[Senate Hearing 118-764]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-764
HEARING ON THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY'S PROPOSED
FISCAL YEAR 2025 BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 8, 2024
__________
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
62-535 WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND 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
MAY 8, 2024
OPENING STATEMENTS
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 1
Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
Virginia....................................................... 3
WITNESS
The Honorable Michael Regan, Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Carper........................................... 14
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 21
Senator Kelly............................................ 24
Senator Capito........................................... 27
Senator Cramer........................................... 28
Senator Lummis........................................... 33
Senator Ricketts......................................... 34
Senator Boozman.......................................... 40
Senator Sullivan......................................... 44
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Report from the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations: Carbon
Capture Demonstration Projects Program Front-End Engineering
Design (FEED) Studies Selections for Award Negotiations........ 50
List of project names, entities, carbon capture, storage details,
etc............................................................ 55
Article from West Virginia Public Broadcasting: Curtis Tate, PSC
Approves Construction of Gas Power Plant in Doddridge County... 121
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)......... 145
Letter to Hon. Deb Haaland, U.S. Department of the Interior from
Senator Dan Sullivan........................................... 146
63 Executive Orders & Actions Targeting Alaska................... 151
Statement from President Joe Biden on the April Jobs Report...... 165
Letter to Hon. Michael S. Regan, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency from Senator Capito..................................... 167
Letter to Senator Capito from the Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations.................................... 169
Joint Memorandum from U.S. Department of Energy U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency: Interagency Communication and
Consultation on Electric Reliability........................... 171
Memorandum: The Good Neighbor Plan and Reliable Electricity...... 176
HEARING ON THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY'S PROPOSED
FISCAL YEAR 2025 BUDGET
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2024
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Whitehouse,
Markey, Stabenow, Kelly, Padilla, Fetterman, Cramer, Lummis,
Mullin, Ricketts, Boozman, Sullivan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Good morning, everyone. I am pleased to
call this hearing to order.
Today, we welcome EPA Administrator Michael Regan back to
our committee to discuss the President's Fiscal Year 2025
budget proposal for the Environmental Protection Agency.
As my colleagues will attest, I oftentimes say that budgets
are about priorities, and they are. I believe that the
President's budget prioritizes a vision for the future of our
Nation in which every American can enjoy the health and
economic benefits of cleaner air and land, as well as cleaner
water.
The President's $11 billion budget request for EPA
represents a 20 percent increase over the amount Congress
approved for Fiscal Year 2024. That may seem like a significant
increase, and I agree that it is, but make no mistake, after
years of funding cuts and freezes, the agency needs additional
investments if it is to better protect the health and well-
being of our constituents across America.
Those of us who care about the future of our planet, and I
believe that is every one of us, want an EPA that has the
resources that it needs to take common sense steps to combat
the greatest threat that we face today on our planet, and that
is our climate crisis.
Nearly every day, we see the signs of a planet in crisis:
wildfires ravaging our lands, polluted air filling our lungs,
extreme heat gripping many of our communities, and much, much
more. Scientists here and around the world have repeatedly
sounded the alarm. They say we are running out of time to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and slow climate change for the
health of our planet and our people.
In 2023 alone, the United States experienced 28 climate
disasters. Let me say that again: in 2023 alone, the United
States experienced 28 climate disasters. I have a friend, you
ask him how he is doing, he says, compared to what? We will
just say, compared to what?
For comparison, the U.S. experienced only seven climate
disasters in 2013, only seven in 2013. In 10 years, the number
of climate disasters has literally quadrupled. On top of that,
the 28 disasters that our Country experienced in last year in
2023 cost American taxpayers a boatload, a total of $93
billion. That is billion dollars, with a B. To put that figure
into perspective, it is more than eight times the size of EPA's
proposed budget for 2025.
Fortunately, the President's proposed budget would enable
EPA to continue its work to address the climate crisis and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, all while protecting public
health and supporting economic growth. How might that be
accomplished, one might ask? That is a good question.
First, the President's budget request would provide the
agency the funding it needs to continue to implement the
historic investments made by Congress over the last few years,
including the passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,
which was literally crafted in this room, as well as the
Inflation Reduction Act.
Through the passage of those laws, Congress has directed
EPA to do more than ever before in order to tackle climate
change, address pollution, protect our communities, and grow
our economy.
Thanks to these laws, we have empowered EPA to help build a
clean energy economy that is creating millions of jobs across
America and lowering our unemployment rate to near-record lows
while also lowering energy and health costs for households
throughout America.
Just last month, Administrator Regan announced the awardees
that will distribute some $27 billion for clean energy projects
through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. As you may recall, a
number of our colleagues on this committee worked hard to
create this program in the Inflation Reduction Act.
The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund is going to fund national
networks of community financial institutions that will finance
climate and clean energy projects across America, particularly
in low-income and disadvantaged communities.
Thanks to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, homeowners
throughout America will be able to make repairs and investments
in order to make their homes more energy efficient, and
business owners will have access to the financing that they
need should they choose to decarbonize their buildings or
install solar panels, just to name a few examples.
Through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we invested in
EPA's work to clean up legacy pollution from contaminated
brownfields and Superfund sites, as well as to improve solid
waste management and recycling programs while addressing lead
and PFAS in our drinking water.
Just one of many examples, last year, the Standard Chlorine
Superfund site in northern Delaware received $1 million from
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to remove hazardous chemicals
from that site and protect public health. There are many, many
more examples like that across the Country.
We look forward to continuing to work with you,
Administrator Regan, to support EPA's implementation of these
critical laws, which will benefit our communities for decades
to come.
Beyond its implementation of the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, EPA has also been busy
acting, as you know, to develop and finalize rules, informed by
cutting-edge scientific research, to remove dangerous
pollutants from the water that we drink and the air that we
breathe.
EPA's new climate and clean air regulations will result in
billions of dollars in climate and public health benefits
across our Country, all while encouraging American innovation
to help industry meet stronger standards on reasonable
timelines.
By releasing new rules to implement laws like the Toxic
Substances Control Act, the Superfund Law, and the Safe
Drinking Water Act, EPA is addressing some of the most pressing
environmental public hazards that America faces. I would add
that I think each of those laws that I just mentioned really
had their beginning genesis right here in this room.
The President's budget will support the agency's continued
work to implement these rules to benefit our health, our
planet, and our economy. Administrator Regan, I start off by
saying you have a tough job. I think we all have tough jobs,
but they are also really important jobs.
I think we are headed, for the most part, in the right
direction, thanks in no small part to your leadership at EPA
during an especially challenging time in our Nation's history.
We look forward to hearing your testimony today. We welcome
you.
Before we hear from you, I want to hear from our Ranking
Member, Senator Capito, for her opening remarks. Senator
Capito?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. Thank you, Chairman Carper, and welcome,
Administrator Regan. It is nice to see you again. I saw you
last week. I get to see you twice in a month.
The Chairman started off his remarks with the same way I
would start my remarks, and that is you can tell a lot about
policy priorities of an administration by reviewing its budget
and the actions that it takes. This is where our statements
will diverge.
Many of the concerns I will raise today are the same ones I
raised last year, and I am frustrated not to have seen more of
a course correction by the agency over the past years. If
anything, the EPA has accelerated the pace of economically
crippling, unrealistic regulations that it has issued, with the
total regulatory costs imposed by the Biden EPA now approaching
$1 trillion.
Chief among my concerns is the group of six regulations
that make up the EPA's Electric Generating Unit, or Power
Sector, Strategy. Your intent with these regulations is pretty
clear: impose new, costly Federal mandates in a short period of
time to make continued investment in baseload power plants
uneconomic.
This is round two of the Obama administration's war on
coal, except the Biden Administration is issuing even more
regulations at an even greater cost than President Obama did,
and this time, the war is not just against coal, but also
against natural gas and American manufacturing.
By issuing the rules individually, the EPA has tried to
hide the total, cumulative costs to businesses and the American
people of its Power Sector Strategy, but their collective
potential harm is, for me, daunting and real.
The agency's rules threaten the availability of reliable,
affordable electricity at a time when Americans' pocketbooks
are already being hit by inflation worsened by this
Administration's policies. During each of the rulemakings,
energy and reliability experts sounded the alarm about the
damaging effects each of the rules could have on our grid.
At the end of last year, the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation identified the six power sector rules
under development as having ``the potential to influence
generators to seek deactivation despite a projected resource
adequacy or operating reliability risk.''
The EPA has made half-hearted attempts to claim it has
addressed reliability concerns. Last year, at the same time as
the EPA released the final so-called Good Neighbor Rule, the
agency announced a joint Memorandum of Understanding with the
Department of Energy to coordinate to ensure reliability is not
harmed by the agencies' regulatory actions.
The EPA touted how the MOU would provide a robust and
durable framework for continued interagency coordination and
consultation on electric reliability issues at a time of
significant dynamism in the power sector.
I do thank the agency for responding to an oversight letter
I sent asking about the Memorandum of Understanding (MOA). In
that response, however, the EPA stated that it has held a total
of three meetings with NERC (North American Electric
Reliability Corporation) and regional transmission
organizations and independent service operators. Three
meetings, that is it, in just over a year. The letter confirms
that this initiative is little more than window-dressing, and
not a genuine attempt to address the root of the EPA's self-
created reliability problem.
Demand for baseload power from data centers, AI, and the
forced transition to EVs is quickly rising and projected to
balloon, and the EPA regulations will cause the baseload power
supply to shutter. It is not rocket science to see the problem:
demand is going up and supply will be going down, and electric
reliability is not the only area where the agency's regulations
are ignoring reality.
I have repeatedly said that we need the EPA to finalize
reasonable drinking water standards to protect Americans from
exposure to PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS, but after taking 3
years, which I thought was way too long, to develop the
standards, the standards that the EPA ultimately released
raised more questions.
The agency has set extremely low parts per trillion
standards that do not align with levels that other countries
have set. It lacks robust scientific support and does not fully
consider the financial strains for compliance, particularly for
rural and historically disadvantaged communities, and the
strains will only be worsened by the recent CERCLA
(Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act) designation.
The EPA had a real opportunity here in the PFAS space to
set durable, science-based standards to remedy a real
environmental concern. I would have been strongly supportive of
a drinking water standard similar to the Obama administration's
health advisory level.
Addressing PFAS through other environmental statutes prior
to finalizing CERCLA hazardous substances designations would
have mitigated the unintended consequences that EPA's approach
will have on local water systems, airports, landfill operators,
and other passive receivers, and we have had at least one and
maybe two hearings that have expressed the concerns about this.
I am disappointed that the EPA chose to make regulatory
decisions based on the most extreme voices in the debate,
rather than finalize sound and practical regulations.
Foundational environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act
and Clean Water Act, are based on the principle of cooperative
federalism. Typically, States lead in managing environmental
protection within their borders, while the EPA provides support
and only steps in when the State does not act. The Biden EPA
has not followed that framework in a number of cases, including
the so-called Good Neighbor Rule that I have already mentioned.
Despite Federal courts of appeals repeatedly stopping this
rule from going into effect, the EPA has not recognized the
legal failings of the rule. Quite the opposite, actually,
because in January, the agency chose to double down on
executive overreach and proposed to add five more States to its
illegal regulation.
