[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CLEARING THE AIR: EXAMINING
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY'S PROPOSED EMISSIONS STANDARDS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH, ENERGY POLICY, AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 21, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-44
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
52-640 WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Gary Palmer, Alabama Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Pete Sessions, Texas Ro Khanna, California
Andy Biggs, Arizona Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Jake LaTurner, Kansas Katie Porter, California
Pat Fallon, Texas Cori Bush, Missouri
Byron Donalds, Florida Jimmy Gomez, California
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota Shontel Brown, Ohio
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Becca Balint, Vermont
Lisa McClain, Michigan Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Greg Casar, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Dan Goldman, New York
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Nick Langworthy, New York
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mark Marin, Staff Director
Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
David Ehmen, Counsel
Jeanne Kuehl, Senior Professional Staff
Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
Subcommittee On Economic Growth, Energy Policy, And Regulatory Affairs
Pat Fallon, Texas, Chairman
Byron Donalds, Florida Cori Bush, Missouri, Ranking
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Minority Member
Lisa McClain, Michigan Shontel Brown, Ohio
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Russell Fry, South Carolina Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Columbia
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Nick Langworthy, New York Ro Khanna, California
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 21, 2023.................................... 1
Witnesses
----------
The Honorable Joseph Goffman, Principal Deputy Assistant
Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) Environment
Protection Agency
Oral Statement................................................... 4
Opening statements and the prepared statement for the witness
are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository
at: docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
* Article, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, ``From birth to death,
legacy of racism lays foundation for Black Americans' health
disparities''; submitted by Rep. Bush.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. Goffman; submitted by Rep.
McClain.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. Goffman; submitted by Rep.
Donalds.
The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.
CLEARING THE AIR: EXAMINING
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY'S PROPOSED EMISSIONS STANDARDS
----------
Wednesday, June 21, 2023
House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Accountability
Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy
Policy, and Regulatory Affairs
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in
room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Pat Fallon
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Fallon, Donalds, Boebert, Luna,
Edwards, Bush, Norton, Krishnamoorthi, Brown, and Stansbury.
Mr. Fallon. The Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy
Policy, and Regulatory Affairs will come to order.
I want to welcome everyone here. And without objection, the
Chair may declare a recess at any time. I recognize myself for
the purpose of making an opening statement.
Today's hearing will examine the Environmental Protection
Agency's proposed emission rules, including those that seek to
place strict standards on tail pipe and power plant emissions.
Our Subcommittee held a hearing on these proposed emissions
standards on the 17th of May.
The Committee invited Mr. Goffman to testify. The EPA
refused to provide him or Sarah Dunham. Chairman Comer and I
were disappointed, to say the least, by the EPA's unwillingness
to cooperate and subsequently send a letter to the EPA
Administrator Michael Regan. We still moved forward with that
hearing and invited other witnesses to testify. Our witnesses
express concern that the industry would not be able to
implement rules. That according to the EPA estimates would
require electric vehicle to comprise two--thirds of all new car
sales by 2022.
According to the Biden Administration, these new standards
are the quote, unquote strongest ever. As clearly stated in our
letter to Administrator Regan, the EPA ought to be willing to
come before Members of Congress to answer questions about its
proposed rules.
In fact, the former OIRA Administrator Sally Katzen agrees.
She testified last week and underscored Congress' role in
oversight of the Federal agencies and rulemaking process.
So, I am glad that Mr. Goffman is here today to allow
Congress to do its job in conducting oversight of EPA's
proposed emissions standards rules.
During the May 17 hearing, we also discussed recent Supreme
Court cases, including West Virginia v. EPA and Sackett v. EPA
that rein in EPA's regulatory overreach. However as exemplified
by these proposed rules, EPA does not seem to understand its
legal purview.
Last month, the EPA rolled out what equates to Clean Power
Act 2.0, proposed rule that would drastically lower emissions
for coal and gas-fired power plants. This is legislation by
rule. The Supreme Court already ruled against the EPA and the
first clean power plan and stated that EPA did not have the
authority to place state level caps on carbon emissions under
the Clean Air Act.
As 60 percent of our Nation's electricity is produced with
coal and natural gas sources, Clean Power Plan 2.0 would have
severe implications for the security of the United States'
electrical grid. Yet the Biden Administration continues to
disregard Supreme Court holdings when it advances radical
proposed rules at an unprecedented clip. The Biden
Administration and their leftist allies simply do not care.
When you hire activists to become bureaucrats, you are
going to get none other than bureaucratic activists. In 2015,
in a speech under the Obama Administration, the then EPA
Administrator and former Biden National Climate Advisor, Regina
McCarthy, said of this clean power plan and I quote: ``This is
a rule that actually regulates toxic pollution emissions from
primarily coal facilities, and we think we're going to win
because we did a great job on it.''
But even if we do not, it was three years ago. Most of them
are already in compliance. Investments have been made, and we
will catch up. So, this is just very Machiavellian. The end
justifies the means and is existentially poignant, as stated by
Regina McCarthy.
EPA appears to not care about law and does not care about
its rulemaking, whether or not it is legal, as long as it can
force compliance and investment outside the law. Now, this is
dictatorship--not by the proletarian, but dictatorship by the
bureaucracy.
And our Democratic friends, because they agree with the
goals, callously and carelessly look the other way when
Congress is bypassed, the legislative process is ignored, and
the rule of law is perverted. Agencies' actions that remove
consumer choice operate on the assumption that Federal
Government's unelected class knows best for its citizens, even
more so than the citizens themselves.
My wife has an electric vehicle because that's the choice
that she made for herself and our family. I have a combustion
engine vehicle because that is the choice that I made for
myself and our family. It is about choice. The Federal
Government should not be in the business of regulating vehicles
off the road or shuttering 60 percent of our Nation's power
sources while simultaneously stressing the grid with the
illogical proposals like banning gas stoves and electric school
buses--and electrifying, rather, school buses.
The EPA cannot circumvent Congress or the law, try as they
may. I look forward to hearing more about the--learning more
about the EPA's process for ruling out these proposed rules.
And I yield to the Ranking Member.
Ms. Bush. Ms. Bush, me? Right.
Mr. Fallon. Our Ranking Member Bush.
Ms. Bush. OK. All right.
Mr. Fallon. From St. Louis.
Ms. Bush. From St. Louis, you are right. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. And thank you, Deputy Administrator Goffman, for
being here with us today.
