stationary sources, EPA also incorporated the cobenefits from
reducing particulate matter, or PM, from those same sources. Of
course, this rulemaking has nothing to do with particulate
matter. EPA has a separate National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for particulate matter, not to mention multiple other
rules to regulate it under the Clean Air Act.
But without the benefits from PM reductions, the ozone rule
would have very little to show for it. In fact, Dr. Anne Smith
of NERA has pointed out that these PM cobenefits are actually
larger than the direct ozone related benefits from the rule. If
you don't accept NERA's assessment, then how about Cass
Sunstein, the former head of OMB's Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs. He reviewed the ozone reconsideration in
2011 and helped prevent that proposal from being finalized
because it was too costly.
Here is what he said about this, and I quote: But on some
of the Agency's estimates of the 2011 ozone proposal, the net
benefits would have been zero. Moreover, a strong majority of
the benefits would have resulted not from ozone reductions but
from cobenefit reductions in particulate matter, which come as
an incidental benefit of the technologies that reduce ozone
emissions.
So, Ms. McCabe, this prompts a number of questions. First,
can you explain to me and our committee the EPA's legal
justification for engaging in this kind of double counting? How
is it that you can justify a lower ozone standard using
benefits from an entirely different pollutant?
Ms. McCabe. Well, it is not double counting.
Mr. Johnson. That is not science. That is a shell game.
That is what that is. That is not science.
Ms. McCabe. It is not double counting. Those benefits are
real.
Mr. Johnson. Those benefits--this rule is supposed to be
going after ozone, not particulate matter.
Ms. McCabe. But it is having additional benefits to the----
Mr. Johnson. But very little in terms of the ozone. Very
little in terms of the ozone in comparison with the benefits
that are coming from particulate matter.
Further, talk to me about how transparent you have been
with this to the American public. I mean, there are charts
buried in the proposed rule where somebody maybe with a Ph.D.
can go infer this information about double counting, but have
you or the Administrator explained this issue in your speeches
and public statements about the ozone? Have you told the
American people that the benefits are coming from somewhere
else, from a pollutant that is already well regulated by the
EPA?
Ms. McCabe. We're very clear. And I myself personally have
talked about co-benefits that are achieved by programs that we
implement.
Mr. Johnson. Yes. Well, I think it is a shell game, Ms.
McCabe, and I think it is economically destructive to my region
of the country and to other industries that are providing the
jobs and the economic vitality of America today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
I have a couple of other questions I want to ask her, Mr.
Rush, and then----
I wanted to ask you a couple of other questions, Ms.
McCabe.
The Science Advisory Committee is appointed by who?
Ms. McCabe. The Science Advisory Committee is--there is an
office within EPA that administers the Science Advisory Board
and has a very open process for----
Mr. Whitfield. But the people who serve on the Science
Advisory Committee, how are they selected?
Ms. McCabe. They are nominated.
Mr. Whitfield. By who?
Ms. McCabe. Either by themselves or by others, and that is
through a public process.
Mr. Whitfield. And then who makes the decision of who
serves?
Ms. McCabe. That is a decision made within the Agency by
our Office of the Science----
Mr. Whitfield. So EPA decides who serves on the science
committee?
Ms. McCabe. Through a robust public process.
Mr. Whitfield. OK. And how long do they serve?
Ms. McCabe. I don't know the answer to that.
Mr. Whitfield. And how many people serve on that committee?
Ms. McCabe. I don't know the answer to that.
Mr. Whitfield. Could you get us a list of the names of
people on the committee and how long their term of office is?
Ms. McCabe. Yes. Yes. I believe it is, you know, on the
order of 4 to 6 years, something like that.
Mr. Whitfield. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. Ms. McCabe, how long has that committee been in
existence?
Ms. McCabe. How long has----
Mr. Rush. How long has it been in existence?
Ms. McCabe. The Agency?
Mr. Rush. No. The science committee.
Ms. McCabe. Gosh, I don't know, Congressman Rush. But we
can certainly find out. Many, many years. Many years.
Mr. Rush. Through both Republican and Democratic
administrations?
Ms. McCabe. Yes. Absolutely. And the committees and the
panels are very well balanced to make sure that there is a
range of views represented.
Mr. Rush. Would you say that it is bipartisan?
Ms. McCabe. Yes, I would.
Mr. Rush. OK. Oh, yes. Mr. Chairman, I have one more
question.
Ms. McCabe, we keep hearing about the President's decision
in 2010 on the ozone standard, and let me read from that. With
that in mind, this is what I want to read.
Statement by the President: ``Work is already underway to
update a 2006 review of the science that would result in the
reconsideration of the ozone standard in 2013. Ultimately''--
and this comes directly from the President on the ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards issued on September 2,
2011--``Ultimately, I did not support asking State and local
governments to begin implementing a new standard that will soon
be reconsidered.''