Recent actions by Region 3 of the EPA in my home State
present another especially troubling example of the agency's
disregard for States' authority. After a year of closed-door
negotiations, without even notifying our West Virginia
regulators, the EPA announced a consent decree with activist
environmentalist groups to impose Total Maximum Daily Loads,
TMDLs, on 11 streams in West Virginia.
Last, and you and I talked about this at last week's
hearing before the Appropriations Committee, I am very
concerned about the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse as the EPA
manages the unprecedented $41.5 billion in the Democrat's so-
called Inflation Reduction Act. The EPA has announced plans to
obligate all of this funding for its largest IRA program, the
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, or Green Bank, which amounts to
$27 billion, between now and the end of September.
I would note that $27 billion is nearly three times the
total amount of appropriations the EPA receives each year. It
is an astronomical sum of money. I fear the EPA will make a lot
of mistakes in the rush to get this money out.
Now, your response to me, I will go off-script here, your
response to me last week was that you are simply granting this
money down to eight different entities across the Country. That
said to me, well, they are the ones who are going to be
responsible for the waste, fraud, and abuse. I think it is the
EPA's responsibility, and we need adequate oversight by an
inspector general.
On that, I will turn it back to Chairman Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Senator Capito.
Administrator Regan, welcome back to the Environment and
Public Works Committee. You are recognized to proceed with your
statement when you are ready. Are you ready?
Mr. Regan. Yes, I am ready.
Senator Carper. Go right ahead. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL REGAN, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Regan. Thank you, Chairman Carper and Ranking Member
Capito, and members of the committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the bold
vision laid out by the U.S. EPA's proposed Fiscal Year 2025
budget request.
We recognize our partnership and open dialog with Congress
is invaluable in order for EPA to carry out its mission to
protect public health and the environment. Over the last year,
we have been hard at work at EPA, and under President Biden's
leadership, my agency has finalized protections that will bring
100 million people cleaner and safer drinking water from PFAS.
We have worked hard to right many of the historic wrongs
communities have faced for generations. Through our critical
rulemaking, we have banned the last remaining kind of asbestos
used in our Country, and we have issued final technology-based
standards that will eliminate more than 6,000 tons of toxic air
pollution from chemical plants, reducing elevated cancer risks
for those living near these facilities by 96 percent.
EPA is committed to protecting public health and the
environment for all American people, but more than just the
powerful health impacts we are undertaking. My agency is also
working hard to implement the historic laws you have passed and
President Biden's Investing in America Agenda.
President Biden's Investing in America Agenda has not only
directly invested in communities nationwide, but it has
generated nearly $700 billion in funding for private sector
manufacturing and clean energy projects, protecting our planet
and enhancing our global competitiveness.
I was pleased to join Senator Markey in Boston last August
to speak about how the Inflation Reduction Act and Greenhouse
Gas Reduction Fund are addressing climate change head-on while
unlocking billions of dollars in private sector investment to
lower energy costs, improve public health, and create good-
paying jobs.
Together, President Biden's Investing in America Agenda and
EPA's Fiscal Year 2025 budget request will continue to invest
in environmental actions that will promote cleaner communities
and produce economic benefits for years to come.
Last August, during my Journey to Justice Tour, I joined
Senator Sullivan in Alaska to spotlight the environmental
justice concerns of Alaska Native Tribes. We met with tribal
leaders and heard firsthand about the challenges facing the
community, including climate impacts and adaptation, food
insecurity, and water infrastructure. There, he and I
announced, along with Senator Murkowski, $150 million in
funding from the President's Investing in America Agenda that
will help fund projects that benefit federally recognized
tribes across the State.
President Biden's proposed Fiscal Year 2025 budget request
for EPA provides nearly $11 billion to advance key priorities
for the American people, including protecting air quality,
cleaning up pollution, upgrading the Nation's aging water
infrastructure, urgently fighting the climate crisis, and
advancing environmental justice.
Millions of people across our Country are still grappling
with the effects of poor air quality, perpetuating harmful
health and economic impacts. In Fiscal Year 2025, EPA will
improve air quality for communities by reducing emissions from
ozone-forming pollutants, particulate matter, and air toxics.
The President's budget includes $1.3 billion to improve air
quality for communities across the Country, to reduce exposure
to dangerous levels of radiation, and to leverage regulatory
tools and public and private sector partnerships that promote
environmental stewardship and encourage the adoption of cost-
effective technologies and practices.
EPA's work to set these standards provides certainty to
industry, builds on advancements and technology, and reinforces
market movement that reduces power plant emissions without
sacrificing reliability and affordable energy.
Clean and safe water in the foundation for healthy
communities and a thriving economy. Although substantial
progress has been made, many areas across our Nation still face
significant barriers and challenges to achieving this goal.
Aging water infrastructure, the effect of lead pipes,
cybersecurity threats to our water systems, climate change, and
emerging contaminants, such as PFAS, all pose dangerous health
risks to our Nation's water supply and the American people.
EPA's budget request includes a total of $101 million for
two EPA grant programs dedicated to remediating lead
contamination in drinking water. From investing in clean air to
cleaning up contaminated land and water, there is no shortage
of important work that needs to be done.
Members of the committee, EPA is up for the task. We are
eager to work with all of you to deliver for our fellow
Americans and to secure our Nation's global competitiveness,
but we need your support. The Fiscal Year 2025 President's
budget continues the historic progress and investments made by
the Biden-Harris Administration and positions EPA to advance
our vital mission of protecting public health and the
environment.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to submit
testimony for the record, and I look forward to our continued
partnerships and your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Regan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Administrator Regan, thank you for that
statement. Thanks for joining us today, and thank you for your
leadership. Thank you for taking on a really tough job, and our
thanks to your family for sharing you with all of us. I think
about three and a half years ago, I think they sat there, right
in the front row, and said, we are willing to share their
husband, and your son, their dad. It is a sacrifice for them,
and we appreciate their service, too.
Mr. Regan. Thank you for that.
Senator Carper. I have a couple questions I want to lead
off with. One of them is a question dealing with the general
budget. I am going to ask some questions, Senator Capito will
follow me. Senator Stabenow was here earlier, and if she shows
up right away, then she would succeed Senator Capito, and then
Senator Cramer, and if he is not back, then Senator Ricketts is
on the on-deck circle. There we go.
First question: after years of declines in funding and
staffing, EPA has begun to recover from the effects of
diminished resources over the past few decades. For most of its
existence, EPA's budget has not kept pace with inflation, while
Congress has steadily added to its responsibilities. EPA needs
more people. They need additional funding to fulfill their
critically important mission, which is reflected in the
President's proposed budget.
How would the additional funding the President has
requested help this agency, your agency, fulfill its mission to
protect public health and the environment while growing the
economy and jobs?
Mr. Regan. Thank you for the question, Senator. It is
critical. I think, in order to have a viable strong partnership
with our States, we need to be able to provide technical
assistance and demonstrate that partnership in our regions.
More than 50 percent of this budget will go to our regional
staff to provide that technical assistance.
We need resources to continue to deal with building our
capabilities in the areas of emergency response, whether it be
the wildfires in Maui or the train derailment in East
Palestine. We are continuing to see these disasters that we are
having to respond to, so we need to build our emergency
response capabilities.
We need to ensure that the safety of chemicals that are
needed to propel our electric vehicles, our semiconductor
industry, continues to move forward. We want to continue to
administer these congressionally directed spending assignments
all across the Country, such as the $4 million to the city of
Wilmington for sewer-stormwater separation.
With those resources, we are going to continue to build
that capability to not interrupt the economy, but also provide
the technical ability, so that we can all compete at the
Federal and State level.
Senator Carper. Thank you. My next question is, through the
Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,
much of which was authored in this room, this committee made
historic investments to tackle the climate crisis and make our
communities more resilient at the same time. EPA's Fiscal Year
2025 budget builds on those historic investments and reaffirms
the Administration's commitment to tackling climate change with
the urgency that the science demands by dedicating $3 billion
to climate-related programs.
Administrator Regan, how important are the investments
provided by the Inflation Reduction Act, the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law, and the President's budget for reducing
U.S. emissions to head off the worst of climate change? Why do
these investments matter?
Mr. Regan. These investments are critical to preserve both
the economy and the environment. If we are able to leverage the
historic resources that we received from the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, we are able
to marry those financial incentives with the statutory and
regulatory obligations that we have. We are seeing a
significant infusion in technological advancements to help curb
those emissions.
In BIL, we are seeing a significant level of resources to
harden our water infrastructure, increase our water
cybersecurity, to make them more resilient for the changing
climate and the international threats that we are facing there.
Coupling those investments with our regulatory obligations
creates a win-win opportunity for global competitiveness.
Senator Carper. My last question before yielding to Senator
Capito is, EPA's recent efforts to cut emissions and greenhouse
gases in toxic pollutants from power plants are expected to
deliver significant public health and climate benefits. Despite
these benefits, some focus intently on potential impacts to
grid reliability and related compliance schedules.
My question, Administrator Regan, as I understand it, EPA
has carefully considered those potential impacts in the
development of its new regulations. Could you just briefly
describe for us the mechanisms in the rule to ensure grid
reliability is maintained? The second half of my question is,
what actions will EPA take in the future to avoid challenges to
grid reliability? Go right ahead.
Mr. Regan. Thank you for the questions, Chairman. I am
happy that you mentioned the public health benefits for these
four rules. The public health benefits are just astronomical in
terms of cost benefits. In 2035 alone, our regulatory impact
analysis estimates that we will have up to 1,200 avoided
premature deaths, 870 avoided hospital emergency room visits,
1,900 avoided cases of asthma onset, and over 360,000 avoided
cases of asthma symptoms. The health opportunities are grand.
In carrying out our duties to protect public health and the
environment, we teamed up with the Department of Energy; we
have multiple meetings with FERC. We engage with EEI and those
who are responsible for grid management. We understand that we
are seeing increased demand, but we are also understanding that
there is a tremendous investment from historic legislation into
technological advancements and investments in the grid that
will make all of this possible. We are confident that we have
mitigated any grid reliability issues that are current and that
could potentially be a future threat.
Senator Carper. OK, thanks.
Senator Capito? Thank you.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Administrator Regan, I want to talk about the power sector
strategy and the six different EPA regulations that you put out
all at once. In a 2022 speech, you said, if EPA's actions
unfold while the rest of the Federal family, leading States and
leading firms in this sector are mobilizing their tools and
resources, then our actions and the clean energy investment
signals that they send will work as they should, hand in glove.
If I understand your statement, by issuing six rules in a
short timeframe at the same time the IRA is being implemented,
the EPA rules will send clean energy investment signals to the
industry. Is that correct?
Mr. Regan. That statement was intended when I addressed the
utility leaders at CERAWeek that we would issue four rules
simultaneously. That was to focus on wastewater discharge,
cleaning up coal ash, focusing on controlling mercury, and the
fourth is reduction in carbon pollution.
What I had talked to the industry leaders about is, these
regulations have to come from the agency. In the past, they
have come in staggered ways or in ways that did not work in a
sort of cross-purpose way. We decided, and I said this 2 years
ago when working with the industry, that we would put out four
rules at the same time that have their own unique statutory
authority and requirements, but that they could see the costs
associated and make strategic investments, long-term
investments, to provide affordable, reliable power.
Senator Capito. You went to six instead, from four to six?
Mr. Regan. We announced four at the same time.
Senator Capito. Now we have six. We have the Good Neighbor
Rule and all that pulled together. Correct?
Mr. Regan. Some of those rules, we issued prior to that.
