    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                             STATE PERSPECTIVES ON
                          REGULATING BACKGROUND OZONE

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 21, 2018

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-65

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

                            _________

                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    30-876PDF             WASHINGTON : 2018

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                       HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         ZOE LOFGREN, California
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois             SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    BILL POSEY, Florida                  AMI BERA, California
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
    RANDY K. WEBER, Texas                MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    STEPHEN KNIGHT, California           DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
    BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
    BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia           CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
    BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia            JERRY McNERNEY, California
    RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana         ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
    GARY PALMER, Alabama                 PAUL TONKO, New York
    DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              BILL FOSTER, Illinois
    JIM BANKS, Indiana                   MARK TAKANO, California
    ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                  COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
    ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas            CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
    NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
    CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
    RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
    DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
                                     ------

                          Subcommittee on Environment

                           ANDY BIGGS, Arizona, Chair
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    BILL POSEY, Florida                  COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
    RANDY K. WEBER, Texas                CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
    BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    GARY PALMER, Alabama
    CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
    RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina, Vice
        Chair
    DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
    LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

                                C O N T E N T S

                                 June 21, 2018

                                                                       Page
    Witness List.....................................................     2

    Hearing Charter..................................................     3

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Andy Biggs, Chairman, Subcommittee on
      Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
      House of Representatives.......................................     4
        Written Statement............................................     6

    Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Member,
      Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................     8
        Written Statement............................................    10

    Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
      on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    12
        Written Statement............................................    14

    Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
      Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
      of Representatives.............................................    16
        Written Statement............................................    17

                                   Witnesses:

    Ms. Diane Rath, Executive Director, Alamo Area Council of
      Governments
        Oral Statement...............................................    19
        Written Statement............................................    21

    Mr. Timothy Franquist, Air Quality Division Director, Arizona
      Department of Environmental Quality
        Oral Statement...............................................    29
        Written Statement............................................    31

    Dr. Elena Craft, Senior Health Scientist, Environmental Defense
      Fund
        Oral Statement...............................................    90
        Written Statement............................................    92

    Mr. Gregory Stella, Senior Scientist, Alpine Geophysics
        Oral Statement...............................................   107
        Written Statement............................................   109

    Discussion.......................................................   116

                 Appendix I: Additional Material for the Record

    Letter submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................   136

    Documents submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking
      Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science,
      Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........   144

    Documents submitted by Representative Donald S. Beyer, Jr.,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................   148

               STATE PERSPECTIVES ON REGULATING BACKGROUND OZONE

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 2018

                      House of Representatives,
                            Subcommittee on Environment
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                       Washington, D.C.

