[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.]