[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 806, OZONE STANDARDS IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 2017
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 22, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-17
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-633 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
FRED UPTON, Michigan BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas GENE GREEN, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETE OLSON, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PETER WELCH, Vermont
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
BILLY LONG, Missouri KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
BILL FLORES, Texas Massachusetts
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana TONY CARDENAS, CaliforniaL RUIZ,
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma California
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina SCOTT H. PETERS, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
TIM WALBERG, Michigan
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
Subcommittee on Environment
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
Chairman
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOE BARTON, Texas RAUL RUIZ, California
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania SCOTT H. PETERS, California
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GENE GREEN, Texas
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
PETE OLSON, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio TONY CARDENAS, California
BILL FLORES, Texas DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina DORIS O. MATSUI, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
TIM WALBERG, Michigan officio)
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, opening statement.................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 4
Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, opening statement.......................... 6
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, prepared statement..................................... 85
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, prepared statement........................ 86
Witnesses
Sean Alteri, Director, Division of Air Quality, Kentucky
Department of Environmental Protection......................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Answers to submitted questions............................... 165
Mark Cone, Director, Bureau of Air Quality, Maine Department of
Environmental Protection....................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Answers to submitted questions............................... 168
Kurt Karperos, PE, Deputy Executive Officer, California Air
Resources Board................................................ 24
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Answers to submitted questions............................... 184
Nancy Vehr, Air Quality Administrator, Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality.......................................... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Answers to submitted questions............................... 196
Homer A. Boushey, M.D., Professor of Medicine, Division of
Pulmonary/Critical Care Medicine, University of California, San
Francisco...................................................... 48
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Answers to submitted questions............................... 207
Seyed Sadredin, Executive Director/Air Pollution Control Officer,
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.............. 55
Prepared statement........................................... 57
Answers to submitted questions............................... 212
Submitted Material
Statement of Glenn Hamer, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and
Industry, submitted by Mr. Shimkus............................. 88
Article entitled ``US surface ozone trends and extremes from 1980
to 2014: quantifying the roles of rising Asian emissions,
domestic controls, wildfires, and climate,'' Atmospheric
Chemistry and Physics, 2017, submitted by Mr. Shimkus.......... 101
Majority memorandum, submitted by Mr. Shimkus.................... 129
Statement of public health and medical organizations, submitted
by Mr. Tonko................................................... 140
Statement of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, submitted
by Mr. Tonko................................................... 143
Comments of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, submitted
by Mr. Tonko................................................... 146
Article entitled, ``Alex Sherriffs and John Capitman: Don't back
off demands for cleaner air,'' Fresno Bee, Sept. 30, 2015,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 151
Statement of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, submitted by Mr. Tonko........................... 154
Statement of the American Chemistry Council, submitted by Mr.
Shimkus........................................................ 159
Statement of Community Organizations, submitted by Mr. Tonko..... 162
H.R. 806, OZONE STANDARDS IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 2017
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment,
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Shimkus, McKinley, Blackburn,
Harper, Olson, Johnson, Flores, Hudson, Walberg, Carter, Tonko,
Ruiz, Peters, Green, McNerney, Cardenas, and Matsui.
Staff present: Grace Appelbe, Legislative Clerk, Energy/
Environment; Wyatt Ellertson, Research Associate, Energy/
Environment; Blair Ellis, Digital Coordinator/Press Secretary;
Tom Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, Energy/Environment; A.T.
Johnston, Senior Policy Advisor, Energy; Ben Lieberman, Senior
Counsel, Energy; Katie McKeough, Press Assistant; Alex Miller,
Video Production Aide and Press Assistant; Annelise Rickert,
Counsel, Energy; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment;
Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Peter Spencer, Professional
Staff Member, Energy; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director;
David Cwiertney, Minority Energy/Environment Fellow; Jean
Fruci, Minority Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; Caitlin
Haberman, Minority Professional Staff Member; Rick Kessler,
Minority Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and
Environment; and Alexander Ratner, Minority Policy Analyst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Shimkus. The Subcommittee on the Environment will now
come to order. The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes
for an opening statement.
During today's legislative hearing we will consider H.R.
806, the Ozone Standards and Implementation Act of 2017. Mr.
Olson reintroduced this bipartisan bill this past February
after its development through the committee process and passage
in the House in the 114th Congress as H.R. 4775. We thank Mr.
Olson, as well as Mr. Flores, Mr. Latta, and a guy named Mr.
Scalise for the particular leadership and thoughtful
contributions to the previous bill and what is now H.R. 806.
The Ozone Standards and Implementation Act makes practical
reforms to the Clean Air Act to streamline implementation of
national air quality standards by the state and local
authorities. These reforms seek to improve the states' ability
to meet the new ozone and other air quality standards without
undermining efforts to ensure and promote the productive
capacity of their citizens.
The bill reflects what we have learned from a record
developed over a number of hearings and extending back to the
committee's Clean Air Act reforms in 2012. An important lesson
from this record is that timelines and procedures established
almost 30 years ago can be counterproductive today. The result
is unnecessary costs, duplicative efforts, regulatory delay,
and economic uncertainty.
The 2015 ozone standards provide a case in point. In
October 2015, EPA established a new ground-level ozone standard
of 70 parts per billion, down from 75 parts per billion
established 7 years earlier in 2008. The practical problem is
that EPA had only issued implementation regulations for the
2008 standard 6 months earlier, in March 2015. So just as
states were implementing measures for one standard they would
now have to divert resources to implement measures for another
standard for the same criteria pollutant. Yet EPA projected
that the majority of areas that may be subject to the new
standards would come into compliance with those standards under
existing rules and programs.
It does not make sense why these areas should be subject to
new, long-term compliance and reporting regimes that they would
avoid if allowed to let existing measures work. But this cannot
happen under the tight timelines that were established almost
30 years ago when air quality was much worse and emission
controls were just beginning to take hold.
Add up the many other compliance deadlines for other EPA
regulations, related litigation, the rapid pace of new rules,
and you can see how this process hinders the ability of states
to establish orderly plans and predictable permitting regimes.
As a result, state and local regulators expend resources
and time keeping up with a never-ending succession of rules.
This undermines their ability to focus on assessing the
performance of existing public health measures. It also
undermines their ability to ensure predictability so that
people can build and expand their business and infrastructure.
H.R. 806 makes some reasonable changes to update the Clean
Air Act requirements to address these problems. For example,
the bill phases in implementation of the 2008 and 2015 ozone
standards, extending the date for final designations for the
latter standards to 2025 and aligns permitting requirements
with this phased implementation schedule.
It also provides reasonable timing for mandatory reviews of
air quality standards by extending the requirement to 10 years,
while preserving the EPA Administrator's discretion to issue
revised standards earlier, if necessary. This falls in line
with the Clean Air Act's cornerstone ``cooperative federalism''
approach which mandates that EPA establish the NAAQS, but
leaves the task of deciding how to achieve them largely to the
states.
It requires timely issuance of implementation regulations
by EPA to reduce the uncertainty that the states face when
developing their implementation plans. The bill also authorizes
the Administrator, under certain and appropriate circumstances,
to take account of technical feasibility when determining where
to set emission levels that scientists advise are fully
protective of public health.
Other steps the bill takes help ensure states and
localities are not penalized for emissions and air quality
events they cannot control.
With that, let me welcome our witnesses, five of whom bring
the state and local perspectives that we have focused upon
throughout this process. They represent California, Maine,
Wyoming, and Kentucky, regions that often confront different
types of implementation challenges. We will also hear from the
representative of the American Thoracic Society.
Let me note for the record that we invited EPA to the
hearing. And while the agency was unable to provide a witness
today, we expect to receive written comments on the bill in
time.
I think all our witnesses will agree that our ultimate goal
is to ensure air quality is protective of public health. Of
course, the key to that objective is to ensure that we have
laws that effectively facilitate standards for implementation.
That is what this bill aims to do.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. John Shimkus
Today's legislative hearing will consider H.R. 806, the
``Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017.''
Mr. Olson reintroduced this bi-partisan bill this past
February, after its development through the Committee process
and passage in the House in the 114th Congress as H.R. 4775.
Let me thank Mr. Olson as well as Mr. Flores, Mr. Latta, and
Mr. Scalise for their particular leadership and thoughtful
contributions to the previous bill and what is now H.R. 806.
The Ozone Standards Implementation Act makes practical
reforms to the Clean Air Act to streamline implementation of
national air quality standards by state and local authorities.
These reforms seek to improve the states' ability to meet the
new ozone and other air-quality standards without undermining
efforts to ensure and promote the productive capacity of their
citizens.
The bill reflects what we have learned from a record
developed over a number of hearings and extending back to the
Committee's Clean Air Act forums in 2012. An important lesson
from this record is that timelines and procedures established
almost 30 years ago can be counterproductive today. They result
is unnecessary costs, duplicative efforts, regulatory delay,
and economic uncertainty.
The 2015 ozone standards provide a case in point. In
October 2015 EPA established a new ground-level ozone standard
of 70 parts per billion, down from 75 parts per billion
established 7 years earlier in 2008.
The practical problem is that EPA had only issued
implementation regulations for the 2008 standard 6 months
earlier in March 2015. So just as states were implementing
measures for one standard they would now have to divert
resources to implement measures for another standard for the
same criteria pollutant. Yet EPA projected that the majority of
areas that may be subject to the new standards would come into
compliance with those standards under existing rules and
programs.
It does not make sense why these areas should be subject to
new, long-term compliance and reporting regimes that they would
avoid if allowed to let existing measures work. But this cannot
happen under the tight timelines that were established almost
30 years ago, when air quality was much worse, and emissions
controls were just beginning to take hold.
Add up the many other compliance deadlines for other EPA
regulations, related litigation, the rapid pace of new rules,
and you can see how this process hinders the ability of states
to establish orderly plans and predictable permitting regimes.
As a result, state and local regulators expend resources
and time keeping up with a never-ending succession of rules.
This undermines their ability to focus on assessing the
performance of existing public-health measures. It also
undermines their ability to ensure predictability so that
people can build and expand their businesses and
infrastructure.
HR 806 makes some reasonable changes to update Clean Air
Act requirements to address these problems. For example, the
bill phases in implementation of the 2008 and 2015 ozone
standards, extending the date for final designations for the
latter standards to 2025 and aligns permitting requirements
with this phased implementation schedule.
It also provides reasonable timing for mandatory reviews of
air quality standards by extending the requirement to ten
years, while preserving the EPA Administrator's discretion to
issue revised standards earlier, if necessary. This falls in
line with the Clean Air Act's cornerstone ``cooperative
federalism'' approach-which mandates that EPA establish the
NAAQS, but leaves the task of deciding how to achieve them
largely to the states.
It requires timely issuance of implementation regulations
by EPA to reduce the uncertainty that the states face when
developing their implementation plans. The bill also authorizes
the Administrator--under certain and appropriate
circumstances--to take account of technical feasibility when
determining where to set emissions levels that scientists
advise are fully protective of the public health. Other steps
the bill takes help ensure states and localities are not
penalized for emissions and air quality events they cannot
control.
With that, let me welcome our witnesses--five of whom bring
the state and local perspectives that we have focused upon
throughout this process. They represent California, Maine,
Wyoming, and Kentucky--regions that often confront different
types of implementation challenges. We will also hear from a
representative of the American Thoracic Society.
Let me note for the record that we invited EPA to the
hearing and while the agency was unable to provide a witness
today, we expect to receive written comments on the bill in
time.
I think all our witness will agree that our ultimate goal
is to ensure our air quality is protective of public health. Of
course, the key to that objective is to ensure we have laws
that effectively facilitate standards implementation. That is
what this bill is aims to do.
Mr. Shimkus. And with that, my time has expired. The Chair
now recognizes the Ranking Member Mr. Tonko from New York.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have examined similar iterations of this legislation in
the past. So it should not surprise any of my colleagues to
hear me once again say that protecting public health and
growing the economy are not mutually exclusive.
The history of the Clean Air Act and the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, has clearly demonstrated that.
Since its enactment, the Clean Air Act has reduced key air
pollutants by roughly 70 percent while the economy has more
than tripled. I have yet to see any evidence of that trend
reversing.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here. I especially
want to thank Dr. Boushey, certainly, who is testifying on
behalf of the American Thoracic Society. It is important for us
to remember why the Clean Air Act was passed in the first
place: to protect public health.