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in
    Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Andy Biggs
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Biggs. The Subcommittee on Environment will come
    to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
    recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
        Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``State Perspectives on
    Regulating Background Ozone.'' Before we get started, I want to
    take a moment to recognize the new Vice Chairman of the
    Subcommittee, Mr. Norman from South Carolina. I look forward to
    continuing our work together and the success of the Environment
    Committee.
        I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
    statement.
        In 2015, the Obama EPA lowered the National Ambient Air
    Quality Standard (NAAQS) from 75 parts per billion to 70 parts
    per billion. Meeting this new, unreasonable standard has placed
    an excessive economic burden on States across the country, and
    especially those in the Southwest. In my own State of Arizona,
    naturally-occurring background ozone, over which we have
    virtually no control, has created a compliance nightmare.
        The solution to this problem is simple: the EPA should take
    local geographic factors into account when determining ozone
    standards. Simply slapping a ``nonattainment'' designation on
    areas where ozone emissions are not even originating is both
    unfair and devastating to business in the state. Background
    ozone can come from both domestic and international sources.
    For instance, a large amount of Arizona emissions originate in
    Mexico. However, the way the NAAQS are set, these emissions
    from outside the country are used against U.S. states.
        The tragic result is that the Clean Air Act ends up
    burdening the very Americans it seeks to help--more often than
    not, hard-working people living in rural areas. Cutting
    emissions has become synonymous with cutting jobs.
        Instead of enforcing unreasonable mandates, the states and
    EPA should instead work together to determine the amount of
    man-made emissions versus natural and international emissions
    in any given area. It makes absolutely no sense to force an
    area within the United States to try to compensate for
    emissions caused by other countries.
        At first glance, Section 179B of the Clean Air Act seems to
    offer relief from emissions from international sources.
    However, when put into practice, it does not go far enough. A
    successful 179B demonstration does not allow an area to avoid a
    ``nonattainment'' designation; it just relieves it of some
    potential sanctions.
        We cannot continue to punish states for emissions it cannot
    control. A nonattainment designation in turn triggers a
    nonattainment New Source Review, which then applies to all new
    major sources or major modifications to existing sources of
    pollutants. So, if a new business wants to open up or an old
    business wants to make certain changes, it has to go through
    the NSR process.
        One of the requirements in this process is for a company to
    offset emissions. But in agricultural communities, where big
    business is the exception not the rule, offsets are almost
    impossible. There are simply not enough businesses to offset
    against. This is why businesses would be reluctant to set up
    shop in a rural area that is in nonattainment, and I don't
    blame them. In a situation where sanctions are costly and
    offsets are impossible, businesses are not given much of a
    choice. Job opportunities disappear and environmental
    regulations end up institutionalizing poverty.
        We need to find a better system, and I look forward to this
    hearing as a way to explore these issues and foster a true
    discussion on the impacts of background ozone.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Biggs follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Biggs. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the
    Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, for an
    opening statement.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Clean Air Act is one of the most successful pieces of
    public health legislation enacted by Congress. According to the
    EPA, the protections helped avoid more than 200,000 premature
    deaths in its first 20 years alone. A clean environment is
    essential to a high quality of life for every American. It is
    important to consider the health effects of weakened air
    standards, particularly for children, the elderly and those
    suffering from asthma.
        The National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, were
    established under the Clean Air Act to regulate criteria
    pollutants that have significant negative effects on human
    health. Congress made sure that public health was the driving
    factor in setting the NAAQS by requiring the standards to be
    based on exclusively on scientific, health-based evidence.
        Since 2008, The Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Air
    Scientific Advisory Committee has recommended setting the ozone
    standard between 60 and 70 parts per billion. In 2015, the
    ozone NAAQS were strengthened to 70 parts per billion. Public
    health groups were concerned that the new level was still not
    as protective as it could have been, but acknowledged the
    positive health outcomes the new standard would have for all
    Americans.
        Some states and localities argue that meeting the 2015
    ozone NAAQS levels is impossible because of background or
    naturally occurring ozone levels, but that is simply not true.
    The EPA determined that background ozone levels remain
    relatively constant, and contribute only fractionally to ozone
    concentrations above the 70 parts per billion level on high
    ozone days. The EPA also recently revised their Exceptional
    Events Rule and Guidance to more clearly define the scope of
    the rule to help states and localities identify air quality
    monitoring data that may be affected by exceptional events.
        I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today.
    I'm glad to see Dr. Elena Craft back at the witness table to
    provide us with a scientific perspective not only on issues
    related to ozone, but also to discuss how the anti-science
    actions this Administration has taken at the EPA will undermine
    public health protections if left unchallenged.
        I would also like to draw attention to the fact that it has
    been one year and 4 months since Scott Pruitt was confirmed as
    the EPA Administrator. In that time, Democratic members of this
    Committee have sent multiple letters to Chairman Smith
    requesting the Administrator's presence at the witness table.
    The Ranking Member of the Full Committee and I have both
    requested, on the record, during Committee hearings that
    Administrator Pruitt be asked to testify in front of the
    Science Committee, only to be told that we could invite him
    ourselves. So we did. In fact, I invited Administrator Pruitt
    to participate in today's hearing as the Minority witness, but
    he rejected our request.
        This Committee is doing a disservice to the American people
    by not having the EPA Administrator testify to explain his
    anti-science agenda and explain the actions he's taking that
    will undermine public health and the environment. This is
    especially egregious considering that this Committee has
    jurisdiction over the EPA, and Administrator Pruitt has found
    the time to testify in front of other congressional committees
    multiple times.
        The EPA Administrator and Committee Chairman are touting
    the need for more transparency in science at the EPA. It seems
    that Administrator Pruitt's testimony in front of this
    Committee would be a key part of fulfilling that goal. It is
    our job to monitor Agency activities and to make sure they are
    consistent with congressional intent. We should not abdicate
    our responsibility to hold this Administration accountable.
        So I sincerely hope this Committee will fulfill its duty to
    conduct congressional oversight of the EPA's science programs
    to make sure the Agency meets its mandate to protect public
    health and the environment.
        And Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from nine public health,
    medical, and nursing organizations that support the full
    implementation and enforcement of the ozone NAAQS under the
    Clean Air Act. This letter also lays out concerns with the May
    2018 memo on updating the NAAQS review process written by EPA
    Administrator Scott Pruitt that is inconsistent with the
    statutory requirements in the Clean Air Act. This letter
    highlights the importance of maintaining the NAAQS as a health-
    based standard built on scientific evidence and not allowing
    additional considerations such as cost or technically
    feasibility--technical feasibility to play a role in setting
    the standards. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be
    entered into the record.
        Chairman Biggs. Without objection.
        [The information appears in Appendix I]
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, and Mr. Chairman, I also have a
    poll conducted in April of 2018 by the American Lung
    Association that found that 75 percent of voters support the
    enforcement of the 2015 Ozone Standard. This included a
    plurality of Republicans. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add the
    results of the American Lung Association's poll into the
    record.
        Chairman Biggs. Without objection.
        [The information appears in Appendix I]
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Biggs. The gentlelady yields back.
        I now recognize the Chairman of the Full Committee,
    Chairman Smith, for his opening statement.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our
    witnesses for being here today as well. And before we begin,
    I'd like to congratulate the gentleman from South Carolina to
    my right, Mr. Norman, for being the new Vice Chairman of the
    Subcommittee. We look forward to his contributions to the
    Committee. We've already seen examples of that in the last few
    months.
        The Science Committee--I'm sorry I'm so hoarse today. It's
    better than having lost my voice, which I did yesterday, and
    Suzanne, you can't comment on my losing my voice and wishing
    that were the case today.
        Ms. Bonamici. Duly noted, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Smith. The Science Committee has held a number of
    hearings on the regulatory overreach of the previous
    Administration's Environmental Protection Agency. Today's
    hearing is a timely discussion on the National Ambient Air
    Quality Standards, or NAAQS.
        The air in the U.S. is cleaner than it has ever been
    before. Yet in 2015 the previous Administration tightened the
    NAAQS for ground-level ozone.
        The fastest way to hurt our local economy is to implement
    far reaching regulations that stunt business growth and
    development. The 2015 NAAQS often places heavy burdens on the
    American people, with few actual benefits.
        Ensuring we have clean air and water, now and in the
    future, is important and should be a priority for everyone.
    However, regulations that stifle business and innovation, while
    doing little to actually meet these goals, are
    counterproductive.
        Instead of using an unachievable, one-size-fits-all
    approach, the EPA should collaborate with the States and come
    up with plans that actually work. Background ozone includes
    both natural and international ozone. Natural ozone comes from
    many sources including wildfires, lightning and vegetation.
    International ozone refers to emissions coming from other
    countries like China and Mexico.
        In some areas of the country, even background ozone levels
    exceed 70 parts per billion. In these areas, no matter how much
    a State controls its own emissions, it will never be able to
    comply with the 2015 NAAQS level.
        We simply cannot beat mother nature and we cannot force
    other countries to stop their emissions. Geologic areas should
    not be held accountable for emissions they cannot control.
        Many areas that receive a nonattainment designation suffer
    economically. This designation discourages businesses from
    moving into the State because they would have to deal with
    permitting and compliance obligations. This in turn limits
    employment opportunities for hardworking Americans living in
    our rural communities.
        Let me say, it's good to have a personal friend from San
    Antonio, Diane Rath, who happens to live in my district, and is
    here to comment on background ozone issues facing Texas. San
    Antonio, for example, is directly and adversely affected by the
    international ozone from Mexico.
        Less than a quarter of ozone emissions detected in San
    Antonio actually originated in the city. Yet to comply with the
    NAAQS, San Antonio must implement a burdensome regulatory
    agenda that adversely affects businesses and citizens alike.
        Being a good steward of the environment and promoting a
    healthy economy are not mutually exclusive. Hard working
    Americans are hit the hardest by these expensive regulations.
    Regulatory overreach costs billions of dollars, kills jobs and
    hurts the economy. For example, expensive permitting
    regulations discourage employers from establishing businesses
    and creating jobs.
        Because states have no control over international and
    natural emissions, even a state's greatest efforts to reduce
    emissions often fall short of the benefits envisioned by the
    Clean Air Act.
        I remain hopeful that the EPA will review the current NAAQS
    standards and evaluate the science and process behind setting
    future NAAQS. Recently, Administrator Pruitt laid out five
    principles that will be implemented in future NAAQS reviews.
    This ``back-to-basics'' process will ensure that sound science
    is the foundation of the NAAQS standards and that all relevant
    data is considered in implementation, including naturally
    occurring and international ozone.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll yield back the balance of
    my time.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Biggs. The gentleman yields, and I now recognize the
    Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Ms. Johnson, for an
    opening statement.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Biggs, and I want to
    thank all of our witnesses for being here to discuss their
    perspectives on air pollution regulations.
        For the past several years, whenever the Majority has held
    a hearing on air pollution there has been one common thread.
    Virtually every hearing has highlighted one or more excuses as
    to why air pollution shouldn't be regulated. Today, we will
    hear about another excuse: background ozone. This isn't even a
    novel excuse. We held a hearing on this same topic just a few
    years ago.
        One thing the Committee never seems to address is the
    public health effects of Americans breathing in air pollution.
    I'm a nurse. I've done some studies. And those health effects
    are devastating. Disease, misery, and death. In addition to the
    severe bodily toll that air pollution takes on Americans, it is
    also--it also imposes a serious monetary cost. It is estimated
    that the EPA's 2015 Ozone regulations, which were only slightly
    more stringent than the previous standards, would result in
    hundreds of thousands dollars--of fewer asthma attacks in
    children every year. They continue, however, to go up. That
    would, in turn, result in over 100,000 less missed school days,
    which, in turn, would result in significantly increased
    productivity for the parents of those children. And just--that
    just deals with asthma. These regulations would also reduce
    COPD, cardiovascular disease, and other negative health
    effects.
        The total health care savings from regulating ozone even
    slightly more stringently than before runs well into the
    billions of dollars every year. That should really come as no
    surprise to the Members of Congress. Healthcare is very
    expensive. Rising healthcare costs are one of the primary
    drivers of our increasing national debt. As we work to address
    these issues, I think it makes more sense to cut the pollution
    that is helping to drive those healthcare costs higher, rather
    than cutting the healthcare treatments people need to survive.
        I hope that the Minority witness, Dr. Craft, can help us
    highlight some of the reasons why it is so important to
    regulate air pollution in the first place. And I'm sure that
    she can also address the rationale being offered today by our
    Majority for why we shouldn't be regulating pollution.
        I am from Texas, and we get plenty of cross border air
    pollution coming from our neighbors to the South. Not just
    Mexico, but Louisiana sits over there, too. Quite frankly, we
    probably also send a little air pollution to our neighbors in
    the east. Every state has its own unique issues related to
    reducing air pollution. But I don't think that is an excuse to
    let people in Dallas, Houston or San Antonio get sick and
    suffer. I hope we can keep that in mind today as we talk about
    these compliance issues. I look forward to hearing from our
    witnesses, and I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Biggs. The gentlelady yields back. Thank you.
        I now recognize Chairman Smith to introduce our first
    witness.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad to be
    able to introduce Diane Rath, the Executive Director of the
    Alamo Area Council of Governments, which serves much of my home
    district back in Texas.
        Ms. Rath began work in public service when then-Governor
    George Bush appointed her Chair of the Texas Workforce
    Commission. She was then nominated by President Bush to be
    Assistant Secretary of Administration for Children and Families
    at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. During
    this time, she became recognized as a national leader in
    workforce development.
        Prior to her current position, Ms. Rath served as Senior
    Vice President at ResCare Workforce Services with oversight
    responsibility for operations at over 300 locations in 28
    States.
        As Executive Director of AACOG, she oversees 300 employees
    and 11 program areas with a budget of $50 million. Ms. Rath
    attended Texas Christian University and graduated from the
    University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.
        We are pleased to have her here. I yield back.
        Chairman Biggs. Thank you, Chairman Smith. Indeed, we are
    pleased to have Ms. Rath and all of our wonderful witnesses
    here today. We are grateful that you are here.
        Our next witness today will be from my home State of
    Arizona, Mr. Timothy Franquist. He is the Arizona Department of
    Environmental Quality's Air Quality Director. He previously
    served as the Air Quality Division Deputy Director and has been
    with ADEQ for more than 14 years.
        Prior to State service, Mr. Franquist worked in a variety
    of environmental positions, including private sector
    consulting, county government, and environmental non-government
    organizations.
        As Director of Air Quality, Mr. Franquist has led the
    division's effort to become nationally recognized for the
    agency's work on international transport of ozone, exceptional
    event demonstrations, permitting, and air quality meteorology.
        Mr. Franquist received his bachelor's degree in
    environmental science and policy from the University of
    Maryland and his master's in environmental management from ASU.
    Welcome, Dr. Franquist.
        Our third witness is Dr. Elena Craft, a senior health
    scientist at Environmental Defense Fund. For a decade, Dr.
    Craft has strategized to identify, monitor, and mitigate risks
    from environmental pollution from the industrial sector, as
    well as from within the transportation sector, most
    specifically around port areas and freight corridors.
        In addition, she has facilitated development of initiatives
    to support public health research, including helping to
    establish the Hurricane Harvey Environmental Health and Housing
    Registry in Houston, the first registry established after a
    major flood event.
        Dr. Craft's other scientific research focuses on
    understanding health disparities associated with living in
    pollution hotspots.
        She holds a bachelor's of science in biology from UNC
    Chapel Hill, a master's of science and toxicology from North
    Carolina State University, and a Ph.D. from Duke University.
    Dr. Craft also holds an adjunct assistant professorship at the
    University of Texas Health Science Center, and is a Kinder
    Fellow at Rice University. Thank you for being here, Dr. Craft.
        Our final witness today is Mr. Gregory Stella, a senior
    scientist at Alpine Geophysics, LLC. For over 25 years, Mr.
    Stella has coordinated with both public and private workgroups,
    modeling centers, and stakeholders to develop, evaluate, and
    apply control measures and program designs in support of
    emissions and air quality policy decisions.
        Prior to joining Alpine Geophysics in 2003, Mr. Stella was
    on staff at EPA's Office of Air Quality, Planning, and
    Standards, where he managed and prepared the emission
    inventories, control strategies, and associated temporal,
    spatial, and speciation data from multiple projects. He is
    internationally recognized as a technical authority in the
    modeling and policy application of emission inventories for
    ozone, and particulate matter, pollutants, and precursors.
        Mr. Stella received his bachelor's of science in chemical
    engineering from the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore,
    Maryland.
        I now recognize Ms. Rath for five minutes to present her
    testimony.

