[Senate Hearing 118-46]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]













                                                         S. Hrg. 118-46

                      THE EPA GOOD NEIGHBOR RULE:
                   HEALTHIER AIR FOR DOWNWIND STATES

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 29, 2023

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works









[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]








        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 
                             _________
                              
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                 
52-811PDF                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 29, 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

                               WITNESSES

Hill, David G., M.D., FCCP, Chair, Public Policy Committee, 
  American Lung Association Board of Directors...................    11
    Prepared statement...........................................    13
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........    18
        [Due to size constraints the following document is not 
          included in this hearing record but is available on the 
          Web.]
        State of the Air, 2023 Report, American Lung Association, 
          https://www.lung.org/research/sota
McIlwain, Serena, Secretary, Maryland Department of the 
  Environment....................................................    21
    Prepared statement...........................................    23
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........    26
Peters, Karen, Director, Arizona Department of Environmental 
  Quality........................................................    29
    Prepared statement...........................................    32
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........    36
Wells, Chris, Executive Director, Mississippi Department of 
  Environmental Quality..........................................    56
    Prepared statement...........................................    58
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........    65
Noe, Paul, Vice President, Public Policy, American Forest and 
  Paper Association..............................................    66
    Prepared statement...........................................    68
    Response to an additional question from Senator Carper.......    81
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Capito........    82

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Statement from the United Steelworkers, June 21, 2022............     5
The Good Neighbor Plan And Reliable Electricity, March 2023......    95
Letter to:
    Ms. Barbara Sugg, President and CEO, Southwestern Power Pool, 
      Inc., from Governor Mark Gordon, State of Wyoming, et al., 
      August 17, 2022............................................    98
    Michael S. Regan, Administrator, U.S. Environmental 
      Protection Agency, from the Ozone Transport Commission, 
      June 21, 2022..............................................   109
    Senators Carper and Capito from America's Power, March 28, 
      2023.......................................................   189
    Senators Carper and Capito from the Portland Cement 
      Association, March 28, 2023................................   192

 
     THE EPA GOOD NEIGHBOR RULE: HEALTHIER AIR FOR DOWNWIND STATES

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2023

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in 
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper 
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Kelly, Lummis, 
Boozman, Wicker, and Ricketts.

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

    Senator Carper. Good morning, everyone. We are ready to get 
started, and I am pleased to call this hearing to order.
    We are coming together today, as you know, to discuss the 
Environmental Protection Agency's recently finalized Good 
Neighbor Plan, a topic that is personal to me and the 1 million 
Delawareans I am privileged to represent here in the Senate. 
And I think it is personal to millions of other Americans 
across our country, and I will be talking about them in just a 
minute.
    Before examining the specifics of EPA's Good Neighbor Rule, 
though, let's first take a minute or two to better understand 
why addressing cross-State air pollution is so important, 
especially to those of us who live in downwind States. I 
believe that most Americans realize that air pollution is bad 
for our health, bad for our planet, bad for business and that 
it creates real economic hardships for communities that end up 
breathing dirty air.
    In Delaware, we have made great strides in cleaning up our 
State's air pollution over many years. We have invested 
millions of dollars in clean air and energy technologies. Yet 
despite all of our efforts, some parts of Delaware still do not 
meet the EPA's health standards for air quality. And we are not 
alone.
    Unfortunately, some people have forgotten in this country 
that air pollution knows no State boundaries. Pollution from 
sources in one State does not just stop at the border. The 
pollution controls or the lack thereof in some States really do 
impact the air quality in others.
    As it turns out, a number of upwind States have not made 
the same investments in clean technology as many of us have, or 
they simply have refused to operate the technology full time 
that has already been installed in their States. For too long, 
many Americans living in downwind States have suffered in part 
because upwind neighboring States refuse to clean up their 
ozone pollution.
    According to the EPA, ozone pollution, also known as smog, 
is one of the most prevalent cross-State air pollutants in the 
United States. For those who may not know, ozone pollution 
chokes and inflames people's airways. Ozone can be particularly 
dangerous for children, for the elderly, and people with lung 
diseases, like asthma.
    This pollutant can also travel hundreds, sometimes even 
thousands, of miles. Left unchecked, ozone can cost Americans 
billions, that is billions with a B, every year in health care 
costs, missed work days, not to mention the lives lost.
    The effects of this cross-State pollution on downwind 
States are staggering. For example, emissions from other States 
account for 94 percent of ozone pollution in the First State, 
my State. That means no matter how hard we might work to 
protect our communities from dirty, smoggy air, the source of 
the vast majority of the pollution we face lies outside of our 
State's control.
    As my colleagues have heard me say probably more than they 
care to remember, when I was privileged to serve as Governor of 
Delaware, I could have shut down every emission source in my 
State and my State's economy, and we would still have been out 
of attainment of ozone health standards, air health standards. 
Just think about that. Just think about that. I could have shut 
down virtually every source of emission in my State, we would 
still have been out of attainment for ozone air health 
standards. That was due to upwind States' dirty emissions. 
Downwind States need cooperation from our upwind neighbors and 
EPA if we are ever to have truly healthy air to breathe.
    We are not alone. Delaware, like many States on the East 
Coast, including our neighbor, Maryland, sits at the end of 
what I like to call America's tailpipe. Most of the pollution 
in our States comes from outside sources, such as power plants, 
factories, and vehicles not located in our State. That is why 
we need a national strategy to address pollutants like ozone.
    Fortunately, when we were writing clean air laws, Democrats 
and Republicans alike were especially concerned with the plight 
of downwind States. Under the Clean Air Act's direction, EPA 
has an obligation to forge partnerships with States in order to 
make sure that everyone is doing their fair share, their part, 
to address cross-State pollution.
    That is exactly what EPA did earlier this month, when 
issuing the latest Good Neighbor Plan to help downwind States 
clean up smog pollution, really to follow the Golden Rule and 
ensure that States treat their neighbors the way they would 
like to be treated.
    In addition to being justified morally, EPA's science based 
rule has well defined economic and health benefits. For 
example, this rule will create up to $13 billion, $13 billion, 
that is billions with a B, in annual health benefits and 
healthier air for an estimated 80 million people who live 
downwind. That means fewer missed days of work and school, 
fewer emergency room visits, and fewer premature deaths.
    These reductions are also eminently achievable. In fact, 
many upwind polluters already have the necessary pollution 
controls installed. But they have chosen not to run them much 
of the time.
    Under EPA's rules, more than 270 power plant units with 
these controls will have to run them full time, not like next 
week or next month, not even this year, but by 2024. To me, 
that is not an undue burden on upwind States. It is basic 
fairness. I think it is just basic common sense. My dad always 
used to say to me, just use some common sense. I think that is 
what we are asking people to do.
    My mom always used to say, treat other people the way you 
want to be treated. So I got a healthy dose of that. They 
helped me write this speech. They don't know it; they are long 
departed.
    Let me close by saying that while it is easy to get wrapped 
up in numbers and statistics when talking about EPA's 
regulations, the Good Neighbor Rule is about basic fairness. It 
is about protecting Americans who are breathing dirty air that 
they didn't create, dirty air that is coming from our 
neighbors.
    As a recovering Governor, I know first hand how deadly and 
costly out of State air pollution is for us in Delaware. We are 
not alone. So on behalf of all Americans, especially the more 
than 25 million children and adults in our country living with 
asthma, 25 million living with asthma, I say thanks to the EPA 
for the Good Neighbor Rule.
    And as I turn to Senator Capito, one of the things I loved 
doing as Governor, I loved economic development. I loved trying 
to make sure people have a job and the ability to provide for 
themselves and their families. We were faced with a situation 
where we ended up with electricity costs, energy costs for our 
businesses and for families as well, that were higher than they 
should have been. Those who had the pollution control 
mechanisms didn't use them, they were able to provide cheaper 
electricity. That is just not fair. That is not fair, either.
    With that, let me turn to Senator Capito for anything that 
she wants to say.
    Thank you so much for all your work on this as well.