Senator Capito. You have changed some of your rules. You
said you wanted actions to be durable and provide certainty,
and you have already proposed, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, to add five more States to the 23 covered by Good
Neighbor. You are already changing your rules, even though you
State that you want to provide certainty.
Mr. Regan. No, I think when you look at the Good Neighbor
Rule, I think there are a number of States that are actually
controlling their emissions and not contributing to States next
door. When we think about the Good Neighbor Rule, we are
responding to the States that have said, you have a Federal
obligation to protect our citizens. You also have a Federal
obligation not to penalize us for doing what we need to do
while other States may not be controlling their emissions.
Senator Capito. At the same time, you didn't listen to the
State plans, right? You just went forward and said, we are
going to have a Federal plan, and that is it. All these State
plans were pretty much neutered, correct?
Mr. Regan. No, we absolutely listened to the State plans.
As a former State regulator, I understand this process
extremely well. I still have a lot of colleagues who are
serving as State secretaries. The bottom line is that the
Federal Government has an obligation to exercise a duty to
control pollution. Sometimes pollution will, not sometimes,
pollution does not understand boundaries. If there are other
States that are polluting neighboring States, to avoid
litigation from those States who have done what they have said
they are going to do, we have an obligation to make sure that
we protect those States.
Senator Capito. I think that is obviously being challenged
in the courts, and your ability or your actual right to
actually do that. Let me ask you, I just get so frustrated when
I see, let's see, right now, our power mix is 60 percent fossil
fuel, 16 percent coal, 43 percent natural gas, 18 percent
nuclear, and 20 percent renewable.
The plan that you have put out, the Clean Power Plan that
will basically make every coal plant extinct, because nobody is
going to be able to afford to do that on an aging coal plant,
so those will be gone in the 2030's. Nobody is going to build a
new one unless they only run it under 40 percent, because they
are not going to be able to meet the demand.
Do you know a U.S. power plant right now that meets the 90
percent CCS requirement that you have put into that bill? Where
is that plant?
Mr. Regan. I think I want to sort of push back on the
notion that this rule is going after coal. When we talked to
these utilities' CEOs, they provided to us their plans. Some of
these coal plants were already going to sunset, because they
are transitioning to natural gas. Some of these coal plants we
do believe will be able to take advantage of these CCS
technologies.
Senator Capito. Is anybody doing that now?
Mr. Regan. Well, I have had a number of visits since----
Senator Capito. The answer is no.
Mr. Regan. Like North Dakota, I spent time with the
Governor in Wyoming. There are utilities that are putting on
this technology and beginning to use it.
They are also taking full advantage of the resources
provided by the Inflation Reduction Act, tax codes by the
Inflation Reduction Act, to invest in this very technology. Our
timeline does match with the resources currently going to
utilities who are investing in CCS technologies.
Senator Capito. OK.
Here is another problem. We had a pipeline in West
Virginia, a natural gas pipeline, that goes down toward North
Carolina, the Mountain Valley Pipeline. We all know what we
went through to get the completion of that. We had to have a
Presidential signature to get that completed after it had been
in and out of the courts for years. It tripled the cost that it
originally was.
How in the world can you say that we are going to do CCS,
we are going to build pipelines that are going to carry carbon?
That is not going to happen.
Mr. Regan. The Country is already doing it, and the Country
is doing it for other sectors of the economy. Here is where the
whole of government----
Senator Capito. I would love for you to give me an
interState pipeline that has been recently built that carries
carbon, and then I will be quiet about it.
Mr. Regan. There is a pipeline currently being built from
North Dakota to Iowa.
Senator Capito. When was it permitted?
Mr. Regan. I would have to get you those details.
Senator Capito. Yes. A long time ago. All right. I am going
to stop here.
Senator Carper. Thank you, ma'am.
Before recognizing Senator Stabenow, who I believe is next
in line, I am going to ask unanimous consent to submit for the
record materials describing the forthcoming carbon capture
projects across our Nation, demonstrating that the
Administration's policies have enabled the deployment of carbon
capture systems to reduce power plant emissions.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Just last month, I am told, West Virginia
regulators approved one of the largest gas power plants with
carbon capture in our Nation, generating millions of dollars of
economic benefits for the surrounding communities.
With that said, Senator Stabenow, good to see you. Welcome
this morning.
Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman
and Ranking Member. Thanks so much for holding the hearing.
Administrator Regan, it is wonderful to see you again. I
want to thank you for being here and for all the work you have
put into developing EPA's Fiscal Year 2025 budget. I have to
say, from my perspective in Michigan, when I look at this
budget, I see a commitment to a lot of longstanding priorities
of mine and the people that I represent. I want to thank you
for that.
I see increased investment in our water infrastructure,
including vital funding to replace lead pipes and address
emerging contaminants like PFAS, the impacts of which
Michiganders know far too well. Certainly, you do not have to
go any farther than Flint, Michigan. We deeply understand the
critical nature of health and safety and why that needs to get
done.
I see the recognition of the impacts of the climate crisis
and an emphasis on ensuring that our communities have the
resources to address and adapt to new climate realities,
unfortunately. I also see robust funding for our Great Lakes,
including for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, a program
I authored back in 2010, as you know, which serves as the most
important tool we have to restore and protect our Great Lakes.
I am so appreciative that this committee reauthorized our
bipartisan bill to extend the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative out now until 2031. This is very, very important.
I do want to say that one of the things that brings the
climate crisis home to us in Michigan is that the Great Lakes
are now warming faster than the oceans. Lake Superior, our
largest, deepest, gorgeous northern lake, is now one of the
five fastest warming lakes in the world. You never could swim
in Lake Superior, and now you can, which may sound great. It is
not great, actually. Thank you for all of that work.
Let me first also ask a question about light duty vehicle
emissions, the rule, and express my appreciation for EPA's
commitment to engaging with our automakers and autoworkers at
my request. Thank you very much for listening, working with
them, and developing an ambitious but achievable final rule for
light-and medium-duty vehicle emissions.
I have already said Michigan automakers are the best in the
world. There is no question about it. I am glad EPA took their
input into account when developing the rule so that they have
the capacity to continue to lead.
Moving forward, do I have your commitment to continue
working with our automakers and autoworkers on the rules that
impact them for the future?
Mr. Regan. Absolutely, and thank you for your leadership in
helping us to establish some of those relationships and keep
that conversation going. I absolutely commit to working with
the automakers and with the unions that are supporting those
automakers.
Senator Stabenow. Great, thank you very much.
Let me go on to another strong passion of mine, which is
E15 and our biofuels industry. I want to thank the EPA for
issuing an emergency fuel waiver to allow E15 gasoline,
gasoline blended with 15 percent ethanol, to be sold in the
upcoming summer months.
Can you speak to how enabling the year-round sale of E15,
as you have permitted in both 2022 and 2023 through similar
waivers, can help protect consumers against fuel supply shocks
by reducing reliance on imported fuel? As we look ahead, what
will be the impact of EPA's recent final rule related to State
waivers?
Mr. Regan. Well, this is another opportunity for me to
thank you and your staff for helping us to navigate what was
contentious but ended up in a great situation. Yes, we did
issue the emergency waiver for summer of 2024 as we have done
in 2022 and 2023 to ensure that our domestic producers can
compete on the biofuels side, but also to begin to reduce our
dependency on foreign oil.
We have worked on satisfying that waiver request for eight
States. For Fiscal Years 2025 and beyond, those waivers will be
permanent for those States to use E15 throughout the summers.
That gives those eight States a level of certainty for future
investments to up that production of biofuels so that we can
continue to keep our prices low but be globally competitive.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you so much. This really brings us
between EPW and the agriculture committee, where we see the
coming together around issues related to lower price for
consumers, addressing a cleaner environment, but also jobs, a
lot of jobs, in particularly rural America through our
bioeconomy. I appreciate your working with us on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Stabenow.
Senator Stabenow wears a number of hats, as my colleagues
know, and one of those is Chair of the Agriculture Committee. I
wanted to just say on behalf of all of us, a big thank you for
the support in making sure that the legislation dealing with
regenerative agriculture, which actually focuses on
agricultural policies, it could be crop rotation, it could be a
variety of other things, but ways that would enable the farmers
in this Country to actually do good things for our planet, at
the same time, an economic model that provides more money for
them in their pockets at the end of the day.
It is called regenerative agriculture. We applaud your
support for those policies. Thank you so much.
Senator Cramer, welcome.
Senator Cramer. Well, thank you. Let me just followup
really quickly with that and thank Senator Stabenow for her
leadership as well, but please, let's get a Farm Bill done
before you retire, ma'am. Please, let's get that done. OK,
good. Thank you. We need production agriculture to feed a
hungry world.
OK, I am going to pass through MATS for now, and go right
to where you and Senator Capito left off and just speak a
little bit and ask some questions about carbon capture. First
of all, the pipeline you are referring to from Iowa to North
Dakota is designed to ultimately take CO2 captured from ethanol
plants, from the Corn Belt, and take it to North Dakota's
geology, which is suitable for carbon capture and storage, and
even better yet, enhanced oil recovery, and who wouldn't want
more of that.
At is not yet permitted. I do not know that it is finished
in any of the States. It is a hard slog, and we will see if
that happens.
Second, Mr. Administrator, what is interesting to me is,
you referenced in the rule about carbon capture storage as a
prescription for meeting the standard for coal-fired power
plants, and yet, the 90 percent that was referenced earlier,
which is in the rule, has never been achieved.
One of the things about best emissions standards is it
requires adequately demonstrated. The illustration that EPA
often uses is a SaskPower plant that has carbon capture on it
that captures, after years of fine-tuning, 65 to 70 percent. It
looks to me like 90 percent is a setup for failure, that the
goal is to shut down, to go after coal, to Senator Capito's
point. When you prescribe a solution that can not be adequately
demonstrated or is not adequately demonstrated, it looks to me
like an impossibility by design.
The second thing I would say, the Supreme Court was very
clear in the West Virginia case that you can not prescribe
outside the fence line. It seems that if CO2, which has to be
piped to geological formations able to take the CO2, can be
hundreds of miles away, that is, by definition, outside the
fence line.
How do you have a durable rule in the face of the Supreme
Court's decision that you have to stay within the fence line?
Mr. Regan. I think on that latter point, the Supreme Court
indicated that you could not take credit for actions that are
occurring outside of the fence line. When you look at this
technology that will be onsite of the facility, it is the
facility that is reducing those emissions.
Our folks have looked very carefully, and I want to say, we
are not attempting to be cute or step outside the Supreme
Court's ruling. We are not having programs that are designed to
try to get reductions outside and get credits from outside that
fence line. We are solely focused on technologies that perform
on the facility themselves.
Senator Cramer. The disposal of that CO2 is different than
solving the emissions issue, I think that will be debatable. It
will certainly be litigated. I would hate to see millions and
millions of more Federal dollars and ratepayer dollars to once
again turn back the EPA when they are stepping outside not just
the fence line, but outside their authority, which is what I
believe to be the situation.
I actually have another question, but just about how
whether this is even productive, particularly in 2.0, because
the rule sets what I think is an arbitrary 20 percent annual
run time limit for simple cycle natural gas plants, realizing
that other than natural gas, the only other fuel that is not
nuclear that is 24-7 is coal.