St. Louis and I are here to talk yet again about the urgent
need to tackle the climate crisis and protect human health by
reducing polluting emissions. The Subcommittee already
considered this topic in the other hearing room just a month
ago. While we have a different witness today, the science and
the facts remain the same. Decades of scientific research
proves that burning fossil fuels creates polluting emissions
that enter the atmosphere and generate a greenhouse effect that
dangerously warms our planet. These toxic emissions enter our
lungs through the air we breathe and make us all sick.
Pollution is nonpartisan. It impacts all our communities
differently.
The quantity of pollution entering our atmosphere is
staggering. According to the Congressional Budget Office and I
quote, ``In 2021, worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases from
all sources amounted to 40.8 billion metric tons.'' And the
United States was quote, ``Estimated to account for more than
one-sixth of that amount.''
As I explained last month, we only have a brief window to
act to prevent the most severe consequences of the climate
crisis. We know the health effects of air pollution fall
disproportionately on Black and Brown and Indigenous
communities. I would like to request unanimous consent to enter
into the record an article published in the St. Louis Post
Dispatch on May 27 of this year.
Mr. Fallon. Without objection, so moved.
Ms. Bush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. According to that
article, and I quote, ``About 4 million kids in the U.S. have
asthma. The percentage of Black children with asthma is far
higher than White kids. More than 12 percent of Black kids
nationwide suffer from the disease compared with 5.5 percent of
White children. They also die at a much higher rate'', end
quote.
These are the stakes. The health and safety of innocent
Black children are being compromised by reckless environmental
destruction and pollution. Alarming data from the Missouri
Department of Health and Human Services shows, and I quote,
``Black children are more than ten times as likely as White
children to visit emergency rooms for asthma-related
complications.'' This is unacceptable.
Under the leadership of the Biden-Harris Administration,
the EPA is proposing tough, yet attainable standards to reduce
the polluting emissions entering our atmosphere. When we
finally implement the EPA's rules, we will be taking
significant steps to combat climate change, by making
significant and long overdue reductions and the amount of
polluting poisoning--pollution poisoning our air every day, we
will be saving lives, and we will be preventing illness and
suffering.
As we discussed last month, adoption of EPA's proposed
standards to reduce emissions from heavy trucks would produce,
quote, ``up to $29 billion in benefits from fewer premature
deaths and serious health effects such as hospital admissions,
due to respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses.'' By the year
2030, adoption of the EPA's proposed standards for fossil fuel
power plants would result, and I quote, ``approximately 1,300
avoided premature deaths and prevent more than 300,000 cases of
asthma attacks.'' And as someone who suffers from asthma, this
is a good thing.
During the last hearing, my colleagues across the aisle
tried to distract from these essential facts. They claim that
the Biden Administration was trying to hijack the auto industry
and eliminate consumer choice. They also claimed these
standards were unaffordable, as if getting sick in this country
was free, or as if the climate crisis will not impose any cost
on our businesses, our homes, or our schools. The reality is
that Republicans' efforts to impede the finalization of the
EPA's proposed emissions control rules would result in the
dumping of billions of metric tons of pollutants into the air
that could have been avoided. Republicans' antics would
exacerbate the climate change already occurring, needlessly
exposing our communities, particularly, Black, Brown, and
Indigenous to the health consequences of pollution.
I thank the Biden-Harris Administration and the EPA for
their work to address the climate crisis and make our
communities healthier. And I thank Mr. Goffman for joining us
today and for his leadership in this critical effort. Thank
you, and I yield back.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you. I now recognize myself for five
minutes of questions. Oh, sorry. Thank you. I am pleased to
welcome our witness today, Joseph Goffman. Mr. Goffman is
Principal Deputy Assistant Administration for Air and Radiation
at the Environmental Protection Agency. We look forward to
hearing what you have to say on today's important topic.
Pursuant to Committee rule 9(g), the witness will please
stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear and
affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
Let the record show that the witness answered in the
affirmative.
We appreciate you being here today for your testimony. And
let me remind the witness that we have read your written
statement, and it will appear in full in the hearing record.
Please limit your oral statements to five minutes. As a
reminder, please press the button in front of the microphone
for you. And you are going to get a green light for four
minutes, and you will get a yellow light for one minute, and
then the red light, if you could carry a landing and wrap it
up. I now recognize Mr. Goffman for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH GOFFMAN
PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION (OAR)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Goffman. Good morning, Chairman Fallon, Ranking Member
Bush, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving EPA
the opportunity to testify before you this morning on our
proposed emission standards for cars and trucks. The
transportation sector accounts for the largest portion, nearly
one-third of greenhouse gas emissions, and for significant
levels of health-threatening air pollutants in the United
States. Reducing these emissions is an EPA priority to ensure
that Americans enjoy healthier lives.
In April, EPA announced proposed pollution standards for
light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles from model year 2027 and
beyond. The proposed standards align with commitments already
made by automakers and commercial vehicle manufacturers as they
plan to accelerate clean vehicle technologies in the on-road
vehicle fleet.
These proposals, which follow EPA's longstanding approach
to setting car and truck standards under the Clean Air Act
would deliver dramatic improvements in public health, notable
saving for consumers and commercial fleets, and increase energy
security for Americans. If finalized, these proposals would
mark a significant step toward improving air quality,
protecting people's health, and addressing the climate crisis.
These proposals would deliver these important public health
benefits by achieving widespread reductions and harmful air
pollutants. They would improve air quality for communities
across the Nation, especially communities that have born a
disproportionate burden of polluted air.
Motor vehicle pollution is linked with avoidable premature
deaths and serious illnesses, including respiratory illness,
cardiovascular problems, and cancer. In a single year, the
proposals would prevent between 750 and 1,700 avoidable deaths
with cumulative results over say 20 years being much higher.
In addition, EPA estimates that between 2027 and 2055, the
proposed light-duty and medium-duty would reduce CO2 emissions
by 7.3 billion metric tons. The heavy-duty proposal would
reduce CO2 emissions by an additional 1.8 billion metric tons
of CO2. Together these reductions would be the equivalent to
more than twice the total U.S. CO2 emissions in 2020, and they
would strengthen American energy security by reducing reliance
on 20 billion barrels of imported oil.
The proposed standards would also deliver lower fuel and
maintenance costs for families. The proposed light-duty vehicle
standards would on average save consumers $12,000 over the
lifetime of the vehicle. Under the heavy-duty proposal, EPA
expects that truck and bus owners would see, approximately,
$250 billion in savings, associated with reduced fuel use and
vehicle maintenance and requirements with fewer repairs needed.
Overall, EPA estimates that the benefits of the proposed light-
duty vehicle standards alone would exceed their cost by at
least $1 trillion.