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

    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank all of you for being here 
today. Common sense sounds like something we definitely agree 
on, even though I didn't know your dad, I can agree on that.
    We look forward to the testimony today. The EPA's so called 
Good Neighbor Rule is the latest version of a regulation that 
has gone by many names. I have been on this Committee for 8 
years; I have seen it in different names. It has previously 
been called the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, or CSAPR, the 
Ozone Transfer Rule, and the NOx Federal 
Implementation Plan.
    But they all refer to the same rule. And this is a topic 
that we have discussed. While being a good neighbor is great, 
we all want to be good neighbors, the name is a bit of a 
misnomer. It is a $14 billion cost rule, targeting States that 
are energy suppliers in our Nation and our industrial 
heartland.
    So what does that cost us? What does that $14 billion in 
costs get us? Unfortunately, the rule will not change any 
nonattainment areas to attainment in the downwind States. 
Instead, it places a burden on States that will help provide 
our Nation with power, manufactured goods, and building 
materials as though we are in different economies as we try to 
make ourselves competitive against rivals like China, bring 
back and reinforce our supply chains, and make generational 
investments in our infrastructure, which we are doing now, 
having our States that provide electricity and manufactured 
goods to their neighbors is not just the most sustainable 
solution. We have to compete as one Nation.
    Requirements for the use of American iron, steel, and other 
materials in the Bipartisan Infrastructure package are directly 
undercut by this new iteration of the Cross-State Air Pollution 
Rules that for the first time target those domestic industries 
and their significantly unionized work force. I would like to 
ask unanimous consent to put a letter from the United 
Steelworkers expressing great concern about this rule into the 
record.
    Senator Carper. Without objection.
    [The referenced information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Capito. As we have heard from those sectors, 
broader concerns about the retirement of baseload energy 
generation that may reduce the reliability and cost of energy 
for plants that were built because of those assets. So perhaps 
this regulation might be more aptly named the Headwind Rule, 
because that is what this will be for American workers and 
consumers.
    With that table setting out of the way, let's talk about 
what States, what the final Headwind Rule would impact. It 
targets 23 States for interstate transport of air pollution. 
While that is down from 26 States in the original proposal, 
there are still two States, Tennessee and Wyoming, in 
regulatory limbo because the EPA has deferred action on these.
    The only State that was dropped from this was Delaware. 
Now, with all due respect to the Chairman, that is an 
interesting emission, isn't it? You and somebody else we know 
well is from Delaware, right?
    Senator Carper. Chris Coons.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Capito. That is a good one.
    As I mentioned earlier, this rule is going after power 
plants and industries, including iron, steel, cement, concrete, 
pulp and paper, natural gas pipelines for the very first time. 
So it is a much broader rule impacting more States which is 
going to put us in uncharted waters, I believe, as to the 
implementation.
    And the process EPA undertook to develop this rule, the way 
in which the agency went about denying State implementation 
plans, which I just talked about, cuts against the 
congressional intent in the Clean Air Act's cooperative 
federalism approach. For instance, West Virginia's pending 
State Implementation Plan, or SIP, was denied, along with 18 
other States, in January. But this was a legal step that EPA 
took so they could federalize the issue and require a one size 
fits all, or FIP, which is a Federal Implementation Plan.
    With witnesses representing three different States, I look 
forward to hearing from them on how the SIP development process 
typically works, and who knows the intricacies of their States 
better than the hardworking folks that we have with us today? I 
am very glad to see Arizona here, because I know they have a 
unique State, they have a unique case. Being downwind from 
California, as well as having international transport of 
pollutants from China and Mexico, that affect its attainment on 
various air regulations, and facing potential incorporation 
into this rule, I look forward to hearing Ms. Peters' views on 
what this may mean for her State.
    It would be a shame if the only hypothetical benefits for 
Arizona are as a result of shuttering or reducing shifts for 
manufacturing sites in California, because that seems the most 
likely outcome. And it will leave Arizona, if it doesn't 
happen, to be sanctioned under tightened National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards for ozone and particulate matter that the EPA 
is working on.
    I am not even sure the EPA knows what the ramifications of 
this will be for States or the impacted sectors. My office has 
heard repeatedly from the industries being regulated for the 
very first time under this rule under the Office of Air that 
the EPA did not understand the businesses or the technologies 
that they were attempting to regulate. That does explain the 
significant changes in covered facilities and components 
between the original proposal and the final rule, which we are 
glad about that.
    But even with those changes, there will be hidden costs for 
Americans in the form of higher prices, delayed or unbuilt 
infrastructure, potentially lost jobs that could result in 
litigation.
    So I truly hope that the EPA knows when they take action 
that it is likely to shut down our Nation's industries. It does 
not mean the need for those products will disappear. Instead, 
it merely moves the need for these abroad to countries with 
lower environmental standards, the opposite of what both 
parties are trying to accomplish in terms of reshoring our 
manufacturing base.
    This rule is just one piece of the Administration's plan to 
target affordable, reliable baseload power generation. As we 
know from a presentation in February 2020, the EPA has been 
developing a number of new regulations drafted to 
disproportionately affect coal and natural gas power plants.
    The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote about how 
these policies, like the Ozone Transport Rule that we are 
talking about today, are driving power plant retirements and 
how those plants are shutting down without adequate replacement 
capacity for the grid. As the Wall Street Journal observed, 
``The steep costs of complying with the EPA regulations, 
including a proposed Good Neighbor Rule that is expected to be 
finalized next month, will force about 10,500 megawatts of 
fossil fuel generation to shut down.'' Now that this rule has 
been finalized, it has actually projected that it will shutter 
14,000 megawatts.
    In comments to the so called Good Neighbor Proposal, MISO, 
which is the Mid-Continent Independent System Operators, stated 
that the proposal could create significant concerns about 
MISO's ability to maintain electric reliability. PJM, which 
covers my State and several other States represented, is also 
ringing the alarm about the effects that retirements will have, 
and explains that most upcoming power plant retirements are 
policy driven.
    The cooperative federalism model under the Clean Air Act 
has resulted in significant reduction in air pollution over 
these five decades. More can be achieved in the years to come 
through coordination between the States and the Federal 
Government. That is something I expect to hear from our State 
witnesses today.
    But imposing a Federal plan on half the States does nothing 
to support that spirit of collaboration, and will only, I 
think, harm our national economy.
    Thank you for holding this hearing, Chairman Carper, and I 
look forward to the witnesses.
    Senator Carper. Thank you so much, Senator Capito.
    Now we are going to turn to our esteemed panel of 
witnesses. Not every panel is termed esteemed. So you guys are 
in good company. We are lucky that you are here.
    I am going to mention the names of the witnesses, and the 
three who don't have Senators introducing them, I will say a 
few words about you.
    First, Dr. David Hill. Dr. Hill is a practicing pulmonary 
and critical care physician from Waterbury, Connecticut. Dr. 
Hill serves as chair of the Public Policy Committee of the 
American Lung Association, and sits on the American Lung 
Association Board of Directors.
    Thanks for all of that, and welcome.
    The Secretary of the Maryland Department of the 
Environment, Serena McIlwain, will be introduced by the 
gentleman to my left, my colleague, as Barbara Mikulski used to 
say, my DelMarVa buddy.
    He is going to introduce you. Welcome, Ms. McIlwain.
    Third, we are going to hear from the Director of Arizona's 
Department of Environmental Quality, that is Karen Peters.
    Nice to see you. Thank you for joining us.
    Next, we will hear from the Executive Director of the 
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Chris Wells, 
who I had to twist his arm to get Roger Wicker to introduce 
you, but he has finally agreed to do so.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. That is not true.
    Last but not least, we will hear from Paul Noe, Vice 
President, Public Policy, for the American Forest and Paper 
Association.
    We thank you all for appearing before our Committee today. 
Thank you for the preparation for this hearing.
    I am going to turn it over now to our colleague, Senator 
Cardin, who is going to introduce Ms. McIlwain.
    Senator Cardin. Thank you, Chairman Carper, for convening 
this hearing.
    I want to welcome Secretary Serena McIlwain, our new 
Secretary of Health in Maryland. She was recently appointed by 
Governor Moore, our new Governor in the State.
    I do want to observe and acknowledge this is an esteemed 
panel. The last hearing we had, the last panel we had was made 
up of Members of the Senate. And you didn't say that that was 
an esteemed panel.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. But I did say that had real potential.
    Senator Cardin. It is very appropriate that we have 
Secretary McIlwain here. Maryland has a very strong commitment 
to the environment. And we recognize that our responsibilities 
go beyond our borders. So we are very pleased to have our 
principal person for the environment as one of our witnesses 
today.
    We do believe we are good neighbors; we think we are good 
neighbors with Delaware and West Virginia. We work together on 
Chesapeake Bay issues. We are even good neighbors with 
Mississippi, with the Appalachian Regional Commission. So we do 
work together.
    So let me just give you a very quick, impressive background 
about Secretary McIlwain. She was the Under Secretary of the 
California EPA. She was the Assistant Regional Administrator 
for EPA Region 9 in San Francisco, California. She holds two 
master's degrees, one a master's in public administration from 
George Mason University, and a master's in administration and 
international studies from Central Michigan University. She is 
a key player in Maryland's contribution to clean air and water. 
And I think it is very appropriate that she be one of our 
witnesses today.
    Welcome, Secretary McIlwain.
    Senator Carper. Did you grow up in Michigan?
    Senator Cardin. In Virginia.
    Senator Carper. Where?
    Ms. McIlwain. In Old Town.
    Senator Carper. All right. My sister and I grew up in 
Danville and Roanoke.
    All right, now I think Senator Wicker is going to introduce 
one of our witnesses from his State.
    Senator Wicker.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much 
appreciate the opportunity to introduce Chris Wells, Director 
of the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality. We are 
honored to have him here. He is a native of Brandon, 
Mississippi, and was appointed by our current Governor, 
Governor Reeves, to be Executive Director of the Mississippi 
Department of Environmental Quality, or MDEQ, in October 2020.
    As the leader of MDEQ, Executive Director Wells is 
responsible for protecting the State's environment and 
administers most of the Environmental Protection Agency's 
programs within the State. He has extensive experience in the 
field of environmental compliance, and has been with MDEQ since 
2007. Throughout his time with the State agency, he has 
provided legal support for environmental compliance and has 
also served as chief of staff.
    In addition, Executive Director Wells serves as 
Mississippi's trustee for the Natural Resource Damage 
Assessment under the Oil Pollution Act. He represents the State 
on the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council. He received 
his degree in chemical engineering from Mississippi State 
University, and his juris doctor from Mississippi College 
School of Law in 1999.
    He has important perspectives to provide to the Committee 
today. And I might add, as an aside, I was so glad to hear our 
distinguished Chairman speak of upwind States having an effect 
on the downwind States. I would join the distinguished Ranking 
Member in saying I am glad we are going to talk about common 
sense. Because Director Wells has the very difficult task of 
somehow understanding an EPA determination that ozone emissions 
coming from Mississippi somehow affect an upwind State of 
Texas, Dallas, Texas, and Houston, Texas, cities who, in and of 
themselves, have way more population than our entire State of 
less than 3 million.
    It is as if Delaware were being blamed for ozone pollution 
in Cincinnati, Mr. Chairman, which I think any of us who have 
watched weather patterns over the years and watched the way the 
map works, we certainly realize that Cincinnati is upwind of 
Delaware, and Houston and Dallas, Texas, are upwind of 
Mississippi. And it is hard for us to grasp that somehow our 
relatively rural State is causing ozone problems for Dallas and 
Houston.
    That is the conundrum that this distinguished witness will 
be discussing today. I am delighted that the Committee has 
agreed to hear from him.
    Thank you, sir.
    Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Wicker. My hope is that 
we will be guided by science here, and at the end of the day we 
will be better prepared to deal with these issues in a fair and 
thoughtful way.
    With that, we will begin our witness testimony.
    Dr. Hill, please proceed with your statement, if you are 
ready. And again, welcome.

 STATEMENT OF DAVID G. HILL, M.D., FCCP, CHAIR, PUBLIC POLICY 
    COMMITTEE, AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS

    Dr. Hill. Thank you.
    Good morning. Thank you, Senator Carper, and Ranking Member 
Capito and the Committee for having me here today.
    My name is Dr. David Hill. I am a practicing pulmonary and 
critical care physician in Waterbury, Connecticut. As 
mentioned, I am a member of the board of directors of the 
American Lung Association, and I chair its Public Policy 
Committee.
    In my clinical practice, I see adults and children as young 
as 6 years of age with severe lung disease. And in addition to 
testifying at this hearing today, I am joining more than 100 
turquoise clad lung cancer advocates, some of whom are in this 
room, who are meeting with their Senators and Members of 
Congress on the Hill today.
    Each April, the American Lung Association releases its 
State of the Air Report. In our 2022 report, we found that more 
than 122 million people lived in 156 counties that earned an F 
grade for ozone, including half of Connecticut's counties. My 
home county of New Haven earned a failing grade for ozone; our 
neighbor to the southwest, Fairfield County, has the dirtiest 
air for ozone pollution in the eastern United States.
    So why is the air polluted in Connecticut? In Connecticut, 
we manufacture championship basketball teams.
    Senator Carper. Don't rub it in. Your time may be limited 
here.
    [Laughter.]
    Dr. Hill. We don't have oil refineries, coal fired power 
plants, or large petrochemical plants. We do have a huge burden 
of emissions from the tailpipes of vehicles on our roads. The 
biggest challenge for Connecticut is our location. We live at 
the end of another tailpipe, one that brings pollution to us 
from upwind States. And if you reference the EPA's map, all 
arrows point to Waterbury Hospital, where I practice.
    Controlling the sources of pollution in Connecticut alone 
isn't enough to ensure our air is clean. We need the sources in 
all the upwind States to clean up their emissions.
    Our most persistent air pollutant is ozone. Ozone is a 
power lung irritant. It causes inflammation and can damage 
multiple body systems. It can also shorten lives.
    Short term exposure causes breathing problems such as chest 
tightness, coughing, and shortness of breath, and worsens the 
symptoms for patients with asthma and COPD. Long term exposure 
can cause lasting harm to respiratory health.
    Ozone exposure also increases the risk of metabolic 
disorders like diabetes, harms the central nervous system, 
causes reproductive and developmental harm, including pre-term 
birth and stillbirth, causes possible cardiovascular effects 
and leads to premature death.
    We also know that air pollution disproportionately affects 
people of color and socially disadvantaged communities. We show 
in our 2022 State of the Air report that people of color were 
61 percent more likely than white people to live in a county 
with a failing grade for at least one air pollutant. In my home 
county, 40 percent of the residents are people of color. Ozone 
pollution is driving health care disparities.
    Last week, I met with a new patient, a 56 year old marathon 
runner with allergic rhinitis and new onset asthma. He had 
moved to Connecticut from northern Vermont, and noted that 
since moving to our community, he was more short of breath even 
when exercising on flat ground. He attributed his symptoms to 
the noticeably worse local air quality. As a former middle 
school science teacher, he started monitoring air quality 
himself, so he could better manage his symptoms.
    His air pollution story is a very common story among my 
patients. People in my State, and my patients in particular, 
are important beneficiaries of EPA's new Good Neighbor Rule. As 
a lung physician, I am frustrated that not all power plants and 
large industrial polluters are required to have effective 
nitrogen oxide controls. I am surprised that power plants don't 
always run their existing controls. It doesn't make sense to 
have life saving effective pollution controls installed and 
simply turn them off. I am angry that this can occur legally on 
the hottest days and smoggiest days of the year.
    Under the old rules, these plants can comply with their 
permits by not operating their controls. I am glad that the 
EPA's Good Neighbor Rule is going to require the installation 
of pollution controls and require the polluting facilities to 
run their controls. The Good Neighbor Rule reduces the health 
burden of ozone exposure. EPA projects that in 2026, the Good 
Neighbor Rule will prevent 1,300 premature deaths, avoid more 
than 2,300 hospital and emergency room visits, and cut asthma 
exacerbations by 1.3 million cases.
    This rule is good news for my patients and everyone who 
lives downwind from the 23 States who will become better 
neighbors. It is actually good news for everyone who breathes, 
because when you can't breathe, nothing else matters.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Hill follows. Due to size 
constraints the following document is not included in this 
hearing record but is available on the Web.]
     State of the Air, 2023 Report, American Lung Association, 
https://www.lung.org/research/sota