The only way to back up unreliable, intermittent energy
sources like wind or solar is to have these simple cycle
natural gas combustion turbines. If they can only be run 20
percent of the time before then you meet a threshold of
rulemaking that is prohibitive financially, every utility is
going to have to have five simple cycle gas plants to back up
the unreliable clean energy. I do not see that as a cost
savings. That looks to me like unnecessary, redundant
investment.
Can you explain, I mean, has anybody considered that this
might actually be counterproductive?
Mr. Regan. We looked at that, and I think the way you are
describing it, and this rule applies to future natural gas,
which is why we set aside existing, so we wanted to avoid the
problem you just laid out for existing sources. When we look at
future natural gas plants, and in our conversations with the
industry, for those who are building these future gas plants,
they are looking at both the simple cycle option, but they are
also looking at the CCS option.
These are direct results from conversations that we have
had with many in the industry. What I would point to that I
think is a rub is not if we should do some of these things, but
the timeframes associated with it. The desire to pursue the
technologies and the way to do this and looking at the
transition, we have had a lot of very positive conversations
with the industry.
I think, when you get into, is it too stringent on the
percentages for looking at a timeline, that is where the real
heart of the debate is, and so that is why I get a little bit
nervous when people attempt to undermine what is happening in
Wyoming or North Dakota, places where we are proven out.
I just met with a CEO just earlier this week. There are
investments, significant investments, going into carbon capture
and storage. Right now, they are leveraging tax credits from
the Inflation Reduction Act. We are arguing more over time and
stringency, not whether we should do this or how.
Senator Cramer. Yes, but the final rule is pretty
prescriptive on both of those things, and quite honestly, I
mean, going back to MATS, which I said I was going to pass
over, and I promise, Mr. Chairman, that I will wrap up here,
and probably come back.
All of this looks to me like we are heading very quickly,
very quickly, in a transition to no fossil fuels. I am just
thinking, maybe it would be a good idea to have an experiment.
Let's just turn off all fossil fuels for a week and see how it
goes. because I have a feeling that while you and I are long
gone after all of this stuff kicks in, that is the reality that
some people are going to have to deal with.
I just, economically, competitively, it damn sure is not
going to make it more competitive in the global marketplace. We
need to be more realistic. We will get to another round in a
little bit. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Senator Cramer, thank you for those
questions.
Senator Cardin, welcome, my neighbor.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Regan, welcome. It is nice to have you here.
Mr. Regan. Thank you.
Senator Cardin. I want to deal with one aspect of the
infrastructure initiatives that we have had that deals with
affordability, water, consumers who have to pay water bills.
Today, about one out of every three consumers are challenged on
affordability of water. Working with Senator Wicker, we
included a rural and low-income water assistance pilot program
in the legislation that we passed.
The challenge is that it is not funded, because we need to
have the report from the EPA as the basis to moving forward
with this. The program, which was passed, has a sunset of 2026,
so if we do not get started soon, it will be over before we can
get started.
Can you just tell me where we are in regard to the study
under the EPA and whether we can anticipate having that report
in a timely way, so Congress can consider funding the pilot
program in order to get this started?
Mr. Regan. Absolutely, Senator. Thank you for your
leadership and focusing on this and the partnership with your
staff and Senator Wicker's staff. The bottom line is, we will
have it done this summer. We recognize the urgency of the
timeframe. We will have that report to you all, to Congress,
this summer.
Senator Cardin. Thank you. I am glad we have a specific
time.
I just make one other point on this. Local authorities that
are responsible for setting water rates, the ratepayers are
stressed. Alternative sources are helpful, but not enough to
deal with the issue, so affordability is becoming more and more
urgent with our aged infrastructure. I am pleased to see we
will have that report this summer. I hope it will be in time
for us to act during the appropriation cycle.
Let me move on to the Chesapeake Bay. There is hardly a
hearing that goes by that I do not mention the Chesapeake Bay,
and I want to thank my colleagues for their support. We have
increased the authorization for the Chesapeake Bay Program and
the resources in the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Under Senator Stabenow's leadership, we have gotten help
under the Department of Agriculture, and we have gotten help
from other of our programs.
There is a committee that you chair that has not been
reconstituted recently, that coordinates the Federal agencies,
the Federal Leadership Committee. I understand, in
conversations with Senator Van Hollen, we both have expressed
to you the advisability of reconstituting that committee with
your leadership as chair, considering that we are reaching
2025, which is the next plateau on the commitments made by the
States for what they can do in reducing the challenges of
pollutants in the bay, enforced by TMDLs.
Can you just assure us that that committee will be
reconstituted or reinstated in order to coordinate the work of
the various Federal agencies?
Mr. Regan. Absolutely, and thank you for your leadership on
just getting historic investments to the Chesapeake Bay. We
have been digesting all of these historic investments and
getting our stuff together, so we are going to have that group
reconstituted for fall meeting. We see it as a huge opportunity
to get all of the executives around the table and be sure that
we are pursuing those goals that you and others would like us
to pursue.
Senator Cardin. OK, I have the summer for water
affordability, the fall for the leadership coordinating
committee, let us see if I can get something for the winter
done.
How are we doing on the lead pipe eliminations? That was a
major part of the Biden Administration's initiative in the
infrastructure package. Baltimore has significant problems
today on lead pipes, lead poisoning. Our public schools, many
are not connected to water because the connecting pipes are
still contaminated by lead.
Can you just give us a progress report on how we are
dealing with the remedial issues concerning lead pipes?
Mr. Regan. Absolutely. To date, we have made $9 billion of
Federal funding available for water systems across the Country
to focus on lead. The President and I just announced another $3
billion recently. I think this year Maryland is slated to get
about $30 million of that.
These resources are transforming communities all across the
Country, especially cities like Baltimore. To date, we have
also replaced more than 220,000 lead service lines, that is
since 2021. This has been a game changer, a huge shot in the
arm, and we appreciate those resources.
Senator Cardin. Thank you. It is a very, very high priority
for us with older cities, particularly the connectors between
the mainlines and the users and public facilities, such as
schools. Thank you for your leadership on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regan. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Senator Cardin, thanks for joining us.
Thanks very much for your faithful participation and leadership
on this committee. Thank you.
I think Senator Ricketts, you are next. Thanks so much for
joining us. You probably get the best attendance record of
anybody on the committee, except maybe for Shelley and me.
Thank you.
Senator Ricketts. Great, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Administrator Regan, for being here. As you are
aware, on Wednesday last week, I led a bipartisan congressional
Review Act to block the implementation of your agency's Multi-
Pollutant Emissions Standards for model year 2027 and later for
light-duty and medium-duty vehicles.
Your agency keeps saying that the final EV mandate rule is
less burdensome than the proposal, but I note the CO2 standard
of 85 grams per mile in model year 2032 is exactly the same as
what you originally proposed. This is an average reduction in
the standard of 10 to 12 percent a year.
You and others have said that this is actually not an EV
mandate, but how many current gas, diesel, and traditional
hybrid vehicles meet the 85 grams per mile CO2 standard today?
Mr. Regan. The rule is for 2027 and beyond, and this is
based on the projections that the auto industry are actually
making themselves. I do not know how many to date, I just know
that the Automobile Association, UAW, and others supported the
rule that we put across the finish line, which gave a lot more
credence to plug-in hybrids, biofuels, traditional fuels, as
well as EVs.
When you say that CO2 goal looks similar, the CO2 goal
looks similar because what the automobile industry gave to us
through the comment period is, if you actually look at the
penetration of plug-in hybrids, it exceeded what we had
budgeted for, and so that took up that gap in terms of what
people anticipated the percentage or level of EVs to be. That
was automobile industry driven on that point.
Senator Ricketts. In 2024, to your knowledge, there are not
any gas, diesel, or hybrids that are actually meeting the 85
grams per mile today? Is that accurate?
Mr. Regan. I do not know of any current technology that is
doing so, but I could have my staff look into that, but this is
a rule focused on the future and not today. I think that is an
appropriate caveat there.
Senator Ricketts. Well, good. Let us talk about the future,
because chargers are another thing that has to go along with
this, right, whether you are going to talk about a plug-in
hybrid or an electric vehicle.
Of the 147 communities in my State that are classified as
cities, 99 do not have a charger. You could be in Bloomfield,
Valentine, Alliance, and be 45 minutes from the nearest
charger. Nationally, right now, I think the publicly available
charging stations is 27 to 1, versus the number of EVs out
there.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that 1.1
million public chargers are going to be needed to be deployed
by 2030 to support the Administration's goal here. This means
that we are going to need three public chargers deployed every
10 minutes.
Do you and your agency know where are we with regard to
getting chargers deployed on this? Are we on track?
Mr. Regan. Yes, I think we are moving forward. Our rule was
designed in coordination with both the investments that are
being made by the Department of Energy from the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, but also
with the metrics and data provided to us by the automobile
industry.
When you look at our rule and the timeframe and the levels
of stringency, one of the reasons that both the UAW and the
automobile manufacturers supported this rule is because they
believe that it is achievable. It is a stretch goal, but it is
achievable, and that directly coincides with where we, at EPA,
DOE, DOT, and the private sector believe the investments of
infrastructure will be 2027 to 2032.
Senator Ricketts. You are talking, you have talked a lot
about the manufacturers working with this. Is part of those
conversations what will happen to the price of used vehicles?
I mean, the average EV right now goes for $53,000, last
year it was. Your average low-income family spends $12,000 on a
vehicle. Was the cost of used cars part of this conversation
when you were talking to the automakers?
Mr. Regan. When we look at vehicle cost and our cost-
benefit analysis, we take into consideration a lot of things.
Affordability is one. We took to heart what the companies were
telling us about used or resale vehicles. What we see with new
vehicles, we see a cost savings over time, especially from
maintenance and durability. In that recently, we see those
costs----
Senator Ricketts. What about the cost, getting directly
back at the cost of a used vehicle, was that part of the
conversations you had? How much will a used vehicle cost as we
progress down the road under your rule?
Mr. Regan. I would have to get you those specifics, because
a used vehicle, I mean, what brand, what make?
Senator Ricketts. You did talk about used vehicles, just
broadly speaking though, about what cost?
Mr. Regan. We talked about all of the new vehicles moving
forward and took into consideration what that means for used
and second-hand vehicles.
Senator Ricketts. The cost of new vehicles, OK.
Mr. Chairman, I think my timer is blinking here. Did I run
out of time?
Senator Carper. I think you have broken the timer.
[Laughter.]
Senator Ricketts. Did I break the timer? OK.
Well, I hope we will get a second round of questions here,
then. Great. Thank you.
Senator Carper. I hope so too. Thanks so much for those
questions.
I think next is Senator Kelly, and then Senator Mullin.
Senator Kelly, you are recognized. Welcome.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator
Regan, good to see you again.
I want to start by talking about air quality. Right now in
the Phoenix metro area, we are seeing ozone concentrations
increase, which has placed the region into non-attainment. This
is happening as the Phoenix area is becoming one of the largest
manufacturing hubs in the Country of microchips, battery
technology, and electric vehicles.
These projects not only create great-paying jobs, but they
are the type of investments we need to combat climate change
and ultimately reduce emissions across the Country. Right now,
the biggest impediment to getting some of these projects off
the ground is air quality non-attainment.
Everyone in Arizona is united around finding a solution
that allows these projects to move forward while continuing to
reduce emissions in the region. That includes elected officials
at the State, county, local level and our business community.