According to a peer-reviewed 2011 EPA study, in 2010 alone
the Clean Air Act prevented over 160,000 premature deaths,
130,000 cases of heart disease, 1.7 million asthma attacks, and
millions of respiratory illnesses. Healthier people means fewer
sick days, hospital visits, and premature deaths, all which
lead to a more productive society. The science is clear:
breathing air that contains ozone can cause serious health
effects.
Cleaning our air is not always easy, but the benefits far
outweigh the costs. And history has shown that meeting these
health-protective standards is achievable.
This bill, as currently drafted, includes a number of
provisions that would seriously undermine EPA's ability to
create and implement health-protective standards, and not just
for ozone but for all NAAQS. It would delay implementation of
the 2015 ozone standard significantly, extend the review cycle
for all NAAQS from 5 to 10 years, and add consideration of
technological feasability into the standard-setting process.
We all want states and EPA to work cooperatively under a
framework that gives states flexibility on meeting these
targets. But we cannot deny the critical role that the Federal
Government must play in reducing air pollution.
I am from a downwind state, and whether it is smog,
particulate matter, or acid rain, we know air pollutants do not
respect state lines. For years we have been asking EPA to do
more with less. This bill continues that. I am not opposed to
asking for studies and trying to better understand our nation's
air quality challenges, but we cannot expect these studies to
be done without additional funding.
I would be remiss not to mention the President's proposed
budget which seeks to cut EPA by 31 percent, and includes even
great percentage cuts to categorical grants. We must assume
state and local air quality management grants and other
programs that improve our air quality will not be immune from
these cuts.
Solving our nation's long-term air quality issues is going
to take innovation. I believe in America's ingenuity. It can be
done. But it will be a lot easier if we support these efforts
with federal investments. Investments in electric vehicles and
cleaner trucks are just a few examples that would make a big
difference.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on how
we can achieve our common goal of making our air cleaner for
generations to come.
And with that, Mr. Chair, I will yield my remaining time to
the gentleman from California, Representative McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding.
It is a privilege to represent the northern part of the San
Joaquin Valley, one of the most productive agricultural regions
in the world, and home to manufacturing and renewable energy
production. However, this region and its residents have
suffered from some of the worst air quality in the nation. This
means missed school and missed work. It means premature deaths,
has a negative impact on the economy, and the long-term public
health.
We are fortunate to have the dedicated folks in the San
Joaquin Air Pollution Control District and the California Air
Resources Board who have done a tremendous job in improving air
quality in the last several years. The valley, however, still
faces significant challenges as the Valley Air District has
testified in previous years. The valley's geography will always
make combating air pollution an uphill battle. But the Clean
Air Act has been an effective tool to improve air quality.
Unfortunately, the bill before us today weakens the Clean
Air Act. Improving our air, or even keeping the gains we have
made, will be even more challenging if this bill were combined
with the President's budget targeting the EPA's air shed grants
and DERA grants that have been vital for our region. These are
all steps backwards when we have made tremendous progress.
I appreciate the CARB and the Air Valley District with the
work you do on a daily basis.
And I yield back the mountainous time that I still have
remaining. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tonko. And I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
The Chair now recognizes the subcommittee chairman of the
Telecommunications Subcommittee, Mrs. Blackburn, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am from Tennessee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mrs. Blackburn. This is an issue that affects us and
affects a lot of our counties. And the NAAQS standards are
something that has been of concern. I am appreciative to Mr.
Olson for the bill and for going about looking at this.
I will tell you, and one of the things I want to talk with
you all about, we know from the EPA that the technology that is
necessary for some of these standards to be in place, you know,
it doesn't even exist yet. And so this concerns us because it
makes long-term planning and budgeting very difficult. So
sometimes I look at what was pushed forward with the
finalization of the NAAQS standards and the ozone standards and
I just think, you know, we kind of got the cart before the
horse.
And while, as I repeatedly say, we are all for clean air,
we are all for clean water, what we want to do is make certain
that there is the ability to plan for and to meet the standards
that are on the books, and that we can do things in a
technologically feasible and cost-effective manner.
So we thank you for being here and for your attention to
the issue. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady yields back the time.
Without objection, we will hold the Ranking Member's 5
minutes if he is able to attend. And with that, we will now
turn to our panel. And I will recognize you are allowed to
speak. Your full testimony is submitted in the record.
You will have 5 minutes. It is an mportant issue, you can
go over a little it. If you go over a minute-and-a-half or two
minutes, then we will probably try to get your attention. It is
a big panel, so we want to get to questions.
So, first up is Mr. Sean Alteri, Director of the Division
of Air Quality at the Kentucky Department of Environmental
Protection. We are glad to have you, sir. You are recognized
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF SEAN ALTERI, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY,
KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; MARK CONE,
DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF AIR QUALITY, MAINE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; KURT KARPEROS, PE, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD; NANCY VEHR, AIR
QUALITY ADMINISTRATOR, WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY; HOMER A. BOUSHEY, M.D., PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE,
DIVISION OF PULMONARY/CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO; SEYED SADREDIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER, SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL DISTRICT
STATEMENT OF SEAN ALTERI
Mr. Alteri. Thank you, Chairman.
Good morning, Chair Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, and
members of the subcommittee. My name is Sean Alteri, and I
currently serve as the Director for the Division of Air Quality
in Kentucky. I am honored to testify today and I thank you for
the opportunity to tell you about our commonwealth and share
some good information about our commonwealth.
In addition to my work with the Kentucky Division for Air
Quality, I am currently serving as the President of the
Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies. Our association
is a national non-partisan, consensus-driven organization
focused on improving air quality. The association represents
more than 40 state and local air quality control agencies, and
more than 20 environmental senior officials from state
environmental agencies serve on its board of directors.
Regarding today's hearing, I appreciate the thoughtfulness
and consideration that went into the drafting of H.R. 806. The
bill's intent to facilitate efficient state implementation of
ground-level ozone standards is a welcome opportunity for state
and local air quality regulators. H.R. 806 is supported by
leaders of air pollution control agencies. The strategic
approach to modernizing the Clean Air Act is necessary and
appropriate.
There are three elements of the bill that deserve emphasis.
First, the proposed amendments establish a more reasonable time
interval for area designations and revised NAAQS and provides
EPA and state air pollution control officials with sufficient
time to meet its statutory obligations.
Additionally, H.R. 806 requires the study and report of
international pollution and its impacts on air quality.
And, finally, H.R. 806 will also obligate EPA and NOAA to
conduct a study to determine regional background of naturally-
occurring concentrations of volatile organic compounds and
nitrogen oxides from vegetation.
These studies will provide the necessary information for
state and local air pollution control officials to develop
cost-effective air pollution control strategies.
With respect to the periodic review of criteria pollutants,
H.R. 806 modernizes the statutory clock to reflect the
significant improvements that have been made in air quality.
Section 3 of H.R. 806 provides for a more practical and
attainable 10-year interval for the review and potential
revision of air quality standards. Moving forward, this time
period will be essential to achieve the most difficult, the
most expensive remaining increments of air quality improvement.
In fact, the time frames and processes detailed in H.R. 806
are consistent with those that EPA has most recently employed
to designate areas with respect to the 2010 SO2
standard. Although the sulfur dioxide standard was revised in
2010, the court order resulting from the consent decree
negotiated between EPA and third party interest groups sets the
schedule for EPA to complete all area designations by December
31, 2020, 10 years after the NAAQS requires. Given the court's
decision, the 10-year interval for designation time frame
expressed in H.R. 806 is consistent with EPA's approach to the
2010 SO2 standard.
As a Director for the Division for Air Quality, I am
responsible for carrying out the Clean Air Act congressional
declaration of purpose, and that is, ``To insure that economic
growth will occur in a manner consistent with the preservation
of clean air resources.''
In Kentucky, we have a strong manufacturing economy that is
robust and growing. Many of the products that are manufactured
in Kentucky are essential to our national security and economy.
For example, Kentucky produces military-grade aluminum and
steel to protect our soldiers and to provide them with the
resources to carry out their missions. We are a world leader in
the aerospace industry and are currently the third largest
automobile manufacturer in the United States. We are home to
Toyota, Ford, and General Motors.
We melt, cast, and mold more than 50 percent of the
aluminum produced in the United States and more than 35 percent
of the nation's stainless steel. Currently, two of the four
remaining primary aluminum facilities operate in the
commonwealth. And, not to be forgotten, 95 percent of the
world's bourbon is distilled in Kentucky. Simply put, Kentucky
makes the things that enables other states in the nation to
grow their economies and improve their quality of life.
In closing, state and local permitting authorities must be
provided with regulatory certainty throughout the permitting
process of new, modified, and reconstructed stationary sources.
The regulatory certainty is necessary to carry out our
statutory obligations, which includes providing for economic
growth. The reasonable amendments proposed in H.R. 806 will
further enable all of our states to continue to grow our
economy, enhance our quality of life, and improve our air
quality.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R.
806, and I look forward to any questions you may have regarding
my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Alteri follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much.
Now I would like to turn to Mr. Marc Cone, Professional
Engineer, Director of the Bureau of Air Quality at the Maine
Department of Environmental Protection.
Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF MARC CONE
Mr. Cone. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member
Tonko, and members of the subcommittee. I am Marc Cone,
Director of the Bureau of Air Quality with Maine Department of
Environmental Protection. With over 30 years of experience
working on Clean Air Act issues, I am here to speak in support
of H.R. 806. Thank you for inviting me to speak.
Maine benefits from clean air and pristine waters and
supports environmental protection. Strong national
implementation of the Clean Air Act requirements benefits
people of Maine more than most because much of the pollution of
our air comes from areas downwind of us. Emissions data,
ambient monitoring data, and meteorological data irrefutably
show that short and long range transport of air pollutants to
Maine from other states and nations all affect Maine's air
quality.
The Clean Air Act has been successful in reducing
significant amounts of air pollution, but today the Act is
inefficient. Maine is supportive of the Environmental
Protection Agency implementing the Clean Air Act in an
efficient manner and as expeditiously as practical. When the
Clean Air Act was in its infancy, the 5 years between
reevaluations of standards may have made sense, but now it
seems to be a pragmatic problem.
When the requirements to review ambient standards was new,
the 5 years may have been effective due to less complicated and
less costly controls, allowing timelier progress.
Unfortunately, the reality today has been that EPA has failed
to accomplish implementing new standards in a 5 year time
frame. The current time frame has created uncertainty for
facilities and for state and local regulating agencies.
It is both difficult and frustrating to fully understand
regulatory requirements, explore options, plan, fund, contract
work, implement, and measure the results of changes intended to
maintain ambient air quality standards when the target is
redefined on an erratic schedule and guidance for
implementation of any new standard is not provided at the same
time the standard is set.
It is complicated. A standard without an implementation
strategy is like giving someone a destination without a map.
You can probably get there, but it is going to take some time
and effort. Currently, the system does not work and it is now
an excellent time to consider changes.
Today, for a new standard EPA needs to propose, consider
comments, finalize, defend legal challenges, develop
implementation rules, and work with states on these plans. They
must accomplish this all before evaluating the standard again.
This is quite a challenge, which has been reflected in the
latest standards.
EPA promulgated an ozone standard to replace the 1997 ozone
standard 11 years later, in 2008. The EPA did not issue the
implementation regulation for the 2008 standard until 2015, 7
years after the promulgation of the standard. Just months after
the 2015 implementation regulation was issued for the 2008
standard, EPA promulgated a new ozone standard.
Even now, the latest data suggests that some areas in the
ozone transport region are not attaining the 1997 standard, not
to mention the 2008 and 2015 standard. The reality is that when
a standard is set, EPA needs to issue an implementation
strategy for that standard at the same time.
The latest sulfur dioxide standard was promulgated in 2010.
The 2010 standard provides a new level of complexity to
implement, as EPA had significant time to develop
implementation requirements that came out in 2015. Depending on
a state's plan, the final assessment of the 2010 sulfur dioxide
standard will not occur until approximately 10 years after it
was put in place. Again, the proposal in H.R. 806 seems a
practical response to reality.
The PM2.5 standard has also been a complicated process. In
1997, EPA promulgated the first PM2.5 standard. The
implementation has been very confusing and a technically
challenging process.
In summary, the implementation of this standard to date
continues to create regulatory uncertainty. A 10-year time
frame for some standards may still not be enough for EPA to
overcome the technical challenges of a standard.