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Senator Carper. Thank you very much, Dr. Hill, for that.
    Senator Cardin, anything else you want to say about our 
next witness?
    Senator Cardin. I was going to rebut Senator Wicker's 
comments, but I think I will allow the Secretary to testify.
    Senator Carper. All right.
    Secretary McIlwain, please proceed.

           STATEMENT OF SERENA McILWAIN, SECRETARY, 
             MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

    Ms. McIlwain. Good morning, Chair Carper, Ranking Member 
Capito, Senator Cardin, and members of the Committee. My name 
is Serena McIlwain. I am the Secretary of the Maryland 
Department of the Environment, otherwise known as MDE.
    Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss this 
important step by the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure 
that citizens of every State and every community in America 
enjoys clean air. Over the past 50 years, the Clean Air Act has 
benefited millions of Americans, largely through the Federal-
State partnership embodied in that landmark environmental law.
    While we have enjoyed great progress, interstate transport 
of air pollution is still a problem for many States, including 
Maryland. EPA's new Good Neighbor Rule is a significant step in 
the right direction to address ozone pollution that is carried 
by wind across State lines.
    The State of Maryland, through Governor Moore's 
administration and MDE, strongly supports EPA's rule. We 
welcome the promise that its requirements, placed on Maryland 
as well as other States, will ensure that indeed, we all are 
good neighbors. Maryland takes its obligations as an upwind 
State very seriously. Under this rule, Maryland will continue 
to show leadership in addressing ozone pollution from our State 
that enters into the New York and Connecticut area downwind.
    At the same time, Maryland will benefit from the pollution 
reductions in the rule. Research shows that ozone levels in air 
entering Maryland from upwind States often already approach the 
health based standard as it reaches our borders. That means the 
ozone concentrations in our air will exceed the standard and 
threaten our citizens' health, no matter how well we are 
controlling our own pollution sources.
    The rule requires immediate and long term pollution 
reductions from power plants and certain industrial sources. 
The reductions resulting from the rule will improve air 
quality, saving lives and improving public health in 
communities across the Nation. Maryland agrees with EPA's 
analysis that the rule's proven, cost effective measures will 
deliver clean air and substantial health benefits, which 
include prevention of premature deaths, reduced emergency room 
visits and hospital visits, reduced lost work and school days, 
and asthma symptoms in millions of Americans.
    The rule also provides for a broad range of secondary 
benefits including improved visibility in national parks and 
increasing protection for sensitive ecosystems and coastal 
waterways, including the Chesapeake Bay.
    The rule requires pollution reductions from all 23 States 
named in the rule, including Maryland. Maryland is a leader in 
effective and innovative air pollution control programs that 
have provided substantial pollution reductions both in our 
State and across State lines.
    But the proven programs in place in Maryland are not in 
place in many other States that are named in this rule. That is 
not fair; it is not just. So this rule fixes that. It will put 
the States on equal footing. It requires other States to limit 
pollution from power plants and some industrial sources in a 
manner that is equally as stringent as the limits already 
implemented in Maryland and in other leadership States as well.
    I don't want to say all of this to brag about the programs 
in Maryland, although it sounds like I am bragging, but I am 
demonstrating that it does show that the actions required under 
this EPA rule are already proven to work. They have been shown 
to be technically feasible and cost effective, and it is a way 
to reduce pollution.
    EPA's limits will increase equity between the States that 
have already incurred costs to reduce pollution and the States 
that have more cost effective reductions left to achieve. In 
the end, it is critical for all of us to reduce our 
contributions to the unhealthy air that overburdened 
communities in downwind States are often forced to endure. To 
be good neighbors.
    In closing, Maryland supports EPA's rule as a comprehensive 
and protective approach to addressing ozone pollution 
transport. The final rule is reasonable, it is achievable, it 
is equitable, and it brings much needed pollution reductions 
for downwind States and overburdened communities.
    Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I have provided 
more information in the written testimony. I look forward to 
the discussion. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. McIlwain follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Carper. We look forward to it as well. Thank you so 
much. Thanks for joining us.
    When were you sworn into your post back in Maryland?
    Ms. McIlwain. About 2 weeks ago.
    Senator Carper. Congratulations.
    Ms. McIlwain. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. I appreciate very much those comments; we 
appreciate very much those comments.
    Now we are going to hear from Director Peters from Arizona.
    Where in Arizona are you from?
    Ms. Peters. Phoenix, Arizona.
    Senator Carper. We are glad you are here. Please proceed.

             STATEMENT OF KAREN PETERS, DIRECTOR, 
          ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

    Ms. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the 
Committee.
    My name is Karen Peters. I am the new Director of the 
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, having been 
appointed by Governor Katie Hobbs.
    I welcome the opportunity to testify on EPA's newly adopted 
Good Neighbor Plan for the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards, or NAAQS. The Good Neighbor Rule is a key 
provision of the Clean Air Act, as it requires each State's 
State implementation plan, or SIP, to ensure that emissions 
from sources within their State do not contribute significantly 
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in 
other States.
    As I will explain, the ability of State and local 
governments to protect public health from the effects of ozone 
concentrations exceeding the NAAQS is limited. Programs such as 
the Good Neighbor Plan that provide a mechanism to address 
pollution originating outside a State's boundaries are 
therefore a crucial component of the effort to address ozone 
pollution.
    One factor that restricts a State's ability to address 
ozone pollution is the limit on State regulatory jurisdiction 
imposed by the Clean Air Act. As we know, ozone is produced by 
the chemical reaction of oxides of nitrogen, or NOx, 
and volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, in the presence of 
sunlight, which is abundant in my State of Arizona. In the 
Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area, motor vehicles and 
nonroad engines are responsible for approximately 50 percent of 
the local emissions of VOC and 90 percent of the local 
emissions of NOx.
    As you know, States other than California are preempted by 
the Clean Air Act from adopting emission standards for new 
motor vehicles or new or existing nonroad engines. Given these 
restrictions, Arizona has gone about as far as any State can in 
regulating emissions from mobile sources. The State was an 
early adopter of a vehicle inspection and maintenance program 
to reduce emissions from existing motor vehicles. And in 1998, 
the State obtained a waiver from Federal preemption for its 
clean burning gasoline program. We were fortunate to do so 
before 2005 amendments to the Clean Air Act sharply curtailed 
EPA's authority to grant waivers and made adoption of such 
programs all but impossible.
    Since the implementation of these measures, in order to 
address ground level ozone, Arizona and its local government 
partners have had to focus primarily on local industrial 
sources, but I think it is fair to say we have reached the 
point of diminishing returns.
    The Phoenix-Mesa area has a long history with the ozone 
problem. The area was classified as a moderate nonattainment 
area for the 1 hour NAAQS after enactment of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990. The NAAQS, of course, have been amended 
three times since then in 1997, 2008, and 2015. Because an old 
nonattainment designation is not revoked until it is attained, 
the area at one point found itself classified as serious 
nonattainment for the 1 hour NAAQS and at the same time in 
moderate nonattainment for the 1997 8 hour standard. The area 
later attained both those NAAQS but is currently a moderate 
nonattainment area for both the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    Every nonattainment designation and reclassification 
requires submission of a new nonattainment plan. And with the 
exception of a marginal area plan, every nonattainment plan 
must provide for emission reductions leading to attainment and 
for annual emission reductions until attainment is reached. 
Arizona has been through so many iterations of this process 
that there are very few, if any, remaining emission reductions 
available from the Phoenix-Mesa industrial sector.
    Without continued action by EPA to achieve additional 
reductions from vehicles and nonroad engines, there is little 
chance that Phoenix-Mesa will attain healthy air.
    I am pleased that Senator Capito recognized the unique 
position that Arizona is in. Another factor that restricts the 
ability of a State to attain the NAAQS on its own is that ozone 
pollution travels. Recognition of this fact lies at the heart 
of the Good Neighbor provision. In the Phoenix nonattainment 
area, for example, only 40 percent of ozone concentrations are 
attributable to in State anthropogenic sources of VOC and 
NOx. About 6 percent is attributable to 
anthropogenic sources in neighboring States, and about 2 
percent to sources in Mexico. The remainder is attributable to 
natural background and other international and interstate 
sources.
    These circumstances will make it extremely difficult, if 
not impossible, to achieve the ozone NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa 
area without programs such as the Good Neighbor Plan. But the 
situation is even more dire in Yuma, Arizona, a city in 
southwestern Arizona near the California border with a 
population of less than 100,000 people. Yuma was designated as 
a nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in 2018 and 
classified as marginal.
    Statewide emissions account for only 10 percent of ozone 
concentrations in Yuma. Local emissions of NOx and 
VOCs are negligible. So there is virtually nothing that can be 
done in terms of local emissions reductions to reduce ozone 
pollution in the Yuma nonattainment area.
    Yet the enhanced controls that come with nonattainment 
status apply, imposing costs on businesses and likely limiting 
opportunities for economic growth. If the ozone standard were 
to be revised downward, other areas of Arizona, including rural 
areas, would likely find themselves in Yuma's predicament. The 
average monitored values used to determine compliance with the 
NAAQS, for the Arizona monitors, is only 3 to 8 parts per 
billion below the current 70 parts per billion NAAQS. The 
margin for compliance throughout our State is very slim.
    Fortunately, Yuma monitors showed attainment with the 2015 
standard by the marginal area deadline of 2021. But the 
modeling included in the Good Neighbor Plan shows that the 
upwind regional reductions included in the plan are the key to 
keeping the area from falling back into nonattainment in the 
future.
    I appreciate the opportunity to share that experience with 
you and look forward to the discussion.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Peters follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Senator Carper. Thanks so much for joining us, and good 
luck to you in your post.
    We are now going to hear from Director Wells.
    Director Wells, delighted to meet you. And we invite you to 
please proceed.