EPA developed the vehicle proposals recognizing the
significant investments that Congress itself has already made
in clean vehicle technologies, through both the Inflation
Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. And we
also recognized the industry itself as well has made
investments in response to market shifts, technology
innovation, and increasing consumer interest in electric
vehicles.
Since President Biden took office, the number of EV sales
has more than tripled, while the number of available models has
doubled. There are over 130,000 public chargers across the
country, and that represents a 40 percent increase since just
2020. The private sector has also committed more than $120
billion in domestic EV and battery investments since President
Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act into law under a year
ago.
Car and truck companies moving to include more electric and
other zero emission vehicles and their products leads to
increasing diversity of clean vehicle choices for consumers. We
know that Americans need and want flexibility in the types of
vehicles they drive. The proposed standards are performance-
based emissions standards and are technology-neutral, meaning
that manufacturers choose the mix of technologies, including
internal combustion engines.
Mr. Fallon. Mr. Goffman, I am sorry, you are way over.
Mr. Goffman. I am so sorry.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you very much. I give you----
Mr. Goffman. Thank you for the extra minute.
Mr. Fallon [continuing]. Eighteen percent more, right? OK.
I now recognize myself for the purpose of asking questions for
five minutes.
Mr. Goffman, thank you again for being here today.
Although, I wish you were able to attend a hearing we had a
month ago. I have to ask you, were you initially responsible
for declining our invitation to appear before the Committee, or
did another EPA official make that decision for you?
Mr. Goffman. I participated in the decision.
Mr. Fallon. And so that begs the question, I mean, you do
recognize the fact that Congress has oversight on the EPA. Why
didn't you testify? Why didn't you appear?
Mr. Goffman. Sorry?
Mr. Fallon. What was your reason for not appearing.
Mr. Goffman. For my part, as with many things, it was
primarily schedule.
Mr. Fallon. So, you could not change and adjust your
schedule for the United States Congress?
Mr. Goffman. It was difficult for me to do----
Mr. Fallon. So, what was more important?
Mr. Goffman. Well, let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I
am pleased to be here today. I understand that it is my
obligation and commitment not only to be here today, but to
continue to provide this Committee and the Congress with the--
--
Mr. Fallon. Well, thank you. Because I think this is just
an institutional thing. I mean, it is for our chamber. Whether
it is a Democrat or a Republican. I think it absolutely should
be bipartisan. I am, quite frankly, outraged. As a citizen of
the United States, if I was not serving in Congress, I would
want the EPA and all government, you know, Federal Government
agencies to appear before Congress when requested.
Even during the comment period that Mr. Regan appeared
before the E&C. So, I would hope that in the future you would
clear your calendar for Congress, I guess. I think that is fair
to say. All right. Now, obviously, Mr. Goffman, are you an
elected official.
Mr. Goffman. I am not.
Mr. Fallon. OK. When you were nominated--when were you
nominate by the Administration with just month and year?
Mr. Goffman. March 2022, and then again earlier this year
in January 2023.
Mr. Fallon. So, March 2022. And last Congress, was your
nomination reported favorably or unfavorably out of the Senate?
Mr. Goffman. It was reported on a ten-ten vote from the
Environment and Public Works Committee last year. And a ten----
Mr. Fallon. So, by definition, that would be unfavorable
because it did not pass?
Mr. Goffman. I guess.
Mr. Fallon. In two and a half years, or I guess for the--a
year and change--you have been operating in an acting capacity.
Is that accurate?
Mr. Goffman. I was in an acting capacity until November
2021, and now I am just the Principal Deputy, but I am
responsible for what the----
Mr. Fallon. Are you confirmed? Have you been confirmed by
the U.S. Senate?
Mr. Goffman. No, no, I have not.
Mr. Fallon. OK. So, you know, the concern I have is when
the EPA is passing major rules, and you are not elected, and
the Administrator Regan, he is not elected either, correct? How
many employees are at the EPA, roughly?
Mr. Goffman. Roughly, 15,000.
Mr. Fallon. Yes, we said 17,000. So, roughly. Any of them
elected of those 15 to 17,000.
Mr. Goffman. No.
Mr. Fallon. Which begs the question then, why are y'all, in
effect, legislating? Because let us say--do you have a law
degree?
Mr. Goffman. Yes, I do.
Mr. Fallon. From Yale?
Mr. Goffman. Yes.
Mr. Fallon. Is that right?
Mr. Goffman. Yes.
Mr. Fallon. OK. And you worked at Harvard?
Mr. Goffman. Yes.
Mr. Fallon. So very prestigious. You are familiar with West
Virginia v. EPA?
Mr. Goffman. Yes, I am.
Mr. Fallon. And SCOTUS, of course, some of their--for lay
people can be complicated rulings. But essentially, did they
rule that the EPA acted within its statutory authority, or did
they rule that the EPA overstepped their authority?
Mr. Goffman. The latter.
Mr. Fallon. How about Sackett v. EPA, the same question?
Mr. Goffman. I am less familiar with that.
Mr. Fallon. OK. But did they rule--are you familiar with--
did the EPA act within their statutory authority, or did they
exceed it? It was their waterways in the United States.
Mr. Goffman. I am generally familiar with the case. I am
hesitant because I have not studied it.
Mr. Fallon. Well, I can share with you that they also ruled
that the EPA, again, overstepped their authority. So, we have a
pattern here about the SCOTUS. The highest authority we have
has made it very clear that the EPA has exceeded their
statutory authority, and they are making law when they do not
have the authority to do so. These are major and seismic
decisions.
So, the EPA's proposed Clean Power Act rule 2.0 would
target emissions for coal and natural gas power plants. A
sector that provides the U.S. with 60 percent of our
electricity.
At a Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
hearing last month, James Danly of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission or FERC had testified that the
intermittent renewable resources, like wind and solar are
simply incapable of ensuring the stability of the bulk electric
system; and warns that if generation assets necessary to
systemic stability are retired, there will be--and this is a
quote--``in time a catastrophic reliability event.''
Did the EPA consult with FERC on how Clean Power Plan 2.0
would further impact it with stability?
Mr. Goffman. Yes, we did.
Mr. Fallon. So, can you commit to providing the Committee
with any communications or documents between the EPA and FERC
to ensure the safety and soundness of the power grid should
this proposal be finalized?
Mr. Goffman. Ah, yes.
Mr. Fallon. OK. Thank you. My time is up, so I yield now to
the Ranking Member. Thank you.