In conclusion, a standard without an implementation
strategy will not protect citizens. The challenges and
uncertainty of the 1997 ozone and particulate matter standard
continue 20 years after their promulgation. The changes, as
proposed in H.R. 806, to delay final designations under the
2015 standard until 2025, and to extend the time frame for
standards review from every 5 years to every 10 years,
including concurrently-published, clearly-defined implementing
regulations, would allow for due process to be followed and
fulfilled. This would more effectively and efficiently utilize
federal, state, and individual facility resources to establish
a standard and work for the improvement of air quality and
protection of the people of our nation.
Thank you for allowing me to speak today. And I welcome any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cone follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Kurt Karperos, Deputy
Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board.
Welcome, and you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KURT KARPEROS
Mr. Karperos. Good morning, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking
Member Tonko, and members of the committee. My name is Kurt
Karperos. I am Deputy Executive Officer of the California Air
Resources Board. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with
you today.
The Air Resources Board is the California agency
responsible for implementing the Clean Air Act in all areas of
the state. I oversee that responsibility, including meeting
federal air quality standards in the areas with the most
persistent pollution, the greater Los Angeles area, that we
refer to as the South Coast, and the San Joaquin Valley. These
two regions pose the nation's greatest challenge in meeting the
ozone standard and ensuring the residents breathe healthful
air.
It is from that perspective that I want to cover three
points in my testimony today.
First, meeting health-based, health-protective standards
for air quality is achievable.
Second, economic growth and development while cleaning the
air is not only possible, in California it is a reality.
And, third, weakening the Clean Air Act, as H.R. 806 would
do, is unnecessary and will harm the health and well-being of
millions of people.
Nearly half of California's 38 million residents live in
regions with pollution levels that exceed the 70 parts per
billion ozone standard. Of those, almost five million are
children, with nearly one-half million suffering from asthma.
California supported EPA's use of the most current and
robust scientific studies to set health-protective ozone
standards because reaching this standard would reduce premature
mortality, emergency room visits for asthma, hospitalizations,
and lost work and school days.
Simply put, meeting the ozone standard is a public health
imperative.
California has a long and successful history of meeting
health-protective, science-based standards. Of California's 19
areas that once exceeded either the 1-Hour Ozone Standard or
the original 8-Hour Ozone Standard, only four exceed those
standards today.
The San Joaquin Valley has made significant process. This
extreme non-attainment area now meets the 1-Hour Ozone
Standard. It is on track to meet the 80 parts per billion ozone
standard. And last summer, San Joaquin Valley leaders adopted a
plan to meet the 75 parts per billion ozone standard by the
Clean Air Act's deadline of 2031.
The South Coast is more challenging, but progress there is
also remarkable. The region once measured 1-hour ozone values
above the standard on over 200 days per year. Today it has
dropped to less than 20. Similarly, the number of days over the
8-hour standard have been cut in half since 1990.
At the same time we have been cleaning the air,
California's economy has continued to grow and prosper. Last
year, California's economy grew to be the world's sixth
largest. In 2016, California non-farm employment increased by
2.6 percent, compared to 1.7 percent nationwide.
In 2009, the California clean energy industry generated $27
billion and employed 123,000 people. By 2020, we expect it to
grow to over $140 billion with 345,000 employed.
Looking forward, EPA estimates that achieving the 70 parts
per billion ozone standard would save Californians an estimated
$0.4 to $1.4 billion per year when accounting for both the
costs of reducing emissions and the avoided costs of
healthcare, lost work days and low productivity, and other
pollution impacts.
With its science-based, health-protective air quality
standards, its meaningful deadlines, and its requirements for
comprehensive plans, the Clean Air Act has been California's
tool for achieving air quality and economic success. The Clean
Air Act requires comprehensive planning. H.R. 806 would delay
planning and increase costs in the long term.
Today's testimony is timely, as tomorrow the California Air
Resources Board will consider a plan that will not only provide
the reductions needed to meet the 75 parts per billion standard
in 2031, it will also provide the initial reductions needed for
the new 75 parts per billion standard in 2037. Rather than
delay and wait, California's solution is to move forward.
California has used the flexibility in the Act to drive
innovation. Electric cars are the prime example. The next step
is cleaner trucks. California has already certified a truck
that has 90 percent fewer emissions than those on the road
today. The needed technologies are here now.
California's success is proof that H.R. 806 is unnecessary.
It would inappropriately insert control costs into EPA's
science-based process for setting air quality standards. How
healthful the air is to breathe is not determined by the cost
to clean it up. It is a question of science and what air
pollution does to the human body.
H.R. 806 would mean more people would breathe dirty air
longer. It would unwisely mandate that we ignore the pollution
impacts of weather conditions made worse by man-made climate
change. It would push off deadlines, erode requirements for
incremental progress, and undermine the Clean Air Act's
requirements for comprehensive air quality strategies.
In closing, let me stress that meeting health-protective
standards is both achievable and cost-effective. The Clean Air
Act provides the flexibility to do this.
Setting healthful air against economic prosperity is a
false choice. California continues to show that clean air and
economic growth go hand-in-hand.
And, finally, delaying the standards will harm the health
and well-being of millions of people in this country. The San
Joaquin Valley, in particular, is home to high rates of
poverty, pollution, and asthma. It is especially critical to
continue progress in that region.
And in the end, the economic costs and the human cost of
polluted air far exceed the costs of cleanup.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. And I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Karperos follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Nancy Vehr, Air Quality
Administrator at the Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality. You are recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you for
joining us.
STATEMENT OF NANCY VEHR
Ms. Vehr. Good morning, Chairman, Ranking Member, and
members of the committee. Thank you for inviting Wyoming to
testify.
Before I discuss ozone, I want to share three facts to help
you understand Wyoming's perspective.
First, Wyoming is the ninth largest state and has the
smallest population of any state in the nation.
Second, Wyoming is second in the nation in mean elevation,
with Colorado being the highest.
Finally, Wyoming is blessed with amazing and abundant
natural resources that provide our nation, state, and our
citizens with revenue and jobs. We are proud that we protect
our natural resources and provide for responsible energy
production.
I am going to address five points. My first point is
wintertime ozone in Wyoming. Our first ozone exceedence came in
the winter of 2005 in a high-elevation, rural part of the
state, in an area with abundant oil and gas production. Roughly
10,000 people live there. It is surrounded by mountain ranges
on three sides.
In 2009, Wyoming recommended that the area be designated as
non-attainment. EPA did so in 2012. Emissions have been greatly
reduced because of significant participation and work by state
and local governments, industry, citizens, and the area has now
attained the 2008 standard. Our experience highlights why a
one-size-fits-all approach to ozone is not defensible.
Wyoming's experience differs greatly from EPA's traditional
ozone focus on low-elevation, densely populated urban areas
with summertime issues. One-size-fits-all does not fit Wyoming.
Alternative analytical tools and methods are critical for
areas with unique characteristics or phenomena, like those that
we have experienced. In fact, there is still no model that is
proven effective at replicating our wintertime high ozone
events. Section 3(j) of H.R. 806 recognizes and provides for
the study of ozone formation in rural areas and in the winter.
My second point, and another area that Section 3(j)
addresses, is background ozone. Background, or naturally
occurring ozone, in the western United States is not well
understood. When EPA proposed the 2015 standard, it dismissed
high elevation site data as an outlier, even though it
recognized that background concentrations are highest at high
elevation. Background ozone is a reality in the Mountain West.
Research is needed in order to better understand the impact of
background ozone. Section 3(j) provides for that.
My third discussion point is international transport. In
addition to understanding background ozone, it is also
important to have a full understanding of the extent and
magnitude of influence that internationally-transported ozone
and precursors have in the West. If the underlying cause of
elevated ozone is from international transport, then imposing
costly controls won't make a difference.
Recent scientific evidence suggests that the Trans-Pacific
transport of Asian pollution has contributed on the order of 8
to 15 parts per billion higher ozone levels in the western
United States. Long-range international transport research, and
translation of those findings into the regulatory framework,
would be beneficial. Section 3(i) of H.R. 806 directs EPA to do
this.
My fourth point involves exceptional events. Section 3(h)
of the bill clarifies that certain events, such as non-
ordinarily occurring stagnation of air masses, high
temperature, or lack of precipitation qualify as exceptional
events. Wyoming's experience has been that the exceptional
event demonstration process has been costly and resource
intensive. Specifying qualifying events and streamlining the
process will reduce these costs.
In addition to streamlining, EPA must act on those
submittals. Between 2011 and 2014, Wyoming submitted 46
exceptional event demonstrations showing that air quality
standards had been affected by high winds, wild fires, and
stratospheric ozone intrusions. However, EPA did not act on any
of Wyoming's demonstrations of those 46.
When there is no action and exceptional event
demonstrations are ignored, the result is inflated monitored
data that misrepresents the prevailing air quality conditions
included in modeling, unnecessarily delays permitting, and
inaccurately characterizes air quality for the public.
My final point addresses interstate transport. Interstate
transport provisions prevent one state's emissions and sources
from contributing significantly to non-attainment or
interfering with maintenance of a national standard in a
downwind state. Interstate transport of ozone is an area where
EPA has shifted its approach towards western states by
considering modeling results. However, to be useful, models
must be accurate. Inaccurate models may result in the needless
expenditure of time and resources and developing solutions for
the wrong problem or on a non-existent issue. Inaccuracy
adversely impacts public health and welfare.
The model results that EPA now uses to address interstate
ozone arose out of an update to the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule that addresses interstate pollution in the East. The rule
does not apply to western states like Wyoming. In order to
develop the rule, the EPA used air quality modeling to project
ozone concentrations and assess contributions. However, after
EPA adopted the update it began to look to the model and draw
conclusions about western states such as Wyoming.
My earlier testimony highlights some of Wyoming's unique
characteristics that must be factored. Early and meaningful
engagement with western states is critical. Implementation of
streamlined and technically-sound measures assures that we can
spend our resources on air quality improvement.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Vehr follows:
[[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Dr. Homer Boushey, Medical Doctor,
from the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at
the University of California, San Francisco, on behalf of the
American Thoracic Society.
Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HOMER A. BOUSHEY, M.D.
Dr. Boushey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
committee members. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on
H.R. 806 on behalf of the American Thoracic Society. It's a
society of over 18,000 physicians, scientists, nurses, and
other health professionals concerned about the prevention and
treatment of lung disease.
I would like to emphasize a few points, although you have
my written testimony before you. I will focus on what Mr.
Karperos described as focusing on what air pollution does to
human health.
First, ozone harms the health of millions of Americans with
chronic lung diseases. And as a lung specialist, I treat
patients with these lung diseases, principally asthma and COPD.
By prescribing controller medicine, medications, advising on
avoidance of triggers and modifying lifestyle habits, I help
them control their disease so they can control their lives. But
neither they nor I can control the quality of the air they
breathe out of doors.
I have cared for patients who live in areas of California
with serious air quality problems, and know from experience
that ozone adversely affects human health. It is strongly
associated with asthma attacks, COPD exacerbations, ER visits,
hospitalizations, and even premature death. Literally hundreds
of high-quality, peer-reviewed publications have documented
that exposure to levels of ozone often exceeded in regions of
our country. It is bad for human health, especially for those
with chronic diseases or the respiratory or cardiovascular
systems.
Second, ozone harms healthy people, too. Research has shown
that young people, healthy adults performing light exercise
while exposed to levels of ozone at, or below, the current
standard show declines in lung function and increases in lung
inflammation, effects that we believe account for the
association of ozone exposure with impairment in lung growth in
children, development of asthma, exacerbations of asthma in
children, and exacerbations of asthma and COPD in adults,
especially in the elderly.
Third, this bill delays implementation of current national
standards to reduce ozone pollution, a delay that would result
in more of all of those: exacerbations of asthma, COPD,
hospitalizations, premature deaths.
The bill goes further. It would force the EPA to delay
updating science-based limits on air pollution. The Clean Air
Act has required for decades the setting of standards to
protect our citizens, including sensitive subgroups with an
adequate margin of safety based on the most up-to-date science.
Instead of reviewing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
every 5 years, as called for under current law, it delays it to
10. This would force the nation to set aside important new
research, like recent studies suggesting potential threats air
pollution presents to newborns, to people with diabetes, and
possibly to cognitive function in the elderly.