         STATEMENT OF CHRIS WELLS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 
        MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

    Mr. Wells. Thank you, Chairman Carper, and Ranking Member 
Capito, for the invitation to be here today.
    Senator Wicker, thank you for the kind introduction 
earlier, and thank you for your leadership and representation 
of our great State.
    I am here today with a heavy heart for my fellow 
Mississippians who were impacted by the devastating tornadoes 
over the weekend. My prayers are with them.
    Senator Carper. Let me interrupt to say that our prayers 
are with you, Roger, and with your constituents. I can't 
imagine how hard that is.
    Mr. Wells. Thank you.
    I will refer the Committee members to the written testimony 
that I submitted prior to today's hearing for detailed 
comments. I wanted to spend or take what little time I have 
today to kind of focus on some key points.
    Mississippians have a proud heritage of enjoying the 
outdoors, and our beautiful natural resources. We enjoy clean 
air; we enjoy clean water. The Mississippi Department of 
Environmental Quality, my agency, we work hard every day to 
protect those natural resources.
    We also recognize that with air in particular, air does not 
respect the lines drawn on a map. Accordingly, we take our good 
neighbor obligations under the Clean Air Act seriously.
    However, the way EPA has handled this matter not only 
turned the Clean Air Act on its head but also resulted in the 
imposition of emissions reductions that are unnecessarily 
stringent and disproportionate to Mississippi's alleged 
downwind impacts to air quality. It is important to keep in 
mind how the Clean Air Act was structured by Congress and how 
it is supposed to work. EPA in the first instance has the 
responsibility to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
and in the context of the Good Neighbor provision, to determine 
if a State is impacting air quality in another State.
    It is the States that are then given the prerogative and 
the right to establish through its State Implementation Plan 
how it will meet those standards and how it will address those 
downwind impacts, if any. And we did just that in this case. We 
followed EPA's own guidance and information available to us at 
the time. We submitted what we believed then and we still 
believe now was an approvable SIP in 2019.
    Instead of approving the SIP, EPA sat on it for 2 and a 
half years. Then they denied it, based on information and 
modeling and purported downwind impacts that were not available 
to us when we developed our SIP. Instead of giving us a 
reasonable opportunity to evaluate and critique the modeling 
and to modify our SIP if necessary to try to address our 
alleged downwind impacts, and citing self-imposed deadlines 
established through what I can only assume was some kind of sue 
and settle arrangement with environmental groups, EPA denied 
the SIP and imposed this FIP. That is not the process that 
Congress laid out in the Clean Air Act.
    As to the modeling in particular, as Senator Wicker alluded 
to earlier, I will put a little finer point on it. I am not a 
meteorologist, I don't pretend to be one. I have watched the 
ones that are on TV. And I know that whatever happens in Dallas 
weather-wise hits us about a day or two later, meaning that our 
weather comes from Texas, not the other way around.
    But you know, that is really kind of the problem. The 
modeling effort, the modeling process is very complex. And it 
involves a lot of uncertainty. The EPA has acknowledged that 
uncertainty in the final rule.
    We simply are not convinced that we have any actual impacts 
to Texas' air quality. The process that EPA followed here did 
not afford us the opportunity that we should have been given to 
really evaluate that modeling.
    But let's set that aside, and let's say for argument's sake 
that the modeling is accurate, which is a leap of faith, given 
the fact that EPA continued to tweak the modeling, even after 
the denial of the SIP. They got varying results right up until 
the time that they issued the FIP.
    The process that EPA should have followed as dictated by 
the Clean Air Act would have allowed Mississippi to determine 
what emissions reductions and by which facilities would meet 
our obligations as good neighbors. Instead, EPA imposed 
requirements that we believe are more stringent than what would 
be required to address our purported downwind impacts.
    One thing I want to be clear about is I am not here trying 
to avoid Mississippi's Good Neighbor obligations. We want 
healthy air for all. If we are impacting another State's air 
quality, we will do what is required. However, we should have 
in this case, No. 1, been given a reasonable opportunity to 
critique the modeling and to ensure some level of certainty 
regarding our purported downwind impacts, and/or we should have 
been given the opportunity to modify our State Implementation 
Plan before having EPA's judgment substituted for our own.
    Again, thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to the 
discussion.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wells follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Senator Carper. Director Wells, thank you very much for 
joining us. Thanks very much for your testimony.
    Now we are going to hear from Mr. Noe.
    Mr. Noe, please proceed. Thank you for coming today.

STATEMENT OF PAUL NOE, VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC POLICY, AMERICAN 
                  FOREST AND PAPER ASSOCIATION