                      TESTIMONY OF MS. DIANE RATH,

                          EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

                   ALAMO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

        Ms. Rath. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    inviting me. I am Diane Rath, Executive Director of the Alamo
    Area Council of Governments. I'd also like to introduce my
    Board Chair who is with us today, Judge Chris Schuchart, who is
    a county judge in Medina County.
        I am very pleased to appear today to provide information on
    the history of public and private partnerships that have helped
    reduced ozone concentrations in the San Antonio MSA, and how
    background ozone, international emissions, and ozone transport
    contribute to San Antonio's ozone levels. Slide, please.
        [Slide.]
        Ms. Rath. The San Antonio-New Braunfels MSA has experienced
    significant improvement in its ozone levels in the past several
    years, with a 20 percent decline from 2004 to 2016. These
    improvements occurred despite a population increase of nearly
    600,000 folks across the region.
        San Antonio is currently the largest city in the country
    with attainment with ozone national ambient air quality
    standards. The city of San Antonio added the most people of any
    city in the country between 2016 and 2017, and high population
    growth is expected to continue.
        Another example of the improvement in ozone levels is the
    number of days when any monitor exceeded an 8-hour average over
    70 parts per billion. In 2017, there were only five such days
    at regulatory monitors, compared to an average of 12. The
    region's success in improving ozone levels is due, in large
    part, to local voluntary public and private initiatives to
    reduce ozone precursor emissions. Several examples are included
    in my written testimony. Slide, please.
        [Slide.]
        Ms. Rath. Photochemical modeling can be used to estimate
    the contribution from other geographic areas to ozone levels at
    a given location using the Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability
    Assessment. APCA analysis suggests that in 2017, the maximum
    local contribution to San Antonio's ozone at Camp Bullis C58
    was 12.86 parts per billion, or 20.5 percent. This means that
    79.5 percent of San Antonio's ozone is caused by emissions and
    transport from outside the San Antonio region; that is, outside
    of local control. Slide, please.
        [Slide.]
        Ms. Rath. A further breakdown of San Antonio ozone
    contribution reveals that 24.05 parts per billion, or 38.4
    percent of San Antonio's ozone, originates from international
    sources. Other Texas cities contribute 16.1 percent. It's
    estimated that areas outside Texas contribute 25 percent to San
    Antonio's ozone.
        The San Antonio-New Braunfels MSA has proven to be a leader
    when it comes to reducing ozone levels through its numerous
    public and private initiatives that limit ozone precursor
    emissions. These voluntary efforts have helped reduced San
    Antonio's ozone design value, and is predicted to continue
    falling through 2023. These ozone reductions are all the more
    impressive, given the unique ozone transport situation that San
    Antonio faces with over 38 percent of ozone contribution coming
    from international sources.
        We urge EPA to take advantage of the flexibility in the
    Clean Air Act to recognize the impact of background ozone
    levels and all foreign transport on a region. It is important
    to acknowledge the amount of ozone that is produced locally and
    able to be impacted by local actions. The regulatory burden and
    economic consequences of a nonattainment designation can be
    devastating to a region when the region is not able to impact
    the ozone levels by its own actions.
        So Mr. Chairman and Committee members, I thank you for this
    opportunity to discuss the unique impact of background ozone
    and foreign transport on our region, and share the great
    progress we have made as a result of voluntary public and
    private initiatives over the concern for the health of the
    residents of our region.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Rath follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Norman. [Presiding.] Thank you, Ms. Rath, and I too
    want to take this opportunity to thank each of you for devoting
    your time and talent to educating us on the issue.
        I now recognize Mr. Franquist for five minutes to present
    his testimony.

                  TESTIMONY OF MR. TIMOTHY FRANQUIST,

                     AIR QUALITY DIVISION DIRECTOR,

              ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

        Mr. Franquist. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the
    Committee, my name is Timothy Franquist, and I am the Air
    Quality Director at the Arizona Department of Environment
    Quality, and I appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony
    today.
        The Clean Air Act has done a remarkable job of reducing air
    pollution across the county for the past 48 years from industry
    and vehicles. Now, however, we face a new air quality
    challenge: global air pollution, specifically, air pollution
    that is transported to the U.S. in such quantities to cause
    areas of the country to exceed the National Ambient Air Quality
    Standards. Unfortunately, the Clean Air Act is ill-equipped to
    address this new air quality problem in terms of protecting
    public health and our local economies.
        The U.S. EPA has conducted ozone modeling for U.S.
    background, or what is more commonly referred to as
    international transport, several times over the past three
    years. The models continue to indicate that ozone
    concentrations are increasing from international sources and
    impacting the U.S.
        The most recent U.S. model indicates that over 83 percent
    of ozone in southern Arizona is attributed to international
    sources. Arizona is not only impacted by Mexican emissions, 65
    percent of the ozone in the Southwest is attributed to
    international transport from Asia, according to a surface ozone
    study conducted by a team of researchers from NOAA, Princeton
    University, Columbia University, and the U.S. EPA.
        The surface ozone study further indicates that during
    summertime in the western U.S. ``increasing Asian emissions
    approximately offset the benefits of U.S. emissions
    reductions.''
        Beginning in May 2017, the Arizona Department of
    Environmental Quality installed an ozone monitor in San Luis
    Rio Colorado, Mexico, to determine the impacts of international
    transport on Yuma, Arizona, a new ozone nonattainment area
    proposed by the U.S. EPA as of April 2018. Our preliminary
    analysis indicates that prevailing winds from the south and
    increasingly high levels of ozone originating south of the U.S.
    border are causing Yuma to exceed the federal ozone standard.
        Because Yuma exceeds the 2015 Ozone standard, the Clean Air
    Act will require the State of Arizona to develop a state
    implementation plan for the area. Yuma will be subject to
    emission offsets for new large businesses or major expansions
    to existing businesses and those sources will be required the
    install extremely expensive emission control equipment before
    operating. Yuma is not a heavy industrial or urban area and
    therefore, it does not generate the requisite emission offsets,
    which ultimately discourages new or expanding business in the
    area.
        The only relief for Yuma under the Clean Air Act is the
    state to pursue an international transport demonstration, but
    we can only do that demonstration after three years of an area
    not meeting the standard. Yuma will remain in perpetual
    nonattainment until international emissions decrease to the
    extent that Yuma attains the ozone standard. The international
    transport demonstration does nothing to better protect Yuma
    residents from the health impacts of international pollution or
    lessen the burden on their local economy.
        The negative health effects of ozone is well documented; as
    is poverty's negative effect on public health. The impact of
    nonattainment on Yuma's public health and economy creates an
    incredibly dire situation for a primarily agricultural
    community of 100,000 residents, 19 percent of which live below
    the poverty line.
        The World Bank states in a report entitled ``Poverty and
    Health'' that ``Poverty is a major cause of ill health and a
    barrier to accessing health care when needed.''
        According to a study authored by Michael McCally, MD, and
    his colleagues, people living in countries with a higher Gross
    National Product have a longer life expectancy. In short,
    public health is not just about clean air, it's also about a
    healthy economy.
        Finding state-level solutions for ozone nonattainment areas
    are made infinitely more complicated when the area is
    significantly impacted by international transport of air
    pollution, as we are in Arizona. Therefore, we must look to our
    federal agencies and representatives for relief to the
    international air pollution transport problem so that the
    recipients of pollution are not punished, but protected.
        The Clean Air Act has not been significantly revised since
    1990. As Arizona and the U.S. confront the growing challenge of
    global air pollution impacts on the U.S., I urge Congress to
    seriously consider meaningful revisions to the Clean Air Act to
    address international transport of air pollution.
        Senator Flake has introduced Senate Bill 2825, which helps
    remove some of the negative economic impacts to areas of the
    U.S. that do not meet the Ozone standard due to international
    transport, while maintaining adequate air quality control
    measures to ensure that public health and the environment are
    protected. Senate Bill 2825 would be a major step in protecting
    places like Yuma, Arizona, and the West from international air
    pollution.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Franquist follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Norman. Thank you, Mr. Franquist.
        I now recognize Dr. Craft for her testimony.

                     TESTIMONY OF DR. ELENA CRAFT,

                        SENIOR HEALTH SCIENTIST,

                       ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND

        Dr. Craft. Thank you. Chairman Biggs, Ranking Member
    Bonamici, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
    invitation to be here to testify regarding the National Ambient
    Air Quality Standards for ground level ozone.
        My name is Elena Craft. I serve as a senior scientist at
    Environmental Defense Fund, a national nonpartisan, science-
    based environmental organization where I manage a team working
    to identify strategies and opportunities to reduce harmful air
    pollution, such as ozone, from pollution hotspots. EDF is a
    national organization with over two million members that links
    science, economics, law, and private sector partnerships to
    solve our most serious environmental challenges.
        EDF and its members are deeply concerned about harmful air
    pollution, including ground level ozone. I am lucky enough to
    be joined today by a few moms from Moms Clean Air Force.
    Nationally, Moms Clean Air Force is a community of over a
    million moms and dads strong. They are mobilizing and engaging
    communities across the country on air quality issues because
    they care about their kids. They care about the tiny lungs that
    are developing. They care about making sure that their kids
    make it to school instead of to the doctor's office or to the
    hospital because of an asthma attack. They care about the long-
    term health implications of living in areas that don't meet
    health-based standards, standards supported fervently by
    doctors and public health professionals across the nation.
        Fortunately for almost 50 years, the Clean Air Act has
    provided bipartisan, time-tested solutions for reducing harmful
    pollution and protecting public health. National Ambient Air
    Quality Standards for deadly pollutants like ground level ozone
    form the foundation of the Clean Air Act's health-based
    protections. These bipartisan, consensus-backed standards save
    lives and protect American families.
        But they are under threat. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt
    is attempting to rescind, weaken, or delay many of these clean
    air standards. For instance, the Administrator has opened a
    loophole for super polluting, heavy duty long haul trucks.
    These glider vehicles are not required to deploy same modern
    pollution controls as other new long haul trucks. Gliders emit
    43 times as many NOx, or nitrogen oxides, during highway
    driving than trucks with modern emission control systems.
    Allowing this loophole has resulted in significant increases in
    NOx. One years' worth of glider sales accounts for more NOx
    emissions than all of the emissions generated as a result of
    the VW emissions billion-dollar cheating scandal.
        The Administrator has likewise neglected his responsibility
    to ensure protections are in place for downwind States and
    communities. For examples, the States of Connecticut, Delaware,
    and Maryland all submitted Good Neighbor petitions to EPA under
    Section 126 of the Clean Air Act, seeking relief from upwind
    emissions from coal-fired power plants that cause health-
    harming ozone pollution within their borders, pollution that
    forms some of the background that you'll hear about today.
        Ozone does not discriminate. No matter where it comes from,
    the effect on the human body, on our kids' lungs, is the same.
    If we are in agreement that we value clean air, that we want
    our kids to breathe air that meets health-based standards
    recommended by the public health and medical communities, then
    the fastest way to achieve that clean air is to deploy the
    controls and policies that we know work. The controls that for
    almost 50 years have reduced aggregate pollution in our country
    by 73 percent, while GDP has grown 253 percent.
        Most of our country, including the San Antonio area, and
    all of Arizona, is expected to be in attainment with the 2015
    Ozone standard by 2025 because of strong Federal policies, like
    the clean car standards, the clean power plan, and the cross-
    state air pollution rule.
        If we are serious about fulfilling the bipartisan agreement
    that serves as a bedrock environmental protection for our
    nation, then we must protect these policies and we must
    continue to support the scientific process that serves as the
    foundation for developing them. While there may be some
    challenges associated in isolated areas of the West, far and
    away, we should be more concerned with the current
    Administration's egregious attack on policies that will deliver
    tens of thousands of tons of emission reductions and that are
    critical in helping all communities across the country meet
    health-based standards. The Clean Air Act is important in
    reducing hospital visits, saving lives, and reducing healthcare
    costs.
        Thank you for the opportunity to be here.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Craft follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Norman. Thank you, Dr. Craft.
        I now recognize Mr. Stella for his testimony.