The health impacts of delay are not trivial. The 10-year
review lag would mean a newborn would grow to be a 10-year-old
before a standard was changed, over a time when the lungs
develop. And we know that lung function at adulthood is a
predictor of risk of developing lung and cardiovascular
disease. So, delaying improvements in air quality will affect
many of our children.
Lastly, the bill fundamentally rewrites the Clean Air Act
by directing the EPA Administrator to consider facts unrelated
to health in setting air quality standards intended to protect
health. The Clean Air Act states that the EPA Administrator
must set standards to protect the public health, irrespective
of costs or technology, or assumes technological feasibility.
The administrator does that following careful review of
science, an approach that has helped clean our air for decades.
The requirement to set a health-based standard has pushed
the UDES to develop new technologies that enabled these
productions, to clean our air, create jobs in the meantime, and
save both money and lives. This approach has been affirmed in
the U.S. Supreme Court in the majority opinion written by the
late Justice Scalia.
As a clinician, as a scientist, and as a citizen, I urge
that this bill be rejected.
Thank you for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Boushey follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Seyed Sadredin as Executive
Director and Air Pollution Control Officer of the San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District.
We are glad to have you back. You are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF SEYED SADREDIN
Mr. Sadredin. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee. It is an honor and a great privilege
to be here before you today. I want to express my gratitude to
your committee for providing for a thoughtful examination and
consideration of the federal mandates under the Clean Air Act.
Given the tremendous challenges that we face in the San
Joaquin Valley and our decades of real life experience with
implementing numerous provisions under the Clean Air Act, I am
hoping that the lessons that we have learned would be helpful
to your deliberative process as you consider this issue before
your subcommittee.
And, Mr. Chairman, I believe that our region is a great
example of how the Clean Air Act has led to major reductions in
air pollution, significant improvement in air quality, and
great benefits to public health throughout the nation. In our
region the amount of pollution today released into the
atmosphere by all sections of our economy, all businesses,
industrial facilities, agriculture, cars and trucks, are at a
historic low, despite a tremendous growth in the economy and in
the population that we have had in our region.
The population exposure to high levels of ozone and
particulate matter PM2.5 in our region is down by 90 percent
for ozone and 78 percent for PM2.5. However, our experience,
Mr. Chairman, indicates that some of the measures, some of the
provisions in the Clean Air Act, although well-intentioned, are
leading to unintended consequences.
Today, on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District, I am here to ask you that you include an
overriding provision in federal law that bars the imposition of
devastating federal sanctions that could destroy our region
economically if our inability to attain federal standards is
due to pollution from sources that fall outside of our control.
In our case, 85 percent of our pollution we have no control, no
regulatory authority over.
We believe this is a reasonable act that deserves strong
bipartisan support. In fact, today with me I have a number of
local elected officials on our Air Board, Democrat and
Republican, that agree that this is something that is fair to
do and should be done. Today behind me I have Councilmember
Baines from City of Fresno, Chairman of the Board; Supervisor
Worthley from Tulare County; Supervisor Elliott from San
Joaquin County; Supervisor Mendez from Fresno County; and
Supervisor Pedersen from Kings County.
As we sit here today, Mr. Chairman, the imposition of
devastating federal sanctions on San Joaquin Valley residents,
the poor residents in these disadvantaged communities is
imminent. And we have no regulatory authority over 85 percent
of our pollution that comes from mobile sources. We do not
believe that this is what the Congress envisioned in the Clean
Air Act, that a region like ours that has left no stone
unturned, has imposed the most restrictive regulations on
businesses, on cars and trucks, would be on the verge of
getting sanctioned with devastating penalties from Washington.
We have petitioned the federal EPA to adopt tighter
standards, national standards for trucks and locomotives. We
have asked the State Air Resources Board to do more for the
same sources at fault under their jurisdictions. We are asking,
also, the Federal Government and the State of California to
provide funding for incentive-based measures that can help
expedite reductions in air pollution in a more expeditious
fashion, but also by reinvesting those dollars in local
communities, help grow the economy, and improve the job market
in our areas that desperately need more jobs, and enhance the
economy.
Despite these exhaustive measures that we have put in
place, and hoping that both the state and Federal Government
will deliver what we need to date through a very robust,
exhaustive public process, we have not been able to identify
adequate measures to get us the reductions that we need to
achieve the standards that lie before us.
If you look at Figures 1 and 2 in my presentation, we can
shut down all of our valley businesses and we will not get
enough reductions to meet the standard.
A federal remedy to bar the imposition of these unfair and
devastating federal sanctions is our top legislative priority.
But I wanted to, very briefly in the time that I have
remaining, share with you some of the implementation issues
that we have encountered in implementing the Clean Air Act.
First, the transition between standards is extremely
chaotic. As EPA tries to establish standards every 5 years, it
leads to a lot of confusion for the public, for the businesses,
for the agencies. As we speak today we are on the verge of
having 10 state implementation plans, costly bureaucratic red
tape without any corresponding benefit in air quality.
The artificial deadlines and arbitrary attainment deadlines
in the Clean Air Act do not allow for a real, meaningful
consideration of the socioeconomic costs of regulations as
called for in the Clean Air Act.
The requirement to have contingency measures in areas that
are designed as extreme, or classified as extreme non-
attainment, is actually detrimental to air quality and getting
clean air as rapidly as possible. Our inability to treat 100-
year drought conditions as exceptional events does not make
sense.
And, finally, we don't believe that Congress 40 years ago
when they passed the Clean Air Act understood the scope and the
nature of particulate matter. We need technologies and we need
to be able to write, be able to write plans that have to rely
on yet-to-be-defined technologies to be able to have approvable
concept.
Mr. Chairman, at this point I thank you for the time that
you have provided me and would be happy to expand on these
issues as we move forward.
[The prepared statement of Seyed Sadredin follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much. Great testimony. We
appreciate you being here. And I will now recognize myself for
5 minutes to start the round of questions.
I am going to go to Mr. Alteri. And I want to go quickly.
There is a lot of stuff that I want to try to cover. So if you
can answer succinctly, that would be helpful.
Can you quickly explain what happens when an area is
designated to be in non-attainment of the 2015 ozone standards?
Mr. Alteri. As a state agency we would have to develop a
plan under Part D of Title 1 of the Act rather than Part C. And
those requirements are much more onerous.
Mr. Shimkus. Do new compliance requirements add to
permitting burdens for the area?
Mr. Alteri. Absolutely.
Mr. Shimkus. Do those burdens go away when the area comes
into compliance?
Mr. Alteri. Not necessarily. And there is a delay in EPA's
approval.
Mr. Shimkus. Now, I understand that from EPA's own
estimates, most counties that may not meet the standard today
will meet the standard over the next 7 years. Is that your
understanding?
Mr. Alteri. It is.
Mr. Shimkus. And this is because control measures already
in place, like fleet turnover and other measures, are kicking
in and resulting in lower precursor emissions. Is that about
right?
Mr. Alteri. It is.
Mr. Shimkus. Does implementation of the new ozone
compliance regime significantly affect how fast these areas
will come into compliance?
Mr. Alteri. It does.
Mr. Shimkus. You are being succinct. Very good.
Can you explain the public policy benefit of placing areas
into compliance regimes for air quality standards they
otherwise will meet without those new regulatory burdens?
Mr. Alteri. I didn't necessarily follow that.
Mr. Shimkus. I was going too fast.
Can you explain the public policy benefit of placing areas
into compliance regimes for air quality standards they
otherwise will meet without those new regulatory burdens?
Mr. Alteri. No, I think that is a significant burden. We
just have recently announced a new generation of turbines that
are going to greatly improve the efficiency of power plants. If
you find non-attainment areas, then those turbines aren't going
to be built in New York, and Pennsylvania, and South Carolina.
And those technology-driven improvements, that is what is going
to allow us to improve air quality the fastest.
Mr. Shimkus. Great. Thank you very much.
Let me turn to Mr. Sadredin. You have proposed revisions to
the Clean Air Act that would relieve you of some of the
implementation burdens for ozone and other standards. Would
those revisions constitute a roll-back of standards you are
currently implementing?
Mr. Sadredin. No, Mr. Chairman. There is nothing in the
bill as proposed that would lead to our region having to roll
back a single measure that we have in place or hold back our
progress as we try to meet the standards.
As you can see in my testimony, to meet the current
standards we have to get to zero emissions. And once we get to
zero, I don't think there is much more that we can do.
Mr. Shimkus. Yes, and that is why I like this cooperative
federalism approach, because we really do want to trust local
people on the ground who desire to protect their local
citizens, but also to make sure that there is an economy that
can grow and thrive.
So another question. What is the potential impact on
economic development and business expansion in your district if
revisions are not made to the Clean Air Act implementation?
Mr. Sadredin. Mr. Chairman, the sanctions that are imminent
at this juncture on San Joaquin Valley will be devastating.
I do understand that California's economy is growing, but
our people are not just statistics. Just a year ago, and I am
not talking about 8 years ago when we were at the depths of
recession, many communities in our region because of the
drought conditions and federal water policies putting farms out
of operation, communities were experiencing 30 percent, 40
percent unemployment. I personally witnessed people in line for
food. And I am not talking about your chronic homeless
individuals, these are people in our region that are already
suffering significantly. And seeing those faces, I cannot sit
here before you and say we are OK with imposing billions of
dollars in economic sanctions on those same people.
Mr. Shimkus. I understand you have 35 years implementing
standards in one of the most challenging air sheds in the
nation. From your experience do you see anything in H.R. 806
that will make your job to implement the regulations necessary
to ensure public health protection more difficult?
Mr. Sadredin. There is nothing in this bill that would roll
back even a single measure that we have already put in place or
will hold back anything that we have to do and we are planning
to do moving forward to meet the current standards.
Mr. Shimkus. Yes, and I have 40 seconds. I just want to end
with a story.
In 1986, I left the military to get my teaching
certificate. I did that in Southern California at, now
Concordia University, it was Christ College Irvine. And we
played a baseball game--I was a pitcher--in Costa Mesa. It just
struck me, I was pitching a game and I came off the mound, I
just couldn't breathe. Now, this was '86, and I had no idea why
because I was very healthy and in pretty good shape.
I would ponder the question because we do support the Clean
Air Act. It has been very beneficial in cleaning it up. I don't
think I would have that problem now in that particular position
because of the success of the Clean Air Act. We just want to
make it more workable for today's era.
And with that, I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
Tonko, from New York for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Clean Air Act has been an incredibly successful public
health statute. And I believe that is because it contains a
clear line of separation between two very important public
policy questions, the first being what standards must we meet
to ensure the air we breathe is safe?
Second, now that we know how clean the air needs to be to
ensure public health, how do we achieve that standard in the
most fair and cost-effective manner?
We have never asked how much clean air can we afford? That
is why we have made steady improvements in air quality, even as
the population and the economy have grown. So I am very
concerned that this bill alters the strict health-based
standard setting process that has resulted in substantial
health benefits over the past decades.
Mr. Karperos, California's topography and climate make air
pollution control very challenging. But the statistics you
provide in your testimony are impressive. Do you believe we
need to change the fundamental process in the Clean Air Act
that I just described that sets standards based on
considerations of public health alone?
Mr. Karperos. Absolutely not, Congressman. Setting the
standards based on public health gives us a clear mandate where
and the direction to go. And then the structure within the Act
allows a deep consideration of the costs and how to get there
proactively.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And, Dr. Boushey, would such a change, allowing costs and
technological feasibility as considerations in setting
standards undermine the progress we have been making to clean
our air?
Dr. Boushey. I absolutely think so. Some very good examples
of how the setting of standards stimulated technological
advances that contribute to the great improvements in air
quality. There are two that came to mind, one has already been
mentioned: the really remarkable improvement in large diesel
engines.
Siemens, Ford, and Volvo have all made engines that reduce
particulate emissions by more than 90 percent, and nitric
oxides similarly remarkably reduced. That was driven by the
need to meet a standard for protecting human health.
The electric car, the hybrid cars are another very good
example. And there are many such examples throughout other
industries as well.
So, the setting of standards stimulates technology that may
not have been known about. We had to face the fact that air
quality was harming health and then develop the technologies to
deal with it. And that is how the sequence should progress.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And again, Dr. Boushey, have there
been a number of recent scientific studies on the health
impacts of ozone?