That is why, before I supported his confirmation, I asked
Joe Goffman, your Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, to commit to coming out to Arizona to meet with all
of our stakeholders. I appreciate that he agreed to make the
trip.
When he was in Arizona in March, Administrator Goffman
heard about two innovative proposals developed by Maricopa
County to generate emission reductions called Rule 204 and Rule
205. Broadly speaking, these rules would allow manufacturers to
offset new emissions by helping to electrify mobile sources of
emissions, like cars, trucks, construction equipment, and other
vehicles.
Before his confirmation and while he was in Arizona,
Administrator Goffman provided me and my staff with some
commitments to making progress on rules 204 and 205, but it has
been a few months since his visit, so I want to ask you for an
update.
First of all, in Rule 205, after Administrator Goffman
visited Arizona, EPA Region 9 provided Maricopa County with a
commitment to conditionally approve rule 205 if the county
committed to make some minor technical changes. Last week,
Maricopa County sent a letter to Region 9 confirming that they
would make all of the required technical changes. That means
the next step is for the EPA to conditionally approve Rule 205.
Administrator Regan, can you confirm that EPA Region 9 will
now move forward with providing conditional approval for rule
205?
Mr. Regan. I can, yes, absolutely.
Senator Kelly. When do you expect that Region 9 will be
able to grant this conditional approval?
Mr. Regan. We anticipate being able to do that this summer.
Senator Kelly. Can you confirm that EPA will work closely
with Maricopa County to ensure that final approval is granted
to rule 205 within the next year?
Mr. Regan. Yes.
Senator Kelly. Thank you. Now, Rule 204, which I will note
was submitted by Maricopa County to Region 9 back in 2019. To
date, no action has been taken by Region 9 to approve the rule
or even provide feedback. During their visit, Assistant
Administrator Goffman and Regional Administrator Guzman
committed that after we got conditional approval on 205, we
then turn our attention to 204.
Administrator Regan, will you commit that EPA will, by the
end of this year, work with Maricopa County to decide whether
Rule 204 can be approved, and if not, identify what changes are
needed to make the rule approvable?
Mr. Regan. We can absolutely do that. We will be shifting
all of our resources from 205 to 204 to get that done in a
timely fashion.
Senator Kelly. Thank you. Now, as you may know, EPA issued
a finding of a failure to submit a State implementation plan or
a SIP for ozone non-attainment last year. We now face a
deadline to submit our SIP of August 2024 as the deadline.
Arizona intends to meet this deadline.
However, because of how long it has taken for Rule 205 to
be approved, we may have to submit our SIP very close to the
deadline. I understand that it can take some time between when
a SIP is submitted to Region 9 and when it is considered
received by EPA. We do not want Arizona to be penalized for
passing the August deadline because of an EPA paperwork
processing delay.
Administrator Regan, will you commit that as soon as the
State of Arizona submits its SIP, Region 9 and EPA headquarters
will move as quickly as possible to confirm it has been
received so that sanctions are not imposed on Arizona?
Mr. Regan. Yes, I can. As a matter of fact, our staffs are
already talking with the State. We anticipate getting that late
June, early July, so we believe we are on track.
Senator Kelly. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, if I could, could I have one more minute? I
also want to ask you about some exceptional events rules. I
understand that the EPA established a new air quality standard
for particulate matter earlier this year. You committed to
putting out updated tools to help air quality managers submit
exceptional event demonstrations for days where particulate
matter emissions exceeded legal limits due to wildfire.
I am concerned this same level of attention has not been
applied to ozone pollution caused by wildfires. Between 2015
and 2019, the Maricopa Association of Governments submitted
documentation for 33 days where ozone emissions exceeded legal
limits because of wildfire smoke. To date, Region 9 has only
evaluated the documentation for 19 of these days, and they have
only granted the exemption for 3 days.
The failure to quickly review, or even review at all,
exceptional event demonstrations submitted by air quality
managers makes it difficult for Phoenix, the region, to develop
a plan to get into attainment.
Administrator Regan, can you explain how the new
exceptional even tools for wildfires, and I am going to ask
this for the record, because I am over my time, but can you
submit for the record how the new tools, which EPA committed to
release as part of the particulate matter rulemaking, will
assist air agencies in easily submitting exceptional event
demonstrations? If you could just submit that for the record.
Mr. Regan. Yes, thank you.
Senator Kelly. Thank you.
Senator Carper. As Senator Kelly knows, we will be
submitting a variety of a number of questions for the record
following this hearing. That will be one of them that will be
included. Thank you.
Senator Kelly. Thank you for the extra time, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. You are quite welcome.
Senator Mullin, you are recognized. Welcome.
Senator Mullin. Thank you, Chairman.
Administrator, honestly, you are hard not to like. I just
do not like the agency you work for.
Senator Carper. I think that is a compliment.
Senator Mullin. Thank you. It is a compliment.
Senator Carper. That is as close as a compliment you are
going to get from this guy.
Senator Mullin. From me, it is probably the best you are
going to get, and I mean that sincerely, because I get the
EPA's role. It seems like the EPA just constantly looks back at
old laws that were passed, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air
Act, and continue to rewrite them, and continue to go after
agents or industry over and over and over again, and not
understanding actually the add cost or what it does to
downstream.
You say you take the economic impact, you do take that into
consideration, but you do not, because we continue to see the
ad. What Senator Ricketts was just asking you about the
vehicles, I did some quick research on it. I will let him talk
a little bit more about it.
The ad that is costing, you talk about trying to have
better fuel efficiency, but yet the rule that you guys put on
diesel trucks, which I drive every day, by making us put DEF,
diesel exhaust fluid, into it, it runs our gas mileage down,
and that actually is worse for the environment. When you see
this stuff and it spills and crystallizes all over the floor,
you can remove it from a truck, which is illegal, I understand
that, but you can take it off a truck and you will increase
your gas mileage by 20, 30, and sometimes 50 percent. You guys
do not take that into consideration, but you still continue to
push that.
Now, we have the farm industry, which, I am a rancher, we
have a cow-calf operation. We see protein prices going through
the roof, and it continues to climb. We have a hard time
finding enough markets to go to right now. We have meat packers
that are pretty consolidated right now, as we see. We see the
poultry consolidating faster for processing plants. We see the
pork industry very consolidated, and yet now, the EPA is coming
out with new guidelines for ELG.
By your own admittance, you said that this was going to
cause some plants to close. Is that good for the industry,
because on the other hand, you said you want to have, you guys
have talked about wanting to have a more resilient meat and
poultry and protein supply chain.
How is this new proposed rule that you guys are running
toward on your options for ELG, how is this positive for the
cattle market? How is this positive for consumers when you see
protein already spiking at higher prices than we have ever seen
in the history of the United States? How is this positive for
the consumer? How is this a positive move for the EPA to be
making this move right now?
Mr. Regan. I will tell you that, No. 1, I hear you loud and
clear. We are listening to our farmers and our ranchers. As we
look at----
Senator Mullin. Are you, though?
Mr. Regan. We have not finalized the rule, and we have
taken a look at what we are seeing in terms of these discharges
and trying to eliminate some of the negative environmental
impacts from these discharges, but as we look at the economic--
--
Senator Mullin. Hasn't industry done a tremendous job on
already changing a lot of their discharge? They have gone a
long ways in where they were at 50 years ago to where they are
at today, and yet, it is still not even kind of good enough, so
are you really listening to them?
Mr. Regan. Well, I will tell you, you make a very good
point. When we look at these standards, we do have people, and
the majority of the people in the industry are performing, are
doing well. We are trying to create that level playing field to
bring some of those who are not taking those additional
investments to reduce that footprint.
Senator Mullin. Administrator, why wouldn't you just work
with those individuals by themselves rather than make it a new
rule and it affecting the entire industry? This is going to
affect the entire industry, and this is going to add a
tremendous amount of cost to every dinner plate, and every
breakfast plate, and every sandwich served.
We already see in prices because the minimum wage increased
in California, where a hamburger at McDonald's is almost not
going to be affordable. In 2013, I literally got people who
were laughing when I said if we continued down this path before
long, you are going to be paying $20 for a hamburger at
McDonald's. Is it so funny now? We are dang near there.
This is going to add cost, sir, and you know it. This is
going to add a tremendous amount of cost to protein when you
could just work with the few of those bad apples rather than
changing the entire industry on how they are discharging right
now.
Mr. Regan. The industry is moving forward and updating, so
by law, we have to update our standards that match with where
industry is going, and so in order to bring----
Senator Mullin. No, they are meeting your standards today,
and you are moving the goalpost again.
Mr. Regan. Some of them, many of them, are exceeding the
standards.
Senator Mullin. Great, let them exceed. Why are you moving
the goalpost? Why do you see the need to move the goalpost? You
know, there is no way you can deny this, this is going to add
cost to protein. Yes?
Mr. Regan. We have to update the standards.
Senator Mullin. No, no, no. Is it, or is it not?
Mr. Regan. We have not finalized it, so I do not know.
Senator Mullin. You know it is going to do that.
Mr. Regan. I do not know the answer to that.
Senator Mullin. Is it going to cost the poultry and the
meat industry, is it going to cost them to upgrade and spend a
tremendous, millions of dollars? The answer to that is yes.
Mr. Regan. We have to look at the benefits, too. There are
a lot of people who are benefiting from the industry actually
moving forward and doing better.
Senator Mullin. Who is this benefiting from it?
Mr. Regan. Communities benefit from it. When you look at
the water contamination----
Senator Mullin. The communities, you mean communities that
is going to lose jobs when these industries shut down, these
plants?
Mr. Regan. We have to balance that.
Senator Mullin. These same industry, these same communities
that you say are going to benefit, are these same industries
just going to lose maybe the largest employer in their
community because they can not afford to make the changes? I am
trying to figure out where you say communities are going to
benefit.
Mr. Regan. We are talking about health benefits. We are
talking about the people that live in these communities that we
recognize do work in these facilities, but they are also
drinking the water, they are breathing the air.
We are trying to balance those public health benefits with
the jobs and the economics, and many in the industry, as you
have pointed out, are doing it the right way, but we have to
make sure----
Senator Mullin.
[Remarks off microphone.]
Senator Carper. Wait, wait, wait, wait. Your time has
expired. There is going to be a second round.
Senator Mullin. Can I have another minute, just like you
gave Mr. Kelly?
Senator Carper. You can have another round.
Senator Mullin. You gave----
Senator Carper. Go ahead. Go ahead, take a minute.
Senator Mullin. OK, thank you.
Let me just ask this, too. How do you explain this to the
people right now that are struggling to put protein on the
plates for the kids as I speak, or their families, as I speak
now, knowing that this is going to add cost? You know this is
going to add a, the industry is predicting this could add 15 to
20 percent cost to protein. How can you say that this is a
positive move for the Country?
Mr. Regan. What I would tell them is, we have a Farming and
Ranching Federal Advisory Committee and a new agricultural
office that is advising me specifically on the impacts, the
technologies available, and what this means to their
communities.
Senator Mullin. None of them are raising cattle like we do
in Oklahoma. None of your advisories are actually doing that.
They are professionals that work in colleges and universities
that have a tremendous amount of theory, but they have never
gotten crap on their boots before.
Mr. Regan. I think I will challenge you on that and provide
the details. We do have those who are farming and ranching on
the Federal Advisory Committee.
Senator Carper. OK. If you are willing to stay, I will
recognize you for another round, OK? Thank you.
Senator Markey, welcome. It is good to see you.