                    TESTIMONY OF MR. GREGORY STELLA,

                           SENIOR SCIENTIST,

                           ALPINE GEOPHYSICS

        Mr. Stella. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my
    name is Gregory Stella, and I thank you for giving me the
    opportunity to testify today on behalf of my firm, Alpine
    Geophysics regarding information on background ozone
    concentrations and its role in regulatory modeling.
        I especially would like to thank Representative Biggs for
    the invitation to appear before you.
        As air quality scientists, one of our main objectives is to
    reduce and understand the uncertainty involved with modeling
    ozone concentrations in past, present, and future timelines.
    Each data input, calculation, model, or method that supports
    our analyses have their own uncertainties that need to be
    studies in order to understand the impact of these elements on
    policy decisions.
        To this end, there are a number of categories of pollutant
    concentrations that have inherent uncertainty in a regulatory
    sense. One of those categories is background ozone.
        Background ozone has historically been defined as amounts
    of pollutant concentrations that are produced by sources other
    than people. Because amounts of ozone measured at ambient air
    quality monitors cannot be separated into background or
    anthropogenic origin, this amount needs to be determined using
    photochemical modeling and source apportionment tools.
        We know that many sources of background ozone are global in
    origin, and the fact that ozone is not emitted directly;
    rather, it is formed by reaction of hydrocarbon and nitrogen
    species in the presence of sunlight, complicates the linkage of
    particular emissions to downwind ozone concentrations.
        In the air quality community, we use global chemistry
    models to derive boundary conditions, which include background
    emissions, to inform our regional models. What this means is
    that we generate global concentrations of ozone at very coarse
    scale and mesh them with our own regional and local modeling
    platforms, which are of a much finer granularity.
        To this, we add regional background ozone concentrations
    from models that estimate biogenic or wildfire emissions, and
    complete the platform with our national inventories of
    anthropogenic sources.
        When we look at all these factors and run our own source
    apportionment tools with the resulting modeling platforms, we,
    EPA, and others have found that background ozone can range from
    ten percent of the modeled contribution to close to 90 percent
    on any single model day, with higher background contributions
    seen in the western high elevation monitor locations. This is a
    large fraction of the current 70 ppbos on NAAQS and can make it
    very difficult, if not impossible, for many regions of the
    country to attain the NAAQS.
        So when that leap is made from science to policy, the
    various definitions of uncontrollable ozone sources become
    important to consider. For example, baseline ozone, U.S.
    background, global background, global anthropogenic background,
    or even international exceptional vents have all been cited as
    applicable to 179B petitions and potential regulatory relief
    under the ``but for'' clause of this section of the Act.
        However, to be clear, relief using 179B or exceptional
    event exclusion does not give anyone cleaner air to breathe. It
    is simply recognizing a regulatory reprieve based on the
    language of the law.
        In the air quality community, these options are not seen as
    a free pass to pollute. Rather, this is seen as a reality that
    must enter into the regulatory discussion and be understood in
    order to develop control programs that maximize air quality
    benefit with minimal societal disruption.
        Unfortunately, there is a vague regulatory clarity on
    exactly what could be considered in many cases, and therefore,
    we continue to pursue direction in both definition and
    application as it relates to transport contribution of
    uncontrollable and background ozone concentration at local
    sources.
        From a scientific perspective, improvements to
    understanding background ozone are being developed using
    collateral model attribution studies among EPA, NOAA, NASA,
    states, and international organizations looking to reduce the
    uncertainty involved with boundary conditions and the relative
    international contribution to domestic air quality problems.
    Research programs like these are vital and are drastically
    underfunded. Without substantive direct funding of these
    projects, much of the work is being performed as an aside to
    other projects, unacceptable for such an important issue on
    that critical interface of science and public policy.
        In summary, it is absolutely clear that there is an ever-
    increasing impact of uncontrollable emission sources on the
    ability of our States to achieve attainment with the current
    air quality standards. While much work has occurred related to
    the understanding of background ozone, and international
    transport's contribution to locally observed air quality
    concentrations, we still have a long way to go in understanding
    the contribution of these sources and improving the models and
    methods used to quantify and qualify their use in a regulatory
    framework.
        I thank you for your time and this opportunity to present
    this information before the Committee, and I will be happy to
    answer any questions that Members have on this topic.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Stella follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Norman. Thank you, Mr. Stella. I want to thank all the
    witnesses for testifying.
        The Chair now recognizes himself for five minutes of
    questioning.
        This is up close and personal for me, this topic. I'm a
    real estate developer, and to have companies to come into an
    area and to be on the verge of breaking ground, and then to be
    put into nonattainment status is tragic. And Ms. Rath, your
    chart showing 20 percent--80 percent basically comes from
    outside with no control is real.
        So I direct my first question to Mr. Franquist. Can you
    explain the remedy a State can get from a successful 179B
    demonstration for international ozone?
        Mr. Franquist. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I
    can. That's what's referred to as the 179B International
    Transport Demonstration. The relief really looks like this.
    What it does is what's commonly referred to as a ``but for''
    analysis is that under the Clean Air Act, if you don't meet a
    standard within the given time, you're automatically bumped up
    to the next higher classification of nonattainment. Under the
    179B, if you can make that demonstration successfully, that
    will simply stop that bump up to the higher nonattainment area
    classification.
        The challenge there is you're still in that nonattainment
    classification, until which time--in this case for us in
    Arizona, we're waiting for international emissions to drop. So
    the relief looks a lot like perpetual nonattainment. It looks a
    lot like nonattainment NSR for potentially decades, if we're
    waiting on international emissions to decrease.
        Mr. Norman. Do you believe that this is a sufficient remedy
    compared to the amount of ozone that comes from international
    sources that affects the attainment?
        Mr. Franquist. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I
    do not. Again, in my testimony I want to make it very clear
    that we're not disputing some of the health challenges of
    ozone, but what often gets lost in this conversation is the
    health effects of poverty. And so when we look at areas like
    Yuma, Arizona, 19 percent unemployment, 19 percent of the
    residents there live below the poverty line, healthy economies
    matter.
        And so when we're looking at public health holistically, we
    do need to look at how these remedies, or lack thereof,
    actually really, truly do protect the residents of those
    nonattainment areas.
        Mr. Norman. You're from Arizona. How do the strict ozone
    regulations drive business away from rural counties?
        Mr. Franquist. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
    it becomes a discouraging factor. It's a very simple analysis.
    If you're going to have to do emission offsets, they range in
    Arizona anywhere from $5 to $10,000 per ton, or you can look to
    an area that isn't an attainment area. It's a very easy
    economic choice. You're going to go to the area that does not
    have the nonattainment area issues. So it discourages large
    businesses.
        I would say the other challenge with what we call the
    traditional offset piece is that normally if a business was
    looking to get those offsets, what they would do is either shut
    down a business and capture that headroom with those emissions,
    or put on a pollution control device on an old business and
    capture those emissions. What that does is simply shuts down a
    business. That may not be a net gain in jobs, so that business
    even may be able to come into that nonattainment area, but from
    a job perspective, it may be a net zero or even a loss of jobs,
    depending on what facility they decide to shut down to get
    those offsets.
        Mr. Norman. So why can't the businesses in rural counties
    offset ozone emissions like the businesses do in the cities?
        Mr. Franquist. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
    typically under the traditional offset programs, what you're
    looking to do is what I just explained, either shut down a
    business or put pollution controls on an existing business.
    When you're in a rural area, those businesses, those large
    companies--or even small companies--to get those offsets, are
    scarce to nonexistent. So when you look in the Yuma area, we
    simply just don't have the large heavy industry there to even
    generate offsets. So we have to look to what's considered non-
    traditional offsets, things like captured fleets,
    electrification of truck stops, but it's extremely difficult to
    generate those non-traditional offsets and also get a rule
    through with the EPA, because it's very difficult to prove how
    you qualify and enforce some of those offsets. So for the most
    part, states and local areas do not chase down the non-
    traditional offset programs.
        Mr. Norman. Okay. Mr. Stella, what type of parameters go
    into the models that examine background ozone, and do you
    consider them reliable?
        Mr. Stella. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.
        There are a number of parameters related to both emissions
    inputs or meteorology, or even the chemistry of ozone formation
    that go into our local scale models, and these are largely
    informed by the global community. The inventories that we have
    here in the United States are of a higher quality than those
    that go into the global model, and so when we try to mesh the
    two, we need to best understand exactly what we're putting into
    our simulations.
        Right now, it's the what goes in comes out sort of paradigm
    of the modeling, and until we can improve and understand what
    those conditions are, we're going to be at a loss at fully
    quantifying and qualifying how much international or boundary
    condition impact we have on our local scale monitors.
        Mr. Norman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms.
    Bonamici for five minutes for questioning.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and before I ask my
    questions, I want to point out that Dr. Craft included in her
    submitted written testimony excerpts from the American Lung
    Association's State of the Air 2018 study, and she notes that
    in her home State of Texas, there were over 400 orange, red or
    purple high ozone days. Fourteen counties received a grade of F
    in Texas for ozone pollutions. I know there are a lot of Texas
    members on this Committee and I wanted to point that out.
        Dr. Craft, environmental challenges are often
    disproportionately felt by some of our most vulnerable
    populations. That includes children and the elderly, but also
    the economically disadvantaged of all ages. Some opponents of
    Federal ozone standards attempt to use this as a justification