Dr. Boushey. Yes, there has been. Since the setting of the
2008 standard there have been hundreds of papers, literally,
that have documented the health effects of ozone. Some are good
stories, not just bad ones.
For example, the improvements in the Los Angeles Air
Quality Basins, there have been three beautiful cohort studies
with children conducted at USC that have shown significant
improvements over the last 15 years in the pulmonary function
of 15-year-olds. They are followed from age 11 to age 15. Over
three distinct periods as air quality has improved,
particulates, nitric oxide and ozone, the pulmonary function of
the children in the Los Angeles area has improved. And that is
remarkable. You can show that on a population basis.
Mr. Tonko. And I would think we would all, I would hope we
all share that common goal, to give our children cleaner air to
breathe and generations to come to have even cleaner.
Dr. Boushey. If I can make just a comment, since the Chair
pitched baseball in Costa Mesa. Correct?
Mr. Shimkus. That is correct.
Dr. Boushey. There is a study showing that three-sport
varsity athletes in Los Angeles are more likely to develop
asthma, presumably because they are playing hard out of doors
breathing poor air quality. Now, that was before the recent
years. And air quality has much improved.
So your experience of having difficulty breathing after a
tough inning, that was----
Mr. Shimkus. It was the only tough inning I ever had. So
don't get me started.
Mr. Tonko. Great. Well, let me just jump in. And with so
many studies being published each year, Dr. Boushey, do you
think moving the review from every 5 years to 10 years might
prevent health-based standards from accurately reflecting the
latest science?
Dr. Boushey. I am concerned about that. I am going to
comment on an example, because I was involved in the research
that demonstrated that very short-term exposures to sulfur
dioxide can have remarkably severe broncho-constrictive effects
in people with asthma. We discovered that a subgroup of the
population, perhaps 8 to 12 percent of the population depending
on the demographic, have asthma. They are orders of magnitude
more sensitive.
That required that we not have an 8-hour standard for
sulfur dioxide, it required a 1-hour standard. And to wait 10
years for people with asthma to be protected, that is long. And
I just have to say it.
Actually a theme here, I think, is we need greater
flexibility from the EPA. That is going to be hard for them to
achieve with a 30 percent budget cut, but we need them to be
more quickly responsive to advances in science and for
difficulties encountered by Air Quality Boards.
Mr. Tonko. I noted Ms. Vehr suggested that the timeliness
of response from EPA is problematic. What does happen when you
cut their budget by 31 percent?
With that, Mr. Chair, I will yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Olson for 5 minutes.
Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair. And welcome to all six of our
witnesses.
Obviously this issue in H.R. 806 are totally important to
my district and me. As I have said time and time again, I want
clean air. My family breathes the air in the greater Houston
area. When I moved there as a 9-year-old boy in 1972, Houston
had the dirtiest ozone air in America. Our air is dramatically
cleaner. And I won't let that progress backtrack.
My first question is to Mr. Alteri. I would like to look at
Section 3(b). That section says that if EPA's science advisors
find a range of options that all protect health, they can use
achievability to hit the sweet spot. Ranking Member Pallone and
I debated this section on the floor last year, and his fear was
that it let EPA set an unhealthy standard.
I said it then and I say it now, word the language very
carefully to make sure that EPA can never pick money over
science. Health was, is, and always will be the most important
factor.
So, if the science says we need a standard 65 parts per
billion to keep people healthy, so be it. But if they say
anything between 60 and 70 ppb would keep people healthy, which
happened recently, then my bill says they may, not must, may
look at what is actually achievable.
Do you agree with me it is important for EPA to set a
standard based on health and then we do everything possible to
make sure states like yours can implement those standards?
Mr. Alteri. Yes, sir.
Our mission is to protect human health and the environment,
so we recognize your bill, the language, the thoughtfulness,
and the consideration that you put into drafting that language.
And setting the standard does nothing to improve the air
quality. Implementing control strategies and achieving those
air quality standards, that is the improvement and that is the
protection of human health and the environment.
Mr. Olson. A second question is for you, Mr. Sadredin. And
I hope I got close to that pronunciation. All right.
In your testimony you say that, and this is a quote,
``currently we are subject to four standards of ozone and four
standards of PM2.5.'' The Texans I work for back home do their
best to work with EPA for multiple standards on multiple
pollutants but they claim health benefits is very, very
confusing. And some people back home worry the EPA is taking
health benefits from one standard and using those same benefits
on another standard; double counting.
And so do you believe they are double counting? And can you
talk to me about what having multiple standards for each
pollutant means to the San Joaquin Valley?
Mr. Sadredin. Yes. Thank you. As we speak right now, our
agency is in the process of putting three separate PM2.5 plans
for just PM2.5. And when you add up all the standards we will
have about 10 state implementation plans. Our agency alone on
an annual basis spends about $2.7 billion in just the
bureaucratic process of putting these plans together. And that
doesn't include the cost to businesses, to other agencies,
litigation.
In terms of double counting, as I show in my written
testimony that we provided for you, just to meet the 2006 and
the 2012 PM2.5 standards we have to get enormous reductions in
emissions, 90 percent. Those same reductions will also get us
to the ozone standard. So, when you take credit twice for the
same reductions that, in a way, is a double counting.
Mr. Olson. And so any way you can get around that? You said
there is no more growth, none whatsoever in the San Joaquin
Valley because of these ozone standards that can't be achieved.
Well, you can't control that, but also with double counting.
Mr. Sadredin. No, I agree with my colleague from California
that meeting these standards is achievable. It is just a
question of time. We just need the time for the technology to
be developed, for the funding, for the resources to be there to
put these measures in place. Right now these artificial
deadlines in the act do not provide the time to do that.
Mr. Olson. This bill gives you that time.
I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Peters, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this week in
particular I want to say thank you for having a hearing on this
bill. It is certainly helpful to inform us about, about the
proposal.
I want to start with Mr. Cone. And, Mr. Cone, I want to ask
you a question as a state implementer. You talked a lot about
the difficulty of dealing with delays in EPA's implementation
of standards, et cetera. Can you explain to me just as a
practical matter how that makes things tough on you to do your
job?
Mr. Cone. As trying to figure out what standards and how to
permit facilities you have to determine whether these standards
apply today. Are you going to have to do something tomorrow?
With the levels continuing to go down, a company wants to
figure out what is going to meet the regulation so they have
certainty for the future. As this continues to change, they
have to continue to change. Well, if I put this control in
today will this be good 5 years from now? It may, it may not
be.
Those are some of the things that we, as regulators, have
to work with our customers to figure out what is appropriate,
what is practical, and what will be effective.
Mr. Peters. My understanding is that this proposal 806
doesn't require EPA to be any more timely with that kind of
thing.
Mr. Cone. No, it doesn't. You need to come up with
implementation plans when the standard comes out.
Mr. Peters. Right. So one, one way to deal with a very
legitimate concern would get EPA to be on time and be more
timely. That would at least address part of the problem with
what you are concerned about with the 5-year period. Is that
right?
Mr. Cone. Correct.
Mr. Peters. Yes. I think we would all agree on that, too.
And I hope that the administration will take that to heart as
it considers its budget proposals for EPA because removing
resources is just going to make that even more difficult for
these folks.
I would ask Mr. Karperos to--and probably your own
process--but Mr. Sadredin from San Joaquin Valley came up with
a very different view of these rules than you did. Would you
like to respond to him? And I am going to give Mr. Sadredin the
same opportunity. He basically alleged that, he suggested that
attaining these things might be actually infeasible. And do you
have a response to his concern?
Mr. Karperos. The California Air Resources Board absolutely
doesn't believe that attaining any of the standards is
infeasible. By using, by looking forward to the standards that
EPA has set, considering your control strategy as a whole for
PM ozone--NOx that is going to form a particle in
the air is the same NOx that is going to form
ozone--you can develop an integrative strategy that distributes
the control responsibility across all of the sources, reduces
the cost, and in a feasible way brings you to the emission
levels you are looking at.
The numbers that Mr. Sadredin was referring to, we are in
technical discussions about the what it will take to attain the
standards, my agency and his. My agency has mapped out what we
believe is a much more feasible strategy that wouldn't require
us to have no-drive days, that type of thing, but in fact would
require us to move towards a cleaner fleet that's available
today.
Mr. Peters. What about his concern that he doesn't have
enough time to do this. Are you able to accommodate that within
the current regulatory regime?
Mr. Karperos. It's a very good question. My agency tomorrow
will consider a plan that will lay the regulatory groundwork
for attaining the PM standards of the ozone standards in the
state. We will need to come back and consider options for
accelerating the turnover of the motor vehicle fleet, for
example. That will require incentives.
Mr. Peters. I don't have a lot of time and I want to get to
Mr. Sadredin, too. But do you have the authority in CARB to
give them more time if they need it?
Mr. Karperos. We have the ability to develop a plan that
EPA could look at and grant more time.
Mr. Peters. Mr. Sadredin, he gave some pretty positive
statements about the current regulatory regime for the State of
California. Would you like to respond to those?
Mr. Sadredin. Yes. Actually, we are in agreement that these
standards are achievable. It's just a question of time.
For instance, the deadline that we are facing right now is
that by 2019 we have to reduce our air pollution by 90 percent.
And this is in California where we have already imposed the
toughest regulations on the stationary sources, cars and
trucks. It's just a question of time. ARB cannot give us more
time under the construct of the Clean Air Act as it is written
right now.
Mr. Peters. I appreciate all the witnesses being here. And,
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. Thank you
for his questions.
The Chair now recognizes another gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Flores, who is very involved in this issue, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate having
this hearing. Also I appreciate all of the witnesses for
showing up today.
Mr. Alteri and Mr. Sadredin, I have my first question will
be for you two. The EPA estimates that annual costs for ozone
standards outside of California will be $1.4 billion annually
beginning in 2025. Last year in a hearing like this Dr. Bryan
Shaw testified that the EPA only includes industry's costs in
their analysis, not the states' cost or taxpayers' cost, nor do
they look at economic impacts like increased electricity costs.
So, Mr. Alteri, to the extent that there are additional
costs, how do these impact other pollution control priorities
in your agency?
Mr. Alteri. Thank you. The rise in rates of electricity
prices is a key concern of ours as a manufacturing state. And
just a incremental change in the electric prices will drive out
manufacturing industries. And they won't relocate in
Connecticut or New York or in the Northeast, but rather they
will go to international areas where there isn't afforded as
much environmental protection. So, we do have those concerns.
As far as the ozone standards and how they can affect us,
they could limit the potential for economic growth. There are
very few major stationary sources that want to locate in a non-
attainment area. And so we are concerned about the limiting of
economic growth.
Mr. Flores. OK. And you were looking forward, to the extent
that there are additional costs, how these impact other
pollution control priorities of your agency. I think you have
answered that.
Mr. Sadredin, based on your experience will there be costs
to state and local government agencies like yours under the new
ozone standards before 2025?
Mr. Sadredin. Well, as I said, with the double counting of
what you need to do for various standards, right now what is
before us to attain the PM2.5 standards will be also
sufficient, if we can achieve it, to meet the ozone standard.
Last week at our governing board meeting we presented the
plan, very ambitious, makes a lot of sometimes unrealistic
assumptions about what is doable. The costs to our region to
get some of the reductions that we need, and still not
sufficient, is $52 billion in San Joaquin Valley.
Mr. Flores. Wow.
Mr. Sadredin. And then when you add to it the bureaucratic
cost that does nothing to improve air quality, $2.7 million a
year just our agency spending on staffing and rewriting these
plans in a perennial, continual planning mode, all of those
dollars could go to actually reduce air pollution. And that
would make our residents' quality of life better if we didn't
have to do all this every, every year.
Mr. Flores. That is pretty compelling.
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA currently must review the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards every 5 years. For the
2008 ozone standards the EPA issued the standards in March of
2008 and began reviewing it in the fall of 2008. And H.R. 806
would extend the mandatory 5-year review period to 10 years,
although the administrator would still have discretion to
revise the standards earlier.
When I drafted this part of the legislation, the reason we
picked 10 years was because that was the agency's history of
actually meeting the mandatory standards. They were not meeting
their only standard--their own standard. They had a history of
doing it since the beginning of the Clean Air Act. So all we
are doing is matching the law to fit what their actual
standards have been. But, we have also said that if the
administrator wants to review earlier, they can.
