[Senate Hearing 118-18]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                         S. Hrg. 118-18

                  HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF JOSEPH
                 GOFFMAN TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
                FOR THE OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, AT
                  THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                             MARCH 1, 2023
                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
  
  
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
        
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
52-297PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2023           
               
               
               COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                  THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
          SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Ranking Member

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
ALEX PADILLA, California             LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania

               Courtney Taylor, Democratic Staff Director
               Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                             MARCH 1, 2023
                           OPENING STATEMENTS

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     1
Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West 
  Virginia.......................................................     3

                                WITNESS

Goffman, Joseph, nominated to be Assistant Administrator, Office 
  of Air and Radiation, at the Environmental Protection Agency...    42
    Prepared statement...........................................    45
    Responses to additional questions from:
        Senator Kelly............................................    47
        Senator Capito...........................................    51
        Senator Cramer...........................................    60
        Senator Lummis...........................................    62
        Senator Mullin...........................................    64
    Response to an additional question from Senator Wicker.......    70
    Responses to additional questions from:
        Senator Sullivan.........................................    71
        Senator Graham...........................................    74

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

S.O.S for the U.S. Electric Grid, the Wall Street Journal, 
  February 26, 2023..............................................     6
Energy Transition in PJM: Resource Retirements, Replacements & 
  Risks, PJM February 24, 2023...................................     8
EPA IRA Power Sector Impacts, U.S. Environmental Protection 
  Agency, February 15, 2023......................................    27
Letter to Senators Carper and Capito from the United Mine Workers 
  of America, May 19, 2022.......................................    39
Statement of U.S. Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr., March 1, 2023....    40
A Turning Point for US Climate Progress: Assessing the Climate 
  and Clean Energy Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act, the 
  Rhodium Group, August 12, 2022.................................    81
Letter to Hon. William L. Wehrum, Assistant Administrator, Office 
  of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
  from the Edison Electric Institute et al., July 10, 2018.......    94
Utilities' path to a carbon-free energy system, SEPA Power, 
  accessed February 28, 2023.....................................   112
Letter to Senator Carper and Committee members from the National 
  Tribal Air Association, May 20, 2022...........................   125
Letter to Senators Carper and Capito from:
    the United Steelworkers, May 20, 2022........................   126
    the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association, February 27, 
      2023.......................................................   128
    Earthjustice et al., May 20, 2022............................   129
    the American Public Health Association, May 24, 2022.........   131
    the American Forest & Paper Association, May 18, 2022........   132
    the AFL-CIO, May 19, 2022....................................   134
    the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy, May 23, 2022   135
    the BlueGreen Alliance, January 31, 2023.....................   136
    CALSTART, May 20, 2022.......................................   137
    the Edison Electric Institute, May 5, 2022...................   138
    the Energy Strategy Coalition, May 23, 2022..................   139
    Evergreen Action, May 20, 2022...............................   140
    Exelon Corporation, May 20, 2022.............................   141
    Constellation Energy Corporation, May 25, 2022...............   142
    the Renewable Fuels Association, May 17, 2022................   143
    the Advanced Biofuels Association et al., May 25, 2022.......   144
    WE ACT for Environmental Justice and the Environmental 
      Justice Leadership Forum, May 20, 2022.....................   145
Letter to Senator from the National Parks Conservation 
  Association, May 16, 2022......................................   147
Endorsement of Joseph Goffman from the Commodity Markets Council 
  et al., May 19, 2022...........................................   149
Biden's `BackDoor' Climate Plan, the Wall Street Journal, March 
  17, 2021.......................................................   150
ICYMI: Capito: Joe Goffman is the wrong choice to lead EPA's Air 
  Office, from Senator Capito, July 11, 2022.....................   154
A Coalition Letter Opposing the Confirmation of Joseph Goffman as 
  EPA's Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, from the 
  Competitive Enterprise Institute et al., July 26, 2022.........   158
Letter to Senators Carper and Capito from America's State Coal 
  Associations, June 15, 2022....................................   162
Letter to Senators Carper and Capito from the Energy Policy 
  Advocates, September 16, 2022..................................   169
Letter to Senator Carper from the Domestic Energy Producers 
  Alliance, July 18, 2022........................................   173
Goffman Recusal Statement, June 30, 2021.........................   175
Goffman Meeting with Gina Calendar Entry Power Sector Strategy, 
  February 4, 2021...............................................   179
Power Sector Strategy: Climate, Public Health, Environmental 
  Justice, Briefing for Gina McCarthy and Ali Zaidi, February 4, 
  2021...........................................................   185

 
      HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF JOSEPH GOFFMAN TO BE ASSISTANT 
ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL 
                           PROTECTION AGENCY

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2023

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in 
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper 
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Markey, Kelly, 
Padilla, Cramer, Lummis, Wicker, Sullivan, Mullin, and 
Ricketts.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 
            U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    Senator Carper. Good morning, everybody. I want to call 
this hearing to order.
    We have gathered here today for a second time to consider 
Joe Goffman's nomination to serve as the Environmental 
Protection Agency's Assistant Administrator for the Office of 
Air and Radiation.
    Joseph, we thank you for your previous service to our 
country and for your willingness to serve us again in this 
role.
    I understand you are joined here by at least one member of 
your family. Over your left shoulder, I think I see three young 
women sitting there. One of them is your wife, the one in the 
middle.
    We just say welcome. For you, I said this to Shelley before 
we started, for her, no purgatory, straight to heaven. Being 
married to people who do what we do or what you do, there is a 
special place in heaven for you, so thank you for that. I know 
he appreciates your being here with him today.
    For those participating in and watching today's hearing, it 
may seem a little like we are reliving the plot of the movie, 
one of my favorite movies, Groundhog Day. Nine months ago, Mr. 
Goffman came before our Committee to field questions from our 
members. While a lot can change in 9 months, Joe's 
qualifications for this important leadership role, his 
commitment to fair outcomes, and his nomination's broad support 
from stakeholder groups all remain unchanged.
    Let me first address Mr. Goffman's experience and his 
qualifications. As I said before, the Assistant Administrator 
for the Office of Air and Radiation has an outsized impact on 
our lives. The American people deserve someone serving in this 
position who is committed to reducing planet warming climate 
pollution while also improving our vehicle emissions standards 
and protecting public health, all of which go hand in hand with 
economic growth and job creation.
    From the earliest days of his career, when he helped 
develop the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 as a staff member 
on this very Committee, to his time at EPA under Presidents 
Obama and now Biden, Joe Goffman has dedicated his life's work 
to cleaning up the air we breathe and protecting our one and 
only planet.
    Importantly, he follows the law in a way that also provides 
the predictability and certainty that industry wants and needs. 
I just led a congressional delegation, bipartisan and 
bicameral, last week to Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico. We met 
a lot with the business community down there. One of the keys 
to slowing and stopping illegal immigration is making sure that 
people have jobs there and that they can support themselves and 
their families down there.
    One of the things that is tantamount and really important 
to doing that is certainty and predictability. We heard that 
again and again and again from the business community in Latin 
America, and we hear it all the time from the business 
community here: Certainty and predictability.
    Joe Goffman is committed to fair outcomes, even if that 
process takes longer than many of us who support stronger, 
common sense clean air regulations would like. Why is that the 
case? It is because he cares about doing things the right way 
and listening to the concerns of all who may be impacted by 
changes to our Nation's clean air standards.
    Don't just take my word for it. Over 50 groups representing 
a broad coalition of interests have voiced their support for 
Joe Goffman's nomination to serve as Assistant Administrator.
    As expected, these groups include some of our largest 
environmental organizations, such as Natural Resources Defense 
Council, NRDC, along with the Environmental Defense Fund, along 
with the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, and the 
League of Conservation Voters. That is just a couple of the 
environmental groups that have said they are for this 
nomination.
    It is important to note, however, that a diverse array of 
industry groups also support Joe Goffman's nomination, from 
utility organizations like the Edison Electric Institute, EEI, 
to biofuel groups like the Renewable Fuels Association.
    Finally, Joe Goffman's nomination has the support of some 
of our Nation's largest labor unions, including the AFL-CIO and 
the United Steel Workers. Even the United Mine Workers of 
America, our Nation's largest union of coal miners, have voiced 
their support for Mr. Goffman's nomination to lead the Office 
of Air and Radiation. That does not happen every day, and it 
bears testimony to Joe's character and commitment to doing what 
is right.
    While much has changed since Mr. Goffman last appeared 
before this Committee 9 months ago, including the passage of 
the Inflation Reduction Act, the growth of clean energy 
manufacturing jobs in our Nation, and the lowest unemployment 
rate since 1969, the strong and diverse support for his 
nomination has not wavered.
    President Biden selected Joe Goffman to lead this office 
because he knows that Mr. Goffman is up to the task. Having 
worked with Mr. Goffman, I know he is well prepared for this 
role, and I look forward to doing my part to advance his 
nomination without undue delay. He has the heart of a public 
servant. And we look forward to hearing from him today.
    Before we do that, I want to turn to our Ranking Member, 
Senator Capito, for her opening remarks.
    Senator Capito.

        OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 
          U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I value 
our partnership as we consider the nominees. Although we are 
not always voting the same way, I take this seriously, the 
processing of the nominations.
    I want to thank Mr. Goffman for coming before us again 
today.
    Welcome back, and thank you for being here.
    We have some new members on our Committee, as you see, who 
haven't had a chance to face to face with you, Mr. Goffman. I 
think that is important in light of the discussion today.
    So, you have been at the Administration within the Office 
of Air and Radiation. According to the Chairman, you have done 
a lot of work throughout the course of your career, but your 
last hearing was in May 2022, and as the Chairman mentioned, a 
lot has changed, really, three major events that apply directly 
to the Air Office's responsibilities and authorities since we 
last saw you, the first being the Supreme Court landmark 
decision in West Virginia v. EPA, a case successfully led by my 
home State. There, the Supreme Court held that the Clean Power 
Plan was an illegal overreach of EPA's authority.
    When Congress wishes to vest agencies with broad 
authorities, like the authority to fundamentally change our 
Nation's energy sector, Congress speaks clearly. Congress does 
not address major policy questions through silence or ambiguous 
grants of authority. There are no elephants hiding in mouse 
holes.
    Given the significance of what the Supreme Court 
established there, I must say, I was a bit surprised when you 
told the New York Times in an interview not long after that 
decision, that ``this case does not really take anything off 
the menu that we have been focused on.'' That concerns me, and 
I am sure it is no surprise to you that it did, especially that 
you have given personal calls for capacious readings of the 
Clean Air Act authority before the Supreme Court's ruling and 
prior defeats in our Nation's highest courts.
    If nothing has changed, does that mean that you intend to 
continue to interpret the Clean Air Act in these overreaching 
ways? That will be the substance of part of my questioning.
    Second, another significant event since your last hearing 
was the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act. As predicted, 
that bill has failed in achieving its titular purpose, as 
inflation remains stubbornly high, but then, in my view, it was 
never really about inflation, but about funding partisan 
priorities. What proponents have said, accurately, is that it 
is designed to have a significant impact on our baseload power 
resources in this country, especially our coal resources.
    In a recent presentation, the staff from the EPA Office of 
Air and Radiation discuss some of the initial findings that EPA 
has made about the effects of the IRA, Inflation Reduction Act, 
on coal power plants moving forward. The EPA staff confirmed 
that the legislation will drive down the deployment and use of 
coal and power plants at a significant rate.
    The charts behind me, these are charts from the EPA 
presentation, shows exactly that. The blue line in the graph 
shows anticipated use of coal power without carbon capture, 
CCUS, between 2020 and 2040. The blue line shows, also, I have 
the other chart here right now, but the red line with the IRA 
is noticeably lower.
    On the other chart it is the same on the capacity. This is 
capacity, and coal capacity means how much they are running, I 
think.
    No, the second chart shows the capacity factor, so let us 
put that one back up. This is how many will be in production. 
The second shows that, in other words, how much will these be 
in service. Because of the IRA, not only will more coal plants 
retire, but the usage of those still in service will be much 
lower. You have the charts, I know, because our staffs have 
talked about this.
    To translate what these charts mean in real world terms, 
your agency is predicting the IRA itself will drive significant 
decreases in coal usage. For West Virginia, what that means is 
further hits to communities devastated by policies that were 
previously put into place. You and I have talked about this. 
This leads to job loss, poor health, drug addiction, 
hopelessness, but the graphs we are looking at only consider 
the Inflation Reduction Act. That is not the end of the line of 
the Administration.
    As we know from our presentation in February 2022, you have 
been a critical advisor in the development of the 
Administration's so called EGU strategy, a plan to dump a 
number of new regulations across the air, water, and waste 
categories to disproportionately affect our coal power. And the 
effects of these regulations, like the replacement to the Clean 
Power Plan, the new effluent limitation guidelines under the 
Clean Water Act, and the so called Good Neighbor rule, will 
further hit coal plants in our industrial heartland. So the 
Inflation Reduction Act is bad news for coal communities in 
West Virginia, and I think, devastates us.
    I have mentioned West Virginia v. EPA. I mentioned the 
Inflation Reduction Act. The third item of concern are the 
warnings being sounded by the grid operators. We have a 
reliability problem in this country already, and it is going to 
be gravely exacerbated by policies that drive away critical 
baseload energy resources like coal and natural gas. These 
regulatory policies will likely render unachievable the 
Administration's goal to electrify certain industries that 
currently do not depend on the grid, such as automobiles or gas 
ranges, as grid operators struggle to fill current, never mind 
future, demand.
    Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal editorial board 
wrote about the types of policies that are driving power plant 
retirements and how those plants are shutting down without 
adequate replacement power. They cite a report released last 
week, excuse me, by PJM, which serves more than 65 million 
people across 13 States, including the District of Columbia 
where we are, and also the State of West Virginia, where I 
live.
    PJM is ringing the alarm about the effect that retirements 
will have and how most power plants retirements are policy 
driven. This is a quote from their report: ``Policies like an 
EGU strategy could lead to energy shortages and blackouts.'' As 
the Journal observed, ``The steep costs of complying with EPA 
agency regulations, including a proposed Good Neighbor rule 
that is expected to be finalized next month, will force the 
shuttering of 10,500 megawatts of fossil fuel generation.''
    So, I am going to request unanimous consent that the 
editorial, the PJM report referenced here, and the EPA 
presentation, which I have here, and I have the full 
presentation here, be put into the record.
    Senator Carper. Without objection.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Capito. That will be the substance of my questions.
    Thank you again for being here.
    Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Capito.
    Before I turn to Mr. Goffman for his testimony, I ask 
unanimous consent to submit for the record a letter of support 
for Joe Goffman's nomination from the United Mine Workers of 
America. Senator Capito knows that my sister and I were born 
and grew up in West Virginia for part of our lives. A bunch of 
our neighbors were coal miners, and they were members of the 
United Mine Workers.
    It is interesting to me that one of the principal 
endorsements that you have gotten for your nomination is from 
the United Mine Workers of America, a diverse union with 
membership that includes coal miners, manufacturing workers, 
clean coal technicians, health care workers, corrections 
officers, and public employees.
    I also ask unanimous consent to submit for the record 
testimony from our colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, 
in support of Mr. Goffman's nomination.
    I ask unanimous consent. Is there objection?
    Hearing none, so ordered.
    [The referenced information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Carper. Senator Casey, as you know, is bouncing 
back. He is off the DL, the disabled list. He is back in the 
lineup. He can't be here this morning, but we are happy that he 
is healthy again. He wishes he could be here in person to 
support his fellow Pennsylvania native, but in his absence, let 
me share some of his thoughts on Mr. Goffman.
    I will just say something. I won't quote Bob Casey at 
length. Here is part of what he said in his testimony: ``I know 
that Joe views public service as a privilege and an honor. He 
has dedicated his career to environmental laws and policy aimed 
at safeguarding and improving Americans' health and prosperity. 
That is what motivates him to do his work, and that is what 
makes him a most qualified nominee for this important 
position.''
    With that, let us turn to Mr. Goffman.
    We thank you again for being with us today. We thank your 
wife for sharing you with us as a Nation and as our Committee 
today.
    Mr. Goffman, you are now recognized for your opening 
remarks. Please proceed. Thank you.