    for not acting on air pollution by claiming that the cost of
    implementation will fall on impoverished communities, then
    suggesting that it would be better for these communities to
    suffer the effects of the pollution than to bear the costs.
        Also, I noted Chairman Smith in his opening statement said
    that the NAAQS standards we're discussing today create burdens
    without clear benefits, so Dr. Craft, can you respond to the
    idea that these populations would be better off without
    regulations? What are the public health costs of not
    implementing the current standard?
        Dr. Craft. Yes, I'd be happy to share some information
    about healthcare cost numbers.
        Two of the largest respiratory disease challenges that we
    have in this country are COPD and asthma. COPD is actually the
    third most common cause of death in the United States. In 2014,
    medical costs for COPD in the U.S. was $36 billion and
    projected to be $50 billion by 2020. Seventy-six percent of
    those medical costs were primarily paid for by Medicare and
    Medicaid.
        For asthma, peer reviewed research from this year indicates
    asthma costs the U.S. economy more than $80 billion annually
    and medical expenses, missed work days, and school days, as
    well as premature death.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, and Dr. Craft, in your testimony
    you mentioned that anthropogenic sources, rather than
    background ozone, are the main driver of unhealthy ozone
    levels. And you also talk about how emissions reduction
    strategies do exist, but as you mentioned, they are often not
    implemented.
        We have great potential in this country for innovation. So
    can you talk about the over-emphasis of background ozone and
    the downplaying of anthropogenic sources of air pollution by
    opponents of strict ozone standards, why are known emissions
    reductions technologies not being implemented, and what can the
    EPA do to encourage or enforce the use of these emissions
    reduction strategies?
        Dr. Craft. Right. So there are a couple of things there.
        One thing that I wanted to highlight is the way that the
    design values are calculated in this country to determine
    attainment or nonattainment is that areas look at the fourth
    highest average over the past three years. So it's not that an
    area has come into attainment or out of attainment based on
    some annual percentage of ozone.
        So the question of background really needs to look at is
    background contributing to exceedance of the design value, not
    an exceedance of the 8-hour daily. So I just wanted to clarify
    that a little bit.
        Could you repeat the last question that you mentioned?
        Ms. Bonamici. Yes, about the technologies. Is there some
    reason why--I mean, you suggested that there are technologies
    that exist, but they're not implemented. What are the
    technologies that are not being implemented and what can the
    EPA do to encourage or enforce the use of these emissions
    reduction strategies?
        We've had conversations on this Committee before about
    regulation and policy driving innovation and technology
    changes, so can you talk a little bit about that?
        Dr. Craft. Yes, and since we are talking a lot about the
    intermountain West, I wanted to mention a lot of controls that
    have been developed over the last couple of years regarding
    pollution controls for oil and gas development. Peer-reviewed
    publication from the Cooperative Institute for Research and
    Environmental Sciences examined the oil and gas sector's
    contribution to ozone formation on Colorado's front range,
    specifically focusing on days that exceeded the ozone NAAQS.
    The study found that on individual days, ozone and gas ozone
    precursors can contribute in excess of 30 part per billion to
    ozone concentrations and could be the primary driver of
    exceedance of the ozone NAAQS.
        There are new pollution controls that have been
    implemented. Administrator Pruitt has issued a stay on those
    controls, and so right now we're not getting the benefit of
    those pollution controls in limiting excess emission--controls
    that would save the oil and gas sector money.
        Ms. Bonamici. Was there a reason stated for that--
    implementing that stay?
        Dr. Craft. Not that I know of.
        Ms. Bonamici. I see my time is expired. I yield back. Thank
    you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Norman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Chairman
    Smith for his questions.
        Chairman Smith. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, first of all I'd like to point out that Ms.
    Bonamici in her mentioning of the 14 counties in Texas that
    were not in attainment omitted the fact that there are 254
    counties in Texas. Fourteen out of 254 ain't bad, particularly
    when in many of those counties, if not all of them, much of the
    ozone is international ozone from Mexico. My guess is that if
    Oregon were subjected to 75 percent of the ozone in that State
    coming from Canada, she might have a different view of the
    attainment restrictions and the application of NAAQS.
        But I'd like to address my first question to Ms. Rath, and
    that is what has San Antonio done to remain in attainment with
    the 2008 ozone NAAQS?
        Ms. Rath. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really have
    to salute both our public and our private entities for what
    they have implemented voluntarily out of concern for the health
    to ensure they are in compliance. We have had very aggressive
    action taken.
        CPS Energy, which is our municipally owned electrical
    utility company, has been very, very aggressive to reduce the
    demand for electricity from coal-fired power plants. They
    implemented programs and the savings were equal to shutting
    down a medium-sized coal plant. They met their goal of
    producing 1,500 megawatts of renewable energy capacity two
    years ahead of schedule, and this is equal to 20 percent of
    their power generation. And that portfolio includes both wind,
    rooftop solar, and utility scale solar.
        I have to really thank CPS Energy for two aggressive
    actions they will be doing this year that will have a
    significant impact upon our ozone precursors.
        Chairman Smith. Okay.
        Ms. Rath. They are shutting down the Deeley plant, which is
    our largest and oldest coal-powered plant, shutting that down
    early which will have a significant improvement, and they've
    made tremendous investment of the technology at our remaining
    Spruce plant for that.
        In addition----
        Chairman Smith. Okay. Let me go briefly to my next
    question, which is what are some of the economic consequences
    of a nonattainment designation?
        Ms. Rath. Yes, sir. Last year, we contracted with
    economists at St. Mary's University to look at the cost of
    nonattainment in Bexar County, and at a marginal
    classification, the low estimate is over $117 million annually.
    The high estimate is over $1 billion annually. So for every
    year we're in nonattainment, there's a potential for over $1
    billion cost to just our eight county MSA.
        Chairman Smith. Okay, and that has an impact on economic
    growth and jobs and income and everything else. Okay.
        Ms. Rath. Very much so, yes, sir.
        Chairman Smith. Let me ask a final question to all of our
    panelists here today, and that is should international ozone be
    taken into consideration when applying NAAQS to various regions
    in the U.S.? Okay, Ms. Rath?
        Ms. Rath. I certainly think it should. How can you hold a
    community or a region responsible for what's totally and
    completely outside of its control? If they would take
    international transport in consideration, we would be well
    under the limit because we're barely exceeding it, 72 and 73
    parts per billion at our two regulatory monitors.
        Chairman Smith. Okay, thank you, and Mr. Franquist?
        Mr. Franquist. I would agree with Ms. Rath. I think we have
    to take it into consideration, especially when we're seeing
    studies indicate that 83 percent of the ozone in Southern
    Arizona is from international sources.
        Chairman Smith. Okay, thank you. Dr. Craft?
        Dr. Craft. I would actually disagree with Ms. Rath. I would
    point to the 2015----
        Chairman Smith. Let me make certain I understand you. You
    do not think international ozone should be taken into
    consideration?
        Dr. Craft. I guess what I'm saying is that if--are you
    talking about San Antonio specifically?
        Chairman Smith. No. No, just in general should
    international ozone be taken into consideration when we apply
    NAAQS to various regions in the U.S., wherever it might be? In
    other words, obviously San Antonio is an example. If you've got
    75 percent of the ozone being international ozone, should that
    be taken into consideration?
        Dr. Craft. Well there's two things. One is that
    international transport is actually a very small percentage of
    the ozone in the region.
        I wanted to point out one inaccuracy in Mr. Franquist's
    opening statement----
        Chairman Smith. I'll tell you what, before you go to the
    other witnesses, I'd just like an answer to my question. And
    really, it's yes or no. Should the international ozone be taken
    into consideration when applying NAAQS?
        Dr. Craft. It is taken into consideration.
        Chairman Smith. Okay. So you're saying it should be?
        Dr. Craft. It is already, yes.
        Chairman Smith. Okay. Well saying it is doesn't answer the
    question as to whether you feel it should be.
        Dr. Craft. Saying it is is saying that it is already being
    taken into consideration.
        Chairman Smith. And you agree with that?
        Dr. Craft. All sources of ozone are taken into
    consideration in regard to the NAAQS.
        Chairman Smith. But you agree that international ozone
    should be taken in consideration? I assume you're saying yes.
        Dr. Craft. Yes, it already is.
        Chairman Smith. Okay, thank you. Mr. Stella?
        Mr. Stella. From a designation perspective, I would have to
    say that I would agree that it is and I don't necessarily think
    that you can quantify that amount as you go into the
    designation. But from an attainment demonstration perspective,
    I do believe that international emissions need to be accounted
    for. But we have to be cautious because of the large
    uncertainty in predicting that amount.
        Chairman Smith. Fair enough.
        Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Biggs. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the
    gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Johnson.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I have some concerns myself about the consideration of
    international. Does it--when you have the ozone pollution, no
    matter what the source it still has an effect on health, right?
        Dr. Craft. That's correct.
        Ms. Johnson. So are you aware of any efforts that have been
    made to mediate some of that where you have an international
    influence?
        Dr. Craft. Yes, EPA has actually addressed that very issue
    a couple of times. What I was trying to reference a bit earlier
    was the technical support document which was released. It's
    entitled ``Intended Area Designations for the 2015 Ozone
    National Ambient Air Quality Standards Technical Support
    Document'' that references some of the work in San Antonio. On
    page 21 of that technical support document, it says ``From the
    same modeling results, a more reasonable estimate of the
    impacts from manmade emissions from Mexico is on the order of
    less than 1 part per billion,'' so 1 to two percent of the
    ozone projected for 2023 in San Antonio. That's one piece.
        I wanted to also clarify one of the references made by Mr.
    Franquist. He mentioned 65 percent of ozone increase in the
    Southwest is coming from Asia. The paper that he's referencing
    is actually a Lin paper, and the reference is 65 percent of the
    increase in background, not total ozone. So that's actually
    less than a part per billion. I'd like to just make sure that
    that's accurate for the record.
        Ms. Johnson. Now Dr. Craft, in your testimony you discuss
    EPA's delay in determining whether San Antonio meets the 70