So it is hard for me to see that there should be complaints
about that.
So, Mr. Alteri, from your perspective is the current 5-year
review cycle practical for either the EPA or the states?
Mr. Alteri. No, sir. EPA----
Mr. Flores. Mr. Cone? I have got limited time.
Mr. Cone. No, sir.
Mr. Flores. OK. Ms. Vehr?
Ms. Vehr. No, sir.
Mr. Flores. Thank you for taking care of the air quality in
my birth state by the way, so.
Mr. Boushey?
Dr. Boushey. I am not an expert on that. I think as science
shows the important, new, dramatic effects we have to have the
flexibility to do that.
Mr. Flores. The administrator has the ability to do that.
Mr. Sadredin?
Mr. Sadredin. The experience does not indicate that EPA is
able to do that every 5 years anyway.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Karperos? I didn't mean to pass you.
Mr. Karperos. We think 10 years is too long.
Mr. Flores. OK. But that is what the EPA has been doing.
And the EPA Administrator has the flexibility under 806 to move
forward.
Mr. Cone, in your testimony you indicate that extending the
5-year review cycle to 10 years would more closely align with
what the EPA does in practice. You said that. Can you say why
that would be reasonable to do something like that?
Mr. Cone. I didn't quite catch the last part.
Mr. Flores. I am sorry. I says in your testimony you
indicated that extending the 5-year current review cycle to 10
years would more closely align with what the EPA has done in
practice, which we have just talked about. Can you elaborate
why this would be reasonable to do that, to extent it from 5 to
10 for the mandatory review?
Mr. Cone. Well, again, if EPA would come out with these
implementation standards we would be able to probably get
cleaner air quicker.
Mr. Flores. Right.
Mr. Cone. But EPA has to turn around and reinvent and try
to figure out how to do things differently to come up with
these implementation standards.
Mr. Flores. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas Mr. Green
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for
holding this important hearing. And I want to thank our
witnesses for being here today.
It is no secret, in Houston we have air quality challenges.
The region currently sits at 80 parts per billion, which is
still above the 2008 ozone standard, so we need a little more
time. That being said, we have come a long way since the 1970s
when our ozone measured 150 parts per billion.
And I think today's discussion is a valuable exercise. And
while I do not support the majority's legislation, I think
there are reasonable efforts that can be made to improve the
implementation of NAAQS.
Mr. Karperos, we have repeatedly discussed the issue of
technical feasibility and economic achievability. The Supreme
Court has stated that the most important form for consideration
of technological and economic reforms is before the state
agency. Does your agency consider technological feasibility
when drafting a SIP.
Mr. Karperos. Absolutely we do, sir. For the plan we are
adopting tomorrow we did 10 deep dives on different mobile
technologies.
Mr. Green. Does you agency consider the cost-effectiveness
when selecting emission control options to meet the new NAAQS?
Mr. Karperos. Yes, we do. And we also do economy-wide
modelings so that we understand the ripple effects throughout
the economy.
Mr. Green. Does your agency accept the input from districts
like the San Joaquin Valley in the adoption of the costs in
technology and standards?
Mr. Karperos. Absolutely. Under state law it is very much a
partnership for developing SIPs in the state of California
between the air districts and the California Air Resources
Board.
Mr. Green. Director Sadredin, if the state can already
consider costs and technology when drafting a SIP, why is this
sufficiently flexible or not sufficiently flexible to meet the
new requirements?
Mr. Sadredin. That is an excellent question because that is
what often comes up because Clean Air Act does say you can
include cost-effectiveness, economic feasibility in the
implementation phase.
The problem is that 40 years later after the Act passed,
today the deadlines that we face, if your deadline to meet the
standard is 10 years and there is no way that you can go beyond
that, how can you do a meaningful cost-effectiveness analysis
if in our region or in your region the technology that you
need. Billions of dollars that we need to spend on having the
fleet turnover that is necessary, if that is not possible to do
within that time line it is not a meaningful cost-
effectiveness, economic feasibility analysis that we can
actually do.
Mr. Green. Administrator Vehr, in February 2014, NASA's
Global Modeling and Assimilation Office, the GMAO, conducted a
study of western states which used satellite data to monitor
stratospheric intrusions. NASA and the EPA have acknowledged
that intrusions can cause ozone to rise above the 70 parts per
billion level, especially in the summer months. Welcome to
Houston. If the ozone rises above 70 parts per billion due to
background ozone, does the statute provide a regulatory relief?
And has Wyoming previously applied for regulatory relief?
Ms. Vehr. The statute allows the state to submit something
called an Exceptional Event Submittal. And under those
Exceptional Event Submittals they are very time consuming. It
takes about a year to prepare one for stratospheric ozone
intrusion.
Wyoming has been the only state in the nation to have had a
stratospheric ozone intrusion exceptional event approved. And
we have had four down to EPA that have not been acted on.
So, the Act provides for stratospheric ozone intrusion and
other exceptional events, but the cost to prepare those, and if
they are not acted on the consequences of that data being used
in modeling and other events, is problematic.
Mr. Green. Thank you. In your testimony you stated a one-
size-fits-all to ozone is not good for Wyoming. And, of course,
in Texas we would probably say the same thing. You also stated
the alternative tools and methods are critical for areas like
Wyoming. In response to the NASA study, EPA is forming a
working group of scientists and air quality managers to
identify intrusions using a variety of new and different tools.
Was Wyoming invited or participated in that group?
Ms. Vehr. Wyoming has been involved with our EPA Region 8.
I don't know about that particular group. But we have been in
discussions on stratospheric ozone intrusion. And we welcome a
meaningful collaboration with federal partners. We look at this
as a federal-state partnership, and it should be collaborative
and it should be meaningful discussions.
Mr. Green. EPA acknowledged the burdens of the regulatory
relief associated with events, and these working groups were
able--I don't know if these working groups were able to
implement any change. Do you know anything about that?
Ms. Vehr. The working groups I do not.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to the
panel for being here to assist us in understanding better.
Mr. Alteri, one of the primary concerns that I have heard
about the 2015 ozone standard level is that it could limit
investment in domestic manufacturing, including the steel
industry moving forward. And that is a big issue in my district
in Michigan. Mainly that the regulation could limit companies
from making key investments for plant improvements or
expansions in the future. These are the type of investments
that I believe Congress and the administration should support
and make ways for.
Could you share your thoughts on this concern and whether
you have a similar perspective on the 2015 standard?
Mr. Alteri. Yes, sir. The stringency of the standard will
create more non-attainment areas or projected non-attainment
areas. Ms. Vehr had mentioned the modeling that is used in
these analyses. The photochemistry of ozone creates severe
complications. And if you can see, we have done an extra job in
reducing PM2.5 ozone and SO2. But NOx and
ozone are more difficult.
But any time you have those non-attainment areas you are
going to employ the lowest achievable emission rate with the
best and most stringent controls, without taking into account
cost and technical feasibility. So, it will limit opportunities
for growth.
Mr. Walberg. And sometimes it is apparent, through no fault
of the area or the city or the communities in the process. And
almost like there is no way to get out of it.
Mr. Alteri. Yes, sir. That is the way we feel.
Mr. Walberg. Let me ask as well, Mr. Alteri, it is clear
that one of the major priorities of the Trump Administration is
investment in infrastructure, whether that be for
transportation, energy, or other purposes. But one aspect of
the debate on the infrastructure that needs, I believe, more
discussion is the potential effect that federal regulations
might have.
And so, from your state and location points of view do you
view the 2015 standard for ozone, NAAQS, as a regulation that
could be harmful in making investment in infrastructure that we
sorely need?
Mr. Alteri. Mr. Sadredin had mentioned the sanctions that
are associated with non-attainment areas. And they would apply
to highway funds.
Yesterday I got to speak in Cincinnati. The northern
Kentucky area is our historic non-attainment area. And what we
need is investments in bridges and roads to open up those
corridors. I am from Kentucky, so my first 7 miles of the trip
I might see one or two cars in the morning on my commute. But
you go outside and you see many, many points of emissions
sources just standing in traffic.
I really think the infrastructure funding and development
would greatly ease that burden in the Cincinnati-Northern
Kentucky area. We do need to build bridges and open up the
corridors.
Mr. Walberg. Ms. Vehr, I look forward to riding my Harley
out in your state this summer for a week, breathing that fresh
air. The 2015 ozone standard immediately applies to prevention
of significant deterioration permits that businesses need to
grow and create jobs. That means businesses will have to
immediately show their projects meet the 2015 ozone standard,
something hard to do in an area that already fails it, as has
been mentioned.
Would PSD permit relief help economic development for the
new non-attainment areas in your state?
Ms. Vehr. Yes. We currently have one non-attainment area
for ozone and PDS relief where their certainty provides relief
to businesses.
Mr. Walberg. And certainty, define that a little bit more?
What that looks like?
Ms. Vehr. Certainty is tied to what the standard is and
what is the controls and technology needed to achieve that
standard. And that allows businesses to evaluate those
opportunities. We have had that experience when businesses come
to look at our state, they like that we have clean air. And so
having that certainty in the surrounding ozone is beneficial.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you. And I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
McNerney, who has been patiently waiting, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. I have been. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for
this hearing. And it is very informative, so I am having fun
here. So thank you for participating.
Mr. Seyed, the target of the Air Shed Grant Program is at
risk with the EPA's proposed cuts. If this program were
eliminated how would it impact your work and the health of the
people in the valley?
Mr. Sadredin. Thank you, Congressman McNerney. I want to
publicly express my gratitude for your help over the years to
bring resources to the valley for these incentive-based
programs that are critical to get the reductions that we need
much more quickly, and also do it in a way that is helpful to
our economy.
In San Joaquin Valley we need incentive funding in the
order of about $2.8 billion, billion with a B. And any
reduction in those areas will be devastating to our efforts. In
fact, we need those areas to be enhanced and more funding needs
to be dedicated to those good programs.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Cone, in your opinion would reducing the EPA's budget
reduce regulatory uncertainty?
Mr. Cone. It is possible that the EPA could look and
strategize better what the resources are and reinvent
themselves to be focused on that. I think it is an opportunity
to look at how things are done and drive improvement. But the
public deserves to know what is going on. And it gives the
opportunity for EPA to show their value. And with those cuts
that could be done.
Mr. McNerney. It will show their value by not providing the
services that they provide.
Mr. Karperos, your testimony was pretty stark. In your
opinion, what is the progress that has been made in the valley?
Mr. Karperos. Absolutely remarkable. Mr. Sadredin referred
to some of the statistics in terms of the improvement in air
quality. I think we are truly at a cusp where with the right
investment, the continued support of EPA with incentive
dollars, as Mr. Sadredin spoke to, we can achieve those
standards within the current deadlines of the Clean Air Act.
Mr. McNerney. Do you believe that the current ozone levels
in the valley are primarily from sources outside the district's
ability to control?
Mr. Karperos. This has been an issue that has been studied
in great depth. And the bottom line is the high ozone levels we
have experienced in the valley are homegrown. They are from
emissions from within the valley.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Mr. Seyed, do you have any suggestions or
recommendations on how the Clean Air Act could help reduce
pollution that is not in the district's control?
Mr. Sadredin. Right, and I believe Mr. Karperos was
referring to pollution transferred from other areas. And your
question was the regulatory authority over 85 percent of the
pollution that we do not have. I think with respect to that for
ozone, there is no disagreement.
What we are asking today of this committee is that an
overriding provision be included in the act, or in some other
independent legislation, that says areas that are impacted by
pollution from sources outside their regulatory authority will
not be punished with devastating economic sanctions if they
have done everything that they can do for sources of air
pollution under their control.
Mr. McNerney. Right, and I understand that. But what can be
done to reduce pollution sources that are not in your control?
Mr. Sadredin. We have petitioned the Federal EPA to adopt
national standards. We are asking the state Air Resources Board
to do more with some of the limited authority that they have
compared to the Federal Government with mobile sources. And we
are hoping that ARB will ultimately deliver on that. We are
hoping that the Federal Government, if this is a standard that
they want to impose on local areas, that they do their part for
sources of air pollution that are of interstate commerce
restrictions fall under their jurisdiction.
Mr. McNerney. So, and I mean that sort of expands the
authority of the Clean Air Act, what you are proposing?