Ms. Bush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. St. Louis and I are here
today in defense of the planet itself. My Republican colleagues
convene weekly hearings to question the merits and the efficacy
of strong government relations under the jurisdiction of every
single Federal agency. Whether it be challenging sensible gun
safety legislation or restricting the ability of the EPA to
prevent corporations from polluting the very air we breathe,
deregulation kills people.
As we see in life-threatening and emergency situations,
like the tragic Titan submarine incident, the regulation of our
transportation systems on land, air, or sea is a public safety
concern. We do not look toward our investors or our bankers to
step in when lives are on the line, but to our local, state,
and Federal Governments.
That is why we are here to legislate and to regulate in the
name of public safety. Let us remember what this hearing is
really about. It is about the cars and the trucks most of us
drive every day. We all agree that people need licenses to
drive cars. They need license plates, inspections, seatbelts,
and other closely monitored regulations to protect the well-
being of everyone on the road. The EPA has reported that in
2030 alone, the proposed rule to reduce emissions from fossil
fuel fire power plants would, quote, ``prevent approximately
1,300 premature deaths'' and, quote, ``more 300,000 cases of
asthma attacks,'' which I previously stated.
I refuse to prioritize the profits of a ruthless auto
industry over our environment or the health of our communities.
We have over 60 years of scientific evidence that proves
historically segregated Black communities who live closer to
transportation hubs like St. Louis are at higher risk of
exposure to toxic air pollutants.
In a groundbreaking March 2020 study published in the
journal, Environmental Science and Technology Letters,
researchers found that in comparison with White people, Black
and Brown people reside near more smog and fine particulate
matter from cars and trucks, buses and coal plants in areas
that were historically redlined. Those pollutants inflamed
human airways, reduced lung function, triggered asthma attacks,
and can cause damage to the heart and cause strokes.
Black children, children of color, our seniors, people with
disabilities, and those living outside without homes are all at
risk. The implementation of these new EPA rules would be one
important step toward achieving racial justice through direct
climate action.
Mr. Goffman, can you please discuss the disproportionate
impact of unhealthy air quality on communities of color?
Mr. Goffman. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to
that, Ranking Member Bush. We certainly know that pollutants
like fine particles, for example, do have a disproportionate
impact on the health of people of color, associated with a
greater incidence of a range of respiratory diseases,
including, for example, asthma in children.
As you pointed out, something like 72 million people live
very close to major highways and other transportation arteries.
A disproportionate number of those people are people of color
or people who live in low-income communities. Proposals like
the one that we issued in April will go, we believe, a long way
to protecting those very people from a wide range of the
pollutants that are associated with their disproportionate
encounters with heart disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer. And as you have pointed out, that not only impairs the
quality of their lives, it adds heavy costs as well.
Ms. Bush. Thank you. Mr. Goffman, can you, please, briefly
explain why reducing pollutant emissions would have such a
propound effect on just the people of this country at large?
Mr. Goffman. Well, the power sector rules that we issued
are a good example of response to your question, because
through our proposal in May to set standards for CO2 emissions,
our analysis shows that the emissions reductions of NOx, SOx on
particles, even air toxics as well as CO2 would be spread
pretty evenly across the country, so that as in the case with
the car rules, everybody would benefit from those reductions
and the resulting avoided illnesses and premature deaths linked
to those.
Ms. Bush. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Edwards
from North Carolina.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Goffman, thank you
for being with us today. I am excited to see that you did feel
this hearing was important enough to attend.
The EPA's EV rules would necessitate enormous investments
from the auto industry, driving up the average price per
vehicles for consumers, and additionally electronic vehicles
are already much more expensive than traditional autos with
internal combustion engines.
Mr. Goffman, EVs are much more expensive than gas-powered
vehicles since they are. How do EPA's rules impact vehicle
affordability for families?
Mr. Goffman. Thank you, Congressman Edwards, for bringing
that issue up because it is a central preoccupation of ours as
well. These rules will not deliver the benefits that we just
talked about unless the vehicles are attractive, appealing, and
above-all affordable. And so, among other things, we are
working with the auto industry itself. Many companies have
already made a significant commitment to marketing EVs, and we
are learning from them about what they are doing to address
affordability, and what our rules need to do in order to
support that.
We are also putting these rules in proposal form out in the
wake of Congress itself having through the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act introduced
into the economy a number of measures whose purpose and
ultimate effect will be to make the manufacturer of these
vehicles less expensive and, therefore, give the car companies
the opportunity to sell the vehicles they're planning to market
at affordable prices.
Mr. Edwards. And so, what are some of the things that you
have learned that you could share with this Committee that are
going to make these more affordable? Because everything that I
know right now shows that these vehicles are far more expensive
on the American family.
Mr. Goffman. Well, one of the things we have learned is the
importance of lead time. We are here in 2023 having issued
these proposals. We are working toward getting them into final.
But one of the things we have learned from the companies is
that they have already carefully mapped out business plans for
the later years in this decade and the earlier years of 2030--
in the 2030s, rather, to increasingly rely on EVs as part of
their new car fleet. And that with that lead time and giving
them the time to harvest the benefit of the investments that
they are making that Congress has already made, they will be
able to bring prices down so that people can afford these
vehicles.
And the important thing from the agency's perspective is
what we are learning is that we have to understand what they
are doing since these standards are structured in the same way.
The proposal we put out actually presents four different
alternate appropriates, so that we can continue to engage with
the car companies, with other parts of the transportation
sector in order to make sure that when we land these rules in
final, it will reflect everybody's best understanding of how to
make them afford--how to make these vehicles affordable.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you. Please excuse if I seem a little
bit skeptical that I am not seeing anything, I am not hearing
anything. I am certainly not seeing sticker prices on these
vehicles be lowered to a point that families, at least in
western North Carolina, could afford them. There is--and please
hear me clearly, there is a huge concern from the people that I
represent for them being forced to buy a vehicle that is well,
well out of their range.
Many auto manufacturers expected to use the sale of
internal combustion engine vehicles to pay for the transition
to EVs. How would those rules affect that premise?
Mr. Goffman. Well, one of the things we are seeing is that
in the later part of this decade, when these rules start to
phase in, companies will still be marketing well north of 40
million new internal combustion engine vehicles in their new
car sales at, you know, as this rule ramps up. And, of course,
under the proposal, the standards do not apply before model
year 2027.
Mr. Edwards. All right. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I see I am
out of time. I yield back.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Brown
from Ohio.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under the Biden-Harris
Administration, the commonsense regulations and rules put in
place by the Environmental Protection Agency are prioritizing
the health of our environment and our communities. We know that
EPA's responsible for protecting the public from pollutants
that might otherwise harm our health and negatively impact the
environment, the climate.