    parts per billion standard set in 2015. This delay is despite
    the fact that monitors have detected exceedances for years.
    What is causing that delay? Are you aware?
        Dr. Craft. As far as I am aware, EPA is the cause of that
    delay. It was only in response to a lawsuit filed by States and
    public health and environmental organizations that EPA has even
    taken initial steps to identify certain areas of the country
    that do not meet the 2015 standard. This comes almost an entire
    year after the designations were due, meaning that communities
    with unhealthy levels of ozone will face another summer without
    solutions in place to clean up the air.
        I wanted to highlight an additional issue that's going on
    in San Antonio. It is correct that ground--that folks on the
    ground in San Antonio have stepped up to support clean air
    policies. Unfortunately, the Governor of Texas vetoed clean air
    planning dollars for the region of San Antonio. Over a million
    dollars' worth of planning dollars are gone as part of a line
    item veto by Governor Abbott. He claimed that he wanted
    planning dollars to go to nonattainment areas. San Antonio, for
    all intents and purposes, is actually not in attainment. It's
    not officially designated, but it has exceeded the 70 part per
    billion standard for several years now.
        Ms. Johnson. Well I'm from Dallas, and we don't have San
    Antonio that close around, but we are seeing more and more
    children and seniors getting asthma.
        Have you seen any effect of that in your research in San
    Antonio, and what--does that make the cost and the costs on
    health important or not?
        Dr. Craft. Of course, yes. I also wanted to highlight to
    that point very recent evidence from studies published within
    the last year solidifying the link between ozone exposure and
    an increased risk for death. The key study lead author Domenici
    assessed impacts in 61 million Medicare beneficiaries over 13
    years in the United States and found that the risk of death
    associated with ozone exposure continued below the current
    NAAQS. That--those 61 million people are Americans who are
    experiencing health effects at concentrations below the current
    standard.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. My time is expired.
        Chairman Biggs. The gentlelady's time is expired. The Chair
    now recognizes the gentlelady from Arizona, Representative
    Lesko.
        Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the
    entire panel for coming here and educating us on this issue. I
    specifically want to say thank you to Mr. Franquist, who came
    from Arizona. And while I was in the State Senate, I always had
    good dealings with your agency, and I think they do a good job.
        I think it's really important--I think everybody cares
    about air quality. I don't think there's a question about that.
    I mean, my daughter had asthma. My grandchildren sometimes need
    to use an inhaler as well. But I really think we need to
    balance that with reasonable measures that we have influence
    over. So what I heard here today is a lot of it has to do--or
    at least a large part of it along the border has to do with
    pollution that comes over from other countries.
        I do have a question for Mr. Franquist. Mr. Franquist, what
    changes would you propose to the current National Ambient Air
    Quality Standards process to improve the way that it's
    implemented in the States?
        Mr. Franquist. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I
    think, first of all, I would start to take a look at the five-
    year review cycle. Every five years the EPA has the opportunity
    to take a look at the NAAQS. It seems to be pretty consistent
    that the NAAQS goes up every single year, and that's
    challenging for areas that have to put in state implementation
    plans. You have three years to do that. It seems by the time we
    implement just the beginning states of state implementation
    plans, we're right back chasing the tiger's tail again and
    having to come up with new measures. So I think, you know,
    that's one place I would certainly start.
        Again, one area that, you know, we've been working closely
    with Senator Flake on is removing some of the nonattainment new
    source review offsets and lowest achievable mission
    requirements for those international transport areas. It seems
    to me if you could make a strong demonstration that those areas
    are not exceeding the standard but for emissions outside this
    country--and I'll go back and sharpen my pencil and make sure
    that the Lin study--the 65 percent increase. What I do know is
    the U.S. EPA's modeling said 83 percent of emissions in
    southern Arizona are from outside of this country, and so we do
    need to take a strong look at how those areas with 19 percent
    living below the poverty line can find access to good work and
    therefore good health care. And so, again, I think relieving
    those areas of layer and offset requirements would be another
    good place to start.
        Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, I have one more
    question.
        Chairman Biggs. Please.
        Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. Mr. Franquist, as a follow-up, what
    has the EPA currently done or what could they continue to do to
    help the states?
        Mr. Franquist. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee,
    we're still awaiting the implementation rule for ozone. Under
    the past Administration, there was a proposal that these
    international transport areas would be required to implement
    reasonable available control measures before the area was
    reviewed under international transport demonstrations, which
    simply means that these areas that are shown not to be
    contributing to those issues would have to go above and beyond,
    put control measures in place to control emissions that are
    coming from somewhere else outside this country. So as we look
    to the EPA to finalize the implementation rule, I think, you
    know, certainly one area would be not requiring RACM for
    international transport areas.
        Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, sir. I yield back my time.
        Chairman Biggs. The gentlelady yields back.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
    Lamb.
        Mr. Lamb. Good morning. Dr. Craft, I believe you're aware
    that in 2016 EDF worked with Peoples Gas and Carnegie Mellon
    University on a methane mapping study, basically that I think
    was designed to identify areas of methane leaks and figure out
    how Peoples and their partners could remedy them. Could you
    talk a little bit about that project and how it's related to
    ozone reduction?
        Dr. Craft. Sure. So EDF partners with science; we partner
    with the private sector. The work that we have done looking
    into methane issues was done--that particular project was done
    in partnership with Google. What we did was we outfitted the
    Google street-view cars with methane sensors, and we drove
    around cities detecting methane leaks. These were primarily
    coming from pipelines around the city.
        And we drove around a couple of cities in the United
    States, Boston, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, as you mentioned, and
    one of the things that we noted was that the older the cities,
    the older the pipeline infrastructure, generally the more leaks
    that are there. That's important because methane emissions
    actually contribute to ozone formation. Globally, you can see
    that methane emissions are actually on the rise and
    contributing to estimates between 1 and 3 part per billion.
        We are very interested in trying to curb those methane
    emissions in part because of the climate impacts. Methane is 84
    times more potent as a greenhouse gas warmer over 20 years as
    compared to carbon dioxide. We are investing millions of
    dollars in launching a satellite to measure ground-level
    methane around the world. That's how important we think that
    issue is. If we can curb methane, we can actually prevent some
    of the ozone that is formed by those releases.
        One additional item that I wanted to mention is that our
    organization has a peer-reviewed paper that is actually going
    to be coming out today looking at methane emissions and looking
    at the underestimates that--in terms of emissions inventories
    that exist.
        Mr. Lamb. I'd really like to take a look at that. If you
    could send us a copy, I'd appreciate it.
        Dr. Craft. Sure.
        Mr. Lamb. Are you aware of--what were the gas companies
    able to do after that study took place in order to remedy the
    situation?
        Dr. Craft. So the main thing that they were able to do is
    to replace those leaky pipes, and what we were able to do
    through our work was to highlight where the leakiest pipes were
    so that they could prioritize. I don't think anyone expects
    anyone to go in in a week and replace all of the pipes under an
    entire city, but if you know where the biggest leaks are, you
    can prioritize those, go in and address them, and get those
    reductions. It saves everybody money if we're not leaking
    natural gas from these pipelines.
        Mr. Lamb. And do you think there's anything that we can do
    here to encourage similar partnerships or larger-scale projects
    based on the one that you guys did?
        Dr. Craft. I mean, one thing is that we need to go back and
    make sure that there are pollution controls from the oil and
    gas sector generally. Those federal rules have been in place to
    protect everyone across the country. It would help tremendously
    to Intermountain West if we could--there are places in Wyoming
    that never had an ozone exceedance day before some of the oil
    and gas activity ramped up. So if we put those commonsense
    pollution controls on that save money, then that helps
    everybody.
        Mr. Lamb. Great. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Biggs. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
    Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. I'm trying to catch
    up. Sorry I'm late but it happens here in Washington. You got
    five different things you got to do and they're all important.
    And I think this is an important hearing because we need to be
    educated about this quite frankly, and I'm not educated about
    it, so I appreciate you sharing some of your knowledge.
        To the whole committee, what percentage of the atmosphere
    is ozone? What are we talking about here? What percentage of
    the atmosphere is ozone? We know how much the CO2
    is. We kind of know what methane is. Ozone isn't a percentage
    of the atmosphere?
        Mr. Stella. That's an interesting question. I think from a
    holistic value, I'm not sure that that can be answered
    adequately. I think the measurements that we tend to take are
    more on a regional and local scale, and so we look at the
    ambient conditions sort of respective of individual areas.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. So the fact that we may not have a global
    problem here but we have a problem in places?
        Mr. Stella. Well, I think there is absolutely a global
    problem, and I think what we're focusing on here today is how
    that impacts us locally.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Does anybody else----
        Dr. Craft. Well, I guess I'll just add. So there are
    different types of ozone. We have ground-level ozone, and
    that's the ozone that is harmful. That's why we regulate it
    across the country. There's also stratospheric ozone, and that
    actually is protective. It protects us from UV radiation coming
    from the sun.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
        So there's good ozone and bad ozone?
        Dr. Craft. Good ozone and bad ozone. One of the issues in
    the Intermountain West, which is why it's a challenge, is that
    in some of these high-elevation places, what happens is there
    are stratospheric intrusions meaning that some of the ozone,
    the good ozone that's in the stratosphere, can actually intrude
    into the troposphere and contribute to some of the ground-level
    ozone problem.
        The other issue with high-elevation areas is that the
    chemistry of ozone is a little bit different. It sticks around
    a little bit longer. And that's where you see sort of some of