Senator Markey. Thank you. Good to see you.
Good to see you, Mr. Administrator. I like you, and I love
your agency, you know.
Senator Carper. The time for the gentleman has expired.
[Laughter.]
Senator Markey. I was elected in 1976, 6 years after the
agency was created, so I have been serving in Congress for 90
percent of the life expectancy of the EPA, and I know how much
longer life expectancy is in the United States today than it
was then, because of the EPA. That is a big benefit for our
society.
Mr. Administrator, congratulations on making the historic
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund awards for the National Clean
Financing Network. When I introduced the National Climate Bank
Act and when I worked with Chairman Carper on this language in
the Inflation Reduction Act, I knew this would be a
transformational program, if done right.
You did it right, Mr. Administrator, and I am leading an
appropriations letter to fight for your request on ongoing
support for oversight, as well. This climate bank money is out
the door, and it is ready to bring clean power owned by
communities onto the grid, help working families cut their
electricity bills, and leverage new private dollars into
projects that will do good for the public.
Is that a priority for your agency going forward, just to
make sure that it is up and running by the end of this year?
Mr. Regan. It absolutely is, and thank you for your
leadership and dedication. We have over 15 years focused on
this topic. We were glad to get it done. We loved doing the
visit with you in Boston to make the announcement. I feel
really good about this program.
We have consulted with all of the experts outside, inside.
We know that this capital will pull billions of dollars of
private sector capital off the sidelines. Yes, it is a
priority. We want the oversight. We are asking for the
oversight, because we know we have a solid program, so we
appreciate your support on that.
Senator Markey. Thank you. As you know, it was in Waxman-
Markey in 2009, but it took Chairman Carper to get it over the
finish line. A little bit late, but still in time to be able to
make a big difference.
Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency
finalized the Clean Cars Rule, which will help us accelerate
toward our climate targets and put the brakes on drivers'
dependence on pricey fossil fuels. I thank my colleague,
Senator Ricketts, for talking about the importance of investing
in chargers. I would love to work with you on that, just to get
them out there and make sure that people have confidence with
this range anxiety, which plays a big role in how people view
their ability to purchase a vehicle.
The rule that has been promulgated is estimated to avoid
more than seven billion metric tons of carbon pollution,
equivalent to four times the annual emissions from the entire
transportation sector, making this the single most significant
climate rule in U.S. and world history.
Administrator Regan, in addition to the climate benefits,
is this regulation going to cut costs for American drivers as
well?
Mr. Regan. Thank you for the question, Senator, and it
absolutely has proven that it will cut costs over the duration
of this regulation. I think I want to just say that it is not
just me. These car companies are running $7 million Superbowl
ads to their constituents, saying the future is hybrid and
electric.
What we have done is put together a regulation that
coincides with where technology and the market is going, so it
is not only good for the environment, but it is good for the
economy, and it will be good for people's pockets.
Senator Markey. Right. Again, it is projected to prevent
25,000 premature deaths. Big benefit.
Mr. Regan. Yes, big benefit.
Senator Markey. Also save $6,000 for a consumer over the
lifetime of that vehicle.
Last year, EPA selected 17 thriving community technical
assistance centers to provide technical support and grant
writing assistance to disadvantaged communities and grassroots
organizations interested in the Inflation Reduction Act's
historic new funding opportunities, and it is called TCTAC,
which is easy to understand. While these centers were set up
across the Country, Region 1, which serves Massachusetts and
Rhode Island, still does not have an office in our region.
Administrator Regan, would you commit to working with us to
ensure that a center that can partner with Massachusetts
environmental justice groups is stood up in Region 1 by the end
of this year?
Mr. Regan. I can do that. I know we are taking a very close
look at that and putting those wheels into motion. Yes, we can
commit to setting up that technical assistance resource for
Region 1.
Senator Markey. That would be very helpful to us.
Administrator Regan, is the recently announced
Environmental Justice Clearinghouse another tool that community
organizations can use to understand, track, and win grants from
the Inflation Reduction Act?
Mr. Regan. Absolutely. This is a multi-agency tool that we
put in place that speaks to not just the grant opportunities,
multiple grant opportunities within EPA, but the multiple grant
opportunities that span the entire Administration. This is a
sort of fingertip way of getting information on technical
assistance and training and funding opportunities, as well as
screening and mapping tools to ensure that these grants that
are submitted are competitive.
Senator Markey. Beautiful.
Mr. Administrator, when it comes to the power plant
regulations, all I can say is, all these new arguments about
carbon capture and hydrogen are a very different tune from what
we heard when working on the Inflation Reduction Act. I am glad
we have seen your strong-fought new rules, and I urge utility
lobbyists to figure out what hymnal they are singing from.
If CCS and hydrogen are off the table, I will be happy to
help my colleagues find a better use for the power sector's
billions in subsidies and support. I am glad that the
Administration and you are moving forward with those proposals.
Thank you.
Mr. Regan. Thank you, Senator. I can assure you that my
conversations with the industry assures me that CCS and
hydrogen are on the table, taking advantage of tax credits and
resources from IRA, and that I and we should ensure that there
is a future for those specific technologies.
Senator Markey. They are interested and enthusiastic?
Mr. Regan. They are interested and enthusiastic, and as I
said earlier, the tension points that are happening are based
on timing and percentages, not whether we pursue it and how we
do it.
Senator Markey. Got it, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Senator Markey, thanks so much for joining
us and for your good work on a number of these issues.
Senator Lummis, welcome. Great to see you.
Senator Lummis. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Regan, welcome. Given your background in
State government, I really held a measure of hope that you
would lead the EPA with policies that were grounded in reality
and in the States and maintain a healthy perspective of the
hardworking American families who work and live under your
rules and regulations, but that hasn't happened.
People in Wyoming are struggling with rising prices in
every area of their lives, and what the policy prescriptions
do, and what we see from the EPA and this Administration, is a
torrent of regulation that you know will lead to scarcity and
higher costs, because you are restricting baseload energy.
Let's start with the Clean Power Plan 2.0, which forces
coal and gas-fired plants to close down if they do not spend
billions of dollars and meet unrealistic targets. These metrics
are not achievable. Facts and rational arguments have been
presented to the EPA, but they are rebuffed.
For this Administration, ideology wins at all costs, and
the costs will be great as gas and coal-fired power plants
account for around 60 percent of our Nation's electricity, at a
time when EVs are going to be consuming more electricity, at a
time when cloud computing is consuming more electricity, at a
time when artificial intelligence will be consuming more
electricity.
The State of Wyoming abounds with resources to fuel our
Nation's current and future energy needs. Wyoming and our
Nation are global leaders in clean energy. It is absolutely
surreal to see the EPA devaState energy production even as
energy demands increase for more data centers, artificial
intelligence, and your own EV mandates.
The Supreme Court ruled against the EPA for overstepping
its authority on the first Clean Power Plan, and rightly so,
because Congress did not grant the EPA sweeping authority to
regulate the Nation's generation and uses of electricity. Left
unchecked, the EPA has the power to destroy livelihoods,
annihilate jobs, and wreck the economy.
Evidently, that is your agenda. You said so yourself,
stating that when, and now I am quoting, ``when you get an
expedited facility retirement, that is the best tool for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.'' I join many of my
colleagues in anticipation that this attack on energy is
overturned again by the Supreme Court.
Now, the EPA also just finalized rules to force a
transition to electric vehicles. It is astonishing that the
Federal Government is telling Americans what kind of vehicles
to drive and pushing an agenda that does not work outside of
major urban areas. As with Clean Power Plans 1 and 2, you have
exceeded your authority. Congress did not direct you to mandate
electric vehicles.
Wyoming is a rural, high-altitude State of nearly 100,000
square miles with famously harsh weather conditions. People in
Wyoming frequently drive long distances. My ranch and my farm
are 400 miles apart, and yet they are still in Wyoming. Their
livelihoods depend on affordable, reliable vehicles, and that
means a gas or diesel-powered car or truck, or natural gas.
The average EV is over $10,000 more expensive than the
average gas-powered car, and they do not work at altitude. They
do not work when it is that cold, and they do not work when you
can not get them charged, because there are no charging
stations.
Judging by the numbers, Americans do not want EVs. EV sales
are around 6 or 7 percent, and dealerships are saying to pump
the brakes on electric vehicles. For the good of the Country,
pull the plug on this mandate.
Last, and I am just scratching the surface on the EPA's
overreach, I will mention PFAS. All of us value clean drinking
water. That is not the issue. The EPA's regulatory approach
through CERCLA was flawed from the beginning and leaves
innocent parties vulnerable for the cost liabilities.
I will tell you, and I know my time is running out, justice
and fairness dictate that we seek a polluter pays approach.
Instead, EPA has placed the financial burden on little passive
receivers like water utilities, industries, and people who did
not create the PFAS substances. You would force rural water
providers and ratepayers to bear those costs, and they are
already feeling the squeeze from the economy and other Federal
mandates.
In closing, Administrator Regan, I urge you to consider the
real-world individual and cumulative impacts of these
regulations by any reasonable standard. Within constitutional,
representative government, these go too far.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thanks for letting me unload.
Senator Chairman. There is not much to yield back.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. We are being visited by a lot of young
people in the audience here today, Mr. Administrator. It is
great to see all of them. They have probably the biggest stake
in what we are talking about here today. Are we going to have a
planet today, are we going to have a planet to grow up on and
grow old on, and will they have the opportunity to have good
jobs to support themselves and their families as the rest of us
have? We welcome all of you.
With that in mind, let me say to Senator Whitehouse,
welcome. It is great to see you.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
Welcome, Administrator. What timeframe can you commit to
for the existing power plants part of the power plant rule, the
existing gas-fired power plants?
Mr. Regan. Yes. We are working on that process right now,
and we have engaged our stakeholders to start that formal
process. We are going to move as quickly as possible.
Senator Whitehouse. Can you commit to any endpoint at all?
Mr. Regan. Well, it is too early for me to just throw out a
date, so what I would like to do is be able to provide you a
date that is grounded in the facts of how the process is going
to be designed and going.
Senator Whitehouse. We have given you authority to regulate
methane emissions, and we have required in the law that you
use, and I am quoting the law here, ``empirical data,'' which
means that you are supposed to actually measure it, correct?
Mr. Regan. Yes.
Senator Whitehouse. That is what empirical means. Has EPA
historically underestimated methane leakage from the fossil
fuels sector?
Mr. Regan. Not just EPA, but I think most have
underestimated methane leakage.
Senator Whitehouse. EPA for sure has?
Mr. Regan. Yes.
Senator Whitehouse. EPA did so because it relied on
industry reporting in order to come to its numbers, correct?
Mr. Regan. I wouldn't say solely on industry reporting, but
I think that industry reporting informed our measurements, yes.
Senator Whitehouse. Yes, and the result was underreporting.
Now, in 2018, which is five-plus years ago, EDF first
reported that EPA's methane numbers were too low. EDF reported
likely methane leak numbers that were 60 percent higher than
your GHG inventory numbers. Two years later, Penn State
reported further, as the science developed, and said that
methane leaks were two times higher than EPA was relying on.
Stanford last year has put out its own research showing that
methane leakage is likely three times higher than EPA has been
relying on.
One of the things that we asked you to do was to acquire
satellite data, and we appropriated money to do that. What is
the status of EPA's acquisition of satellite data? Do you
presently have access to satellite data for methane leaks?