For example, the average levels of lead in blood of
Americans has steadily dropped since the 1970 when the EPA
began to phaseout leaded gasoline, which was banned entirely in
1995. That is just one effort among so many in which the EPA's
rules and requirements have served to protect the health and
well-being of our communities. To be clear, the presence of
lead is still a major problem in communities, like Cleveland.
And we still have much work to do to remove lead and other
pollutants from our air, water, and yes, pipes.
But the Biden-Harris Administration is working tirelessly
to clean it all up, in particular, thanks to bipartisan
infrastructure law, lead, pipe, and paint action plan, and
investments from the Inflation Reduction Act.
When he passed the Bipartisan Inflation Law and the
Inflation Reduction Act, it was a historic step toward
combatting good climate crisis, while also addressing the
pollution and pollutants that impact public health.
In addition to lead, other emissions from burning fossil
fuels are actively harmful to the public, especially
communities of color, which are repeatedly subjected to
environmental injustices. Fortunately, we have agencies like
the EPA playing a critical role in the fight to regulate those
emissions and support healthier, longer, and better lives.
So, Mr. Goffman, what progress has the Biden-Harris led EPA
made to lower pollutions and emissions under the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act among other
policies?
Mr. Goffman. Well, thank you for that. Thank you for that
question. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation
Reduction Act include a number of provisions that are already
creating investments here in the United States for the
components that auto manufacturers will need not only to make
cleaner cars and trucks but to make them here and to make them
at lower cost.
So, what we were doing with these proposals was, if you
will, building upon those investments that Congress made in the
first instance and now the private sector is making.
What our rules do at the proposal stage, at least, is--they
are designed to harness those investments, so that 5 or 10
years from now, the cars and trucks that are being sold and
coming onto the roadways will be much cleaner, not only
operating with less or fewer CO2 emissions, but operating with
fewer emissions, the whole change of pollutants that blight air
quality and lead directly to avoidable illnesses and deaths.
Here we are in year three of the first term of the
Administration, we have already finalized emissions standards
for both cars and trucks through model year 2026 for cars and
conventional pollutants from diesel engines and trucks. And
these proposals build on those actions that we have already
taken.
Ms. Brown. Thank you for that. And I would go on to say
that as we all know, Black and Brown communities are
disproportionately affected by both direct air pollution and
the ramifications of climate change. And I want to also say I
remain committed to highlighting and confronting those
disparities. And I continue to thank President Biden for
emphasizing this as a part of his mission as well.
Finally, Mr. Goffman, how does the EPA's rules ensure that
all Americans, including communities of color have clean air?
Mr. Goffman. Well, thank you for that question. I think you
know that Administrator Regan has made it a priority so that
all of EPA's resources, whether they're providing funding to
communities or writing standards that industry can comply with
and achieve reductions are designed in a way to provide
benefits, not just to some Americans, but to all Americans,
including with a focus on those communities that already at
this point in history have born a greater burden of pollution
and waste.
Ms. Brown. Thank you. I just want to say, although the EPA
is under threat from the right-wing extremist, I am grateful
that the agency continues to work toward a cleaner future on
behalf of the public. And I look forward to 30 years from now
when we will view the phaseout of harmful pollutants in
emissions as commonsense measure to protect public health
similar to the ban on leaded gasoline. And with that, Mr.
Chairman, thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Fallon. The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Boebert from
Colorado.
Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Goffman, are the
EPA's rules to regulate light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles
economically feasible for middle class and hardworking American
families living month to month and struggling with inflation?
Mr. Goffman. Thank you for that question. It is a question
that we take very seriously as well. And we have designed these
rules to work hand in hand with the plans that we know the
industry has to introduce and market clean----
Mrs. Boebert. Mr. Goffman, what is the average price of new
combustion engine vehicles compared to the average price of a
new electric vehicle?
Mr. Goffman. I do not know the exact dollars. I know that
today the EVs may be more expensive. But these rules----
Mrs. Boebert. So, the average price of a traditional
internal combustion engine was $45,600 while the average price
of an electric vehicle was $61,800. And if these unfavorable
rules are finalized, your own estimates that I have seen
suggests 67 percent of all new cars sold in the U.S. will need
to be fully electric by 2032. Now, how much did the average
price of an electric vehicle increase by last year?
Mr. Goffman. I do not know. But----
Mrs. Boebert. It is 22 percent. From May 2022 to May 2023,
it is increased 22 percent. So, it is not going down in price
with these electric vehicles. We are seeing an increase. And by
your own estimates, the technological cost of this proposal
could reach $280 billion. That is increasing manufacturing
costs by $1,200 per vehicle.
Mr. Goffman, are you aware that in temperatures under 20
degrees Farenheit, electric vehicles lose nearly half of their
charge in their batteries?
Mr. Goffman. Yes.
Mrs. Boebert. Yes. So, in Colorado where we rely on four-
wheel vehicles to get around in winter, many of these vehicles
will be regulated out of existence under these proposed rules.
How much does an electric vehicle battery cost to replace?
Mr. Goffman. I do not know offhand, but you are putting
your finger on important issues, which is exactly why the
strategy reflected in these rules is to give industry years of
lead time.
Mrs. Boebert. Well, you are regulating an industry out of
existence here, and we are seeing it is less reliable. In
Colorado, it is very common to have temperatures under 20
degrees Farenheit. And these batteries will not--will lose some
of their charge.
Now, I have between $5,000 and $20,000 to replace an
electric vehicle's batteries. And prolonged exposure to
temperatures under 20 degrees can also compromise the electric
vehicle's battery performance as much as 41 percent.
Now, how do you recommend that hardworking families who are
struggling to get by absorb these additional costs associated
with electric vehicles?
Mr. Goffman. Well, our projection is that by the time these
rules go into effect, both the industry and investments like
those made in the IRA and the----
Mrs. Boebert. Oh, so we are just going to print more money
to make up for that. So, I mean, we are seeing a 22 percent
increase in one year for the cost of electric vehicles. Even
the tires on electric vehicle wear 20 percent faster. I do not
think that the average American taxpayer is looking for another
Federal Government bailout for tires. I mean, over half of
Americans have less than a thousand dollars in their savings
account, and you are wanting them to spend more money on
vehicles where the price is increasing, at 41 percent higher at
risk for having to change out a battery, tires that wear 20
percent faster than your average car.
Now, please name two domestic mines, domestic mines that
you support, Mr. Goffman, and that are critical to helping
produce the amount of minerals necessary for the electric
vehicles you have been praising today.