    STATEMENT OF JOSEPH GOFFMAN, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT 
      ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, AT THE 
                ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Mr. Goffman. Thank you very much, Chairman Carper, for that 
extremely generous introduction.
    Thank you very much, Ranking Member Capito, for outlining 
issues that I think we both agree are extremely important to be 
able to focus on. It is great to have the opportunity to do 
that.
    It is indeed a privilege to appear before this Committee 
this morning. I am humbled to be nominated by President Biden 
and considered by the Committee for the position of Assistant 
Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation at the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency. I am also grateful for the 
honor and opportunity to continue my public service, having 
previously worked for the members of this Committee in four 
different positions between 1989 and 2017. Being here before 
you today, again, is truly an honor.
    Joining me here today is my amazing wife, Antonia.
    Thank you, Senator, for introducing her.
    Senator Carper. Antonia, raise your hand, so we will know 
which one is the wife. You all could be triplets.
    Mr. Goffman. Watching this hearing from their homes in San 
Francisco, New York, and Los Angeles are my three children, 
Gabriel, Genevieve, and Olivia. As I said to them a year ago, 
when I was here last, I want them to know how very much I love 
them, and I admire them for leading lives that reflect the 
values their grandparents gave to me, values that I have 
carried with me and relied upon all my life.
    Like too many Americans, I grew up in a household that 
struggled financially. There were months long periods when my 
father, who lost two businesses, was unemployed, and my family 
could barely afford even the basics. As a child, I felt the 
pressures of my parents' money worries acutely. For me, 
protecting businesses and jobs and keeping money in the pockets 
of hard working Americans is still very personal.
    College was out of the question unless I worked hard enough 
in school to gain scholarships and financial aid, and hard 
enough after school and over summers to earn the rest. That 
meant working as a stock boy and janitor's assistant in a 
department store during high school and in a union job as a 
line worker in a corrugated box factory during college.
    Besides giving me a strong work ethic, my parents insisted 
that I put the highest value in doing good, and with the civil 
rights movement of the 1960s gripping their and my own young, 
admiring attention, the lesson that I took away was that every 
person, including me, was responsible for making our society 
more just.
    Working for the Committee in 1989 and 1990 gave me the 
chance to do that in drafting the acid rain provisions of the 
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which succeeded in achieving 
substantial power plant pollution reductions at the lowest 
possible cost to businesses and consumers while ensuring 
cleaner, healthier air for our children to breathe.
    This bipartisan legislation worked because it was grounded 
in science and crafted with the input and participation of 
utilities themselves. Since then, I have made it my business as 
a Senate staffer and as an EPA appointee to prioritize 
engagement with all stakeholders, from frontline communities to 
workers to businesses, and to listen proactively, learn from 
others' experiences, and reflect their concerns in my work. My 
goal has been and continues to be crafting smart, durable 
policy that protects the environment and people's health while 
enabling our economy to thrive and American innovation to 
flourish.
    The range of perspectives was critical to three other 
pieces of legislation that this Committee helped enact: The AIM 
Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the Inflation 
Reduction Act. EPA is meeting the deadlines this Committee set 
in the AIM Act to phase down HFCs and enable American industry 
to lead the world in innovation. We are putting infrastructure 
dollars to work in communities across the country, awarding 
nearly $1 billion in Clean School Bus rebates to over 400 
school districts spanning all 50 States, Washington, DC, and 
several Tribes and U.S. territories. Under the Inflation 
Reduction Act, we are working quickly to tackle the climate 
crisis and secure environmental and economic benefits for all 
people.
    Laws like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the AIM Act 
show that when we work together, strive to reach common ground, 
and bring all stakeholders to the table, we can deliver strong, 
impactful results for the American people, results that will 
provide untold benefits for our health, our economy, job 
creation, and the environment. If confirmed, I will approach 
all our decisionmaking through the same lens and with the 
integrity, transparency, and accountability that Administrator 
Regan insists on.
    Members of the Committee, like you, I hold the belief that 
all Americans, no matter where they live or what they do for a 
living, deserve clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, a 
secure job, and healthy, safe communities in which to raise 
their families. It would be a distinct privilege to work 
alongside and support EPA's brilliant and selfless civil 
servants in this shared mission.
    Thank you for the privilege of speaking to you today. I 
look forward to hearing your concerns and answering your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Goffman follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Carper. Mr. Goffman, thank you very much for those 
comments.
    We are now ready to begin with questions for our witness. 
Senator Capito and I have agreed to two 5 minute rounds of 
questions, with additional rounds at the discretion of the 
Chair.
    Again, this Committee has three standing yes or no 
questions that it asks of all nominees who appear before us, so 
I am going to ask those three questions today.
    The first one is, do you agree, if confirmed, to appear 
before this Committee or designated members of this Committee 
and other appropriate committees of the Congress to provide 
information subject to appropriate and necessary security 
protections with respect to your responsibilities? Do you 
agree?
    Mr. Goffman. I agree.
    Senator Carper. That is a good answer. Next question is, do 
you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, documents, and 
electronic and other forms of communication of information are 
provided to this Committee and its staff and other appropriate 
committees in a timely manner? Do you agree?
    Mr. Goffman. I agree.
    Senator Carper. Good. And finally, do you know of any 
matters which you may or may not have disclosed that might 
place you in a conflict of interest if you are confirmed?
    Mr. Goffman. I do not.
    Senator Carper. Good. We are three for three.
    With that, we are going to start with the questions. I am 
going to lead them off, and then yield to Senator Capito.
    As I mentioned in my opening statement, you have a history 
of being honest and fair. It sounds like hard work, even as a 
kid, during your long tenure in public office.
    I see we have a couple of our new members that are joining 
us today.
    It is rarely that I have seen such broad support from not 
just environmental groups and not just from industry, but from 
labor for one nominee, regardless of party. But we have seen it 
today. I must say, I am surprised and frankly, pleased. I can't 
remember a time when the United Steel Workers, Earth Justice, 
Fertilizer Institute, and American Forest and Paper Association 
all agreed on one thing, yet they seem to agree that you should 
be the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation at EPA, 
and for me, that is encouraging.
    I want you to begin by telling us about one or two things 
you have done or been involved in over your career that make 
you most proud, and how did these things help shape who you are 
today and the type of leadership you will be, if confirmed. Go 
right ahead.
    Mr. Goffman. That is a really generous question to ask, 
Senator Carper. It is a very generous question to ask, and I 
hope you don't mind if I answer it a little bit indirectly.
    I think what speaks to your question are two things. One is 
the extremely broad support that you just laid out that I have 
received from a number of interests. I think you heard, or I 
tried to convey in my opening statement, my understanding of 
the values and ideals that public service represents, or at 
least represents to me. I hope that the broad and diverse 
support that I have gotten for my confirmation is evidence that 
others see the work that I have done over the years and the way 
in which I have attempted to conduct it is reflected in that 
support.
    Of course, having been nominated by President Biden twice 
for this role, while serving in the Office of Air and 
Radiation, I hope that means that the President made this 
nomination because it reflects his appreciation of the work of 
the Office of Air and Radiation while I have been there.
    I certainly found that my time working on this Committee, 
particularly during the enactment of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990, which was a vigorous bipartisan 
accomplishment, probably made an enormous imprint on the way I 
conducted business or have tried to conduct business as a 
public servant ever since. Because it was bipartisan, because 
the leadership of the Committee at the time and of the Senate 
and the House was so committed to engaging with all interests 
and ensuring that ultimately, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990 not only delivered meaningful pollution reduction, 
meaningful improvement in air quality and public health, but at 
the same time, allowed those things to be achieved while the 
economy continued to grow and jobs continued to be plentiful 
and good.
    Senator Carper. Thank you. Clean air is essential to human 
health, as we know. Unfortunately, far too many Americans are 
breathing air that is unhealthy, and that burden is not evenly 
shared. Too often, our most vulnerable and underserved 
communities suffer the most from harmful air pollution. We need 
strong air pollution standards and Federal investments to help 
reduce emissions in these communities, too.
    That is why I am particularly proud of the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law Clean School Bus Program, which EPA is 
implementing under your leadership. This program provides, I 
think you mentioned, $5 billion to accelerate the transition of 
millions of dirty school buses to cleaner buses. The Clean 
School Bus Program is cleaning up communities and protecting 
our most vulnerable from being harmed as they ride the bus to 
school.
    Question: Would you please take a moment, again, and expand 
for us, describing how the implementation of the Clean School 
Bus Program is going, how is it going, and second, is it my 
understanding that EPA has already provided funding for Clean 
School Buses in every State in the country? I think you said 
that. I just want you to reconfirm that. Go right ahead.
    Mr. Goffman. Thanks, Senator Carper. The Clean School Bus 
Program, I think, is one of the many great accomplishments of 
this Congress working in a bipartisan fashion, and certainly of 
this Committee. Yes, we have delivered close to $1 billion in 
rebates for clean school buses in 400 communities and in 50 
States, plus Washington, DC, plus tribal areas and territories.
    I think it would be maybe most revealing to just picture 
what that means for the communities and neighborhoods that are 
now getting to use non-emitting school buses instead of school 
buses that sometimes had been using diesel fuel and diesel 
engines. It means that kids getting on the bus, bus drivers, 
parents waiting with them at the school bus stop, the people 
who work, teachers and others who work in the schools, are all, 
in a very immediate way, enjoying the benefits of cleaner air 
in their everyday routines.
    That is going on across the country. Congress provided $5 
billion for that program. We have given out $1 billion. That 
means that the lessons we learned last year in implementing 
that first round of rebates can be applied for the next three 
or four rounds of distributing these funds to communities 
across the country.
    Senator Carper. Yes. My colleagues know that I go home most 
nights to Delaware, something our President used to do years 
ago. About 3 or 4 days a week, I drive in the morning to the 
train station to catch a train to get down here and come to 
work. School buses are out.
    Basically, they are out on the streets early, before 7 
o'clock in the morning. I see a bunch of kids, one stop after 
the other, at a train station waiting for the buses, and the 
buses pull up, and they are all diesel. They are all diesel. 
What those kids are breathing is probably not good.
    One of the things that we have done as a Congress is to 
provide the resources to help change that. I think that is 
something we could celebrate together. Thank you.
    With that, Let me turn to Senator Capito. Then Senator 
Cardin is next.
    Senator Capito.
    Senator Capito. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to go back to the charts that I spoke about in my 
opening statement. You can see, on the coal capacity, the blue 
line would be what is predicted to be the retirements, and then 
with the IRA, you see drastically, by 2040, many, many more. On 
this one, this is how much of those plants running, the ones 
that are remaining, you can see, with no IRA, close to over 50; 
post-IRA, looks like 15 to 18 percent.
    Do you agree with the conclusions that were drawn? These 
were made by your Office of Air and Radiation staff recently 
and presented at a conference.
    Mr. Goffman. Thanks for that question, Senator. I believe 
that the model that we developed and the run that we did to 
produce these results was solid and methodologically sound.
    Senator Capito. OK, yes. Thank you. There is also, which I 
don't have the larger charts for, but natural gas that has the 
same, not as dramatic, but the same post-IRA implementation 
drastically down in generation and also in capacity factor, so 
same thing for natural gas.
    I have talked to you about this, and you emphasized a lot 
in your opening statement how you started, and the kind of 
community that you were in, and how difficult it was for you to 
go through joblessness of your father. This is what our 
communities, my communities, are going to be seeing and have 
seen, and more drastically over the next 20 years.
    Are you concerned about the number of jobs that would be 
lost in this if these projections are correct, and are you 
taking that into consideration at every step of the way as you 
are putting forward your regulations?
    Mr. Goffman. Senator, that is one of the central questions 
that we always have before us, which is how to establish 
standards for, in this case, the power sector that reduces 
pollution while preserving economic opportunity and jobs.
    Senator Capito. And how does this preserve jobs?
    Mr. Goffman. The Inflation Reduction Act, as you know, as 
well as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, distributes 
investments across a great many sectors of the economy. What 
those charts look like, I think, to someone like me, who has 
worked in the Office of Air and Radiation on a number of rules 
and worked with expert staff who do this kind of modeling, we 
concluded when we did this analysis is that this was an 
illustrative case.
    One of the things we tried to communicate in the 
presentation that went along with these charts is that what the 
Inflation Reduction Act did was to give utilities a wider range 
of choices as to the kinds of fuels and technologies they could 