Mr. Regan. I do know that we have started a process to
acquire. We are leveraging the acquisition of satellite data
from some of our sister agencies, like NASA and others.
Senator Whitehouse. Like NASA? When do you think you are
going to have actual access to satellite data?
Mr. Regan. I will have to get back to you on that specific
timeline, but what I can say is, and you will see this in the
actions that we have taken, as we use the resources that you
have given us, and we put out this call for competitions to
look at the best technologies, you will see that satellite data
is specified as something that we want to consider in our
acquisition, along with our Federal family, to be sure that we
are all working with the same numbers.
Senator Whitehouse. At a minimum, satellite data puts up a
pretty good flag for further inquiry about methane leaks that
you can do through drones, aircraft, or on-ground measuring,
correct?
Mr. Regan. Correct.
Senator Whitehouse. Are you currently deploying that
satellite information to trigger those further investigative
methods?
Mr. Regan. We are looking at all the options above.
Senator Whitehouse. OK. There is a point where looking at
it has to end, and doing it has to begin.
Mr. Regan. I will say, you have cited 2018, 2019, 2020. I
think there are a number of years where the agency was
prevented from pursuing the pursuit of climate change gases.
With the resources that you all have appropriated since 2021
and under this Administration, I will say that we have moved as
aggressively as we possibly can, and we will continue to do so.
Senator Whitehouse. On the enforcement side, some time ago,
the Administration announced that it was putting together a
methane task force, which, as a proposition, makes a lot of
sense. If you have satellite data that points at methane leaks
and allows for further investigative methods to be deployed or
if it is reliable enough simply pursued on that basis, you
might want to be talking to the Department of Justice about
what their capabilities are with respect to enforcement. You
might want to be talking to the Department of Interior about
what they as landlords and permitters can do to push those
leaks.
What is your view right now of that methane task force, how
often it meets, how often your team meets with Interior and DOJ
people, whether there is an actual war-room type setup for the
task force to be operating through in a cooperative way?
Mr. Regan. I will say that when the President stepped out
in 2021 and cited methane and the methane pledge as priorities,
all of the agencies have been working to focus on this. When we
look at the methane regulation, the most aggressive methane
regulation this agency has ever finalized, that set the new bar
for some of the ways we could enforce these actions.
There is a constant conversation and relationship, very
close relationship, with the Department of Justice on looking
at how we enforce our regulations. With Interior as well as DOE
and others, we have all received resources from the Inflation
Reduction Act. As we look at how we develop those grants, use
the information, use the data and the technology, we are trying
to be sure that we are leveraging all of our resources together
in this whole-of-government approach.
It does take coordination, but I think the development of
enforcement, regulations, and these grant programs is being
done in concert with not just DOJ from an enforcement
standpoint, but DOE and Interior, and others as well.
Senator Whitehouse. My time has expired.
Senator Carper. Thanks for those questions, Senator
Whitehouse.
We have been joined by Senator Padilla.
Before I recognize you, Senator Padilla, let me ask
unanimous consent to submit for the record materials, including
a statement from our President on the strength of the United
States' economy. According to that data, over 15 million jobs
have been created since he took office. That is more than the
populations of Delaware, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New
Hampshire, Oklahoma, and West Virginia combined.
With today's unemployment rate under 4 percent, the U.S.
ties the record for the longest consecutive monthly streak set
in the late 1960's. It has been under 4 percent now for more
than 27 months in a row. Inflation has been under 4 percent for
more than 2 years, and it has fallen by 10 percentage points
since its height in 2021.
Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Carper. Sometimes, I have a friend, they ask him,
compared to what? He will say, compared to what? Compared to
what, those are some pretty good numbers.
I yield to Senator Padilla. Thank you for joining us. You
are recognized.
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Administrator Regan,
I want to start by thanking you and your staff at the EPA for
your collaboration, not just with my office, but a lot of State
and local leaders in California on the many pressing chemical
cleanup, clean water and clean air challenges that we face in
California.
You know from our discussions and my many letters to you
and to the agency that I have been consistently focused on how
to reduce emissions, especially across the transportation and
goods movement sectors, so I am so grateful for EPA's recent
rulemakings on light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles. I understand
they have gotten the attention of some of my colleagues on the
committee on the other side of the aisle.
I want to ask you, Mr. Administrator, can you take a moment
to reaffirm not just for me but for my friends on the other
side of the aisle that the final emissions rules for both light
and heavy-duty vehicles do not, in fact, ban conventional
combustion engines?
Mr. Regan. They absolutely do not.
Senator Padilla. Thank you. Clear, concise.
Can you now spend a minute or two and emphasize the
benefits of these rules to communities across the Country, not
just those in California, but across the Country, and the
people who live in these goods movement corridors?
Mr. Regan. We know that there are over 72 million Americans
that live along these corridors that are disproportionately
impacted by these emissions, especially from our heavy-duty
vehicles. On the HDV side, the final standards will provide
over $13 billion in annual benefits to society. There are a lot
of people that will be breathing cleaner air and living a
healthier life because of these rules.
Again, I think we have done it in a way where we have
looked at the technology. It is not just us. I think, as I said
before, the automobile industry is running $7 million Superbowl
ads talking about the benefits of these technologies. We have
aligned our regulations with where technology and the market is
going, and if we do not do it, we will be beholden to China. We
need to have these rules in place, improve our health and our
environment, and we need to manufacture these components
domestically.
Senator Padilla. Thank you.
Just to underscore a statistic that can get lost on some, I
believe you said about 72 million Americans?
Mr. Regan. Seventy-two million Americans.
Senator Padilla. Live along these goods movements
corridors. That is getting close to about 20 percent of the
national population.
Mr. Regan. It is significant.
Senator Padilla. An idea, a policy that can improve the
lives, the health, the well-being of one in five Americans in
one fell swoop is hugely consequential.
Now, in addition to all that work, I know, and I know you
know, that we can not stop with cars and trucks, given the
significant pollution stemming from the rest of the freight
system. California's ports, as busy as they are and as
successful as they are, along with our freight system, move the
goods that fuel not just the local and regional, but truly, our
national economy.
Yet, it is California communities that bear the burdens of
the poor air quality and harmful climate impacts that come with
goods movement. That is why I have consistently called on the
EPA, as you know, to do more to reduce the emissions from
locomotives and ships and planes and off-road equipment, as
well.
The EPA and the Administration do deserve a lot of credit
for launching two efforts just this past month and a half to do
just that. The Administration launched a zero emission freight
corridor strategy to help guide the deployment of zero
emissions infrastructure along freight highways, and you
followed up last month by setting a national goal of a zero
emissions freight sector.
Now, a national strategy encompassing the whole freight
sector, including heavy-duty vehicles, ships, trains, and more
will help significantly in reducing these harmful impacts on
air quality, climate change, and public health while improving
American economic competitiveness and accelerating job
creation. We have seen it happen in California. We want to
really scale up.
Mr. Administrator, can you describe what the next steps are
that the EPA plans to take to implement both the freight
corridor funding strategy and the national goal of achieving a
zero emission freight sector?
Mr. Regan. I will say, this is a very important topic. I
have spent time in Georgia, New Jersey, California just
visiting with these ports. This strategy is so important, and
it is important that I, along with DOT and many of the Federal
family are working together with the consolidated strategy.
I would say that, in addition to that strategy, where we
are with the next steps is thanks to your leadership and the
leadership of many in this committee. We have $3 billion in
grants that we are going to begin to dedicate to these ports to
invest in these technologies and these vehicles and the like.
Our ports want to be globally competitive. They know the
future is driven by technology. They have welcomed this
strategy and these investments with open arms. I think not only
are we going to make this Country or keep this Country globally
competitive, we are going to save a lot of lives, and we are
going to reduce a lot of hospital visits.
Senator Padilla. Thank you very much. We have set ambitious
goals. You visited; we have invested. We are setting more
ambitious goals. You are going to continue to visit. I look
forward to seeing you soon back in California.
Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Senator Padilla.
We have been joined by Senator Sullivan. Before I recognize
him, I just want to ask a quick question.
Administrator Regan, when you were the nominee of this
President, you were questioned about your willingness to visit
States. Not just the States that are represented here in this
committee, but those who are not represented on this committee.
I asked my staff to find out how many States you have visited
thus far. I am told that you have made, as of this week, 116
visit to 38 States, and between you and the Deputy
Administrator at EPA, you have visited a total of 45 States.
I think I speak for all of us, a special thanks, whether we
agree with you on every single policy that we are discussing
today, the fact that you have made the time to come to our
States again and again is much appreciated and acknowledged, so
thank you for that.
I want to yield now to Senator Sullivan. Welcome.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Administrator, good to see you. Thank you, by the way,
in terms of States you are visiting, for coming up to Alaska. I
know you had a good visit last summer. We would welcome you
back.
I am just going to talk very briefly. Mr. Chairman, I do
want to, you know we had a bit of a contentious exchange last
week. I do want to keep working with your team, your staff, and
the minority staff on this committee to work with my office on
that issue we raised.
We have not gotten any data or anything from your team, and
I would like that. I think I am, out of courtesy, I think I
deserve that, and my constituency. There are a lot of people
who are watching what your staff was doing to my State when I
was home over the weekend, and nobody was happy about it. I
would like to not continue that debate, but I do want your
staff to come and brief me, personally, on what they are up to.
Mr. Administrator, I also want to just touch on one of the
issues. You are not doing it so much, but in this committee, I
need to do it. So many decisions that the Biden Administration
takes, particularly as it relates to Alaska and the so-called
environment are lawless. The President 2 weeks ago announced
that he was going to shut down the Ambler Road, which had
already been approved in the EIS to the Ambler Mining District,
one of the biggest critical mineral districts in the Country.
A Federal law in 1980 actually mandates that that road be
permitted. I can read you the language. I am just going to
submit it. This is ANILCA Section 201(b), I would like to
submit it for the record, mandates it. The Biden Administration
violated that law.
The Biden Administration on ANWR, which we got done, I
submitted a letter to Secretary Haaland on May 2d, 2024. I
would like to submit that to the record.
ANWR, which we got into law, to have two lease sales
required, mandated, by the Congress, in a law. Secretary
Haaland just said she was going to ignore those leases; cancel
them.
Interestingly, there was a FOIA request, and even the Biden
OMB went back to Secretary Haaland saying, geez, where do you
have the legal authority to do this, Madam Secretary? That is
in this letter. The Biden Administration is asking her, you can
not do that. She is doing it. That is violating the law.
This, I would like to submit it for the record, 63
Executive Orders and Executive Actions targeting my State, the
State of Alaska, 63 from this Administration, singularly
focused on Alaska. Most of them are lawless.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sullivan. By the way, most of them hurt the
indigenous population of my State. Twenty percent of Alaska is
indigenous. It is a little rich when I keep hearing about the
focus of this Administration on environmental justice, helping
Indigenous communities, when they come after my State so much
and hurt the Native people.
I am going to get to that with you, Mr. Administrator, but
I do want to ask, West Virginia v. EPA, did you read that
Supreme Court Case?
Mr. Regan. Yes.
Senator Sullivan. I can not remember, are you a lawyer?
Mr. Regan. No, thankfully.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sullivan. Yes. I was going to comment. There are
not a lot of good lawyers in the Biden Administration, since
they violate the law all the damn time, but I will give you a
pass on that.
With regard to agency rules, it said the agency must point
to a clear congressional authorization for the power it claims.