    the pollution issues coming in, blowing in from other States
    and whatnot.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. So we--and I know that's what the subject
    of the hearing is is we want to focus on what's happening and
    how it impacts on health in terms of the lower level and that
    really has very little to do with the higher level of ozones.
        Dr. Craft. Correct. So we're talking about ground-level
    ozone here.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. And you were mentioning how
    different dealings--and again, I'm an amateur on this. This is
    not something--I'm happy you're here to tell us about it. There
    are leaks from oil and gas--and I remember in California we had
    a huge problem, a health problem, and then we were requiring
    things on the engines of our cars that cut down ozone. And was
    that something--was the ozone higher before that and then we
    made it lower because of that? And did that impact on health?
        Dr. Craft. So ozone is actually not a primary pollutant.
    What that means is that ozone is actually formed by different
    precursors. So what happens is in the presence of heat and
    sunlight and volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides,
    all of that mixes and there's a chemical reaction that actually
    forms ozone. That's why it's one of the trickier pollutants to
    manage because it's not a primary pollutant; it's a secondary
    pollutant. That's what we call a secondary pollutant.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Coming from southern California, I can
    still remember people talking about ozone. Are we healthier?
    Did we handle that with what we did on our engines? Because I
    know that cost a lot of money in terms of gas mileage, et
    cetera, but are we healthier because of that now?
        Dr. Craft. You are healthier because of that. If you look,
    there's actually work done in southern California by a
    prominent researcher Gauderman, who's actually been able to
    demonstrate the improvement in children's health because of the
    reduction in air pollution generally. So we know that these
    controls work and that they lead to better health outcomes.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, we know generally, but I was
    thinking about ozone and--do we know--does--is there someone
    else want to jump in on that?
        Ms. Rath. Congressman, I'll be glad to say that we
    appreciate the controls and the impact it's making,
    particularly in the NOx because in our area the VOC is a very
    small contributor to our ozone precursors.
        I would like to address your question about the oil and
    gas, and I have to salute the energy companies that operate in
    the Eagle Ford Shale. Last year, the highest production of oil
    came out of the Eagle Ford Shale, particularly Karnes County,
    more than any place else in the world. And the energy companies
    that are operating in south Texas have made significant
    investments in technology to really respect people's health and
    to take those measures to really lower their emissions.
        So the emissions from the oil and gas industry in our area
    is a very small contributor. I certainly can't speak to what's
    going on in the West, but I want to be very clear that that is
    not a primary contributor in our area at all.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, what is the primary contributor?
        Chairman Biggs. Unfortunately, the gentleman's time is
    expired.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Oh, pardon me.
        Chairman Biggs. Sorry. Sorry, Mr. Rohrabacher.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all very much
    for being with us.
        I would like to talk for a minute about the ``once in,
    always in'' policy legal history. And, Dr. Craft, EPA's repeal
    memo claims that the ``once in, always in'' policy violates the
    plain language of the Clean Air Act. Was the policy ever
    challenged in the courts in its 27-year history?
        Dr. Craft. The policy has been around for roughly a quarter
    of a century, and as far as I know, it has--actually, I'm not
    sure about that, whether it's actually been legally challenged.
        Mr. Beyer. It was a rhetorical question because at least
    our evidence shows that it's never been questioned in court.
    And what's remarkable is that the new EPA Assistant
    Administrator William Wehrum filed suit against the EPA 31
    times when he was in private practice, and he's the primary
    person behind this memo, and yet he never challenged it as a
    private citizen either.
        You know, the decision to increase hazardous air
    pollutants, carcinogens, and neurotoxins is completely
    irresponsible, and this decision is even more reckless today
    given that we know we can successfully control them with
    operating control devices, long-range applicable regulations.
    And it's the responsibility of the EPA to continue to guard the
    health and human environment against potential harms. And
    that's why I led a letter with Congresswoman Dingell with 87
    cosponsors asking Administrator Pruitt to reinstate these
    longstanding toxic air pollution protections. And, Mr.
    Chairman, I ask that this be admitted to the record.
        Chairman Biggs. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]*************** COMMITTEE INSERT
    ***************
        Mr. Beyer. Dr. Clark--Dr. Craft rather, there have been
    cases made well by your three panelists about background
    radiation or background ozone levels. And one of the--and
    you've pointed out in the questions from Chairman Smith that in
    fact EPA, the Clean Air Act, already takes this into
    consideration. But one of the questions was that a
    demonstration can only be submitted after three years of the
    area not meeting the standard. This was for Yuma particularly.
    Is three years too long?
        Dr. Craft. The reason--oh, sorry. The reason for that
    three-year requirement is that they don't--EPA does not want to
    penalize an area for having sort of a bad year, so what they do
    is they average the previous three years to account for any
    anomalies that might exist. So that's the purpose of the 3
    years.
        I just wanted to go back and mention your ``once in, always
    in'' question. One of the things that we've done as an
    organization is we've gone through to analyze the potential
    outcome of reversing such a policy. One of the things that can
    happen is that this policy--this loophole that's been created
    applies to major sources of hazardous air pollutants under
    section 112, and it allows these facilities to reclassify
    themselves as area sources if they dip below the threshold
    value, which is 10 tons per year for a single hazard air
    pollutant or 25 tons per year of a combination of hazardous air
    pollutants, whereas before, once they were classified as major,
    they had to continue applying those controls regardless of
    those emissions.
        So in this example a source that had been previously
    classified as a major for lead and other HAPs, if they went
    down to one ton per year, they could under the new policy stop
    applying those maximum achievable control technologies and then
    increase its emissions back to 9 tons per year, still avoiding
    being classified as a major source. So that is a critical
    issue.
        And actually, in 2017, EPA issued a fact sheet stating that
    1.7 million tons of hazardous air pollution was prevented
    because of that policy, so that's an important issue I just----
        Mr. Beyer. Okay.
        Dr. Craft. --wanted to go back and clarify.
        Mr. Beyer. Okay. Thank you. I have one more key issue.
    Administrator Pruitt on May 9 issued a memo implying that EPA
    might consider costs when setting NAAQS standards despite
    settled Supreme Court precedent. The standards must be based on
    public health. And I don't think I've ever quoted Justice
    Scalia positively before, but he wrote the unanimous decision
    from the Court that only public health factors may be
    considered. And I'd like to submit another letter for the
    record signed by 71 Members, Mr. Chairman, objecting to this.
    But I'd love your perspective, Dr. Craft.
        Chairman Biggs. Admitted without objection.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you.
        [The information appears in Appendix I]
        Dr. Craft. Yes, that is totally outside the specific
    language of the Clean Air Act to require cost to be considered.
    Costs are considered in another part of--in terms of
    implementation, not in terms of setting the policy--the
    scientific standard itself.
        Mr. Beyer. Great. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Biggs. The gentleman yields back.
        I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin.
        Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
    witnesses, for being here.
        Mr. Stella, in your testimony you also state that for the
    areas that have seen elevated levels of ozone over the last ten
    years, an increase in background ozone is likely to blame. Can
    you please elaborate how you know this to be true?
        Mr. Stella. Thank you for the question.
        Mr. Babin. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Stella. Specifically, we don't have values that would
    allow us to interpret how much of the increased international
    or background contribution is there, but what we do recognize
    is that when we run our photochemical models and look at our
    source apportionment studies, which basically tags the input to
    the model, follows it through time and space, and then we look
    at the ozone concentrations at each monitor, we're seeing that
    as anthropogenic emissions are being applied locally in our
    States, the ozone concentrations are being offset by an
    increase from this background contribution component. Now,
    whether or not that's all international anthropogenic or
    international biogenic is uncertain, but the studies seem to
    indicate that, based on our source apportionment runs, the
    relative percentage of the background ozone is increasing
    compared to the reductions we're seeing from anthropogenic
    controls domestically.
        Mr. Babin. Okay. Well, you had mentioned modeling. Would
    you discuss some of the improvements being made to modeling
    through collaborations like the one between NOAA, NASA, and
    EPA?
        Mr. Stella. Absolutely. Some of the work that's ongoing at
    those agencies include looking at the performance evaluation of
    the models. Are we adequately predicting and projecting levels
    of background ozone. And so, for example, along the West Coast
    of the United States where we have a very clean boundary and we
    can measure ozone as it comes across the Pacific, studies are
    being conducted with satellites, with ozone sons, with high-
    elevation monitors, and so we're trying to capture with better
    accuracy the amounts of emissions that are coming in without a
    domestic anthropogenic or biogenic influence. And so those are
    some of the studies that are being conducted, in addition to
    looking at the air chemistry involved with the ozone formation
    as it's developed over the oceans, as well as attempting to
    better understand the impact of wildfires and biogenics, and so
    looking at the inputs that go into our modeling.
        Mr. Babin. Okay. Thank you. And then, Ms. Rath, reducing
    ozone emissions can stifle economic development in a region
    because of the impacts to construction industry and businesses.
    Do you have any sense of how much it costs for your area to
    comply with these regulations?
        Ms. Rath. Yes, sir. Thank you. As I had mentioned, we had a
    study that was performed by an economist at St. Mary's
    University, and he said that with a marginal designation, our
    eight-county MSA would have costs at a minimal level of $117
    million a year up to a maximum of a little over $1 billion a
    year, so that's the cost annually if we were to go into a
    marginal status of nonattainment. And then we also have the
    figures for moderate.
        And if I may, Congressman, I would like to say----
        Mr. Babin. Sure.
        Ms. Rath. --that we have certainly seen an increase in the
    foreign transport in our area. In 2015, we were about 29
    percent foreign, and it's increased in 2017 to 38 percent
    foreign. So we're clearly seeing a much larger impact of
    foreign transport, and it's because of the improvements that we