look to in generating electricity going forward. A computer 
model is not a utility. A computer model does not make 
decisions. Communities make decisions. Utility regulators make 
decisions. Utility investors make decisions, and of course, the 
utilities themselves do as well.
    Senator Capito. Right. I am going to stop you.
    Mr. Goffman. I think, when you consider that what the IRA 
has done has opened, again, a range of choices or broadened 
choices to include more cost effective, say, renewable energy 
options, we have a long way to go as decisionmakers and as 
policymakers before we know what has happened and before we can 
ultimately influence what is going to happen.
    Senator Capito. Thank you. I think that is a longer 
explanation of not saying that it is a lot of job loss here on 
both these charts, and the ones with the natural gas, but let 
me ask you this.
    Let us get to the reliability factor. You are retiring, and 
through your regulations, your Good Neighbor Policy. The 
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, which is another 
regional operation, says that this creates significant concerns 
about MISO, which is their acronym, ability to maintain 
electric reliability.
    So you take all of this off, and the natural gas that is in 
your presentation as well, how are we going to power a Nation 
with this and meet the demands of electric cars? We are not 
going to be able to do it with what we are seeing. We can't 
permit anything, so that is a problem. So, where does this 
leave us, as a Nation, as being able to power our Nation?
    Mr. Goffman. Senator Capito, I appreciate that question, 
because reliability is another one of the central questions in 
front of us whenever we propose power sector rules. Before we 
even began the current round of developing rules, we engaged in 
extensive outreach across the country and across the utility 
sector, including with PJM, MISO, and other grid operators.
    When we proposed the Good Neighbor Plan, a number of those 
parties, including PJM, the author of the most recent report, 
came back to us and pointed out the ways in which they had 
concerns about how the Good Neighbor Plan proposal would affect 
reliability. As we are developing the final rule, we are making 
changes to reflect and address those very concerns that have 
been raised about the ongoing reliability of the grid.
    Senator Capito. I guess the timer has gone off.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Thank you, ma'am.
    A quick thought, Senator Capito. When I drove to the train 
station today, I went by all these buses, school buses, that 
over the years to come are going to be converted to electric 
vehicles, and that is actually happening. I went by DART buses, 
Delaware Authority Regional Transportation, they are also being 
converted to electric buses.
    Across the river from where I live, in New Jersey, there is 
a nuclear power plant that is not going to live forever, not 
going to last forever. If we are smart, we will be able to help 
them stay in business and can continue to provide carbon free 
electricity. There are a bunch of things we can do. I wake up 
every day as a recovering Governor thinking about, how are we 
going to make it possible for people to go to work and have 
jobs in the future. There is opportunity here.
    Not everybody likes carbon capture and sequestration. I 
think that is a part of the solution. I know you do, as well. 
It is just one of many things that we can do. It is not just 
enough to clean up our air and address the climate change and 
so forth. We have to make sure that when we do that, we put 
people to work, and they have good jobs that they can support 
their families, so I think we all agree on that. Thank you.
    I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an August 
2022 report from the Rhodium Group, an independent research 
organization, that is entitled A Turning Point for U.S. 
Climate: Progress Assessing the Climate and Clean Energy 
Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act. According to this 
report, the Inflation Reduction Act cuts household energy 
costs, cuts household energy costs, by up to an additional $112 
per household on average in 2030 than without the law, cuts 
electric power conventional air pollutants by up to 82 percent 
compared to 2021, and scales clean generation to supply as much 
as 81 percent of all electricity in 2030.
    Is there objection?
    Hearing none, so ordered.
    [The referenced information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Carper. Senator Cardin, you are on. Thanks.
    Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Goffman, thank you for your willingness to serve and 
continue to serve in this very important public position. And 
we thank your family for sharing you with us.
    I want to talk about what States are doing. We have seen 
States that have been very aggressive in dealing with air 
quality. In my own State of Maryland, the Climate Solutions Now 
Act, provides for reduction of greenhouse gases by 60 percent 
compared to 2006 by 2031, and for Maryland's economy to reach 
net zero emissions by 2045. That is very aggressive.
    The Inflation Reduction Act, great commitment at the 
national level, but our States are even moving more 
aggressively on air issues, air quality issues. And Maryland is 
not alone. Other States are also doing this.
    My question is, how can the Federal Government help our 
States reach those types of goals when they are being more 
aggressive than required under any of our Federal regulations?
    Mr. Goffman. Thank you for that question, Senator Cardin, 
and for the inspiring news about what Maryland is doing in 
exerting leadership. Speaking as a long time Clean Air Act 
lawyer, I can say in some ways, that is what is supposed to be 
happening, in which the States are not only partners in making 
policy and very often, they are the leaders, whether it is 
States like Maryland or California.
    Right now, we have in the opportunity created by Congress 
under the Inflation Reduction Act to provide financial support 
to States and municipalities that, for example, are putting in 
place, developing, and implementing programs to reduce carbon 
pollution. In fact, just this morning, the agency announced new 
guidance for how States and municipalities can apply for 
planning grants to prepare themselves to apply for even more 
generous grants later this year to support the kind of work 
that Maryland is doing.
    So, while I don't know that we can catch up in the near 
future to the ambitious goals that Maryland has established, we 
can, thanks to Congress, provide material and financial support 
to States like Maryland and cities and communities in Maryland.
    Senator Cardin. The Chairman and Ranking Member and this 
Senator have something in common. We are all part of the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed. Your responsibilities in air quality 
have a major impact on our efforts and our commitments in 
regards to the Chesapeake Bay.
    Tell me how you work with Region 3 and the Chesapeake Bay 
commitments that have been made where EPA is engaged in so that 
your work is coordinated with the strategies that we are using 
on the Chesapeake Bay.
    Mr. Goffman. Thank you for the opportunity to talk about 
that. The biggest contribution that your Office of Air and 
Radiation can make to the Chesapeake Bay is reducing airborne 
NOx pollution that ends up as NOx 
deposition in the Bay. What we do when we work with the 
Chesapeake Bay States, when we work with Region 3, is 
contribute, if you will, sort of the background improvement in 
the NOx situation so that as different pollutants 
that are delivered through water runoff or through other, more 
immediate sources are addressed, we are doing our best to take 
care of the NOx problem.
    That is why the heavy duty NOx rule that we 
finalized at the end of last year can play such an important 
role. And the Good Neighbor Plan itself also targets 
NOx reductions from the power sector and the 
industrial sector.
    Senator Cardin. The MATS program dealing with the mercury 
issues, can you just briefly talk about how that program has 
been effective in dealing with some of the issues, including 
the Chesapeake Bay?
    Mr. Goffman. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards that EPA 
adopted about 10 years ago have achieved somewhere north of 80 
percent reductions in mercury from the power sector. And we are 
looking to propose, if you will, a follow up rule that targets, 
among other things, any additional cost effective mercury 
reductions that are still available.
    We believe that, if and when we do propose additional 
reductions in mercury emissions, we can point to the MATS rule, 
we can point to its success, we can point to its ultimate 
affordability to utilities and electricity ratepayers while 
also having achieved significant mercury reductions as a basis 
for an additional proposal.
    Senator Cardin. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
    I want to make another unanimous consent request, if I 
could. I ask unanimous consent to submit into the record a 
letter from a major utility's trade and labor organization into 
the record, a letter from a major utility trade and labor 
organization in support of full implementation of the 2012 
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.
    The letter states that the upgrades to power plants under 
these standards reduced mercury and other air toxic emissions 
by nearly 90 percent at a quarter of the estimated cost. Let me 
say that again: Reduced mercury and other air toxic emissions 
by nearly 90 percent at a quarter of the estimated cost. Every 
power plant in the Nation in compliance by 2017. This rule was 
implemented without any blocked counsel brownouts. That is 
worth us keeping in mind.
    [The referenced information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Carper. OK, I think we are going to turn next to 
Senator Cramer.
    How are you doing?
    Senator Cramer. I am doing great, and I would never object 
to you. Even if you don't ask.
    Senator Carper. I love to do unanimous consent requests 
when I am the only one here.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. I am the only one who can object, and I 
never object to my own unanimous consent requests.
    Senator Capito. That is good.
    Senator Carper. Senator Cramer.
    Senator Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 
Goffman, for being here and for your willingness to continue to 
serve. Actually, this most recent unanimous consent request 
raises a really important point. I was a utility regulator 
through a lot of the SOx, NOx, mercury 
particulate matter reductions.
    And guess what we did in those days? We had cooperative 
federalism where the Federal agencies and the State agencies 
and the stakeholders were all in it together. They spent 
millions and millions of dollars to make these upgrades for the 
benefit of the people we serve. And we didn't have what we see 
today.
    Which brings me to my first point and question that I 
wanted to raise with you. Because as a strong advocate for 
cooperative federalism, I think we are missing the opportunity. 
I am going to go back to something you and have I talked about 
before, and that was your proposed clean power plan rule back 
in the day that would have required North Dakota to reduce its 
emissions 11 percent.
    Now, we weren't crazy about that, and our stakeholders 
weren't crazy about it, but we knew it was doable, and we were 
willing to do our part. Then when the final rule came out, it 
was 400 percent greater than the 11 percent, the bait and 
switch that I have talked about before. And at the 45 percent, 
which was absolutely, it was federalism the way it is not 
supposed to be done.
    The last time you were here, which was May of last year, so 
9 months ago, I asked you a question about working with my 
State regulators, the three public service commissioners, our 
DEQ director. You said something to the effect that, I am glad 
you asked that, because I was going to ask you for the contact 
information so we could reach out.
    I reached out to them last week. In the last 9 months they 
have not heard from you or anybody in your shop to talk about 
the replacement rule. Are they wrong? Did they just forget? Or 
did you forget? Could you clear this up for me?
    Mr. Goffman. Thank you for pointing that out, Senator. I 
have to say I am disappointed in myself in not having ensured 
that we made those contacts.
    But I hope you and your colleagues in North Dakota are 
willing to go with better late than never. We are going to be 
moving forward with, as I mentioned to Senator Cardin, a 
proposal to address mercury emissions in the power sector. We 
expect to be moving forward later this spring with a proposal 
to address CO2 emissions.
    What I anticipate we will do, and now that you have brought 
this up, I will make sure we will do, is as those proposals are 
being publicly shared for comment, well before we finalize 
them, we will engage directly with your colleagues in North 
Dakota.
    Up until this point, a number of senior people in the 
Office of Air and Radiation have engaged in lots of discussions 
across the country. I think I may have mentioned to you last 
time that we have engaged with utility commissioners through 
NARU. And I believe when Senator Capito and I were talking 
about reliability, I mentioned we also spent a lot of time 
talking to grid operators.
    I had hoped in that casting of a very wide net we had 
captured an opportunity to talk to----
    Senator Cramer. Well, you didn't. But cooperative 
federalism needs to be more deliberate than reaching out to 
NARU. I was a member of NARU for half of my term; I was always 
a member; I just came to the realization that they tend to 
gravitate to the lowest common denominator and then have nice 
meetings. I think you need to reach out; you can't just talk to 
people you agree with. That is my sense, is you are not talking 
to people who actually do this every day.
    But all of that said, quickly I do want to address another 
problem, or potential problem. And that is the methane rule, 
the proposed methane rule. North Dakota has stricter 
requirements than any Federal rule, but it does require 
doubling the paperwork. In fact, in North Dakota, our methane, 
of course, is a byproduct of oil production.
    So flaring is one of the viable, not the ideal, of course, 
method of dealing with venting. But 95 percent of ours is 
captured on State and private land, 59 percent on Federal and 
tribal land. In other words, North Dakota's excellence doesn't 
really want to yield to Federal Government mediocrity.
    I will just wrap up, and we can get deeper into it in the 
next round. But again, cooperative federalism would go a long 
way if you didn't impose new restrictions on the excellent 
States but rather worked with to maybe empower them a little 
more at the local level, and you might get a better outcome. 
The problem is, Senator Capito raised the issue of permitting. 
Well, permitting is the problem on Federal lands, the 
permitting of the takeaway capacity for what is now being 
flared, wasted.
    Maybe in the next round we can drill down a little more on 
that one, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. Good.
    Do you want to respond very briefly to that?
    Mr. Goffman. Just to say that I remember Senator Cramer 
citing the performance of operators in North Dakota, both on 
private land and in public land in terms of efficiency and 
avoiding methane escape, methane leaps. One of the things we 
are trying to do with the Federal rule is raise the floor for 
everybody else. In many ways, our proposals are based on 
successful practices that are already in place in States like 
North Dakota.
    Senator Carper. Yes.
    Thank you, Senator Cramer. Thank you for bringing your 