Mr. Sadredin. We are just asking for a fair application of
the Clean Air Act. Ask us to do everything that we can, but
when we have reached a point of diminishing returns and also
the physical impossibility to get the reductions that we need,
the Federal Government has to do its part, state government
needs to do its part.
Mr. McNerney. Last September the EPA issued updated
exceptional event guidance, further acknowledging the impact of
droughts on air quality stagnation. What is your view on the
updated guidance?
Mr. Sadredin. It improves the process slightly. But we
think there is still a big problem with a region like ours when
you experience 100-year drought conditions. You cannot use that
as an exceptional event to say there is nothing that we could
do. It overwhelmed everything, every measure that we had in
place in our area. We still need some enhancement in that area.
Mr. McNerney. Mr. Karperos, you looked like you wanted to
say something.
Mr. Karperos. Yes. Thank you.
Even in drought conditions construction workers need to
work outside. In the San Joaquin Valley farm workers need to
work in the field. They will be exposed to the ozone that has
been exacerbated by manmade climate change in the drought
condition. There are reasonable actions we can take. The
Exceptional Event Policy should be transparent, and it should
be detailed because we are talking about public health here.
The issue is not whether or not you should excuse the drought,
the issue is whether or not we are taking all the reasonable
steps we can to protect human health.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes Dr. Ruiz from California for 5
minutes.
Mr. Ruiz. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are here today to consider legislation that, quite
frankly, may make life worse for millions and augment people's
suffering from long illnesses. Air pollution exacerbates
asthma; stunts lung development in children; increases risks
for infections; increases risks of heart attacks, strokes, and
even premature death.
Nationally, there are an estimated 9,330 deaths every year
because of air pollution. And I want to let that sink in
because we lose nearly as many people to the exacerbation of
illnesses due to air pollution as we do to drunk driving.
Riverside County, on the eastern Riverside in Coachella
Valley, which is very much like the San Joaquin Valley, and our
economy is dependent on agriculture, where I am from and now
represent, ranks among the worst in the nation for ozone
pollution. The Inland Empire in Southern California of which
Riverside County is a part, also has some of the country's
highest levels of PM10s, those tiny particles emitted from
chemical factories and vehicles that can penetrate the lung-
blood barrier entering directly into the bloodstream and
poisoning our communities and our relatives and our families.
As a physician, I care very deeply about the health of our
communities and the public health hazard that air pollution
poses. And the fact is, respiratory illnesses caused by air
pollutions are preventable if we have the proper safeguards in
place, if we have the proper resources that our agencies need,
if we have the right protections in place and the right goals,
and the assistance to build a capacity to those safeguards like
those in the Clean Air Act.
Since 1980, nationwide ozone levels have declined by about
a third thanks to the Clean Air Act protections which target
emissions from cars, factories, consumer products, and other
pollutant sources. As technology improves, we have an
obligation to update our ozone standards to further reduce air
pollution and save more lives.
And it is precisely the lives of the working families and
the poor, Mr. Sadredin, that we--who face the highest burden of
those illnesses, who don't have access to doctors or medicines,
and who have the highest risk of having asthma and COPD and
emphysema. It is not for them that we should reduce the
regulations and the protections so that they can have a job in
which they will maybe even, they will make minimum wage, and
where the CEOs of these corporations will make big, it is
precisely for them that we need to protect the air because they
will have the highest burden of illnesses because of the
health, the lack of the protections in our air quality.
So, this bill would delay it for 10 years. And heard that
it is because that is what the EPA did, so we will do it in 10
years. But when we cut the EPA's budget even further it is
going to be another 20 years before they can get some of these
things done. And so, in 5, 20 years, are we going to keep
delaying it and delaying it? Well, that is counterintuitive for
us in order to be able to find the needs that we need and the
resources that we need to help improve our health.
Dr. Boushey, can you speak to the healthcare costs or the
cost savings of these protections?
Dr. Boushey. Thank you for the question.
We have actually run a calculation of what would be the
health impacts of improving on the 2008 standard of 75 to the
2015 standard of 70 parts per billion. On a national scale we
would save 1.5 million lost days of work and school. And I
think those school days ought to be counted double because so
often both parents are working, and when your 9-year-old with
asthma is home sick, you are out of work for the day or three
days, however long it takes to recover.
That's 1.5 million from the patient, of patient days lost
to work or school. Two thousand hospitalizations. This is just
from the 5 ppb change, 75 to 70. And prevention of an estimated
500 deaths. So, we have talked so much about the costs of
implementing air quality measures to achieve better air
quality. We should look at the value of returns, and they are
substantial.
Incidentally, 45 percent of these improvements are in the
State of California because they have a big population with a
lot of air quality problems.
Mr. Ruiz. Yes.
Dr. Boushey. So, I think that is responsive to your
question.
Mr. Ruiz. Absolutely. And I think that, unfortunately, as
policy makers we don't really count the cost savings for
preventable illnesses when we can clean the air or have some of
these policy decisions.
I have taken care of very sick kids who are poor, who live
in farm worker communities. I have seen the face of what the
exacerbation of asthma can be.
Dr. Boushey. I care for people of minority ethnicities
living in inner cities, like in Oakland, who are 28 years old.
They would love to work. They are well educated, want to work,
but they can't because they are so often in the emergency room
for asthma.
Mr. Ruiz. I hear you.
Dr. Boushey. It is a real problem.
Mr. Ruiz. I hear you.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi Mr.
Harper for 5 minutes.
Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to each of you
for being here. And I will direct these questions to Mr. Alteri
and Mr. Cone. And either or both of you may respond.
Concerns have been raised before this committee regarding
the impacts of new ozone standards on permitting for new
construction and expansions. So, can you explain how the 2015
ozone standards immediately impact PSD permitting?
Mr. Cone. In Maine we are part of the Ozone Transport
Region. Maine is treated as a non-attainment area even though
we are in attainment for all standards. Any time we have an
exceeding it is due to transport.
We have received and applied for nitrogen oxide waivers.
Those have been granted.
We had in the process a VOC restructuring of the regulation
that would have offered regulatory relief to two facilities
that had applied for expansion in the state. Due to the fact
that EPA did not get this process, and then the new standard
was being proposed, they said we will not finish processing
this.
Since that time one facility has gone out of the business,
the other facility has gone through bankruptcy. That is the
reality of what is going on in Maine.
Mr. Harper. Mr. Alteri?
Mr. Alteri. It has the potential to limit economic growth
and development. It is real simple. When a new project submits
an application we do the analysis. And if it shows that it is
going to be in a non-attainment area of cause or contribute to
a violation, then there isn't an opportunity for you to
evaluate the control technologies based on cost or technical
feasibility.
Mr. Harper. Let me ask both of you, will the new ozone
standard impact the ability of new sources to obtain pre-
construction permits?
Mr. Alteri. Yes.
Mr. Cone. Yes.
Mr. Harper. All right. Do you expect that the new ozone
standards may delay the processing of pre-construction permit
applications?
Mr. Alteri. Yes.
Mr. Harper. All right. You agree? OK.
Another: do you also expect that it may delay the ability
of states or EPA to approve permit applications going forward?
Mr. Alteri. Yes, and environmentally beneficial projects as
well.
Mr. Cone. Yes, and what we have seen time and time again,
when companies invest in their facilities you get cleaner
emission units. And if you put barriers up to those investments
you won't get cleaner units.
Mr. Harper. And for the others on the panel for other state
and local regulators, would you like to comment on the impacts
of the 2015 ozone standards on the impacts on pre-construction
permitting? Anybody else, the permit question?
Mr. Karperos. We haven't experienced in California that the
setting of these standards has hindered us in our ability to
offer permits.
Ms. Vehr. This is Nancy from Wyoming, and what helps
companies is know what standard they are held to. So, when you
have that certainty that you are held to the current standard
and you have a complete application in place----
Mr. Harper. Right.
Ms. Vehr [continuing]. Sometimes these applications take 18
months to do the technical analysis, and so knowing what that
standard is when it is permitting is helpful.
Mr. Harper. Thank you very much.
Mr. Sadredin, may I ask you a question, please. Is it
correct that under the Clean Air Act states and local
governments can become subject to fees or monetary penalties
due to emissions outside their control?
Mr. Sadredin. Right. That is exactly the situation that we
are experiencing right now with the 1-Hour Ozone Standard which
was revoked by EPA. But old standards never go away the way EPA
regulations work. Valley residents are paying about $29 million
in penalties every year right now because of the valuation of
that standard. But we, by the way, fortunately you have heard
we have attained now, but it is a long process to remove those
penalties.
As we move forward with the new standards today, we are in
a position of costly, devastating federal sanctions are
imminent in San Joaquin Valley for the standard that lies ahead
in terms of PM2.5, as I have described in my written testimony.
Mr. Harper. OK. And I know my time is almost over. But are
mobile sources a particular concern in your air quality region?
Mr. Sadredin. In San Joaquin Valley the stationary sources,
which include agriculture, oil and gas production, your ma and
pa operations, all the way to your biggest manufacturing, they
make up only 15 percent of the pollution now because we have
imposed the toughest regulations in the nation on them. Right
now, despite great work at the state Air Resources Board, the
truck regulations and all of that, today 85 percent of our air
pollution in our region comes from mobile sources which we have
no regulatory authority over.
Mr. Harper. OK. Thank you very much. And my time has
expired. I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Cardenas, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate
the opportunity for us to explain to the public how important
this issue is.
One of the unfortunate aspects of what we are talking about
today is the most costly effects are not immediate and they are
long term, and they are not just about quantitative, it is
quality of life that we are talking about as well. So this
makes it a very esoteric conversation.
Yet, at the same time it allows us to either focus mainly
on how does it affect the day to day and today, especially when
it comes to pointing out the difficulties of businesses. And
sometimes businesses find themselves in a quandary, and maybe
even go out of business while they are waiting to find out
their future and what is at stake here in this particular
matter.
Yet, at the same time if we were to, unfortunately, become
too lax and relaxed about requirements and protecting the today
and the tomorrow, then we could find ourselves with burdening
costs that are just unquantifiable, as a matter of fact.
Unquantifiable not because they are too small, but
unquantifiable because they are just so massive and the effects
are so negative that it is something that we can only admit
afterwards that, wow, we screwed up, we made a mistake, we were
too lax.
In Los Angeles where I represent, in the L.A. Basin, it has
some of the worst air pollution in the country. And L.A.'s
geography, weather, and huge number of vehicles makes us ground
zero for ozone pollution. When ozone levels pike, so do
hospital admissions for things like respiratory infections and
asthma.
Since 2000, ozone levels have decreased by 30 percent in
the L.A. Basin through a combination of local, state, and
federal efforts. But the region still doesn't meet federal air
quality standards. Plans to deal with this problem have often
been vague and long-term strategies to reduce emissions.
I think what we need to do is to try to incentivize
companies and individuals to switch out polluting technology
for cleaner, currently-existing technology, and invest in
research to develop better technology.
Mr. Karperos, can you please tell me what is currently
being done to incentivize these new technologies?
Mr. Karperos. When we, the California Air Resources Board,
assessed the need for cleaner trucks, for example, some 5 or 6
years ago, we identified that a modification and optimization
of existing technology would reduce emissions from tucks by 90
percent. We have adopted a standard, an optional standard to do
that.
Tomorrow we will make a commitment to adopt a regulation to
ensure that all trucks sold in California meet that standard.
And then we are pairing that up with large incentive dollars to
accelerate the turnover of that fleet.
If I may very briefly to the question of fees on businesses
in the San Joaquin Valley, those fees are actually levied on
vehicle registrations, so it is paid by motorists. And that
money is turned right around and used to support the incentive
turnover of trucks, so it is actually getting right at mobile
sources.
Mr. Cardenas. So you just described that the government
actually, you said, incentivizes. Incentivizes by patting them
on the back and then a little certificate? What do you mean by
incentive?
Mr. Karperos. Offering financial incentives to accelerate.
They would not be able to purchase a new piece of equipment as
quickly as required under the Clean Air Act timelines. We offer
up money that helps them purchase that piece of equipment
sooner.
Mr. Cardenas. Oh, OK. So incentivize with actual real
dollars.
Mr. Karperos. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cardenas. So that people can do the right thing,
corporations or individuals can do the right thing, and at the
same time they can get some help in actually doing the right
thing?
Mr. Karperos. Absolutely.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. Does anybody on the panel want to give an
example of how perhaps those incentives are unwelcomed or
inadequate? I knew it was going to be you. Go ahead.