    have done locally with the local generation going down, so that
    percentage that's foreign has certainly increased at least in
    our area.
        Mr. Babin. Okay. Thank you very much. And then, Mr.
    Franquist, would you please explain the potential economic
    impacts on a rural community if it's determined to be in
    nonattainment for ozone?
        Mr. Franquist. Thank you, and good question. Unfortunately,
    I don't have the same numbers for an area like Yuma. What I can
    say is, thanks to the good work that Texas has done, we
    actually scaled a similar economic study for Phoenix's
    nonattainment area, and that's somewhere in the neighborhood of
    $80-100 million, again, per year annually.
        For a place like Yuma, I think the cost you have to look in
    is it voided businesses coming into the area? We know that in
    the Phoenix area we lost four large businesses coming into the
    nonattainment area just to avoid the offsets and layer
    requirements. So, unfortunately, I can't give you a dollar
    sign, but I can say it's significant in terms of job loss or
    job avoidance.
        Mr. Babin. Yes, so I mean it's definitely an impact.
        Mr. Franquist. Correct.
        Mr. Babin. A number of businesses just won't come into that
    area because of the nonattainment.
        Mr. Franquist. That's correct.
        Mr. Babin. Okay. Well, I think my time's expired. Thank
    you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Biggs. Thank you. The gentleman yields.
        And we're going to turn to the gentleman from California,
    Mr. Takano.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Craft, I'm--this probably has been asked, but I want to
    ask it again. The current law permits mainly health concerns
    and science to drive ozone standards, is that correct? It's not
    economic impact, is that correct?
        Dr. Craft. Correct.
        Mr. Takano. And that's been--I think Mr. Beyer submitted
    for the record Supreme Court decisions which reaffirmed that.
    And I know that even the majority in this House respects the
    first branch of government, the legislative branch, as the
    maker of the laws, and it's, I think, inappropriate for the EPA
    to decide if they're going to use some other criteria to decide
    the levels of ozone that are permissible in regulation.
        Dr. Craft. Yes.
        Mr. Takano. Yes. Are you familiar with the Inland Empire
    region of southern California and the work of the Southern
    California Air Quality Management District in improving air
    quality in my region?
        Dr. Craft. Yes.
        Mr. Takano. What can you say about that over the past 20,
    30 years?
        Dr. Craft. I can say that California has been a leader in
    developing air quality strategies to reduce emissions.
    California has some unique challenges that don't exist anywhere
    else in the country, and they have taken that challenge on.
    It's one of the most innovative, creative States in terms of
    trying to get those reductions. What California has done with
    regard to clean car standards is tremendous. We had just this
    week actually the State of Colorado signing on to California's
    clean car standards. So California has been a model leader for
    implementing strategies to reduce pollutants like ozone.
        Mr. Takano. I can say from my anecdotal personal experience
    that I experienced as a child in the '60s and '70s frequent
    days of what we called smog alerts where kids were not allowed
    to go out and play because--I think it was because of ozone,
    the ozone layers--levels were so high. And I can remember at
    night my lungs feeling that burning sensation, and that those
    days have been reduced greatly. And I think that's in great
    deal--a part--we can attribute that to the aggressive efforts
    of the--of the Air Quality Management District in California.
        Dr. Craft. Absolutely. And I would say that there's still
    more work to do. If you review the State of the Air 2018, it's
    estimated that 41 percent of the population of the United
    States lives in areas that exceed health-based standards for
    pollutants like ozone and particulate matter.
        Mr. Takano. And my district in the Inland Empire, we
    experience high volumes of traffic from trucking and also other
    mobile sources, but we're seeing an increase of truck traffic
    as a result of products being shipped to and from logistics
    centers in my area. If public health were not the primary
    concern in setting ozone standards, would districts like mine
    have more to worry about when it comes to air quality and
    public health?
        Dr. Craft. I think we have to use sound science to
    establish these polices. We can't use anything else. Using
    anything else jeopardizes the integrity of the science. That's
    why we use science. That's why it's so important. We cannot
    have policy-led science. We need to have science-led policy.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you very much for that. You know, it's my
    understanding, Dr. Craft, that the Clean Air Act contains a
    number of mechanisms that allow EPA to address high background
    levels of ozone, specifically allows for the exclusion of
    exceptional events like wildfires and the transport of air
    pollution from overseas that contributes to higher ozone
    levels. We talked about the good ozone and bad ozone.
        This exceptional-events rule was revised in 2016 to address
    stakeholder concerns about the rule's clarity and efficiency.
    Could you share with us how and why these types of mechanisms
    operate to the benefit of public health?
        Dr. Craft. Sure. EPA has actually done a lot of work over
    the last couple of years trying to address tools, getting tools
    in place to help manage ozone. I have a recent white paper from
    the agency outlining some of the tools that are available to
    manage ozone exceedances from things like exceptional events
    and background ozone. So some of those tools are the
    exceptional-event exclusions that you mentioned. Small
    nonattainment area boundaries for sites minimally impacted by
    nearby sources is another. Rural transport areas is another.
    And then international transport provisions mentioned here, the
    179B, are just a couple of the tools that are in place.
        EPA does work hand-in-hand with the States to try to come
    up with policies that work for those States. It's not--it's
    under an agreement known as cooperative federalism. We want the
    Federal Government and the States working hand-in-hand toward
    the common goal of protecting public health. That's why the EPA
    is there.
        Mr. Takano. Mr. Chairman----
        Chairman Biggs. The gentleman's time is expired.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you.
        Chairman Biggs. Thank you, sir.
        I now recognize myself for five minutes for questions.
        I want to begin with a statement regarding the memo that's
    received such attention today. Administrator Pruitt, in his
    memo on the NAAQS, requested that the Clean Air Scientific
    Advisory Committee compile data on background ozone. As we've
    just heard in the testimony, that request is in line with Clean
    Air Act and its interpretation by the courts, including such
    cases as American Trucking Associations v. EPA. The
    Administrator of EPA is permitted by law to consider background
    ozone in NAAQS implementation.
        And with that, Mr. Franquist, Yuma County, bordered by
    Mexico, bordered by California, a rural county, very few big
    businesses, very few even medium-sized businesses in it, is it
    possible for Yuma County to reach attainment even under
    diligent efforts to offset emissions?
        Mr. Franquist. Mr. Chairman, I think it's unlikely, given
    the sources. When we look at the National Emissions Inventory
    for volatile organic compounds and NOx, the two precursors for
    ozone, we're looking at something in the neighborhood of two
    percent for VOCs and five percent from vehicles--from
    essentially anthropogenic sources in the Yuma area. So you
    likely could remove all industrial activities in the Yuma area,
    but because of the influence of international sources, you
    would likely still have a challenge of attaining the standard.
        Chairman Biggs. So we hear about the impacts of ozone on
    health, but we just talked about you could actually eliminate
    all industrial outputs and still fail to meet the NAAQS
    requirement levels. So that would further induce poverty into
    that area. And so what's the health impacts of poverty? What
    have the studies said about that?
        Mr. Franquist. Mr. Chairman, we've referenced a couple
    today and we've supplied several in the past, but, again, the
    connection for poverty and ill health is enormous. We know in
    areas like Yuma when we're 19 percent unemployment, what that
    does is it adds a burden to healthy foods, access to health
    care, so it goes hand-in-hand. And so, again, there's numerous
    academic articles linking public health issues and the economy,
    and so, again, that's why we don't challenge that ozone in and
    of itself is a problem. However, when that ozone's coming from
    somewhere else and the Clean Air Act is designed to impact
    negatively those local economies, now those impoverished areas
    have a one-two punch. And so, again, we think it's really valid
    to begin to look at how the Clean Air Act is designed to
    protect public health and the environment but to also relieve
    some of those areas of some of the significant economic impacts
    that go with the 179B demonstration.
        Chairman Biggs. And, Mr. Stella, in your testimony you
    discussed a diminishing rate of return on U.S.-controlled
    programs impacting air quality as the incremental cost of every
    ton of emissions increases. Can you elaborate on that, please?
        Mr. Stella. Certainly. Thank you for the question. In
    essence, what we're seeing is that, as a series of controls
    have already been historically put in place and we see domestic
    ozone reduced from the anthropogenic sources that we have
    control over, and an ever-increasing relative contribution of
    uncontrollable sources, whether or not the international
    transport or background or stratospheric intrusions and the
    like. As we try to get each additional ton reduced to improve
    our air quality, the cost becomes higher and higher, and it's
    simply because we're not getting the same response out of a
    reduction of one ton of NOx or VOC, for example, to reduce an
    equal amount of ozone concentration. And so as we get lower and
    lower and we see a greater percentage of uncontrollable sources
    dominate what our ambient conditions are, it's going to cost
    more to reduce less.
        Chairman Biggs. Thank you. I would like to elaborate on
    that just for a second. As we see the diminishing return
    economically, do you see it--is there a diminishing return as
    far as health conditions and improvement in health as you move
    from, say, 70 NOx down to 69, for instance?
        Mr. Stella. I'm not sure that that's a question for me, not
    being my area of expertise, but as a scientist, I would believe
    that, as you see the ozone levels decreasing, you see
    improvements in health.
        Chairman Biggs. Is there a statistical--well, you just said
    it's not your area, so I'm just wondering if there's a
    statistical diminution, but regardless, we have reached
    basically the end of our time today. I appreciate all of you
    for coming and sharing your testimony. I think it's important
    for us as this allows for a robust discussion, and we need a
    robust discussion on these issues. And there's a lot of
    considerations, a lot of variables that we have to take into
    account.
        I appreciate those on both sides of the aisle for being
    here and participating today, and with that, we're adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                   Appendix I

                                  ----------

                       Additional Material for the Record

                     Letter submitted by Committee Chairman
                                 Lamar S. Smith

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Documents submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamici

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Documents submitted by Representative Donald S. Beyer Jr.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]