    Mr. Noe. Thank you, Chairman Carper, and Ranking Member 
Capito, and distinguished members of the Committee. Thank you 
so much for hearing our concerns about EPA's Good Neighbor 
Plan.
    AF&PA represents manufacturers of paper products made in 
the United States. Our forest products industry employs about 
925,000 hard working people producing 5 percent of our Nation's 
GDP.
    Paper products support sustainable living. Paper mills 
support the American work force, and they produce carbon 
neutral bioenergy and support our recycling. And the paper 
industry works hard every day to be a good neighbor in 
communities large and small.
    Our goal is sustainable regulation that satisfies legal 
requirements and supports environmental and economic progress. 
Congress enacted the Clean Air Act to enhance air quality with 
dual purposes, to promote public health and welfare and the 
productive capacity of our Nation. Unfortunately, we don't 
think that the Good Neighbor Plan, and especially our inclusion 
in it, meets that goal.
    AF&PA has a long track record of working with EPA. We 
recognize that all Americans benefit when EPA crafts 
sustainable rules. For example, during the Obama 
administration, EPA proposed an unachievable boiler MACT rule. 
But EPA engaged stakeholders, and EPA listened. We defended 
EPA's final rule in court. Our industry could go on and compete 
in our highly competitive global marketplace.
    By stark contrast, the Good Neighbor Plan rulemaking 
process felt rushed and broke down. First, EPA erred in 
concluding that paper boilers, as a group, met EPA's emissions 
threshold by significantly impacting 10 nonattainment areas. 
Second, EPA incorrectly concluded that our industry could 
reduce NOx emissions below its $7,500 per ton 
threshold, claiming that our cost was $3,800 per ton. The real 
cost is 10 times higher.
    In the final rule, EPA bypassed these errors by moving the 
goalposts. They lumped our industry together with all the 
others, and they claim as a whole the non-utility industries 
can install cost effective controls and meet the limits.
    But EPA made unrealistic technology assumptions. EPA 
implies that selective catalytic reduction is a proven 
technology for boilers, for our boilers. And it is not. In 
trying to make SCR work would actually increase our greenhouse 
gas emissions by 166,000 tons annually. That is over the 
emissions of 35,000 gasoline powered cars.
    The paper industry can continue to be a leader in 
sustainable manufacturing. Our mills have reduced our 
NOx emissions by 50 percent since 2000. And our goal 
is to cut our greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030, which 
aligns with President Biden's goals.
    EPA offers a vague promise of a case by case alternative if 
a facility can prove technical impossibility or extreme 
economic hardship. This converts a congressionally granted 
authority to consider costs and promote the productive capacity 
of our Nation into an impossibility standard. It is vague, and 
it is unfair.
    After compliance costs of almost $14 billion, the final 
rule will not result in a single nonattainment area coming into 
compliance. The Good Neighbor Plan is not a sustainable 
regulation. And this is only the tip of the iceberg.
    An enormous cumulative regulatory challenge now faces the 
U.S. manufacturing sector. Many rulemakings disregard costs and 
unintended outcomes and stray beyond the bounds of the law. I 
am deeply concerned that an undisciplined regulatory deluge 
threatens high paying union jobs, especially in rural America. 
This comes just as our country is trying to encourage on 
shoring of essential manufacturing industries, including our 
own. We must change this trajectory. It threatens United 
States' manufacturing, including our forest products industry.
    Ultimately, it threatens the American worker, men and women 
in high paying, high skilled manufacturing jobs, both rural and 
urban, red and blue States. These are proud, hard working 
people who only ask for the right to compete. Our goal should 
be sustainable regulation. This requires bipartisan work. We 
must keep and create sustainable manufacturing jobs in America. 
There is no better place for a robust manufacturing sector.
    Thank you for the opportunity to be heard. I look forward 
to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Noe follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Senator Carper. Thanks for those comments.
    This is a Committee that is pretty good at finding the 
middle, a Committee that is pretty good at bipartisan 
solutions. We believe that bipartisan solutions are lasting 
solutions. We are a Committee that likes working together. We 
are still going to work on this, we are going to work with the 
States, we are going to work with EPA until we get to the right 
place.
    I am going to telegraph my pitch. Baseball season is about 
to get underway. Ben and I are huge fans, he is an Orioles fan, 
I am a Tigers fan. Others in the room probably have their own 
teams. In baseball they have a saying about a pitcher who, by 
the way they deliver their pitch, hold the baseball, they 
telegraph their pitch so the hitters know what is coming. So I 
am going to telegraph my pitch.
    The last question I am going to ask at the end of this 
hearing of all of you will be, where do you think the consensus 
lies. Whatever State you happen to be from, where do you think 
the consensus lies? So just know that that is coming, and that 
will give you something to look forward to.
    Before I recognize Senator Capito for her questions, let me 
ask a couple of questions. I want to start off with Secretary 
McIlwain and Dr. Hill. The question deals with economic costs 
for downwind States.
    As you know, when EPA issued the Good Neighbor Rule earlier 
this month, we heard some complaints about the economic burdens 
these new emissions reductions would have on downwind States. 
We know that downwind States have long paid the health and 
economic costs of upwind pollution.
    Briefly explain if you will, Secretary McIlwain, Dr. Hill, 
briefly explain to us the health and economic burdens on 
downwind States when there is a lack of cooperation and 
investment by upwind States. And in your answer, please explain 
how the Good Neighbor Rule helps to alleviate some of those 
burdens on downwind States.
    Secretary McIlwain, then Dr. Hill.
    Ms. McIlwain. Thank you. When we are not being good 
neighbors downwind States are exposed to ozone pollution. So it 
does cause and create serious health concerns. You have parents 
who are not allowed to go to work because they have sick 
children who were playing outside. You have parents calling 
into work. So when your family is sick all the time because of 
pollution, that creates health care costs.
    With this rule, it is reducing health care and those 
economic burdens. Because it is requiring that the power plants 
use the controls, most of them have them already, use those 
controls and turn them on. As a result, it reduces ozone 
pollution.
    EPA's analysis, it proves that the benefits of pollution 
reduction outweigh the cost.
    Dr. Hill. I spoke during my testimony in detail about the 
health effects of air pollution. In listening to the other 
testimony here, I believe all the panelists recognize that 
ozone is a harmful pollutant, particularly in terms of its 
respiratory effects. As I understand the Good Neighbor Rule, it 
is going to require that power plants and industrial polluters 
install and operate effective nitrogen oxide controls during 
ozone season. And this means that air pollution coming to my 
downwind State is going to be lessened. That is good news for 
my patients who suffer from chronic lung disease.
    Two-thirds of the cost of caring for chronic obstructive 
pulmonary disease in this country has to do with acute 
exacerbations, patients going to emergency rooms and being 
hospitalized. A significant burden of the cost of asthma is 
also for acute deteriorations. This makes the patient sicker 
over time.
    The Good Neighbor Rule will reduce the health burdens. EPA 
has projected that it will prevent premature deaths, that it 
will avoid hospitalizations, that it will cut asthma 
exacerbations. School absences will be decreased by over 
400,000, and when kids miss school, parents miss work. Over 
25,000 lost work days will be avoided. So there will be 
significant health care and economic benefits by instituting 
the rule.
    Senator Carper. Thank you for that response.
    Let me ask Ms. Peters, I am going to ask you for a follow 
up. Same question, without the Good Neighbor Rule and other 
Federal policies to help reduce cross-State smog pollution, 
would Arizona be forced to make more costly emission reductions 
within the State to meet air pollution standards? If the answer 
is yes, would you explain why?
    Ms. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The answer is yes. If 
we don't have controls such as the Good Neighbor Rule, our 
local emissions sources, our local industrial emissions sources 
are those that would feel the brunt of new controls. And I will 
give you an example of that. In the Phoenix-Mesa area, we are 
in the midst of preparing a SIP because of a redesignation to 
moderate nonattainment status. And in the discussions about 
that SIP, one of the things that is being discussed is 
implementing exactly the controls that are called for here in 
the Good Neighbor Rule, but on much smaller sources, boilers 
and smaller EGUs than this rule would control.
    So you can see that the squeeze on local industrial sources 
from upwind emissions is causing our areas very much more than 
they ordinarily would. And I would also point back to Yuma, 
where the local emissions are so negligible that there is 
really none to reduce. So what will be required there is likely 
to be very costly and difficult.
    Senator Carper. All right, thank you. Most people know what 
a SIP is. Tell us what an EGU is.
    Ms. Peters. That is an Electric Generating Unit, power 
plants.
    Senator Carper. If we learn nothing else today, we have 
learned that.
    Ms. Peters. I just learned it recently.
    Senator Carper. Senator Capito.
    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank all of you.
    Director Wells, the Clean Air Act is built on the principle 
of cooperative federalism, where you work together. We have 
three State regulators here who know their States very well, 
know the different regions, and know the different impacts of 
all kinds of environmental impacts and other impacts.
    Normally, when you are developing a State Implementation 
Plan, do you get, in your written testimony you say basically 
that the EPA air quality, the head of EPA's Air Quality policy 
division basically said, I don't care what you write, you are 
not going to get there. Was that the message that was received 
by Mississippi? And is that the norm when you are developing 
your own State Implementation Plan to be able to meet the Good 
Neighbor Rule challenges?
    Mr. Wells. I think that, I included that in my testimony 
because I think it was a candid admission on the part of EPA 
that they were hell bent on imposing this rule without the 
typical cooperative federalism approach that is taken.
    As I alluded to, we put together what we thought was an 
approvable SIP based on information that we had at the time. 
And then EPA changed the rules on us after the game was 
started. That was the problem. So typically, yes, we would have 
an opportunity to reach a consensus, if you will, on what the 
modeling should say or what the impacts might be or really are. 
And then let's address it, once we have a common understanding.
    Senator Capito. Ms. Peters, was your State Implementation 
Plan rejected as well?
    Ms. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Capito. 
We are awaiting a final determination from the EPA.
    Senator Capito. How long have you had that in?
    Ms. Peters. I would have to get back to you on that. I am 
not exactly sure.
    Senator Capito. I know there is a time window that it is 
supposed to be met.
    Mr. Noe, we talk about social costs of carbon, we talk 
about pollutants, and sometimes it is difficult, I think, to 
understand how some of these calculations are being made. I 
guess I would say, as the representative sort of industrial 
resources, you have 90,000 people that work in your industry, 
is that what you said?
    Mr. Noe. Nine hundred and twenty-five thousand.
    Senator Capito. Oh, I dropped a zero there. Sorry about 
that. That is a big difference.
    Mr. Noe. Let's not do that.
    Senator Capito. Let's not do that.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Capito. I heard the nine. Anyway, how do you 
envision, most of the paper mills and everything in my State, 
they are smaller companies, many of them family owned, they 
have been in business for a long time, or at least the ones 
that are, they are not the large paper mills, they are getting 
the lumber ready for the paper mills, preparations. How are 
people going to be able to, No. 1, interpret this, but also to 
meet those challenges, to put the anti-pollutant devices on, in 
and around your factories? What is the calculation of the cost? 
Fourteen billion dollars for the whole rule, but for a paper 
mill, for instance.
    Mr. Noe. Thank you for the question, Senator Capito. I 
guess I would say, you raise a lot of very important points, 
which is, our industry, to be successful, has to compete in a 
highly competitive global marketplace. We don't dispute at all 
the issue that we are and will continue to be a heavily 
regulated industry. We have cut our NOx emissions by 
50 percent under nine other EPA rules and programs.
    Senator Capito. And I assume you would continue doing that?
    Mr. Noe. And we will continue to make progress.
    Senator Capito. Right.
    Mr. Noe. And that is our goal. But it is so critical to the 
point the Chairman raised, both of you, that we have got to 
have balance, we have got to have common sense here. In the 
case of this rule, there are a number of problems with its 
application to our industry. There were a number of EPA errors 
about our industry which we tried to correct and frankly, were 
ignored.
    But let me tell you just one fundamental one. I think we 
could all agree that industry should meet proven technologies. 
That is what EPA said was happening here. But in our case, the 
technology, selective catalytic reduction, it just isn't proven 
for our industry. They made a mistake in that regard. And that 
is a fundamental mistake.
    So that is what we are here for, is common sense. So I 
embrace both what the Chairman and you said about that, 
Senator. And I thank you for the opportunity to be heard on 
that.
    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. Senator Cardin.
    Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me thank all of our witnesses.
    Mr. Wells, I agree with you, process is important. And I 
appreciate your testimony.
    There is a challenge whenever we go from one Administration 
to another in doing the adjustments. I know the Administration 
tries to get it right. But I think your points are very 
powerful and something that we will certainly be following up 
on.
    The Federal Government, as you acknowledge, has the 
responsibility under the Clean Air Act to make sure that we 
achieve what science tells us we can achieve in a cost 
effective manner. That is the Federal Government's 
responsibility under the Clean Air Act. And our States are 
doing their responsible actions. But because of the downwind 
issues, we are dependent upon what other States are doing in 
order to reach our attainment areas.
    So when I look at the State of Maryland, which is included 
in this rule, I find that in the Baltimore area, just about 