Mr. Goffman. Well, the information I have is that in just
under a year since the IRA was passed, 75 new facilities have
been started to----
Mrs. Boebert. Domestic mines.
Mr. Goffman. Including domestic mines.
Mrs. Boebert. Can you name any that you support? So, the
Rosemont Mine and the Resolution Copper Mine are two mines
Arizona blocked by the environmental extremist and the Federal
bureaucrats that would produce massive amounts of copper in the
United States. The Biden Administration has also blocked the
Twin Metals Mine in northern Minnesota. And Democrats on the
Natural Resources Committee oppose all domestic mining.
And if we do not mine for these minerals necessary, where
are they going to come from, the 40,000 children mining for
cobalt in the Congo with their bare hands in these China-owned
mines? And then we buy these products from China and somehow
feel virtuous about ourselves while they are building some 200
coal-fired energy plants.
These rules do not benefit the hardworking Americans that I
represent. And I hope that you would reconsider them and the
cost that the American family is going to have to absorb
because of them. My time has expired, and I yield.
Mr. Fallon. The Chair recognizes Ms. Stansbury from New
Mexico.
Ms. Stansbury. All right. Well, good morning, everyone. It
is a pleasure to be here to hold yet another hearing on
electric vehicles and a delight to have the second opportunity
to have the exact same hearing we had a couple of weeks ago.
This definitely seems to be becoming a habit over the Oversight
Committee. When the Majority does not get the answers that they
want, they just have the hearing again and then beat up another
witness.
And I do want to just say thank you, Mr. Goffman, for being
here this morning. The EPA is always a popular punching bag of
our friends on the other side of the aisle. And we all know the
devastating impact that the Trump Administration had on the EPA
and especially the morale of all of our Federal employees.
So, I want to thank you and all of our EPA employees who
are sitting here with us today and all of them who are serving
across the country to protect our environment, because we know
that you are doing the work of the American people. We know
that you are doing the work that the American people elected us
in this body to do, which is to protect clean air, to protect
clean water, and to ensure that all of our families have a
livable planet for generations to come.
So, you know, we are here today to talk about climate
change, to talk about this vehicle rule, and to talk about the
actions that the Federal Government is taking to invest in the
private sector and the public sector to make sure that we
address this existential and catastrophic threat to all of
humanity across the planet. And, you know, one of the reasons
why I welcome the opportunity to have this hearing again is
that it gives us another opportunity to highlight the important
work that this Congress, last Congress passed in passing the
most significant climate legislation ever in the history of the
planet, and that is the Inflation Reduction Act.
And the work that the Biden Administration is doing through
our Federal agencies to carry out the mandates that are in the
Clean Air Act, that are in the Clean Water Act and the
Inflation Reduction and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to
actually address our carbon emissions. And I think one of the
things that folks really need to understand is that if we are
going to address our carbon emissions and prevent a
catastrophic climate calamity from affecting every single
community on this planet, we have to do it sector by sector. We
have to address it in the grid.
We have to address it in domestic energy security. We have
to address it through building materials. And that is exactly
what the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation
Reduction Act do. And in particular, we have to address it in
the transportation sector. Because transportation makes up
about 29 percent of our emissions here in the United States.
Now, there was some comments made earlier about EPA
overstepping its authority in terms of setting out emissions
standards under the Clean Air Act. And while there was an
unprecedented gutting of Federal authority by a political
Supreme Court a few weeks ago, in Sackett, and in a previous
Clean Air Act decision, we all know those of us who have worked
in environmental policy, myself included, that the intent of
Congress when they passed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water
Act was to protect American citizens, to protect our air, to
protect our water.
And that they intended, in bipartisan basis, when both of
those bills passed in Congress, and in the case of the Clean
Water Act were signed by a Republican President to ensure that
the American people would have a livable, breathable, drinkable
clean planet for future generations. And so, it is just
patently false that the EPA has overstepped their authority.
Now, with respect to this current rule, this is really
about addressing that slice of the pie in the transportation
sector. And so, Mr. Goffman, I wonder if you could just take
one moment to please explain the significance of why we have to
address it in the transportation sector and how this feeds into
our overall efforts to combat climate change here in the U.S.
Mr. Goffman. Well, thank you very much, Congresswoman, for
doing as good a job as I have ever heard anybody do in laying
out the entire vision of what it will take to address not just
climate change but public health and air quality.
In your question, you provided exactly the context for
these rules, which are but one of several pillars on which a
new car, clean car fleet of on-highway vehicles is being built.
What this set of proposals will do is work in an integrated way
with the investments made by the Inflation Reduction Act and in
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in the whole range of
innovations and deployments of technologies that will allow us
to travel on road, delivering freight and transporting
passengers in a way that significantly reduces pollutants like
CO2. We projected that these proposals, if enacted, would
achieve close to or certainly in excess of 9 billion tons of
CO2 reduced, which is close to twice 2020.
Mr. Fallon. Sorry, the gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will just say
once again, thank you. This is a critical piece in fighting
climate change, and we appreciate your service.
Mr. Fallon. The Chair recognizes Mrs. Luna from Florida.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you. Mr. Goffman, thank you for coming in
today. Just out of curiosity, have you ever owned a business?
Mr. Goffman. Sorry?
Mrs. Luna. Have you ever owned a business.
Mr. Goffman. I have not.
Mrs. Luna. How long have you been in this position?
Mr. Goffman. My current position?
Mrs. Luna. Yes, or at the EPA.
Mr. Goffman. Two and a half years in this position.
Mrs. Luna. What did you do previously?
Mr. Goffman. I worked at Harvard Law School.
Mrs. Luna. What did you do there?
Mr. Goffman. I was the executive director of a legal
research program.
Mrs. Luna. OK. And you were there for how long?
Mr. Goffman. Three years.
Mrs. Luna. OK. And have you ever been to Anchorage, Alaska?
Mr. Goffman. No, I have not.
Mrs. Luna. Have you ever evacuated a hurricane in Florida?
Mr. Goffman. No, I have not.
Mrs. Luna. OK. And my final question, a little bit more
personal, but how much do you make a year?
Mr. Goffman. I think----
Mrs. Luna. I know it is kind of random, but I am going
somewhere with this.
Mr. Goffman. About $175,000 a year, or something like that.
Mrs. Luna. Oh, my gosh. You are doing better than I think
we are after taxes, right, guys? Anyways, the reason I asked
that is because right now what I am seeing is the EPA, not
necessarily you, but as a whole people advising on legislation
that is impacting Americans who might not be as fortunate as
us, right? So right now, the average cost of an electric
vehicle is around $66,000 a year. You have Black Americans
average income 45K a year, and Hispanic Americans on average
making about 58K a year.