expertise and knowledge from a previous part of your life to 
this body. Thanks so much.
    Senator Lummis, welcome.
    Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to 
you as well.
    Mr. Goffman, in 2015, EPA officials working on the ozone 
transport rule stated that it was not appropriate to extend 
that rule to western States due to differences in topography, 
climate, wildfire prevalence, and other factors. They even 
indicated that they would work with western States on a case by 
case basis with respect to this rule.
    But this Administration has decided to ignore that 
approach, and instead proceed with a one size fits all approach 
with your new ozone transport rule. So what factors have 
changed between now and 2015 to warrant this drastic change in 
approach?
    Mr. Goffman. Thanks for that question, Senator Lummis. One 
of the things that we do is continually update our air quality 
modeling. And in fact, since we met last in May, we have done 
another update, along with having met with Governor Gordon and 
his environmental staff in a meeting that Administrator Regan 
led and that I was able to participate in. Since then, we have 
done yet another update in our modeling.
    One of the results of that is that while, when I was here 
last time, we had proposed to disapprove of Wyoming's ozone 
transport implementation plan; when we made final decisions in 
January, we did not finalize that disapproval. It is usually, 
it is the basis of the disapprovals that allows us to move 
forward or requires us to move forward with Federal 
Implementation Plans.
    So in a way, the process of air quality modeling changes on 
a continual basis, so that since last, not just since 2015, but 
since the last time we spoke, we have done another update, we 
have had additional engagement with the State. And our proposed 
disapproval, based on previous modeling, we are not finalizing, 
at least for Wyoming.
    Senator Lummis. Yes. But here is the problem. You are 
finalizing Federal Implementation Plans on almost all other 
States, and denying State Implementation Plans. And we just 
assume that you are going to eventually deny ours and do a 
Federal Implementation Plan, because that is your M.O.
    So for example, Governor Gordon, with a couple of other 
Governors, sent a letter just a few months ago outlining these 
concerns. The Governors stated because EPA proposed Federal 
Implementation Plans before acting on the State Implementation 
Plans, EPA eliminated the opportunity for early, meaningful, 
substantive, and ongoing consultations with the States. This is 
a vast majority of this country in terms of geographic areas.
    So how is this concern being addressed by EPA? Can we just 
plan in Wyoming on, oh, we will wait until December of this 
year, and then we will go with a FIP?
    Mr. Goffman. That is not our approach. As I said, the 
information we got, at least about updated air quality modeling 
with respect to Wyoming, guided us in a different direction. 
Having used one set of information and modeling to propose to 
disapprove the State Implementation Plan, subsequent modeling 
that we did and subsequent discussions we had with Wyoming and 
the Governor and the Wyoming environmental regulators took us 
in a different direction.
    What I am trying say, Senator, is we actually do try to 
follow the data and the modeling and the analysis where it 
takes us. In this particular case, our own updated modeling and 
dialogue and interaction with the State took us in a different 
direction from the one we were going in a year ago.
    Senator Lummis. State plans need, as my colleague from 
North Dakota said, cooperative federalism means State plans 
should have equal consideration to Federal plans.
    I have more questions, but I will wait for the next round.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Thank you for those questions.
    We have been joined by Senator Markey.
    If no one else shows up in the next 5 or 10 minutes after 
he has asked his questions, Senator Mullin, you are going to be 
recognized for your questions, then Senator Ricketts.
    Senator Markey, please.
    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
    Mr. Goffman, first I want to thank you for your years of 
public service in the Senate and in the executive branch. There 
is an urgent need to act on climate change and make sure 
everyone everywhere gets to breathe clean air. And it is more 
important than ever to have experienced, talented, committed 
people serving our country. So thank you so much.
    Strong vehicle emissions standards will be critical if we 
want to tackle the climate crisis, cut pollution, save drivers 
money at the pump, and create jobs. To keep moving down the 
road to a safer, healthier, more affordable future, we need 
strong rules for light and heavy duty vehicles for model year 
2027 and later. And we need to keep our foot on the 
accelerator.
    That is why Senator Padilla and Representatives Matsui and 
Clark and I sent a letter to the EPA calling for the rule to be 
issued and finalized before the end of the year and made as 
strong as possible.
    Mr. Goffman, if confirmed, will you work to swiftly issue 
and finalize strong vehicle emission standards to protect 
public health, the climate, and drivers' budgets with model 
year 2027 and beyond, and to get those done before the end of 
the year?
    Mr. Goffman. Right now, we are planning to propose 
ambitious car and truck standards, at this point, in a matter 
of weeks. And that puts us on a schedule where it is in reach 
to finalize those standards, certainly the truck standards, by 
the end of this year. And our goal is to finalize the car 
standards as soon thereafter as possible.
    Senator Markey. That is very good news. Thank you.
    Americans will be able to breathe easier once we confirm a 
strong head of the Office of Air and Radiation. And I am 
pleased that the EPA is currently strengthening the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards which keep smog out of our air 
and out of our lungs.
    Mr. Goffman, if confirmed, will you work to update our air 
quality standards to reflect the most up to date science to 
ensure all communities are protected to the greatest extent 
possible?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes, Senator. That is what we are committed to 
doing. That is what Administrator Regan is committed to doing.
    Senator Markey. Excellent. And in addition to dirty, soot 
filled air, environmental justice communities are exposed to 
multiple sources of pollution, whether it is from factories, 
power plants, trucking centers, or other high polluting 
activities nearby. Black, Brown, indigenous, and low income and 
rural communities have experienced environmental injustice from 
toxic pollution like lead, arsenic, benzene, and mercury. Any 
one of these chemicals is an injury; being hit with multiple 
chemicals is an insult.
    Mr. Goffman, if confirmed, will you work to include 
cumulative impacts in EPA rulemaking and look at how multi-
pollutant exposure affects health, well being, and quality of 
life?
    Mr. Goffman. That is a question I really appreciate your 
asking at this time, Senator Markey. We are making a sort of 
agency-wide push to address cumulative impacts. Our colleagues 
in the Office of Research and Development are developing 
scientific tools to do that.
    In the Office of Air and Radiation, we are developing a new 
set of analytic and mapping tools so that when we set, say, 
toxic air emissions standards for certain industrial sectors, 
we can find a way to take consideration of the cumulative 
effects of pollution on the communities that might be affected 
by those standards.
    Senator Markey. I think that is the only smart way of 
looking at it, how they all interact to create the harm, and as 
a result a plan can be put together, which ultimately will 
reduce costs on those who are going to have to make the 
changes, because they can see the totality of the issues they 
are going to have to deal with.
    Mr. Goffman, can you speak more about what activities are 
covered under the Climate Pollution Reduction Planning Grants, 
and how can eligible entities make the most of these 
opportunities?
    Mr. Goffman. Thank you, that is a super timely question. I 
think you probably know that within the last hour or so we 
released guidance for States to apply for the purposes of 
applying for planning grants under that program. That is a non-
competitive grant program for which all 50 States are eligible 
up to $3 million per grant.
    The purpose of that funding is to give States and 
localities that States may be working with the ability to sort 
of plan the next set of investments they want to make or 
programs they want to put in place, and then apply for more 
extensive resources to implement those plans. We will be 
issuing guidance on those implementation grant opportunities 
later this year.
    Senator Markey. Thank you for your service, sir.
    Senator Carper. Thanks, Senator Markey.
    Senator Mullin, welcome.
    Senator Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    It is good to see you, sir. I sure wish we would have had 
an opportunity to speak beforehand. You made a statement that 
you look forward to working with all of us. But I haven't heard 
from you; you haven't reached out to me. I would love to sit 
down with you and have these conversations, these questions I 
have for you, in a longer setting. Unfortunately, I only have 5 
minutes.
    So when I ask you a question, I am really looking close to 
a yes or a no, and I don't mean to be rude, but I will cut you 
off if you start going on. They should be some questions that 
you should be able to answer pretty quick.
    Do you believe in a one size fits all approach when it 
comes to clean air or that you should work closely with the 
States in developing your thoughts?
    Mr. Goffman. No, and yes.
    Senator Mullin. What do you mean, no and yes?
    Mr. Goffman. No, I do not believe that one size fits all, 
and yes, I think States are our partners.
    Senator Mullin. So how much do you take into consideration 
when you are looking at regulating the East Coast versus the 
West Coast, especially when you start looking at emissions for 
vehicles and taking into consideration that my wife drives an 
average of about 5,000 miles, literally a month, to take my 
kids back and forth to school because we live out in the middle 
of nowhere on a ranch, and it is an hour for her to get there 
and get back, versus an electric car, where an electric car is 
not feasible, we'd spend half our time on a charger?
    Mr. Goffman. One of the approaches we have been taking for 
a long time, and we continue to take, is to set standards in a 
way to give the----
    Senator Mullin. But wouldn't you think a State should be 
open to that, that the State should be one to make the 
standards for them, rather than having the East Coast and the 
West Coast make those decisions? Because you mentioned 
California multiple times and PG&E, which is the Pacific Gas 
and Electric Company of California. You start talking about 
their standards. You have actually bragged on California.
    Do you think California sets the gold standard for setting 
emission rules and electrical rules as far as energy costs and 
setting the standard for clean energy and clean air?
    Mr. Goffman. From a technology perspective, California has 
been a leader. But we----
    Senator Mullin. OK, well, let's just stop on that. So there 
is, they are a leader, right? But yet they have the most 
unaffordable gasoline and energy costs, and they have rolling 
blackouts. I had the dis-privilege of staying most of 2020 in 
California because of an accident my son had, and he was going 
through rehabilitation there. It was interesting to me that 
around 8 o'clock to 10 o'clock every night, during the hottest 
times of the year, they had rolling blackouts.
    And they set them on zones. And it was interesting because 
we talked about the dis-privileged neighborhoods, but yet it 
was the dis-privileged neighborhoods that always seemed to have 
the rolling blackouts. They set out the zones, right, where 
they are at, and the zones were rated depending on their 
importance.
    They would have rolling blackouts, and they would set the 
time when those were going to hit. Is that affordable and 
reliable energy? Don't you think that should play a cost when 
considering things?
    Mr. Goffman. It should----
    Senator Mullin. But yet California you think is setting the 
standard for us, and you want to put their rules on Oklahoma?
    Mr. Goffman. I don't think we have the authority to do 
that, even if we wanted to.
    Senator Mullin. But if you are using California as a model 
and you are setting this rule, then you are forcing that on us. 
And yet that is a good plan. PG&E can't even get a permit to 
upgrade their systems because of the environmental impacts 
supposedly it has.
    So they have the most unreliable and some of the oldest 
transmission lines out there. Yet you are using them as someone 
that says they support your policies moving forward? And you 
think that is a bragging point?
    Mr. Goffman. I probably should have been more specific, 
Senator. We----
    Senator Mullin. It is not specific. We could have this 
conversation if you would just have reached out to me, and said 
let's have this conversation. But it concerns me when you are 
going to be heading this agency specifically in this area and 
are talking about California as a gold standard.
    I don't want California rules. I don't want them to play a 
role in Oklahoma. I want affordable and reliable energy. I 
don't want to have rolling blackouts, to which we don't have 
rolling blackouts in Oklahoma. I don't want them to make a 
decision on what neighborhood is going to be shut down and 
which isn't.
    The irony of that, when they have rolling blackouts, it was 
funny because it was never the retail area. It was never 
hospitals. It was never the fire department or the police 
stations. It was poor neighborhoods that was getting the raw--
and it was the same time over and over again.
    And the irony of that, too, get this, you could set your 
clock to it. Because when they had the blackout because they 
would announce when the time was going to be, right, wait 30 
minutes and you start hearing sirens. Because the criminals 
also knew when the blackouts were going to be, and they started 
breaking into houses about the same time.
    And that is the energy policy you want for the rest of 
America?
    Mr. Goffman. Senator, I think we have a lot to talk about. 
I am going to make myself available.
    Senator Mullin. We have a lot to talk about, right. Because 
what I don't want you to do is force something on us. If people 
in California want to live that way, let them vote those people 
in, and let them make their decisions. But you are representing 
the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency of the 
United States. And your say should take into consideration what 
the States say, and the States should have a bigger stake in it 
than you. And you shouldn't set a standard that is going to be 
across the board.
    When you start talking about emission rules, that affects 
all of us. We haven't even talked about trucking, which I carry 
a CDL in my back pocket. I would love to have a longer 
conversation with you on that, too.
    I yield back.
    Senator Carper. I hope the two of you have an opportunity 
to continue this conversation. I think that is very much 
needed.
    Senator Kelly, I believe you are next. Thanks.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Goffman, good to see you again. I appreciate your 
candor during our previous hearing as well as your commitment 
to ensuring that the EPA works with stakeholders in the State 
of Arizona to address some unique air quality challenges that 
we face.
    One particular challenge that we face in Arizona is ozone 