every one of our counties are nonattainment areas because of 
downwind issues. In the Washington area, every one of our 
counties are nonattainment because of downwind problems.
    By the way, Mr. Chairman, the Wilmington area, Cecil 
County, is a nonattainment area because of downwind issues.
    These are areas that we cannot control in Maryland in order 
to reach the attainment. And when you listen to Dr. Hill's 
testimony, and you look at the science, nonattainment has major 
consequences. So science tell us we can get there. And I think 
that Secretary McIlwain's testimony about proven technologies 
that have been demonstrated in States that can achieve these 
reductions in a cost effective manner that we need to find, as 
Chairman Carper says, the sweet spot as to how we can move 
forward on the Good Neighbor issues.
    So I hope that we can find that during this process. I 
think this hearing has been very helpful.
    I want to add one more dimension to this before I get to 
the cost issues. We have been talking about the costs of dirty 
air from the point of view of our health care system. 
Representing the State of Maryland, I am going to bring up the 
Chesapeake Bay. That is not going to be a surprise to anybody 
on this Committee. I bring it up at just about every hearing. I 
have been at many meetings on trying to reach our goals on the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed, and am told that one of the major 
areas that we have not been able to deal with is air pollutants 
coming into the Bay.
    That has very costly consequences, which I don't believe 
have been calculated in the cost-benefit analysis. I think it 
has been more dealing with direct health issues related to 
pollutants. So it goes beyond just the public health issues 
that have been brought up today.
    Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the cost-benefit analysis 
shows like a $13 billion annual [unclear] by the Good Neighbor 
Rule. This seems like science is telling us we can achieve 
this, and there is a huge cost-benefit.
    Mr. Noe, I appreciate your concerns, and if the technology 
is wrong, we should correct that technology. I agree with you 
completely on that. But we have to find that sweet spot, 
because the risk factors to our population and the cost factors 
to our population indicate that the Federal Government today is 
not carrying out its responsibility to make sure that we 
implement these issues.
    So I want to give my Secretary an opportunity to talk a 
little bit about the other impacts that this has. Dr. Hill has 
done a really effective job in regard to public health. Talk a 
little bit about the other environmental risks that we have as 
a result of the nonattainment areas in Maryland.
    Ms. McIlwain. Well, you mentioned the Chesapeake Bay, so I 
will talk about that just quickly. Air quality and water 
quality, they go hand in hand. So when we are trying to control 
nitrogen oxide pollution in the air, we are controlling the 
water as well. I just wanted to make sure I made that 
connection.
    Just to continue on the Chesapeake Bay, one-third of the 
nitrogen pollution that is in the Chesapeake Bay comes from 
atmospheric disposition from the air that drops into the water. 
So this rule helps us with our goals in Maryland to restore the 
Chesapeake Bay.
    The health benefits, you named them very well. Again, you 
have families who are impacted by this pollution that is coming 
from upwind States. And this rule will help us to control that 
and reduce costs and reduce health.
    Senator Cardin. Let me just underscore for everyone's 
benefit. The nitrogen levels in the Bay are critically 
important to achieving our goals. We have dead zones, we have 
so many areas that are impacted, the vegetation issues. All of 
that is impacted by the amount of pollutants that come into the 
Bay. One-third is coming from airborne. So I just want people 
to recognize that. We talk about the Chesapeake Bay and 
protections, we talk about farmers, and we talk about how we 
handle our wastewater and how we handle development and all 
those issues. We also need to be talking about clean air.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
    We have been joined by one of our colleagues from Wyoming, 
Senator Lummis.
    Delighted to see you. Please proceed.
    Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, witnesses, for being here and discussing this 
consequential interstate transport rule.
    According to the regulatory impact analysis, the final rule 
is anticipated to close more than 14,000 megawatts generated by 
coal fired power plants. Now, let me state this clearly. The 
premature forced closure of coal fired power plants in this 
Nation is a danger to American energy security and grid 
reliability. This rule and other regulatory actions taken by 
the EPA cripple our ability to provide affordable, reliable 
baseload energy to power our Nation.
    For this reason alone, not to mention the 90,000 direct 
coal mining jobs in 26 States, including Arizona, Oregon, and 
Pennsylvania, just to name a few, this Administration must 
reverse course.
    Now to my questions. Director Wells, in the proposed rule, 
in the final rule, EPA included a provision called dynamic 
budgeting. This provision would have EPA adjusting each State's 
emission budget in the future years to ratchet down the amount 
of emissions that power generators could use to comply with the 
rule, eventually driving more and more sources to tighter and 
tighter emissions limits, or toward closure.
    EPA received comments that the dynamic budgeting made the 
proposed rule overly stringent, more so than what was needed to 
ensure downwind State compliance with the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards, and that dynamic budgeting was effectively 
generation shifting. The Supreme Court in the case of West 
Virginia v. EPA invalidated the Clean Power Plan because of its 
reliance on generation shifting.
    So, how is generation shifting now OK in this Cross-State 
Air Pollution Rule, and how is the continued forcing of more 
and more stringent emission limits not over control?
    Mr. Wells. Senator, thank you for the question. I think you 
are exactly right, that the problem is in the uncertainty, not 
only in terms of the controls and the emission reductions that 
a particular facility might have to deal with, but also the 
uncertainty in just how the initial emission reductions were 
set by the rule. I think that is one of the main problems that 
we have with the rule, is that we have not had an opportunity 
to really evaluate whether or not a State like Mississippi is 
actually having an impact, and whether the facilities in our 
State are actually having an impact on air quality elsewhere.
    And to force the early retirement of equipment and 
facilities before, the retirements of those facilities is 
planned for a reason, it is so the grid can be, and we don't 
regulate, I am getting a little bit out of my lane, which EPA 
is not afraid to do, but I am not an energy regulator. But I 
know that the people that will have to bear the costs of the 
early retirement of those facilities are the folks that are 
some of the same folks that others are concerned about in terms 
of their health. We are concerned about everybody's health.
    So the costs that we talk a lot about, there is a lot of 
costs that are involved there that have to be considered, not 
just the purported health costs of a contribution to air 
quality that is not even certain that Mississippi is causing.
    Senator Lummis. So if you plan to retire baseload, and then 
retire it earlier, before a replacement source of baseload 
energy is identified to replace it, what happens?
    Mr. Wells. Well, the grid becomes unreliable.
    Senator Lummis. There you go.
    Mr. Wells. Electricity becomes unreliable.
    Senator Lummis. Thank you.
    One more question. Mr. Noe, as you shared in your 
testimony, while the EPA does the work to write the rules, it 
is the regulated community that does the work to actually 
reduce the emissions.
    How has the EPA change the goalposts throughout this 
process impacted the ability of the regulated community to make 
meaningful improvement to our air and environment?
    Mr. Noe. Thank you for the question, Senator. As we said, 
our goal is sustainable regulation. And I love what Chairman 
Carper said, we need common sense to work here. So we need 
regulations that are achievable. And when we brought the EPA's 
attention to the fact that, look, in your proposed rule you had 
two thresholds, are you a significant emissions contributor, 
and do you have cost effective reductions and the proven 
technologies to get you there. We said, look, you are mistaken 
on all of those issues. And yet the final rule has us in a 
situation where we in theory would be required to put a 
technology in our facilities that has never been proven to us. 
And that is in direct contrast to what EPA said in their fact 
sheet, which is, this rule relies on proven, cost effective 
technologies.
    There are other industries where this technology is proven. 
I want to make that clear. But it is not for us. And so we just 
want to achieve what Chairman Carper said, let's have common 
sense. We want rules that work. And we have many, many rules we 
comply with, and we work with EPA all the time on making sure 
that the rules they produce are achievable and are going to be 
successful. That is key.
    Senator Lummis. Thank you. I really, really appreciate it.
    Thank you all, witnesses. We appreciate your being here.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. We appreciate your being here and raising 
all those questions. You are going to be followed by Senator 
Kelly, and if no one else pops up, Senator Ricketts, you will 
be next after Senator Kelly.
    Senator Kelly, welcome.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Before I start my questions, I wanted to give a warm 
welcome to the brand new Director of the Arizona Department of 
Environmental Quality, Karen Peters.
    Thank you, all of you, for being here.
    Director Peters previously served as the Deputy City 
Manager for the city of Phoenix, and has worked on 
environmental and water policy issues in Arizona for more than 
30 years. I am grateful for her willingness to serve in this 
new role, and look forward to working with her in the months 
and years to come. And I am especially grateful that she is 
joining us today.
    The Good Neighbor Rule is important to Arizona. As I have 
discussed in this Committee before, many parts of Arizona are 
designated as nonattainment areas for ozone pollution. One of 
those areas is Yuma County, which borders California to the 
west and Mexico to the south. And because the air exceeds EPA's 
air quality standards for ozone, there are limits imposed on 
the region's economic growth.
    But Director Peters, how much of Yuma's ozone 
concentrations are caused by emission sources within Yuma 
County as opposed to emission sources from Mexico and 
California?
    Ms. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Kelly, for 
the welcome.
    I want to reiterate that Yuma nonattainment area for ozone 
is in a very unique situation. The statewide emissions, not 
just in Yuma County, but statewide emissions of VOC and 
NOx account for only 10 percent of the ozone 
concentrations in Yuma.
    So what does Yuma itself contribute to this problem? It is 
negligible. NOx and VOC emissions in Yuma are 
virtually none.
    Senator Kelly. So to summarize here, 90 percent comes from 
Mexico and California, 10 percent comes from somewhere within 
Arizona, but basically nothing comes from Yuma County.
    Ms. Peters. Thank you, Senator Kelly. I don't think I could 
accurate state that 90 percent comes from California and 
Mexico. There are a lot of other natural background and other 
international sources that contribute to the problem. But 
certainly, it is very significant from California.
    Senator Kelly. But the majority comes from outside the 
State?
    Ms. Peters. Absolutely, the majority comes from out of 
State. That is correct.
    Senator Kelly. So how will EPA's actions like the Good 
Neighbor Rule help ensure that Yuma isn't held accountable for 
emissions that they have zero control over?
    Ms. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Kelly. The 
Good Neighbor Rule is essential for Yuma to stay out of 
nonattainment. They recently were declared in attainment, which 
is a happy accident, and we are very pleased that that has 
occurred.
    Senator Kelly. What was the accident that caused that to 
occur?
    Ms. Peters. Just that they were able to maintain attainment 
for the 3 year period.
    Senator Kelly. They were under the limits?
    Ms. Peters. They did attain the standard, and were 
designated to be in attainment very recently. But because Yuma 
has no control over the emissions that come into its area, it 
is very likely that without the Good Neighbor Rule or other 
controls on interstate transport of ozone precursors, they will 
go right back, and those nonattainment restrictions on economic 
activity will return.
    Senator Kelly. And what do we do about that?
    Ms. Peters. Thank you, Senator Kelly. I think what we do 
about that, unfortunately, if we are declared to be in 
nonattainment, we have to look to local emissions sources which 
are negligible.
    Senator Kelly. Why would we even look? If we already know 
that it contributes almost nothing to the problem, and the 
problem comes from somewhere else, we either have to fix the 
problem somewhere else or we have to come up with the rationale 
to allow them to achieve their economic growth goals.
    Ms. Peters. Thank you. So, earlier, I did mention that the 
States are preempted from emissions standards on new motor 
vehicles and on road engines. And so to the extent that we have 
additional controls in that area, that could absolutely help 
Yuma. It would help also if EPA could help with international 
transport of ozone.
    So there are things that can be done, but they are not 
things that are within the State and local jurisdiction.
    Senator Kelly. OK, thank you. I am out of time, but my 
office will follow up some more on this. We want to get to a 
point where Yuma can achieve its goals and not be penalized by 
what is happening outside of its control.
    Then, Mr. Chairman, I want to submit another similar 
question about Maricopa County for the record.
    Senator Carper. Without objection.
    [The referenced information was not received at time of 
print.]
    Senator Kelly. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. Senator Kelly, thanks for joining us today. 
Thanks for inviting Ms. Peters to join us as well.
    Senator Lummis. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of 
Senator Kelly and his witness while they are here?
    If you are able to determine or whether EPA----
    Senator Carper. Let me just ask, Senator Kelly, can you 
stay?
    Senator Kelly. Yes.
    Senator Carper. OK.
    Senator Lummis. If either of you or the EPA is able to help 
us understand whether some of that pollution is coming from 
China, which is building coal fired power plants without the 
same environmental controls that the U.S. has, and they are 
building them like crazy, I think that would be very helpful 
information.
    Senator Kelly. Senator Lummis, I am sure some of it is. I 
have flown around this planet from an altitude of above 200 
miles 853 times. It is remarkable what you can see from Earth 
orbit. You can see sand from the Sahara being blown across the 
Atlantic Ocean; you can visibly see it. You can see pollution 
from China winding up in other countries, very clear.
    Now, to quantify exactly how much that is, I think that is 
more complicated. But I imagine the EPA has looked into this. 
And my guess is it is substantial.