So, when these policies go into place to force someone to
buy a new vehicle, ultimately, what ends up happening is many
people cannot afford that.
Places like Anchorage, Alaska, I had the opportunity of
being able to go out on a CODEL recently. And, you know, what I
am hearing from out there is they do rely on gas-powered
vehicles, especially because of the environment that they are
in. And in events like in Florida, when you have had to evac,
we cannot necessarily rely on electric vehicles because of the
fact that, one, Florida is a very big state, and also to the
fact that there is not enough charging stations, nor is there
infrastructure in place to, I think, provide the support needed
for an entirely electric grid, not to mention there is a
national security issue that goes hand in hand with that
because of the fact that if the electric grid is hacked,
ultimately what ends up happening is it can shut down our
entire country, and that is something that I am sure that would
even agree is a bad thing, correct.
Mr. Goffman. Yes.
Mrs. Luna. OK. So, my question for you is what is the EPA
doing to actually talk to normal people, people not in
Washington, people not at Harvard, people not in Congress to
ensure that they are being taken care of because these
policies, this legislation not only is it going to impact jobs,
not only will it really attack the economy, but it is going to
hurt Americans. So, are you guys doing any outreach to actual
normal people to see if they agree with any of this
legislation?
Mr. Goffman. Thank you for that question. Engaging with
everybody, if you will, is an absolute priority whenever we
undertake rulemakings like this. We talk to industry, we talk
to our coregulators in states, and we definitely arrange to
meet with people in communities across the country on a number
of our rules. And what we hear the most from the people we talk
to is that reducing pollution in their communities is a top
priority.
Mrs. Luna. I mean, I think everyone wants a clean
community, but the problem is, is that if you have people in
poverty because of laws that are not necessarily reflective of
the areas that they live in, that is going to cause more issues
long-term than I think what we can do not only to promote clean
energy, which would be, in my opinion, nuclear energy, but then
also, too, making sure that we are not sending our industries
to places that do not respect the environment, and that is
regardless of what we do here.
For example, in some of these Asian companies, they might
be destroying the environment. So, it does not matter what we
do here.
I have a question about Toyota Auto Corporation. It is
estimated that about 1.2 million public charges by 2030 is what
is needed. That's about $400 per day. How many public chargers
are going to be going online per day right now?
Mr. Goffman. What I do know is that in the last couple
years, there was a 40 percent increase in chargers, which now
bring us up to a total of 130,000 chargers.
Mrs. Luna. Do you know how many per day are going up?
Because right now, to hit those metrics, it would need to be
about 400 per day.
Mr. Goffman. I do not know how many are going up, but I do
know that Congress passed two significant pieces of legislation
that will boost the deployment of chargers.
Mrs. Luna. OK, and my final----
Mr. Goffman. The private sector is making significant
investments as well.
Mrs. Luna. OK, and my final statement, because I am short
on time, is like, look, I know you are in a very important
position, but I just hope that you're taking into account
people that might not necessarily have the resources when you
guys are making these decisions because it is going to impact a
lot of people, and it is going to hurt Americans.
Mr. Goffman. Understood.
Mr. Fallon. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Krishnamoorthi
from Illinois.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to Mr. Goffman for coming in.
A couple quick questions. One is, you know, I am Ranking
Member of this new Committee in Congress dedicated to kind of
winning the competition against the Chinese Communist Party,
and this select committee is looking at the EV industry, in
particular, as an area where the Chinese dominate the global
electric vehicle industry.
How, if at all, would your rules help us in competing
against the Chinese with regard to this crucial EV industry of
the future?
Mr. Goffman. Thank you for that question, because the
competition you describe is a tremendous opportunity for
America to expand its leadership in clean technologies. It is
an opportunity that I think we, as a country, have already
seized. It is reflected in the Inflation Reduction Act and the
bipartisan infrastructure law, and these rules are part of the
greater--if I can put it this way--the greater fabric of the
strategy to build out investment here in the United States in
every part of what it takes to create a zero-emitting fleet on
American roads.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And I sense that there is broad concern
about the cost of electric vehicles being so high. That has to
come down for average, ordinary people to be able to access
them.
But would you agree that the only way that the cost per car
can actually go down is through economies of scale? That means
making a lot of these with--over a certain period of time so
that on a per unit basis, they go down in price.
Mr. Goffman. That sounds to me, from what you just said,
Congressman, exactly what the strategy of the major auto
manufacturers is.
Two and a half years ago, or two years ago, the Detroit 3
announced a commitment to selling 50 percent EVs by 2030, and
at least one of those companies followed up that announcement
last fall by saying that its commitment was to make 100 percent
new car EVs by 2035.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Was that General Motors?
Mr. Goffman. General Motors, yes.
And that seems to be perfectly aligned with what you
described.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. So, what you are saying is you are
describing what the private sector is already doing.
Mr. Goffman. Correct.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I met with GM CEO Mary Barra yesterday
in Detroit, along with Mike Gallagher, my Chairman, and several
bipartisan Members of this Committee. Detroit is already ahead
of the game. They are already doing what you are prescribing
within these rules.
So, the question to me is this: How else do these rules
help us? It appears that it helps to reduce carbon dioxide and
greenhouse gas emissions. And why is that important? Why is it
so important to reduce those emissions in the timeframe that
you have indicated?
Mr. Goffman. Well, it is important for several reasons.
First of all, these rules are--again, work in partnership with
the investments that Congress has already made so that what we
are creating is not only--we, by we I mean the administration
in Congress--is very powerful incentives to support what the
private sector is planning to do, but these rules actually
provide the American public with assurance that they will--that
they will see the emissions reductions that we will get as we
put more and more cleaner and cleaner cars on the road in a----
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I would just----
Mr. Goffman. In a timeframe when people today are suffering
significant air quality-related health problems. And the
buildup of greenhouse gases like C02 in the atmosphere is
programming in increased weather disruption and climate
disruption.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Now, you have proposed rule--you have
proposed a rule, just as any administration does with regard to
rulemaking, and you invite comments----
Mr. Goffman. Correct.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi [continuing]. As part of this process.
Are you willing to potentially adjust any part of this rule
based on the comments that you receive either from individuals,
entities, anyone affected in this process?
Mr. Goffman. We have designed the proposal to capitalize on
the opportunity that commenters will provide us.