Do you have any comments? Do you remember that statement by
the President?
Ms. McCabe. Yes. So the President was recognizing that the
regular 5-year review of the ozone standard was already
underway, and that is what he was directing the Agency to focus
its attention on.
If I could just clarify something I said before,
Congressman Rush, I agreed with your characterization of the
Science Advisory Board as bipartisan. I think it is probably
more accurate to call it nonpartisan.
Mr. Rush. Nonpartisan. OK. All right. Well, thank you so
much.
Mr. Chairman, I don't have any additional questions, but I
do have a unanimous consent request to enter into the record a
letter from public health organizations opposing legislation or
amendments that would block or delay EPA's work to update ozone
standards and, also, a letter from the National Association of
Clean Air Agencies supporting the EPA's proposal to revise the
current ozone air standards. And I ask for unanimous consent
that they be entered into the record.
Mr. Whitfield. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Rush. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Whitfield. And then I would also like to ask unanimous
consent that the following documents be entered into the
record: Number one, a survey released by the Association of Air
Pollution Control Agencies entitled ``State Environmental
Agency Perspectives on Background Ozone and Regulatory
Relief''; number two, a June 2015 article from the Journal of
Science entitled ``Challenges of a Lowered U.S. Ozone
Standard''; and, number three, comments of one of the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality on EPA's Proposed Ozone
Rule--a Texas commissioner's comments. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The comments have been retained in committee files and are also
available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/if/if03/20150612/103590/
hhrg-114-if03-20150612-sd005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without objection, that will be entered into the record as
well.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Whitfield. And that concludes today's hearing.
Once again, Ms. McCabe, thank you for being with us. We
look forward to continuing engagement with you as we move
forward.
And we will keep the record open for 10 days for any
additional questions or comments or materials.
And, with that, the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton
This morning, we're here to examine the EPA's latest
proposed new National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ground-
level ozone. I welcome Acting Assistant Administrator McCabe.
In 2012, President Obama set a goal of creating one million
new manufacturing jobs during his second term--which certainly
was a goal we all could get behind. The following January, the
president's New Year's resolution was to do ``whatever it
takes'' to create jobs. Yet the administration's policies do
not match the president's words. When you couple this ozone
rule with other EPA rules like the Clean Power Plan and
``Waters of the United States'' rules, the likely outcome will
be stifled growth, missed opportunities, and lost jobs.
Make no mistake, the new ozone rule would be a jobs
killer--especially in the manufacturing industry. An ozone
nonattainment designation would make it significantly more
difficult for industries to invest and create businesses in
communities across the United States. Even existing factories
would face higher operating costs and red tape. EPA estimates
that hundreds of counties across the country would not meet the
proposed standards, including many in my home state of
Michigan. We also need standard that make sense. In southwest
Michigan, in Allegan County, you could remove all of the human
activity and the region would still be in nonattainment because
of ozone generated in Chicago, Milwaukee, and Gary, Indiana.
A study conducted by NERA for the National Association of
Manufacturers tells the story with predictions that are truly
frightening. The total cost of the new rule could reach $140
billion annually, making it EPA's most expensive regulation
ever. In fact, the study states that Michigan could face $1
billion in compliance costs and stands to lose 20,000 jobs per
year over the next couple decades. Not exactly the right
medicine in times of recovery.
At a time when America's natural gas abundance has given
domestic manufacturers an edge over the global competition,
regulation after regulation is chipping away at that
advantage--and a new ozone rule may well prove to be the last
straw that shifts the advantage back to foreign-based
facilities.
Job creators are paying attention. In a recent survey of
manufacturers conducted by NAM, more than half the respondents
said they would not undertake a new project or a major
expansion in an ozone nonattainment area.
Not surprisingly, NAM, the Chamber of Commerce, the Auto
Alliance and just about every other organization that
represents manufacturers has come out strongly against this
proposed rule. And it should be noted that the NAM study
focused solely on manufacturing and did not consider the very
real threat these new regulations pose to America's energy
renaissance. Energy producing regions may have to cut back on
oil and natural gas output to comply with the new ozone
standard.
To make its case, EPA declares ozone still poses a serious
public health threat, but that raises the question why the
agency has delayed implementation of the current ozone rule.
The 2008 ozone standard has languished at the agency for years.
It was only last March--more than 6 years into the
administration--that the agency finally issued the implementing
regulations necessary for state and local governments to begin
putting the new standard in place.
I strongly support efforts to reduce smog and I supported
the ozone standard finalized in 2008. We have seen significant
progress and I endorse reasonable measures to ensure that air
quality continues to improve but we must strike a balance that
doesn't hinder economic growth and job creation. For these
reasons, I believe that we don't need a new ozone standard--we
need EPA to implement the existing one.
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]