Mr. Sadredin. Yes. We believe there is a greater need for
the level of funding that is available right now. In our region
alone, over the last 10 years, we have spent $1.6 billion in
public/private funding for incentive measures to reduce air
pollution and also invest in the economy. It has reduced air
pollution in our region by over 130,000 tons.
We still have major challenges. We need another 90 percent
reduction in emissions. And, if anything, we need more funding
in that area to both improve air quality but also help the
economy.
Mr. Cardenas. So what you just described, are you
describing that as a positive or a negative?
Mr. Sadredin. It is positive, but the negative part of it
is that the resources have not been enough. We need more
assistance from the state and Federal Government at the local
level to be able to do this.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. So, in a nutshell, you would welcome
these stringent requirements if in fact there was more support
to actually meet those requirements?
Mr. Sadredin. The support and also the time to do it. Let's
say I get $3 billion every year for the next 3 years for our
region, it just takes time to be able to turn over 78,000
trucks, 300,000 vehicles. We just need to have the time and
resources to do it.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady Ms. Matsui for 5
minutes.
Ms. Matsui. I hope that is a compliment, Mr. Chairman.
The Clean Air Act provides clear and well-documented public
health and environmental benefits. This is the very first point
that is considered when discussing the Clean Air Act and ozone
regulations. The law has improved the lives and the health of
so many Americans.
The American Lung Association reports our nation's air
quality has continued to improve over the last few decades. But
despite the great strides we have made, we have a long way to
go. Clean air is not a luxury. Breathing is not optional. We
all need clean air to live. We, in Congress, should be
facilitating the federal partnership with local agencies that
want to improve air quality, not hindering it.
Mr. Karperos, I am glad to hear that many of the regions
across our state are not delaying efforts to improve air
quality, but instead seizing the opportunity to create a
healthier environment for Californians. But I know that some
Californians benefit from these air quality improvements more
than others. Are there certain populations in the state, even
within the same region, whose health benefits more from air
quality improvements? Do the disadvantaged and minorities feel
the impacts of bad air quality to a greater degree than others?
Mr. Karperos. Thank you for that question. That is a very,
very important question.
We have made significant progress in California in terms of
lowering pollution. But let me give you sort of a fact, the
major, the still disproportionate impact we see on
disadvantaged communities.
My agency did a detailed analysis that showed in about 2000
that residents of disadvantaged communities, low income of
color, were exposed to about three times as much diesel PM,
cancer-causing diesel PM, than people who lived in wealthier
communities. We have reduced that considerably, but it is still
two times the exposure to diesel PM if you live in a
disadvantaged community compared to a wealthier community.
Ms. Matsui. While the Clean Air Act's science-based
standards are very important, I also believe that other EPA
programs that provide a federal partnership for improving air
quality are critical. I am particularly supportive of the EPA's
Diesel Emissions Reduction Act grant program, or as we call it,
DERA, which has helped clean up and retrofit diesel engines in
Sacramento and every state across the country.
I am very concerned by the administration's move to slash
funding for these types of important programs. Have you found
that federal funding in programs play an important role in
CARB's work? Which federal programs have been the most vital?
Mr. Karperos. There are a number of programs that I want to
speak to. But funding across the board has been extraordinarily
important: funding for EPA so that they can produce the
guidance that the states need; the monies you spoke to, the
DERA program, to fund the replacement of diesel equipment and
the financial incentives so we can use that to accelerate the
turnover.
And another program that has been extraordinarily
successful in the San Joaquin Valley is monies to help farmers
buy new tractors, much, much cleaner tractors.
Ms. Matsui. OK, great.
Mr. Sadredin, as I mentioned, I believe the DERA grants are
an important tool for reducing diesel emissions from older
engines and improving over all air quality in California. I
understand that your air pollution control district has
benefitted from the DERA program.
How many DERA grants has your air quality district
received?
Mr. Sadredin. We have been fortunate to receive DERA
funding almost every year. We have always advocated in Congress
for full funding of that program. Unfortunately, even the
previous administration every year zeroed out that account, and
we had to work with you and the rest of the Congress to get
funding in that program. So, if anything, we need more funding
in that area and full funding of the DERA program.
Ms. Matsui. So you really have benefitted from this DERA
funding in your region?
Mr. Sadredin. Yes, we have.
Ms. Matsui. In the past you said incentive programs are
critical to get the valley into attainment as quickly as
possible. What will be the impact in the San Joaquin Valley if
DERA and other federal incentive programs are dismantled?
Mr. Sadredin. There is no way that we can reach these
federal standards on the back of businesses alone and with
regulations only. If you adopt a regulation, you still have to
wait for the turnover and then the lengthy time that it takes.
Incentives, with matching funds from the public, from the
private sector they actually leverage those federal dollars
quite a bit; they are critical.
There is no way for us to reach the standards without
significant funding at all levels, local, state, and federal,
for incentive fundings such as DERA, targeted air shed grants,
and NRCS funding that was mentioned earlier. All those are
critical to meeting our objective to meet the standards as
expeditiously as possible.
Ms. Matsui. OK, thank you. And I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady yields back her time.
Seeing no other members present, we really want to
appreciate your testimony and your diligence. I thought it was
a great hearing. I think members got a lot out of it and it
will allow us, hopefully, to move forward.
I have a couple of documents that have been asked to be
submitted for the record. Please follow this and make sure I
don't miss anything.
Ms. Tonko. OK.
Mr. Shimkus. Testimony of Glenn Hamer, Arizona Chamber of
Commerce and Industry, from the Senate Environmental and Public
Works Committee; a Study on the Surface Ozone Trends from the
Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics; the majority
hearing memorandum. We have got a letter by a lot of health
groups, dated March 21st, 2017, from the Allergy and Asthma
Network to the Trust for America's Health. We have a letter to
me from the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition; another
letter from the same organization on October 25th, 2015. We
have another document from them, San Joaquin Valley 2017 Plan
for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard. Fresno Bee article, Alex Sherriffs
and John Capitman, ``Don't Back Off Demands for Cleaner Air.''
And Office of the Commissioner from the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation. American Chemistry
Council, dated March 22nd.
And that is all I have, unless you all have anything else.
Ms. Tonko. Yes, I think you covered them all, Mr. Chair.
I would like to personally thank the Commissioner of New
York State, Department of Environmental Conservation, Basil
Seggos, for what I think is a very strong letter opposing H.R.
806. He has outlined some very important information.
So I thank you. You have covered them all. And ask
respectfully that they--unanimous consent to place all of those
in the record.
Mr. Shimkus. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Shimkus. Again, thank you for attending. This is the
first stop in moving the process forward, and we look forward
to working with you during that process.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
The bill under review this morning provides a promising
start to the committee's goal of developing and moving common-
sense measures that will reduce the barriers to a more
productive U.S. economy--while preserving the public health and
well-being of Americans. H.R. 806 represents the kind of
targeted legislative updates to our environmental laws that
will fix provisions that are threatening to do more harm than
good, given existing regulations and the tremendous advances in
air quality.
This bill is about providing sensible tools and relief to
state and local authorities so they can more effectively
implement air quality standards for the benefit of their
communities. It is also about ensuring appropriate timelines to
enable authorities to do this without unnecessarily restraining
economic development, especially the development we need to
accelerate the nation's infrastructure and manufacturing
capabilities.
There is no question federal clean-air laws-and state
authorities that implement those laws have been tremendously
successful since the first major of revisions of the Clean Air
Act in 1970. As EPA reports, in aggregate, emissions of key air
pollutants have declined 71% since 1970. As a result, the air
we breathe has improved dramatically according to nationwide
trends: Since 1980, data show ozone is down 32%; nitrogen
dioxide is down 60%; and particulate matter, just in the past
15 years, is down almost 40%. Of course, much of this
improvement over 37 years has occurred against the backdrop,
overall, of an expanding economy.
But, there also should be no question that the actual
margins for continued improvement are also declining,
especially with existing technologies.
As state and local air-quality regulators implement new
rules to drive down pollutant levels in response to statutory
mandates, more areas of the nation come closer to natural and
technological barriers to continued improvement. Failure to
account properly for the existence of these barriers-or to
provide reasonable time for existing measures to produce
results-threatens damaging economic consequences.
I note, for example, Mr. Sadredin's testimony provides the
troubling example that almost all economic activity could be
stopped in California's great San Joaquin Valley--including
preventing highway thru traffic--and there would no meaningful
improvement to air quality in that region. Yet without
legislative and regulatory reforms, federal requirements will
just keep mounting, stifling economic opportunity and growth in
that important region.
We should take this example and the examples from our other
state witnesses this morning as a warning of what more regions
may confront as air quality standards are tightened at a pace
faster than innovation, technology, and the regulatory
implementation process can reasonably keep up.
Congress did not enact the Clean Air Act to be a regional
economy killer. The good news is there are sensible reforms
that will update the act, both to reflect the progress we have
made and to account for current, practical factors that affect
continued improvement.
As I've noted previously, there are many opportunities
before the committee to make meaningful improvements in our
environmental laws and regulations--the outcome of which will
be good for public health and good for the economy. Today is
just the beginning.
----------
Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
H.R. 806 is essentially the same legislation the Committee
considered in the last Congress, and the ``Ozone Standards
Implementation Act'' is still a very misleading title. While
the bill does derail the most recent ozone air quality
standard, these bad policies go far beyond just ozone. Let's be
clear: H.R. 806 is a broad attack on the successful health
based standards and protections for all criteria pollutants--
carbon monoxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur
dioxides, and even lead.
H.R. 806 is a compilation of misguided proposals that
weaken or delay the protections in the law--strategies that
won't make air pollution magically go away. H.R. 806 puts the
public health and safety of the American people at risk, and
virtually guarantees that people living in areas with poor air
quality will continue to breathe unhealthy air indefinitely.
We cannot consider this bill in isolation. It is only one
of many assaults on public health and the environment being
rolled out by the Trump Administration and the Republican
Congress.
The Administration has announced its intention to roll back
progress in climate change policy, energy efficiency, and clean
energy. Great news for the fossil fuel industry, but not for
public health, consumers, low income communities, or the U.S.
industries and American workers that are poised to take us into
a clean, low-carbon, and more efficient future. The Trump
Administration's actions will further speed global warming,
encourage more fuel consumption, and generate more pollutants
while costing us jobs in the clean energy sector.
The budget blueprint the Trump Administration released last
week proposes to cut EPA's budget by 31 percent--$2.6 billion
dollars--to reduce the EPA workforce by 3,200 people, and to
eliminate 50 vital programs that protect the public health and
environment. I should also note that a large portion of EPA's
funding goes directly to states to help ensure our communities
have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. These
drastic cuts will be devastating to the people we represent.
Simultaneously, this bill explicitly says that no new funds
can be provided to EPA and the states to do the numerous new
tasks laid out in the legislation. So, although one of the
stated justifications for this bill is to help states reduce
air pollution, the fact is that it does exactly the opposite.
The states need technical and financial support from their
federal partner--the EPA--to implement the Clean Air Act. The
Trump Administration budget and this bill abandon that
partnership, sending a clear message to the states to go it
alone.
I do not believe the American people want more air and
water pollution. Our constituents are not interested in
breathing dirty air or drinking dirty water. They certainly
don't want their health compromised by going back to
ineffective, voluntary pollution control programs.
We have made great progress in reducing pollution and
improving people's health. These air standards are based on
decades of research, reviewed by experts in the health sciences
who have advised the Administrator that protection of people's
health requires lower ozone levels.
My Republican colleagues claim this bill does not increase
air pollution or undermine the fundamental public health
protections in the Clean Air Act. But that is exactly what will
result if you stretch the deadlines for compliance, remove
vital agency resources, and insert cost and other factors that
have nothing to do with health.
Our experience with the Clean Air Act tells us that we do
not have to choose between the health of our communities and a
healthy economy. We can have both, and we have achieved both
under the Clean Air Act.
I opposed this bill in the last Congress, and. I continue
to oppose it now. I will not go back on my commitment to the
public to make the air safe and healthy to breathe. H.R. 806
breaks that commitment. The Clean Air Act provides EPA and the
regulated community with sufficient flexibility to continue to
improve air quality and public health. Instead of undermining
the law and gutting the EPA, we should provide adequate
resources to the Agency and to the states to continue to give
every American clean, healthy air to breathe.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]