forming pollution, particularly in Maricopa County, which is 
where Phoenix is. Most of the western United States, including 
Maricopa County, have background levels that are near the 
national air quality standard for ozone. Unlike many other 
urban areas, Maricopa County doesn't have this long history of 
big smokestack industries.
    So when it is time to attempt to meet the ozone emission 
targets, the county has to focus on some really non-industrial 
emission sources like smaller commercial facilities or 
vehicles. And this is important, because without identifying 
emissions offsets, new manufacturing facilities like our 
growing semiconductor industries, they have got to figure out 
how can they be built and meet the emission standards without 
taking the whole county over the limit. So it is important that 
we find solutions to reduce ozone emissions while enabling 
smart economic growth.
    Fortunately, Maricopa County has developed some innovative 
solutions to this. Mr. Goffman, are you familiar with two 
proposed emission reduction credit rules developed by Maricopa 
County called Rule 205 and 204?
    Mr. Goffman. Thanks for that question, Senator. It gives me 
an opportunity to recognize that at EPA headquarters and EPA 
Region 9, we actually recognize Maricopa County as exerting 
real leadership and innovative approaches to the very problem 
or very challenge you talk about, which is what in Clean Air 
Act speak is the offset requirement.
    I am familiar with both 204 and 205, which are permitting 
offset rules. I know my colleagues in Region 9 are very 
familiar with those rules. Right now, we are looking at the 
approval review for 204. I think as a technical matter, we 
don't have 205 in front of us quite yet to review. But in any 
case, we do, we have been looking to Maricopa in that 
leadership role that I just described and which they have 
demonstrated.
    Senator Kelly. Rule 204 was submitted to the EPA, to Region 
9, nearly 3 years ago. They are still awaiting that response. 
Do you think that response is coming soon?
    Mr. Goffman. I believe it is, and I have spoken to Region 
9. We are going to do whatever we need from the headquarters 
level to sort of surge the resources and get the review done.
    Senator Kelly. Are we talking a couple of months?
    Mr. Goffman. I hope so. I can't say for sure.
    Senator Kelly. Can you check and get back to my office on 
that?
    Mr. Goffman. We will do that.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you. I also understand that the county 
is continuing to have discussions with Region 9 on the other 
rule, 205, which would seek to generate additional credits from 
vehicle electrification. Any status update you can give us on 
205?
    Mr. Goffman. My understanding is that there are still 
informal discussions but real discussions going on between 
Region 9 and Arizona and Maricopa County in sort of setting up 
the formal submission of that rule for approval. But 
technically speaking, it is not in front of us, but we are 
working to kind of ease the path once the rule is submitted.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you.
    Last, do you believe that the EPA has any statutory 
limitations within the Clean Air Act that make it difficult for 
the agency to identify non-industrial sources of emission 
reduction credits?
    Mr. Goffman. At a superficial level, I am afraid I will 
have to follow up to answer the question with all the nuance 
that my colleagues might counsel me to share, I think we have a 
fair amount of latitude to identify emissions reductions that 
can serve as offsets. Again, I think Maricopa County's program 
using electrification to create offsets for economic 
development is an example of the range of what is approvable or 
permissible.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you. I want to thank you for 
recognizing that Maricopa County has been a leader on coming up 
with some other options that uniquely address the situation out 
here in the West, specifically the State of Arizona.
    Mr. Chairman, I am going to submit a few more questions for 
the record. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. That would be great. Thanks so much.
    Senator Ricketts, welcome. Welcome to the Committee; all of 
our new members, welcome to the Committee.
    Senator Ricketts. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Mr. Goffman. It is an honor to be on this 
Committee. I love to be on this Committee, because I get to 
talk about ethanol.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Ricketts. I love talking about ethanol.
    Senator Carper. The Senator's time is expired.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. Just kidding.
    Senator Ricketts. Ethanol saves consumers money at the 
pump, it helps clean up our environment, and it is great for 
creating jobs in America. First of all, ethanol helps with gas 
prices. Last summer, E15 users in some areas of this country 
were able to save up to $1 a gallon. I think the average was 
about 16 cents. But last time I filled up with just E10 back in 
Nebraska, I think I was saving almost 50 cents a gallon on 
filling up my car. So it saves consumers money.
    Second, it reduces carbon emissions. Blended ethanol fuels 
reduction reduced about 1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide 
equivalent greenhouse gas emissions from 2008 to 2020. The USDA 
data shows that ethanol reduces greenhouse gases by about 43 
percent.
    Third, ethanol is great for our families here in Nebraska. 
Our 24 plants create about 1,400 jobs and boosts our State 
economy by about $4.5 billion. And that also rolls over to our 
farm families as well as all the ancillary jobs that are 
created.
    In fact, one of the things I have heard from people too is, 
hey, I don't want to replace fuel for food, but actually the 
byproduct of ethanol is distillers grains, which goes to feed 
livestock, cattle, pigs, chickens, which then we consume for 
food. So it actually doesn't take away from our food supply.
    Actually, we did a test on E30 that the EPA allowed at the 
State level. So we ran E30 in vehicles, State vehicles that 
were produced after 2001, and had phenomenal success with that, 
and potential for even more environmental cleanup and more cost 
savings.
    Last year, the Biden administration allowed E15 to be sold 
year round, and Americans benefited in the three ways I just 
outlined. If confirmed, will you commit that the EPA will 
provide the required waivers so that E15 will be available 
throughout this upcoming summer driving season?
    Mr. Goffman. Senator Ricketts, thank you for that question, 
and for that overview of the benefit of ethanol. I know that my 
boss, Administrator Regan, agrees with you and agrees that the 
RFS program should really be implemented to meet its 
objectives.
    It turns out that the decision to grant the use of E15 over 
the course of the summer season under the Clean Air Act, that 
is a game time decision. That is to say, we look at the data 
right at the time we are making the decision before we make the 
decision. So I don't have the authority under the Clean Air Act 
to commit on March 1st to a decision that won't really come if 
it comes at all until May 15th.
    However, I hope you see that from the decision we made last 
year we are certainly open to and really focused on what is 
happening in the market, what is happening with supply and 
working within our own team and with DOE so that if and when we 
get to the point where we have to do what we did last summer, 
we will be in a position to do it again.
    Senator Ricketts. Thank you; I appreciate that. Again, for 
consumers and creating confusion, when we have the on again, 
off again policies, so something that would be more permanent 
would be great as well.
    Also, I am glad you mentioned the RFS. I am concerned that 
the EPA's proposed Renewable Fuels Standard rule does not 
reflect the actual market conditions, specifically when we are 
talking about renewable diesel. The EPA proposed to keep the 
RFS biomass based diesel requirements below 3 billion gallons 
in 2025. However, more than 3.6 billion gallons of advanced 
biomass based diesel was produced in 2022, and more than 5.9 
billion gallons may be produced by 2025.
    How do you reconcile that the industry is producing more, 
but it is not reflected in the RFS?
    Mr. Goffman. That is a really good question, and it is a 
question we are looking at directly. Because we have gotten a 
lot of comments focusing on this question since the proposal. 
And we will be addressing it when we issue the final set rule 
in mid-June.
    Senator Ricketts. Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Goffman.
    Senator Carper. I think Senator Wicker is next, and if 
nobody else shows up, we will yield to and recognize Senator 
Sullivan after that.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you very much.
    Let's talk about the submission for enforcement of the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards set by the EPA. 
Mississippi worked with EPA to submit an approvable proposal 
for the 8 hour ozone requirement in September 2019. In February 
2022, EPA proposed to disapprove our plan for Mississippi, also 
for Alabama and Tennessee.
    According to Mississippi DEQ, EPA took this action based on 
incomplete modeling results. In EPA's proposed disapproval, EPA 
claims that Mississippi has a significant impact on three 
monitoring sites in Texas, one in Dallas, which is some 361 
miles west of the western boundary of Mississippi, and two in 
Houston, which is some 386 miles west of Mississippi on our 
western boundary.
    As we know, weather moves from west to east in that section 
of the United States. This is a preposterous claim, that a 
State of less than 3 million people would have on two major 
metropolitan areas, 386 miles away and 361 miles away.
    Our meteorologists dispute this, and say that high ozone in 
those three monitoring areas is a result of atmospheric 
conditions in that area, which makes a lot more sense. I am 
saying that under your leadership, EPA failed to work with 
Mississippi on implementation of the Good Neighbor provision in 
the Clean Air Act on ambient air quality standards.
    Under the Clean Air Act, States are entitled to come up 
with their way of making this work. And we have done that. The 
proposed Federal Implementation Plan, which my State and 
several other States are about to have to abide by, will toss 
that away and implement, seek to implement, Washington based 
drastic unachievable nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants 
and other industrial sources, which we cannot do.
    One of the most important tenets, I repeat, of the Clean 
Air Act, is the ability of States to regulate emissions in a 
way that makes sense for the State, as long as we can get 
there, and we can get there, we are entitled under the law to 
regulate emissions in the way that is best for us. And the 
proposed FIP violates this.
    Given that EPA is working to finalize the FIP this month, 
how are you going to help us get around these impossible 
requirements?
    Mr. Goffman. Thanks, Senator Wicker, for the chance to 
address that issue. You are right, we are under a consent 
decree to finalize the Good Neighbor Plan. I know we received 
comments from Mississippi about the questions you raised, and 
the dispute they have with the way we do, the conclusions we 
came to vis-a-vis our air quality modeling.
    The obligation that Congress created for States and then in 
turn for EPA to ensure that upwind or out of State pollution 
doesn't blow into a non-attainment area and prevent that area 
from improving its air quality is one that the agency has been 
trying to tackle since the late 1990s.
    Senator Wicker. Let me interject here, sir. Doesn't it seem 
preposterous to you that Mississippi would be considered upwind 
of Houston, Texas, and upwind of Dallas, Texas, when everyone 
that ever watches weather patterns knows that is absolutely 
preposterous?
    Mr. Goffman. The only way I can really answer that is by 
turning to what we rely on, which is the science of air 
circulation and air quality modeling. The air quality modeling 
does tell us that----
    Senator Wicker. That Mississippi is upwind of Houston, 
Texas.
    Mr. Goffman. We see through the science of atmospheric 
circulation that pollution from Mississippi at times affects 
the air quality in locales in Texas. And we can't un-see it.
    Senator Wicker. I will ask you to respond on the record. I 
am over my time. Do you concede that there is more than one way 
to achieve this level of attainment?
    Mr. Goffman. Absolutely. And we try to build, we intend to 
build flexibility into our Federal Implementation Plans for 
sources that end up being affected by them. You know, Senator, 
even after we put out a Federal Implementation Plan, the State 
can always step in again and come in with a State 
Implementation Plan to replace the Federal Implementation Plan.
    Senator Wicker. Well, it seems you are about to impose on 
us an impossible requirement. So I look forward to visiting 
with you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.
    Senator Carper. All right, thanks.
    We have been joined by my favorite Marine, Senator 
Sullivan.
    Welcome, good to see you.
    Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Chairman, Captain, thank you 
very much.
    Mr. Goffman, thank you for being here again. Third 
appearance in front of this Committee for this position. You 
really must want it.
    Senator Carper. In the worst way. Actually the best way.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Sullivan. Well, no, I appreciate it, right? These 
hearings are not easy, and you go through a lot of questions, 
and you are hanging in there.
    I am going to start where I left off last time. I have this 
chart; I love to show this chart. Can you see that chart? Now, 
you might remember, I asked you about this chart in your last 
hearing.
    By the way, the national media hates this chart, right? 
What does this chart say? From 2005 to 2020, the major economy 
in the world that reduced greenhouse gas emissions more than 
any other major economy in the world by far was the United 
States of America. Yay, say it, be proud.
    The national media hates it, because it goes against all 
climate change doom and gloom, we are against it. Now, you 
might remember, I raised this. So they fact checked the hell 
out of this chart, and guess what? It is true. Can't deny it. 
Look at this. Reductions of this percentage. And of course, who 
is the polluter of the world by far? The Chinese Communist 
Party, India, Iran, Russia, by the way, all the bad guys. The 
good guys are here, reducing emissions.
    Now, if you remember, when I asked you about this chart, 
you looked a little skeptical, you looked confused, you looked 
surprised by it, which surprised me, because you want to be in 
charge of air, you need to have this chart embedded in your 
head. OK? When I asked you why do you think that happened, you 
actually said, I think it was maybe EPA regulations. So 
remember my response to you? What was it?
    Mr. Goffman. I remember our time together, and you actually 
didn't just ask me a question, you tutored me. I hope I pass 
the test this time.
    Senator Sullivan. Well, you are going to show if you need 
remedial education right now or if you pass the test. So what 
do you think happened? Did this have anything to do with EPA 
regs? Come on, you know the answer. If you say yes, you are 
going to fail.
    Mr. Goffman. Technology and the market is what I remember 
from the----
    Senator Sullivan. OK, technology and the market, and the 
market particularly where?
    Mr. Goffman. In the electricity sector, the oil and gas 
sector, and particularly in States like Alaska.
    Senator Sullivan. Well, revolution and the production of 
natural gas.
    Mr. Goffman. George P. Mitchell, right?