What we laid out is not just one approach. We laid out four
different approaches, and we are counting on using that as a
framework to engage with stakeholders, the public, states, and
the industry so that when we finalize these rules, the approach
we do adopt will achieve all of the objectives that everybody
this morning spoke to.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Fallon. The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member Bush
for a close.
Ms. Bush. Thank you, Chairman.
Just like the last hearing on this topic, Republicans have
focused heavily on the supposed cost of these regulations on
consumers when their real concern is the cost of compliance for
fossil fuel companies.
As the EPA has testified, these regulations will save money
for consumers. More importantly, these regulations will reduce
greenhouse gas and other pollutant emissions to help tackle--
bless you----
Mr. Fallon. Thank you.
Ms. Bush [continuing]. To help tackle the climate--see,
we're trying to help--and improve public health.
As we have heard, these new standards will help avoid
millions of metric tons of carbon pollution, as well as save
hundreds of lives.
These regulations are based on the innovations of the auto
industry, the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed
emissions standards, as people would call ambitious, they are,
yet attainable and support industry and consumers as we move
toward more fuel-efficient and electric vehicles.
And if I sound like a broken record, it is only because we
keep having the same hearing week in and week out. Nearly every
hearing on this subcommittee has taken aim at the actions of
the Biden Administration, and the Biden Administration has what
they have done to move us closer toward a cleaner, more
sustainable energy.
Republican's continued attack on the Biden Administration's
regulatory process risks exacerbating our communities' exposure
to worsening climate change and health risks, both of which
have outsized negative impacts on Black and Brown communities.
The climate crisis is here. It is now. And we have no time
to waste. Congress must do everything we can to drastically
reduce our emissions so the planet can continue to survive for
our children and our grandchildren.
The EPA is doing just that by introducing these rules to
curve the emissions of pollutants from vehicles and power
plants, two of the biggest sources of greenhouse gases. I thank
them for doing this work to protect our planet and our people.
And as someone who knows people who have lost children
during asthma attacks because of those complications, as
someone who has had patients die from asthma attacks, all of
those patients and all of the people I speak of are Black. As
someone who lives with asthma every single day and has almost
lost her life from it, this deregulation kills. It harms our
communities, and we must do everything to make sure our
communities are safe.
Thank you and I yield back.
Mr. Fallon. So, I want to be clear about a few things. We
would not have had a second hearing, we would not be here
today, if the witness had agreed to testify a month ago, No. 1.
Two, trusting folks in industries like car manufacturing,
Toyota, for example, said that they can produce 90 hybrid
vehicles and the rare earth minerals that that takes, or they
can produce, with those rare earth minerals, one electric car.
What is better for the environment? Clearly, to have 90 hybrids
out there than the one electric vehicle.
And I am also dismayed that there was absolutely no outrage
whatsoever from our friends across the aisle that the EPA chose
not to testify a month ago because it terribly unhealthy, and
it sets a dangerous precedent.
Right now, we have a GOP-controlled House overseeing
Democrat Federal agencies. There will be a day that comes when
we have a Democrat House overseeing GOP Federal agencies, and I
would assume that there was going to be outrage then. But
because the precedent has been set that, apparently, it is just
OK that folks do not clear their calendars for Congress when
they work for Federal agencies----
Ms. Bush. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Fallon. No--real quick. Go ahead.
Ms. Bush. It is not that--Democrats understand that there
was going to be another hearing. Thank you.
Mr. Fallon. We would not have had that second hearing if he
had chosen to testify.
So, again, and to be respectful, I did not interrupt you,
nor do I huff and puff when you speak. I listen respectfully,
and I would expect the same.
Ms. Bush. I asked you to yield.
Mr. Fallon. And we have so.
There was no outrage.
And then deregulation--this is some of the quotes that I
heard. Deregulation kills people. We make people sick. There's
lives on the line, and there's 60 years of evidence, and we are
right-wing extremists. I mean, it is the same old script. It is
just a different chapter.
But the problem is that a lot of that is not true when you
look at empirical scientific evidence. Everyone has benefited
from technological advancements that have been fueled by the
energy sector. For instance, if you look at the life expectancy
of Americans in 1900.
So, let us look at 1900. The carbon dioxide emissions
worldwide were 1.95 billion metric tons. Today--well, in 2021,
it was 37 billion metric tons. Nineteen times more. So, people
must have been healthier in 1900.
The average life expectancy of an American in 1900 was 47
years of age. For African Americans, that comprised 95 percent
of the non-White population at the time. It was only 33 years
of age, which is just heart-wrenching. So, Whites lived 42
percent longer than Blacks in the 1900's.
In 2019, life expectancy, with all that carbon in the air,
for Whites was 79 years of age in this country, and for African
Americans, it was 75 years of age. So, instead of a 42 percent
gap, it was 5 percent, a drastic reduction and wonderful trend
for parity.
But then interestingly enough, if you look at folks that
make it to 70 years of age, believe it or not, African
Americans live slightly longer than Whites that reach that age.
And at 85, it is 50 percent Black folks that reach 85 years of
age, live 50 percent longer at that point than White folks.
Just interesting.
So, we have agencies like FERC saying that we are risking
catastrophic failures in our grid. And catastrophic, by
definition, is a momentous tragic event ranging from extreme
misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin.
We have to have our agencies working together and be
responsible to Congress. That was something that should have
been completely bipartisan, but, again, we heard no outrage
whatsoever.
And then, as always, it does not seem like anyone wants to
recognize on the other side of the aisle that the United States
is trending in the right direction. We are doing good things
because we are responsible caretakers, and we have to find
balance because the people that whine and moan about too much
carbon emissions have carbon footprints themselves. I do not
see anybody weaving their own clothing from hemp.
You have combustion engine vehicles, flying airplanes, and
enjoy these advancements, and our country has reduced our
carbon emissions in the last 20 years by over 20 percent. But
our greatest political rival, China, seems rather callous to
their carbon emissions and have increased their carbon
emissions by 300 percent.
So where, again, is the picketing at Chinese consulates and
embassies? Where are the Democrats in this Congress that
mention that? It does not seem to happen and that is
unfortunate.
Well, again, I wish we had not had to have this hearing
again because we all are busy, but the EPA decided that, you
know, they had more important things to do than testify in
front of Congress, and I hope that never happens again, whether
it is the EPA or any other Federal agency, and whether the
Republicans are in charge of Congress or the Democrats are
because this is about the process, and it is about the
institution, and it is about the American people. We are their
elected representatives.
Thank you.
And with that, and without objection, all Members will have
five legislative days within which to submit materials and to
submit additional written questions for witnesses, which will
be forwarded to witnesses for their response.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:19 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]