    Senator Carper. Yes.
    Senator Lummis. Thank you, Senator Kelly. It is great to 
have your perspective from space on this. Truly, truly 
fascinating. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. He was out of this world.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. One of my favorite songs, one hit wonder, 
Thomas Dolby, She Blinded Me with Science. I see some people 
nodding in the audience. We need to be not blinded by science, 
we need to be guided by science, and hopefully in this regard 
we will be.
    Thanks for that exchange you had with Senator Kelly.
    OK, I think I am going to do a UC, Senator Ricketts, then I 
will turn right to you.
    I want to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a 
March 2023 fact sheet by the Environmental Protection Agency. 
It is titled The Good Neighbor Plan and Reliable Electricity. 
This fact sheet describes how in crafting the final Good 
Neighbor Rule the EPA made several adjustments in the proposed 
emission reduction requirements for power plants. These changes 
reflect input received from grid operators across the country 
and other stakeholders to ensure that the power sector can 
continue to deliver reliable electricity while also achieving 
cleaner and healthier air.
    I ask unanimous consent.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    [The referenced information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Carper. Senator Ricketts, you are on.
    Senator Ricketts. Thank you very much, Chairman Carper. I 
appreciate it.
    I want to thank our witnesses for joining us here today.
    Certainly, Director Wells, again, my condolences on the 
tornadoes in Mississippi. Nebraska suffers those as well. So we 
can understand how devastating those can be. Know that 
Mississippi is in our thoughts and prayers.
    One of the things that I hear today is, how we are 
implementing the Clean Air Act. I don't think anybody is 
arguing the Clean Air Act is something that we ought to do away 
with, that we all want to have clean air. In fact, Nebraska, 
according to U.S. News and World Report, has the sixth best 
natural environment. We are not actually subject to the Good 
Neighbor Rule right now.
    But I am concerned about when the EPA is implementing these 
rules how it is being done, not only because there are 
ramifications for how they do these things, but also I think it 
just undermines people's faith in Government, that if the EPA 
isn't doing a good job and doesn't seem to be reasonable and is 
not following good processes, I think Senator Cardin mentioned, 
that it just kind of undermines everybody's belief that the 
Government can actually work in rule of law. I think that is 
harmful to our Republic in general.
    One of the things I would like to do is ask unanimous 
consent to enter into the record a letter I sent along with six 
other Governors to the Southwest Power Pool regarding our 
concerns about the premature closures of gas and coal fired 
generation, kind of along the lines of what Senator Lummis was 
talking about.
    Senator Carper. I object.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. We never object to this stuff. Go ahead. We 
don't object.
    [The referenced information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Ricketts. Thank you very much. Because it says in 
my script here you are supposed to say, ``without objection.''
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. Well, I was close. You got the point.
    Senator Ricketts. Thank you very much.
    So I am concerned about some of the consequences here, of 
what would happen if we do have a bad rule, especially if the 
EPA is not approving any State Implementation Plans, it seems 
to suggest that there is something broken in the system.
    Mr. Wells, I would like to start with you. With electricity 
rates likely to rise from this rulemaking, what is your level 
of concern for consumers that struggle to keep up with 
increasing prices? Over the last 2 years, energy prices alone 
are up 37 percent. I know you are not an energy regulator; you 
are environmental quality. But what are your thoughts?
    Mr. Wells. First of all, I have had the pleasure of 
experiencing that natural beauty of your State. I hope to get 
back soon.
    Senator Ricketts. Are you a turkey hunter, by any chance?
    Mr. Wells. Absolutely.
    Senator Ricketts. You have a great barber, and you are a 
turkey hunter.
    Mr. Wells. How did you guess?
    I would say that I am very concerned. I think the cost of 
everything keeps hitting us all, the increasing costs of 
everything. And any time you inject additional uncertainty the 
way this rule would do that exacerbates that problem.
    Senator Ricketts. So this rule is intended to speed the 
transition away from fossil electricity production. What level 
of concern do you have with regard to grid reliability?
    Mr. Wells. Repeat the last part?
    Senator Ricketts. The grid reliability.
    Mr. Wells. Oh, very much. As we discussed with Senator 
Lummis, I think that any time you inject uncertainty into that 
power generation industry with the regulatory burden that that 
industry already suffers and couple that with the fact that 
technology on other fronts and other methods of generating 
electricity is still evolving, it is sort of shooting ourselves 
in the foot by jeopardizing the current method of generating 
power.
    Senator Ricketts. And your understanding is that it is the 
EPA's purview under the Clean Air Act to make rules that 
control the means of electricity production in the U.S. and 
force generation shifting?
    Mr. Wells. I am an environmental regulator, and so is EPA. 
And we should stay in our lane.
    Senator Ricketts. Since I am running out of time here, I 
just want to kind of emphasize that as well. We have obviously 
the folks in environmental quality from a number of States 
here. And as a former Governor yourself, you know that we hire 
people to make sure they are doing a good job of protecting our 
environment.
    One of the things I just want to emphasize as we wrap up 
here is that it is incredibly important that we have a 
collaborative relationship with the EPA and the States that we 
want to protect, nobody wants to protect our environment more 
than anybody in the State wants to protect it. Certainly, when 
I was Governor of Nebraska, we wanted to make sure we had a 
clean environment for our fellow Nebraskans. Nobody cared more 
about it than Nebraskans.
    That is why it is really important that we have a good 
relationship with the EPA as to how to actually attain these 
goals and make sure we have good modeling and good process so 
people believe in it.
    With that, my time is expired. Thank you, sir.
    Senator Carper. Thanks. From one recovering Governor to 
another, delighted that you are on this Committee. Thanks for 
being part of this hearing.
    Senator Boozman is next. We have a real focus on recycling 
in this Committee. Nobody does more on that than Senator 
Boozman.
    Senator Boozman. Nobody more than you and I. But nobody 
more than your and my staff does a tremendous job.
    Thank you all for being with us.
    Mr. Wells, on February 13th, 2023, the EPA announced its 
disapproval of the Arkansas State Implement Plan for the 2015 
Rule regarding ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 
Instead, Arkansas is now required to follow the Federal 
Implementation Plan, which will put roughly 50 Arkansas 
businesses at risk of closure. I understand again, after 
listening to your testimony, you are in the same situation.
    The impacted businesses include power plants, natural gas 
pipelines, cement producers, steel factories, glass and paper 
and chemical manufacturers, paper mills, et cetera.
    The EPA has refused to let Arkansas revise the plan. The 
Clean Air Act was intended to prescribe a cooperative 
federalism model of regulation between the States and the 
Federal Government.
    Do you feel EPA treated your State fairly in this way, the 
way it handled and ultimately rejected your SIP plan?
    Mr. Wells. No, sir, I don't. I believe they moved the goal 
post on us after we submitted our SIP. We believe it was 
approvable at the time we submitted it. And for them to reject 
the SIP based on information that was not available to us at 
the time we developed it, and not give us an opportunity to 
revise it and to have say so in terms of the emission 
reductions that would be placed on Mississippi facilities I 
think was circumvention of the Clean Air Act.
    Senator Boozman. So, Director Peters, you don't know if 
yours is going to be approved or not. Do you feel like it is 
appropriate if it is not approved that you are put in the same 
situation as Arkansas and Mississippi and I am sure other 
States in the sense of not being able to revise your plan, 
instead the Federal Government sitting here in Washington 
implements a plan for you?
    Ms. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Boozman. Of 
course, we are awaiting EPA's decision, and we will evaluate 
very closely what it is that they decide and how it impacts our 
State. Until we see that, it is really difficult for me to 
speak to it. Of course, I am concerned about the potential 
impacts to businesses, and sources in our State. But we 
recognize our shared responsibility for clean air.
    Senator Boozman. I understand, and I think we all want to 
get to the same point. As the Chairman indicated, he is going 
to ask you a question about where the middle ground is. But 
certainly the idea that you, being on the ground, your State, 
you guys want clean air as much as anybody. The idea that the 
EPA is great until you disagree with them. They talk about 
Federal cooperation and all this stuff. But again, once you 
disagree, then it tends to be their way.
    So the point I am trying to make is, as we go forward, for 
this to work, for it to be fair nationwide, that again the 
States need to have the ability to be a part of that. And that 
hasn't been the case in Mississippi and Arkansas. I assume that 
both of you all as administrators would agree, that is not 
appropriate.
    Mr. Noe, in your testimony you said that the Good Neighbor 
Plan is just one piece of a massive regulatory agenda that 
concerns you. Can you provide further details of regulations 
that are going to impact pulp and paper mills?
    Mr. Noe. Yes, thank you for the question, Senator Boozman.
    Senator Boozman. Tell us about the communities that the 
pulp and paper mills are in, rural America, what that would do 
to these small towns.
    Mr. Noe. Yes. First, I want to thank you for giving voice 
to our industry and the over 23,000 workers we have in 
Arkansas, and 84 facilities. There are a whole series of 
regulations that are coming at us, and they are coming very 
soon. One example is EPA's PM Max rule. We are not questioning 
EPA's, whether they ought to regulate here. But the problem is, 
they are moving so fast, which is also why they made the 
mistakes they made in this rule, that they are not going to 
have an implementation plan ready for when it kicks in.
    We are in kind of a Catch-22 under the Clean Air Act. 
Because we are in these remote, rural communities where the air 
is clean, we are in attainment. Ironically, the requirements 
kick in immediately. It is the dirtier areas that are in 
nonattainment that get extensions, that can trade with other 
sources, do offsets, and all of that.
    What does this mean? It means there is going to be a permit 
gridlock problem. We are not going to be able to get the 
permits we need to modernize our mills, which by the way makes 
them both cleaner and competitive.
    There is a bunch of other rules I noted in my statement, 
and there are a whole lot more, Senator. I have never seen a 
regulatory agenda this massive in my career, and I have worked 
on these issues for many years.
    Senator Boozman. Dr. Hill, you mentioned the impact this 
has on your patients. Just out of curiosity, what are the top 
four or five, when you see patients, what are the top four or 
five? You mentioned this is a causal factor of them having 
problems. What are the top four or five causal problems of the 
patients you see besides this?
    Dr. Hill. When we are looking at asthma, frequently 
allergies and allergens play a role.
    Senator Boozman. Like air pollution.
    Dr. Hill. It has a cumulative effect on allergens. So both 
ozone and particulate matter tend to make allergens more 
harmful to the lungs. So there is an additive effect between--
--
    Senator Boozman. So allergens, what else?
    Dr. Hill. Cigarette smoking and other forms of smoking in 
this country are still a significant cause of lung disease. 
Infectious disease, obviously, triggering exacerbations in this 
population. Those are the real big factors. But air pollution 
plays a significant role. In my own practice, in our electronic 
health record, we actually for our asthma and COPD patients 
have specific check boxes because patients will tell us, they 
can't go outside on hot, humid days. They have trouble 
breathing, they can't exercise as normal.
    Senator Boozman. It drives up the cost of everything 
dramatically. What role does poverty play?
    Dr. Hill. It is a challenge. I don't think this is the 
right venue to talk about the cost of health care in general.
    Senator Boozman. I am talking about the cost of electricity 
and everything else.
    Dr. Hill. It plays a role. Being unable to breathe, as the 
Lung Association says, is the one thing that really matters. 
The EPA's estimates say that this will increase the cost of 
electricity by about 1 percent. That is probably not our 
biggest concern in rising electricity costs.
    So I think any increase in costs to my patients, 
particularly those who are economically challenged is a 
concern. But the downstream health effects of this make it a 
worthwhile investment. I have this conversation with my 
patients all the time in terms of the cost of care. Taking 
their preventive medicines is expensive. Getting sick and going 
to the hospital is much more expensive. So sometimes you have 
to spend the money up front to save the money down the road.
    Senator Boozman. OK. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Senator Carper. Senator Boozman, thanks as always for 
joining us today and for your questions.
    I have a couple of questions here. For the entire panel, a 
question dealing with the importance of the heavy duty 
NOx rule. Many of you mentioned in your testimony 
the need for EPA to also act on transportation emissions to 
help States meet the ozone standards. Transportation sources 
are not covered under the Good Neighbor Rule, but do remain one 
of the largest contributors to smog and climate pollution in 
this country of ours. Often just like upwind pollution blowing 
across State lines, transportation pollution is very difficult 
for States to reduce on their own.
    In December, EPA finalized a rule reducing nitrogen oxide 
emissions from heavy duty vehicles by 48 percent by 2045. That 
is 48 percent by 2045. EPA is also poised to propose additional 
vehicle emission standards in the coming months.
    Here's my question. Briefly, do you support EPA's actions 
to reduce heavy duty vehicle nitrogen oxide emissions? In your 
answer, if you would, please let us know if you support further 
EPA actions to address vehicle emissions to help reduce smog, 
soot, and climate pollution.
    Dr. Hill, I am going to ask you to lead off, then Secretary 
McIlwain. We will come right down the line.
    Dr. Hill. Briefly, speaking as chair of the Public Policy 
Committee for the Lung Association, we strongly support EPA's 
Heavy Duty Vehicle Rule. It is estimated to prevent nearly 
3,000 deaths a year by 2045. We also strongly support stronger 
rules controlling vehicle emissions, including a transition to 