    Senator Sullivan. Exactly. Revolution and the production of 
natural gas right here, that is the answer for the most part. 
It has nothing to do with EPA. Private sector, technology, 
American innovation is literally helping keep the world clean.
    So here is my question. You, if you are confirmed, the EPA 
is going to have a lot of role, not just domestically but 
internationally. John Kerry, who I think is the bane of 
America's existence on so many issues of security; by the way, 
he is a White House staffer, right? He is not a secretary, he 
is not a Senator; he couldn't get confirmed in this body if it 
took 100 years. He is out there internationally, saying, well, 
we don't think countries should buy American LNG, telling 
countries--do you think that is smart? Do you think that is 
smart?
    Do you think what John Kerry is up to is smart? Assume what 
I said is correct. I would love it if he came out and denied 
it, I didn't do that. But trust me, I have talked to foreign 
governments. He is out there cautioning the Japanese against 
buying American LNG, for God's sake, which would make the world 
cleaner. This is all about clean burning American natural gas. 
That is it. That is the answer. Every media outlet in America 
has fact checked this, and they are like, damn, he is right.
    So should we be telling foreign governments not to buy 
clean burning American LNG from Alaska and other places? Come 
on, this is easy.
    Mr. Goffman. I really don't think so, but I never have----
    Senator Sullivan. It is a bad idea, isn't it? Let me just 
give you another--right now, the G7 group of seven countries, 
the G7 industrialized democracies are looking at their next 
meetings. I am hearing rumors that John Kerry is trying to get 
in the G7 leaders' statements not to buy American LNG. Like, 
whose side is this guy on? Do you think that is a good idea? 
You will have responsibility over this. Is that a good idea for 
the environment of the world? Look at that chart. Answer my 
question.
    Mr. Goffman. Personally, I don't think so.
    Senator Sullivan. A horrible idea. It is a horrible idea 
based on science. The Democrats like to say, we are the party 
of science. Great. That is science.
    So here is the commitment I need from you. I am just 4 
minutes, 4 seconds over. One question. When you guys get, 
because you do a lot of international work, any proposal from 
John Kerry or the other climate zealots in this Administration, 
who don't know any of the science, by the way, and they are 
trying to reduce the export of American LNG, can you commit to 
me to weigh in it with the EPA and say, that is a bad idea for 
the environment of the world, not to mention national security, 
for God's sake? Can you commit to me to do that? Assume that is 
going to happen.
    Mr. Goffman. Senator, I commit to you to carry out the 
responsibilities of the Office of Air and Radiation.
    Senator Sullivan. You just said this was a bad idea. Will 
you commit to me to telling others, John Kerry and others, that 
this is a bad idea? You are going to be in charge of EPA's Air 
program.
    Mr. Goffman. The reason I am hesitating, Senator, is I have 
never been, in my experience working in the Office of Air and 
Radiation, that question has never come up as a Clean Air Act 
question. It is very hard for me to make a commitment based on 
authority I don't have or that I am not familiar with having. 
My personal opinion is not what I am asked for. I am asked to 
apply my expertise under the Clean Air Act. I don't expect in 
my current job ever to be asked that question----
    Senator Sullivan. You are. You are.
    Mr. Goffman [continuing]. In my current capacity.
    Senator Carper. The Senator's time is expired.
    Senator Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, the witness is----
    Senator Carper. The Senator's time is expired.
    Senator Sullivan [continuing]. Dodging my question.
    Senator Carper. The Senator's time is expired. We are going 
to have another round of questions. I invite you to stay and 
participate in that. Your time is expired.
    Senator Sullivan. It would be good if you can answer my 
question in the next round. Don't dodge it.
    Senator Carper. I ask unanimous consent to submit for the 
record data from the Smart Electric Power Alliance, an 
organization that tracks power sector commitments to reduce 
emissions, which shows that today 75 percent of the U.S. 
customer accounts are served by a utility that is committed to 
a 100 percent carbon reduction target or a utility owned by a 
parent company that has a 100 percent carbon reduction target. 
I ask unanimous consent.
    Without objection.
    [The referenced information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Carper. Let me lead into my next question. I want 
to build off some of the conversation raised earlier. As the 
document I just submitted for the record states, 75 percent of 
Americans, not just Californians, are being served by a utility 
with a net zero goal. It is also my understanding a big 
contributor of the California blackouts are because of extreme 
weather and extreme weather events like wildfires fueled by 
climate change.
    Question: Can you please talk with us, Mr. Goffman, about 
how our Clean Air Rules work? That is one. Can you please 
explain about how our Clean Air Rules work, and that many of 
our rules require EPA to look at the existing technology to 
help clean up pollution, not at one State's actions? I will say 
that again. Can you please talk about how our Clean Air Rules 
work, and that many of our rules require EPA to look at the 
existing technology to help clean up pollution, not at one 
State's actions?
    Mr. Goffman. Thanks for that question. It is a fundamental 
question to what the Clean Air Act requires us to do and the 
limits of what the Clean Air Act authorizes us to do. The way 
Congress wrote the Clean Air Act directed EPA to look at 
available technology that is in use, and to identify that 
technology, and it is technology that is in use as the basis 
for emissions standards.
    The Act also requires us to take account of cost, 
economics, in some cases energy needs, in establishing 
standards, so that while we establish standards that apply on a 
national basis, we are also directed by the Clean Air Act and 
in many cases by the courts, to include sufficient latitude and 
flexibility for States or for individual sources to meet those 
standards by any means that they identify that in the end 
effectuate the required emissions reductions consistent with 
either other policies if we are talking about States, or the 
business needs of individual sources if we are talking about 
individual sources.
    Senator Carper. All right, thank you. EPA's mission is to 
protect public health and the environment. However, protecting 
public health and the environment also protects and helps our 
economy to grow.
    For example, implementing the American Innovation in 
Manufacturing Act to phase down the super climate pollutants 
HFCs is expected to create 150,000, 150,000, direct and 
indirect jobs and improve our Nation's trade imbalance and 
chemicals and equivalent by $12.5 billion. Briefly describe 
some regulations that you have worked on where there are 
critical economic and public health benefits.
    Mr. Goffman. Thanks, that is another question I really 
appreciate being able to answer. The American Innovation in 
Manufacturing Act is a good example that really crystallizes 
what much of our environmental policy accomplishes. The AIM Act 
was both an environmental and climate policy, but it was also a 
policy that supported ongoing investment in innovative 
chemicals and the chemical industry, so that that industry 
could continue to develop economically and play a leading role 
internationally.
    So you can look at the AIM Act as both at the same time a 
climate and environmental policy and as an economic growth and 
innovation policy. And any number of Clean Air Act regulations 
have proven to achieve the same thing. They are designed both 
to achieve pollution reduction, air quality improvement, and 
public health improvement on the one hand, while also 
stimulating technological innovation. It more often than not 
leads to more efficient economic operations of sources and 
businesses.
    Senator Carper. Thank you.
    Senator Capito is next, if she wishes to be recognized. I 
think she may be yielding.
    Senator Capito. Yes, in the interest of the vote being on, 
I will yield my questioning time. I am going to want a question 
at the very end, but yield to Senator Ricketts and then Senator 
Sullivan.
    Senator Carper. Senator Ricketts, go ahead.
    Senator Ricketts. Great, thank you very much.
    Mr. Goffman, I want to kind of build on what Senator Mullin 
was talking about earlier. One of the things that concerns me 
as well is managing the ability to, as we talked about earlier, 
the demand for electric cars and power generation but also 
transmission lines is another big deal. And if we don't have 
transmission lines, it doesn't really matter. If you look, for 
example, where a lot of wind energy potential in this country 
is, it is in the middle part of the country where the demand is 
going to be on the coast and so forth.
    Then of course just making sure we have baseload power as 
well. Actually 2 years ago in Nebraska, the amount of wind 
energy generated actually exceeded the amount of coal energy 
generated. So we are heading in a direction for more renewable 
energy.
    But it does raise a question about baseload and making sure 
that we have enough power to be able to provide to folks and 
not have the rolling blackouts, which is something that, again, 
in my lifetime has not happened until very recently.
    Can you talk about reliable energy and electricity and how 
it is important here, and how do you think about this when you 
are thinking about this critical need to develop environmental 
regulations that are impacting our electric utilities? How does 
that play into, when you are doing your modeling, to make sure 
that we have proper power generation and proper baseload to be 
able to continue to provide the growing needs of this country 
for electricity?
    Mr. Goffman. Thank you for asking that question. As I said 
to Senator Capito, whenever we do power sector regulations, we 
look at cost impact on consumers and businesses and reliability 
with the same level of focus we do at the pollution reduction 
we are aiming to achieve.
    I have never encountered a Clean Air Act provision that 
authorizes the agency to shut down sources. And in fact, as I 
was mentioning, we have got that problem statement right in 
front of us as we are endeavoring to finalize the Good Neighbor 
Plan. We proposed the Good Neighbor Plan, and we got a lot of 
feedback from reliability entities saying that what you have 
proposed is going to put a burden on the very sources that we 
may need in order to ensure grid reliability.
    So having been given that information by the experts in 
reliability, we are going to be addressing that challenge they 
put to us or the information they shared with us. We are going 
to be addressing that in the final rule.
    So, the reliability issue comes to us on a rule by rule 
basis. And fortunately, the Clean Air Act, by design of 
Congress, the Clean Air Act authorizes us, even requires us, to 
ensure that whenever we set standards and define compliance we 
include sufficient flexibility so that grid operators and 
generators can respond to the reliability needs of the grid.
    Senator Ricketts. You made a comment about shutting down 
utilities. The EPA's regulations can have that effect, when you 
put on regulations, especially, we talked a little bit about 
State Implementation Plans versus the Federal Implementation 
Plans. The experience in my State was, some of the regulations 
can be so onerous that in effect, even though you are not 
shutting down the utility, that is what is going to happen. 
Then of course, with all the consequences that go along with 
that.
    So are there specific models you are using when you are 
saying, hey, this is how much power generation is going to come 
offline for the potential impact, or are there models that say, 
wherever you are regulating, this rule will allow certain 
sources of utilities to be able to continue to provide 
electricity?
    Mr. Goffman. We do modeling that predicts or projects, 
predict is an overstatement, projects shutdowns. But that is 
just the beginning of the inquiry when we see those results. We 
then consult with and engage with reliability or grid operators 
to get an assessment of whether those possible shutdowns will 
result in reliability problems.
    I point you to rulemakings that the Office of Air and 
Radiation has done where we have added provisions to ensure 
that if in reality a source is going to shut down or have to go 
offline to install pollution controls in circumstances when 
doing so would threaten reliability, we have added additional 
provisions to allow those sources or those grid operators to 
avoid that.
    I don't want to quite say it is case by case, but we work 
with the particularities of each rule and each area of the 
country that may be affected by a rule that we have proposed 
and then work on finalizing.
    Senator Ricketts. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. Thank you for those questions.
    Senator Padilla, thanks for coming back. I know you have 
been here before. Thanks for coming back.
    Senator Padilla. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Yes, there is Budget 
and Judiciary also meeting this morning, so I am on my roller 
skates today.
    Senator Carper. Yes. There you go.
    Senator Padilla. Mr. Chairman, I understand that while I 
was out of the room there were questions and concerns raised 
about the reliability of the electrical grid in California, to 
put it mildly.
    Senator Carper. I think that did come up.
    Senator Padilla. I invite any of my colleagues who are 
interested in learning more about how California is not only 
greening our grid but minimizing the frequency and duration of 
blackouts when they do occur, I am happy to lead a tour to the 
fourth largest economy in the world. Not just to brag on 
California, but in the interest in bipartisanship, talk about 
some of the work that Senator Cornyn and I did last session in 
response to not just concerns in California, but blackouts in 
Texas because of the winter storms they have had year after 
year.
    Our Power On Act, which was introduced and incorporated 
into the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, has us working with 
States and utilities to modernize the grid and minimize grid 
impact on people, their lives, and the economy.
    With that being said, Mr. Goffman, I want to thank you for 
your collaboration these past few years in addressing some of 
those pressing challenges facing California. As you know, over 
18 million people, nearly half of California's population, are 
breathing air that does not meet Federal health based standards 
for ozone and particulate matter, non-attainment areas. 
California is in jeopardy of Federal sanctions as a result, 
including the potential loss of highway funds if our air 
quality does not improve.
    Having served in local government and State government in 
California, I can attest to California's aggressive actions to 
reduce or regulate the sources of pollution under State 
jurisdiction. What is left to tackle is the pollution sources 
under Federal jurisdiction, such as pollution from goods 
movement, which especially impacts our most vulnerable 
populations living in environmental justice communities or 
those near ports and major transportation corridors.
    I appreciate the EPA's efforts so far to reduce air 
pollution from some of the hardest to decarbonize 
transportation sectors including interstate heavy duty trucks. 
So yes, that is progress, but we can't stop there. We have had 
this conversation. We need EPA to act with urgency on all of 
the above efforts to tackle the sources of California's 
continued air pollution.
    I am particularly interested in how EPA plans to tackle 
mobile sources of pollution under Federal jurisdiction such as 
ocean going vessels, locomotives, and other heavy duty sectors.
    Mr. Goffman, does EPA plan to issue non-regulatory dockets 
to lay the groundwork for future regulatory action to address 
mobile sources?
    Mr. Goffman. Thanks for that question, Senator Padilla. I 
hope you appreciate that we really do have the same priorities. 
We have a lot of different initiatives in the works or already 
out and running.
    I have mentioned before that we are starting to look at 
locomotives, for example, in two different ways. One is to 
address directly State authority to impose requirements on 
locomotives. The other is to start to lay the groundwork within 
our own shop to address perhaps an entry to Federal standards 
locomotive emissions.
    Your question suggested that establishing a non-regulatory 
docket would be a tool we could use to start focusing on that 
issue, not just for the purposes of gathering information that 
we would need, but also for sending a signal or even creating a 
venue for engagement with the industry, so that we could make 
progress there.
    As you probably know, the Administration recently put out a 
comprehensive transportation strategy focused on 
decarbonization across the entire universe of transportation. 
Thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, we are in the position 
to be able to initiate and deploy several grant programs that 
go directly to goods movement, either at ports or at other 
freight depots, and also through Clean Air Act pollution 
reduction grants.
    Senator Padilla. I know my time is almost up, but just a 
quick follow up question. Is there a tentative timeline for 
subsequent action to just push it from locomotives 
specifically?
    Senator Carper. Briefly, brief response, please.
    Mr. Goffman. For the aspect of State authority, I think we 
have got a proposal in the works that will include addressing 
that.
    Senator Padilla. Weeks? Couple of months?
    Mr. Goffman. If I am thinking about the right proposal, it 
could be in a few weeks on the State authority side.
    Senator Padilla. OK.
    So in closing I just want to thank you for not just 
responding to these questions; we have been in regular contact. 
I look forward to our continued collaboration, and I want to 
say I look forward to EPA issuing California's outstanding 
waiver requests which are critical to addressing the very 
serious air quality challenges facing California that we have 
been discussing today.
    Thank you.
    Senator Carper. Yes, thanks for the extra effort to come 
back and join us.
    Senator Capito.
    Senator Capito. I am going to yield to Senator Sullivan, 
and then I will wrap up.
    Senator Carper. Senator Sullivan.
    Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
    I am going to return to where I was before, and you know, 
it is not my intention, Mr. Chairman, to get you upset. I have 
a lot of respect for you.
    But these are actually really important issues. And just in 
the break here, Administrator Regan is a G7 delegate. They do 
an environment administer statement leading up to the G7.
    So the questions I am going to ask you are very relevant. I 
have a lot of respect for you, but don't dodge my question, OK? 
We just went through the science of what I was talking about. 
Assume that what I am saying is correct. You have people like 
John Kerry who are trying to make it harder or impossible to 
export clean burning American LNG. Not only is this good for 
our national security, but it is clearly good for the 
environment.
    So assume the hypothetical that you get asked, Regan gets 
asked to sign a G7 environment leader statement that would do 
something like that which would be against our national 
security, against the environment, against our economy. What 
advice are you going to give him, given what you have said to 
me? Don't dodge me. In your personal opinion. Don't tell me you 
don't have authority, you do, to be asked this question.
    What is the answer? You know what the answer is. Give it to 
me in this hearing right now in front of the Senate 
confirmation.
    Mr. Goffman. Senator, I would rather plead guilty to 
dodging the question than answer a question that I don't feel 
qualified to answer right now. This is an issue that I have not 
been briefed on by my expert staff. If and when Administrator 
Regan asks me for his advice, of course I will give it to him. 
But in my work, I am never asked hypothetical questions, and I 
don't really feel qualified to answer it.
    Again, I will admit to you that, to use your words, I am 
not answering or I am dodging the question, but I would rather, 
in a Senate hearing, answer a question that I am qualified to 
answer, and decline to answer questions I don't feel qualified 
to.
    Senator Sullivan. OK. Well, let me just say, this is a huge 
issue, all right? Because we have an Administration led by guys 
like Kerry who are not Senate confirmed, that guy could never 
get Senate confirmed, who are fundamentally focused on shutting 
down the production of American energy. And it makes no sense. 
It makes no sense for the environment, for the economy, for 
workers, for national security.
    Let me turn to a related question. And this is where I do 
get upset, Mr. Chairman, and I would love to have a damned 
hearing on it some time. My State, in the 2 years of the Biden 
administration, has suffered 44 executive orders or executive 
Actions solely focused on Alaska, 44. There is no State in the 
Union that is getting this kind of unwanted attention. Forty-
four, crushing the people who I represent and their jobs.
    So here is my simple ask of you. We have gone to the White 
House. We have pleaded for a cease fire on the war on Alaska's 
economy. I have asked for at a minimum with senior officials in 
this Administration at least give me a heads up when you are 
going to screw my State again.
    So can I get that commitment from you, when you guys do a 
singular rule focused on Alaska, maybe reach out to us. I did 
this with the Secretary of Agriculture, the big issue in the 
Tongass National Forest.
    You know how we learned about it, me, Senator Murkowski, 
Congresswoman Peltola, a Democrat? In the Washington Post. They 
briefed them for 2 weeks, never gave us one heads up. Can I get 
at least a commitment to the respect that I would imagine 
should come out of the EPA that if you are going to do another 
action, not 44 but 45 or 46, it is almost daily with these 
people, that you call me, call Senator Murkowski, call Democrat 
Congressman Peltola and go, hey, Senator, just a heads up, we 
are getting ready to screw you again. Can you at least commit 
to that to me?
    Mr. Goffman. When the Office of Air and Radiation takes an 
action that is going to affect Alaska, I look forward to 
engaging with you and your colleagues.
    Senator Sullivan. OK, thanks. I have one final question. It 
is a simple one. It is not a simple one, it is just, the EPA is 
finally confronting a rule that Alaska has been a leader on 
since the 1970s, that is reducing methane emissions. My State 
actually reinjects all our gas on the North Slope, 9 dcf a day, 
almost. Highest standards on the environment in the world by 
far. Go look at a place like New Mexico that, drill baby drill, 
spewing emissions all over the place.
    But here is my question. EPA, however, with their new rule, 
is deputizing NGOs and other ``third party audits'' to do this 
kind of work. This is State of Alaska DEC work.
    So can you tell me how you are going to do that, say, on 
the North Slope of Alaska, with third party NGOs? Like who? The 
Center for Biological Diversity? Who are you going to deputize? 
This is an EPA and a State of Alaska issue on methane 
emissions. Can you explain what they are trying to do on this 
new program that is outsourcing government enforcement rules 
probably to NGOs that don't have my State's interests in mind?
    Senator Carper. The Senator's time is expired. Let me ask, 
we are 30 minutes into a vote. Thirty minutes they have been 
waiting for us to come and vote on the Senate floor. You may 
not know that but that is what is going on right now.
    Senator Sullivan. You are not going to let him answer that 
question?
    Senator Carper. I am going to ask him to answer that 
question for the record.
    The other thing I am going to ask is, the way we do stuff 
in Delaware is when we have differences of opinion like this, 
we actually get together and talk about it. If the two of you 
are not doing that, please do, please do before we go through 
another hearing like this, all right?
    I am going to now go back to Senator Capito. You are next 
in line.
    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I have my own questions, but very quickly, first of all, on 
the MATS Rule, which was $9.8 billion estimated per year. When 
you were in your prior time at the EPA, the Supreme Court 
stayed EPA's Clean Power Plan and found that the EPA had not 
properly justified the MATS Rule.
    So the EPA recently finalized and reinstated, and the 
Chairman was touting the results. What people did was went 
ahead and did it and then found out it wasn't a firm foundation 
of which that rule was created.
    You are using a very similar and overly broad 
interpretation of the statute again, we feel. Do you think this 
broad interpretation of the statute will fare any better in the 
courts this time?
    Mr. Goffman. I believe that the determination we made that 
it is appropriate and necessary to regulate mercury and other 
air toxics from the power sector is consistent with our legal 
authority.
    Senator Capito. I don't think that was the question. I 
don't think that was the problem, though. It was that you 
hadn't taken the full array of--that is correct, right?
    Mr. Goffman. Of cost, yes.
    Senator Capito. Yes.
    Mr. Goffman. What the Supreme Court told us is that our 
interpretation of the statute, which was that we had to look at 
the mercury question without looking at cost, was wrong, and 
that we were not required to exclude cost, and that within the 
meaning of the statute, we needed to take account of cost.
    Senator Capito. I am going to go, because I know we need to 
vote. But I would hope that, you can't just keep overly, overly 
picking and choosing what parts of the law that you have to 
take into consideration. I think the Supreme Court has 
supported that policy, and that is why those two either got 
stayed or taken down.
    One thing I would say as part of the discussion here on 
retirements of plants, of coal plants or natural gas, according 
to PJM, those are policy driven. A lot of those, most power 
plant retirements are policy driven. I just want to make that 
point.
    Next point I wanted to make is first of all, I should have 
said this in the beginning, green school buses are great. We 
actually got a Green Power, which is a manufacturer of green 
school buses, in our State. So I will say those 35 or so jobs 
are welcome in our State, and we actually have just completed a 
pilot study in one of our hillier regions on an electric bus, 
and it was successful. So good for that.
    Last question, on the Good Neighbor Plan, you have included 
other sources besides what the original CSAPR plan, which was 
just the power sector. So you've got cement and cement 
production, iron and steel, gas and glass products, chemical 
manufacturing, pulp and paper, paper board, et cetera, et 
cetera. We are hearing daily about supply chain shortages, we 
are hearing about Buy America that is becoming problematic. 
That is in the IIJA and other kinds of things.
    So with these bottlenecks, with this kind of onerous 
regulation on a new sector, the industrial sector, and I asked 
you about this before, how is this going to help with the 
domestic production of our own domestic that we need for 
semiconductors, that we need for everything that we want to 
build in this country?
    Mr. Goffman. I hope you realize that that set of questions 
is compelling to the Administration and to the agency as well. 
Just a few things. The Federal courts have weighed in, 
including the Supreme Court, several times about how to 
implement the Good Neighbor provisions. And we are really doing 
our best to follow what the courts have told us the boundaries 
of our legal authority and obligation are.
    Second, we are focusing on requirements that are based on 
what sources in the same sectors are already using in some 
States to control NOx emissions. Third, the question 
you raise has come to us in comments since we issued the Good 
Neighbor proposal, and we are focusing on finding ways to 
address those questions when we finalize the Good Neighbor 
proposal.
    Senator Capito. Good. Like I said on the earlier response, 
time will tell on that.
    Thank you very much. I would say anecdotally if you have a 
provision that is directly going to affect just my State of 
West Virginia, I would expect you to come and tell me that in 
advance. I don't think that is an unreasonable request from 
Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. Senator Capito, this has been an 
interesting confirmation hearing. A little more exciting than 
some, but we covered a lot.
    I want to again thank Mr. Goffman for joining us today. He 
has been nominated, as we all know, for a critical role at EPA. 
I am pleased we have been able to hear from you today.
    I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit into the 
record a variety of materials related to today's hearing, 
including the over 50 letters of support for Mr. Goffman's 
nomination, along with articles and independent analyses 
related to this nomination.
    I hear no objection.
    [The referenced information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Carper. Senators are going to be allowed to submit 
written questions for the record by 4 p.m. on Monday, March 
6th.
    We will compile those questions, submit them to you, Mr. 
Goffman, and will ask you to reply by Monday, March 13th.
    Before I adjourn the hearing I just have to say something. 
I am the last Vietnam veteran serving in the U.S. Senate. One 
of the people who served in Southeast Asia in the Vietnam war 
at the same time that I did, I was in the P3 aircraft, mission 
commander, and we were flying low level missions off the coast 
of Vietnam and Cambodia to interdict and infiltrate trawlers 
trying to come in and resupply the Viet Cong. We would track 
them into the coast, and we would turn them over, those 
trawlers, interdicting, we would turn them over to swift boats.
    One of those swift boat commanders was John Kerry, who was 
highly decorated for his role and heroism in that war. Later, 
along with John McCain and I, the two of them led the effort in 
the Senate, along with me and a group of bipartisan 
Congressmen, we worked with the Vietnamese government and the 
Bush administration, George Herbert Walker Bush, to normalize 
relations with Vietnam. We literally served in a war with 
Vietnam and later on, years later, in a bipartisan way for a 
Republican President, worked to normalize relations.
    Today, Vietnam and the United States enjoy some of the 
closest relations, not just trade relations, but actually 
defense related relations, standing up to China and their 
effort to expand their influence in that part of the world.
    For his efforts in the Vietnam war and I think for his 
service here in the United States, when John Kerry was 
nominated to be Secretary of State, he was actually confirmed. 
He wasn't narrowly confirmed, he was confirmed by a vote of 94 
to 3 in 2013.
    With that, this hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
    [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                                 [all]