zero emission vehicles, in order to prevent premature death.
    Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
    Secretary McIlwain.
    Ms. McIlwain. We absolutely strongly support EPA's action 
to reduce NOx emissions from vehicles. Just in 
general, we continue to need and rely on strong Federal vehicle 
standards. And that is the only way we are going to ensure that 
we have clean air.
    It is especially important when we think about overburdened 
communities that have been impacted by pollution from heavy 
duty diesel trucks. So yes, full support.
    Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
    Director Peters.
    Ms. Peters. Thank you. Yes, absolutely, we support the 
rule. As I alluded earlier, in the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment 
area, 90 percent of the NOx emissions are vehicle 
based. So reductions in heavy duty will absolutely assist. Not 
soon enough for us to avoid potential downgrade, but will 
absolutely assist. And I applaud EPA stepping up on that.
    Senator Carper. Mr. Wells, please.
    Mr. Wells. Mr. Chairman, I will answer the question by 
saying that I think that there is no single cause for any 
nonattainment issues that a particular area may have. I think 
part of what we would ask is that instead of imposing the FIP 
that has been imposed here without giving us adequate 
opportunity, us and EPA, to fully evaluate all of the different 
factors that may be coming into play, that that's what we would 
ask for, is that we take the time to really determine what is 
causing the nonattainment in a particular area, and whether or 
not contributions from outside the State, of that particular 
State, are causing or contributing to that nonattainment. 
Whether those factors include mobile sources, I think that is 
certainly a factor that needs to be looked at just in terms of 
what a local area that is potentially in nonattainment can do 
to help themselves, but also in terms of how the modeling that 
underpins this rule is evaluated and applied.
    Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
    Mr. Noe, same question.
    Mr. Noe. Mr. Chairman, as I said at the beginning, we 
support sustainable regulation. And I am not an expert on 
mobile sources, but as I indicated in my statement, my 
understanding is that there are cost effective reductions 
available there.
    Senator Carper. OK, thank you.
    Second question.
    We have been joined by Senator Whitehouse. I am going to 
ask these two questions and then yield to him.
    Secretary McIlwain, this will be for you and Director 
Peters, as well. Sharing high quality and transparent, reliable 
information is vital in fulfilling EPA's mission to protect 
human health and our environment, especially as the agency 
works with States to develop rulemakings. EPA has told my 
staff, maybe other staff here, that the agency provided 
modeling information in the public docket and has provided 
themselves to meet with all State agencies who may have 
questions.
    Secretary McIlwain and Director Peters, do you believe that 
the Environmental Protection Agency has been transparent and 
proactive in sharing information and data regarding updated 
modeling results for the proposed Federal Implementation Plan 
and final Good Neighbor Plan?
    Secretary McIlwain.
    Ms. McIlwain. Yes, I do believe that. Do you want me to 
expand?
    Senator Carper. Just a little bit, please.
    Ms. McIlwain. We have worked with USEPA; they have been 
very open. Several States and I, we came together, well, before 
me, but my State was involved, and we had some feedback in 
terms of creating the rule. One of the feedback that we gave 
was we wanted them to include municipal waste combustion in the 
rule, and they did. That is just an example of the 
collaboration that we have had with USEPA.
    Senator Carper. That is a good example.
    Same question, Director Peters.
    Ms. Peters. Thank you. And I would agree that we have a 
very good working relationship with EPA. As was discussed 
earlier, our SIP is still being evaluated, and we are looking 
forward to a final decision. But our relationship is very 
strong, and we are very satisfied with the communication we 
have had. So yes, the answer is yes.
    Senator Carper. A follow up question for you, Director 
Wells. Did EPA ever meet, to your knowledge, with the 
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality to discuss 
EPA's modeling and the basis for the State's linkage to 
downwind receptors?
    Mr. Wells. Mr. Chairman, I would say that we did have 
meetings with them. I think they were transparent in terms of 
providing the results of their modeling and telling us that we 
were impacting Texas air quality. What I don't think we, a way 
that I do not think they were cooperative as they should have 
been was giving us an opportunity, adequate time to evaluate, 
let me say this. We do not have on staff at Mississippi DEQ the 
expertise that it takes to dig into this modeling in the period 
of time that we were given. And so while we were provided the 
results and told what our impacts were based on that modeling 
result, we were not given adequate opportunity to evaluate 
that, contradict or dispute it, maybe is the better word to 
use, or to counter it in any way. And while EPA would probably 
say the data was available to us, the amount of time that we 
had to do so was inadequate.
    Senator Carper. All right. I am going to give you questions 
for the record. In your question for the record, I will allow 
you to amplify on that response, if you would.
    I am going to take a quick break. Senator Whitehouse has 
joined us. He is going to hold the gavel, and I will be right 
back. We have started voting on the floor, so we have a lot 
going on here. Don't go away. I will come back, and we will ask 
the consensus question that I telegraphed earlier on.
    Sheldon, thanks for being here.
    Senator Whitehouse [presiding]. Thanks, Chairman. Thanks 
for this hearing. As a fellow small, downwind, coastal State, 
we have a lot in common.
    Senator Carper. Just for the record just note we punch 
above our weight.
    Senator Whitehouse. We do punch way above our weight, 
exactly. Small but mighty.
    I wanted to explore a little bit some of the recent 
evidence we have had out of Rhode Island with respect to ozone.
    Dr. Hill, I will ask you. The ozone levels in Rhode Island, 
in Providence County, have earned us an F. In Kent County, 
which is more rural, a D. In Washington County, also more 
rural, a D. What kind of news is an F and two Ds for Rhode 
Island lungs?
    Dr. Hill. Those are not the report cards I would want to 
bring home to my parents. It is not good news for your 
constituents, particularly children, the elderly, those with 
chronic lung disease. What those nonattainment levels mean is 
that on bad air quality days, people with chronic lung disease 
are going to suffer.
    Young children are going to be put at higher risk. Children 
spend more time outside exercising. I was a high school 
athlete, and the world is a hotter place, within many places 
worse ozone levels sometimes, due to the changing climate, than 
it was 30 years ago or maybe more, when I was a high school 
athlete.
    So those nonattainment grades, those Fs and Ds, mean we are 
failing the public, and they are breathing unhealthy air. As 
was said earlier here, air is not partisan, respects no 
boundaries. We all breathe it in this room, and we all breathe 
it out in the world.
    Senator Whitehouse. I can recall, to your point, driving 
into work and on drivetime radio hearing the local announcement 
that today was a bad air day in Rhode Island. Perfectly 
beautiful day, as you drive along ozone is not visible. 
Perfectly beautiful day. And the warnings were exactly as you 
said, if you have an infant, if you have a child with asthma, 
if you have a breathing difficulty, or if you are elderly, you 
should stay inside today. On a beautiful day, the kind of day 
that would have a kid scratching at the door to get out and run 
around. But no, supposed to stay inside if you have any 
breathing difficulties because of the ozone.
    To your point about boundaries, a great of this ozone does 
not originate in Rhode Island. The chemicals that sunlight 
turns into ozone come from elsewhere. And one of the things 
that I find very tiresome is how the State of Rhode Island has 
difficulty defending itself against out of State pollution.
    This is where I think the Good Neighbor Rule comes into 
play. Because Rhode Island's Department of Environmental 
Management cannot regulate a smokestack in Ohio or Pennsylvania 
or West Virginia. We are stuck with it. And for a while, the 
solution in those places was higher smokestacks, jet the stuff 
higher up so it lands on Rhode Island instead of us. There were 
times when I wished that the rule was, no smokestacks. Then you 
have to own your mess, and you can't just export it to other 
States, letting the wind do your dirty work.
    Director Peters, is that frustration an experience of 
yours, and do we depend on EPA to provide those remedies when 
States simply can't?
    Ms. Peters. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. I discussed 
earlier the very limited jurisdiction and ability to regulate 
that States and local jurisdictions have under the Clean Air 
Act. That is a source of some frustration, when so much of the 
emissions that are generated that result in ozone pollution 
come from elsewhere, come from background levels, come from 
mobile sources that we do not regulate.
    So yes, absolutely, there is so little that we can do at 
the State and local level to effect that on behalf of our 
residents. It can be frustrating.
    Senator Whitehouse. Dr. Hill, say a closing word about the 
health and health care costs of Fs and Ds, and what that means, 
not just for ruining a kid's day, but for local budgets and 
health care costs.
    Dr. Hill. Those health care costs are in the tens of 
billions of dollars. That is why this Good Neighbor Plan is so 
cost effective, because preventing those downwind effects is 
going to pay health care dividends down the road.
    Senator Whitehouse. So a good Good Neighbor Rule will pay 
huge dividends.
    Thank you very much, Chairman.
    Senator Carper [presiding]. Thanks so much for joining us, 
Senator Whitehouse. And thanks for your great work on these 
issues.
    I want to go back to, I quoted Thomas Dolby, I quoted my 
mom, I quoted my dad. And I won't repeat Dolby again, about 
being blinded by science. But I will mention again the words of 
my mother, who raised my sister and me from little kids that we 
should abide by the Golden Rule, treat other people the way we 
want to be treated.
    For me, it is my default. If I am trying to figure out what 
is the right thing to do, I try to put myself in other people's 
shoes and say, how would I want to be treated. Turns out that 
is in every major religion in the world. I don't care if you 
are Protestant, Catholic, Buddhist, Jewish, Hindu, there is a 
golden rule in everybody's, it is the one thing we all agree 
on. When that happens, I say, maybe we should follow it. So we 
want to try to keep that in mind as we go forward.
    I mentioned a couple of things. I should ask all of you to 
share with us some of the things your parents always said to 
you over and over again. But one of the things my dad always 
said to my sister and me over and over again was, when we would 
do some bonehead stunt, he would say, just use some common 
sense. He didn't say it so nicely, but he said it a lot. We 
must not have had any common sense. But I hope we have some 
now. And we need to put it to work.
    Another thing my dad said a lot is, if a job is worth 
doing, it is worth doing well. If a job is worth doing, it is 
worth doing well. And for me, that means if it isn't perfect, 
make it better. And everything I do I know I can do better.
    The closing question here is, just take some time in days 
to come, we will send you a formal request. But I am really 
interested in an area or two where you think there is 
consensus. That would be great. I talk to our majority staff 
and minority staff and say, if we can't figure this out, we 
need to find a new job. That does not suggest it is easy; it 
isn't. But some of the most important things are some of the 
hardest things to do. We need to get this right.
    We are given a blessing to have these responsibilities, and 
sit in these chairs and help make decisions for our country. We 
want to be proactive, and we want to be constructive. We need 
your input on that.
    In closing, I want to thank you all for your time and for 
your testimony today. Thank you for what you do in your own 
States. I hope your work gives you great joy. I love helping 
people. And my guess is that you do, too. One of the best ways 
we can help them is to make sure that in all of the country, 
all 50 States, we have air that we can safely breathe, and make 
sure our kids are well, our grandchildren are well, and people 
are able to go to work and not be sick. And try to hold down, 
rein in our health care costs. I think we can get this right, 
we can do literally all of those things.
    The Good Neighbor Rule is about making sure that all States 
do their part to clean up the air we breathe, as you know. We 
heard today that the new rule is long overdue. We also heard 
how more often than not, downwind States unfairly bear the 
burden of air pollution from their upwind neighbors.
    Without the help of the EPA, there is not much that 
downwind States can do to relieve the economic and health 
burden of cross-State air pollution. I know that is especially 
true in my own home State, where more than 90 percent of the 
air pollution in our State comes from outside of our State.
    We also heard some good news today. We also heard some good 
news today. We heard that the Good Neighbor Rule is achievable, 
and in many circumstances upwind polluters will just have to 
consistently operate the technology that they have already 
installed. For me, it seems like a small price to pay to 
protect those of us who are downwind.
    I am going to ask unanimous consent to submit into the 
record a variety of materials related to today's hearing. This 
includes public comments on the then proposed Good Neighbor 
Rule from the Ozone Transport Commission, a multi-State 
organization made up of 12 mid-Atlantic and northeast States, 
and it also includes DC. The Ozone Transport Commission 
expressed overall support for the rule, support for the 
inclusion of industrial sources, and provided data on similar 
actions already being taken by member States. Hearing no 
objection to that.
    [The referenced information follows:]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Senator Carper. I am going to move on to a little bit of 
housekeeping. Senators will be allowed to submit written 
questions for the record through the close of business on 
Wednesday, April 12th. That is when my colleagues have to 
submit their questions, Wednesday, April 12th, close of 
business. And we will compile those questions and send them on 
to each of you and ask you, if you will, to respond to us by 
the next morning.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. How about Wednesday, April 26th? April 
26th.
    Again, this has been encouraging. I am a glass half-full 
guy. I found this encouraging. We appreciate you coming in from 
all over the country, with different perspectives and 
backgrounds. We want to find good solutions that are fair and 
equitable. I think we can do that.
    Henry Ford used to say, if you think you can or you think 
you can't, you are right. In this case, I think we can, and I 
think we must.
    With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you all.
    [Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                 [all]