This new NEPA rule, I know it didn't come from you,
Administrator, but do you think that that was something that
the Congress granted the Administration authority to rewrite
NEPA?
Mr. Regan. I can not say that I have dived into the NEPA
rule. It is not in our agency, but I trust my colleagues have
followed the law. I do know that we have a part of the NEPA
process, and we feel comfortable with our part of the process.
Senator Sullivan. I think the lawyers and even the good
lawyers and even the non-lawyers, even the bad lawyers, need to
reread West Virginia v. EPA. It is a really important case.
Let me get to something more positive with you. I really
appreciate you meeting with our Alaskan Native communities,
particularly on the contaminated lands issues, and you know the
whole history there. You and I have talked about it.
We are working on it. Senator Kelly and I have legislation
that we are trying to get through this committee and the WRDA
bill relating to Indian tribes in Arizona, lower 48, and
Alaska. We want to authorize the EPA and the Army Corps to
enter into an agreement with Indian Tribes and Alaska Native
Tribes for the purposes of compensatory mitigation for a
permitted activity under the 404 program. You and I have talked
about it before. I know it came up in that roundtable you had
in Anchorage.
Would you support that idea, Mr. Administrator, and can you
work with me and Senator Kelly on that idea?
Mr. Regan. We would be happy to provide technical
assistance and work with Congress on those ideas, yes.
Senator Sullivan. How about, would the EPA support, again,
kind of the same category, a categorical exclusion for Alaska
contaminated lands programs? That comes under NEPA review.
Maybe, if that is too quick a question, I can submit that for
the record for more detail to get your answer.
Mr. Regan. Yes, I was going to say, let us dig into that. I
would love for our staffs to talk through that one.
Senator Sullivan. Then, I know in the President's budget,
there was a significant amount of money on contaminated lands
cleanup, but I will ask you, because I want to be respectful
here.
For the record, what other resources or authorities does
the EPA need to help cleanup these Native lands, which,
remember, the Native people in Alaska got the lands from the
Feds, 44 million acres, in the biggest land settlement for
Native people probably in the history of the world, and a lot
of it was contaminated.
We worked together, the Chairman and I, to say, well, a
couple years ago, at least CERCLA does not apply. These Alaska
Native groups can not be liable, since the Federal Government
gave them polluted land. Are there other resources or
authorities you need to help cleanup these Native lands that
are contaminated in Alaska?
It is a top priority of mine, and I know you learned a lot
about this when you were in Alaska. Again, I really appreciate
you taking the time to meet with the different Native groups
that were impacted and do the due diligence on this really
unjust situation.
Mr. Regan. Yes.
Senator Carper. Administrator Regan, I am going to ask you
to be brief in your response, and then we are going to
recognize Senator Fetterman.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Regan. Yes. Thank you for hosting that meeting. I think
you and I and Senator Murkowski announced $150 million going
toward some of this cleanup. There is more that we can tap in
both BIL and IRA. We should talk about how we do that.
Senator Sullivan. OK, I will submit those for the record
for more detailed answers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. You bet.
Senator Fetterman, welcome. Good to see you.
Senator Fetterman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
the opportunity to talk to an expert on all of this.
I am in Pennsylvania, and some people across the Nation
really do not know what a brownfield is. A brownfield, would
you like to give an exact definition?
Mr. Regan. Yes. These brownfields are sites that have been
contaminated, that qualify for programs where we can clean
these brownfields up, whether they are abandoned warehouses or
gas stations that typically are blights in our communities, and
we can turn them into economic engines.
Senator Fetterman. Absolutely, absolutely. Sometimes they
can be smaller than you were referencing, or they can be really
large. They can be a couple hundred acres and everything.
I am in western Pennsylvania, and I literally am surrounded
by brownfields. At one point last century, that was the engine
that really helped shape American society and was about half of
the world's steel output. Now, they are abandoned and left,
really, kind of to hold the bag.
The investments, the proactive kinds of investments on
these brownfields, have now allowed struggling communities to
emerge from bankruptcy. I literally live next door to one, the
Carrie Furnace site, as well. It is magnificent.
Now, it is actually going to be a national historic site of
steeling. It is the last standing example of that kind of a
blast furnace. Those are the kind of investments that help the
communities that created so much of an investment and output
for the history of our Nation. That is one of my priorities
here, as a Pennsylvania Senator, is to continue that, because
there are more and more sites like that in Allegheny County,
where I live, but Pennsylvania, it is a story across all of it.
You run a very large agency, and I am not going to throw a
lot at you. I just hope the one thing to take away from that is
just how critical brownfield funding for Pennsylvania
absolutely is. It is the lifeline for communities like
Duquesne, like Braddock, like Rankin, like Swissvale, like West
Homestead, Munhall. All of these, and now without those kinds
of investments, those fallow sites would not have had anything
done for 30, 40, 50 years. It has really created an amazing
impact on that.
If you have 5 minutes, that is an opportunity to talk to an
expert like yourself. That really means everything. It is
almost kind of, somewhat related to my colleague from Alaska,
that it is land that has a lot of great value, but it needs a
lot of remediation, as well, those invest in forgotten or
communities that were left behind. This really is a very, very
critical program.
If there is anything I can do to be more of an effective
advocate for that, I really am here. I would like any feedback
on that, and I want to thank you for your agency's investments
to do that, and it is not just Pennsylvania. There are a lot of
others de-industrializing, some States, that we all need those
kinds of investments.
I would like to, if you have any observations, I cede the
time to yourself, and I thank you for your Administration's
work on all of it.
Mr. Regan. I appreciate your laser focus on this, and we
appreciate the resources that we receive from the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law to supercharge this. I think we have awarded
over $250 million toward our Brownfields Program. That is the
largest in EPA's history.
Just a great example is in Pittsburgh, we worked with the
State, vacant property, two gas stations that were converted
into affordable senior living with cafes and the like. We see
this as a huge opportunity not to leave any communities behind.
We will continue to work with your staff to be sure that we are
prioritizing these investments, but there is a win-win
opportunity there, as you have articulated.
Senator Fetterman. Yes, and I have a little bit, about 30
seconds left, and I would just say, more, more, and more. Thank
you for those kind of investments. I am pleased. As a former
mayor of one of those small communities, I cannot possibly
express how critical those investments are to allow these
communities to move forward, because without those kinds of
help, they would continue to deteriorate and certainly not ever
be able to prosper and come into a new phase.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regan. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Senator Fetterman, thanks so much for
joining us. I think your perspective, I know my perspective as
a former Governor informs me in the work that I do every day,
and I am sure your experience as a former mayor and, if I am
not mistaken, a Lieutenant Governor as well, and husband,
father, all of that helps inform us for the work that we do.
I have a couple questions I want to ask. I am going to
yield to Senator Capito. After that, Senator Cramer, and
Senator Ricketts may be trying to come back and join us for a
second round. Are you up to that?
Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
Senator Carper. OK. Do we have to pay you overtime? I hope
not.
Mr. Regan. More like hazard pay, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Some days, it might seem that way. I got a
couple of questions. Let me just ask one of them, but I think
you recently announced the selections of eight entities to
administer some $20 billion in funding from the Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund created in the Inflation Reduction Act. Take a
minute and just explain to people who might be tuned in around
the Country, when we talk about the Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Fund, what are we talking about?
Mr. Regan. Well, we are thankful for the Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund, $20 billion focused on ensuring that the
average American can participate in the low carbon
transformation, whether than be an energy efficient home or
appliances, investing in those types of things.
Twenty billion dollars, we work with the Department of
Treasury, HUD, those that specialize in clean energy financing
underwriting. We spend some time with private equity,
commercial banking, just to be sure that as we design this
program, we do it in a transparent way that demonstrated that
the government could put its money where its mouth is, and if
we do, can we bring hundreds of billions of dollars of private
capital off the sideline. I believe we have accomplished that.
We created an excellent competition that selected eight
grantees that are responsible for leveraging that capital.
We have a ton of transparency metrics and oversight built
into that, and you will notice, and it was raised earlier that
we have asked for resources in this budget to continue to do
so. I try to meet as frequently as possible with our Inspector
General. He has indicated that there could be a usage of
additional resources there for IRA, and so we are trying to
oblige that. To demonstrate that, we want to be as transparent
as possible so that as many Americans as possible can benefit
from these investments.
Senator Carper. Thanks. Let me ask a question about TSCA
implementation. We had a hearing here about a year ago with
respect to the implementation of TSCA legislation that a number
of us helped write, the Toxic Substances Control Act that has
been in effect for a couple of years.
It was a disappointing hearing, and basically, it was very
clear that we have a lot of work still to do. Part of what we
heard from the senior staff who were here to speak on the issue
was the resources. Human resources that were needed to help do
the job simply weren't there.
One of the reasons why we are providing, the President is
asking for additional resources, additional people, is in part
to be able to do the work that Congress has said needs to be
done with respect to the Toxic Substances Control Act. We
charged EPA with this demanding responsibility. It is also our
responsibility to ensure that EPA has the appropriate resources
to implement TSCA as intended.
What impacts would the Fiscal Year 2024 funding levels have
on the TSCA program, and would you please give us a sense of
what EPA could accomplish if the agency received the full
budget request from the President for the TSCA program, as well
as maximized revenue collections through the recently updated
fees rule?
Mr. Regan. Yes. Well, thank you, Chairman. This is one of
the ones that I scratch my head on. We received small increases
to focus on TSCA in 2022 and 2023, and we more than doubled the
number of chemical reviews that we were doing each month. We
were really trying to honor the essence of what Congress asked
us to do with TSCA.
I think that with this cut, we are just going to see slower
approval of new chemistries, especially those companies that
want to propel the semi-conductor automotive and battery
sectors. It is just going to gum up the system. We need the
resources; we need the bodies to do so.
Before 2016, before this TSCA revisit that you all
championed, EPA was looking at about a 20 percent rate in these
reviews. TSCA now requires that we do 100 percent. In order to
keep pace with the economy and moving forward, we need to
review these chemicals each and every month, and it does not
make sense to cut that funding now.
Senator Carper. Thank you for that.
I have another question or two to ask you, but I am going
to yield to Senator Capito for any questions that she has.
Senator Capito. Great, thank you.
Let me ask you, I asked you this in Appropriations and
mentioned it again, and then it was asked again about the Green
Bank oversight accountability. Can you give me in specific
details two examples of accountability mechanisms the agency is
developing for these final agreements, specifically?
Mr. Regan. Yes, there are a number.
Senator Capito. Just two.
Mr. Regan. Yes, first and foremost, with the Green Bank,
there is a transparency aspect to this that focuses on basic
transactions underwriting. It is aligned with most banking
protocol, but these investments must go to recipients that can
demonstrate not only a leverage of capital, but must get
specific reductions from carbon or climate warming pollutants.
When we think about just the level of transparency and the
process, it is very clear, it is very concise that they are
held accountable to use the resources that they are given to
get certain reductions according to traditional banking
approaches.
Senator Capito. You have, I think you have, what, 20 people
that are overseeing this, right, in your department? About 20?
Mr. Regan. I believe that is, yes, about 20 individuals.
Senator Capito. They are looking specifically at how people
are enumerating carbon reduction and whether they can leverage
by banking standards?
Mr. Regan. Those 20, which some are term limited, because
that is the way IRA laid it out, were responsible for designing
and connecting and creating the program. We now have to do the
maintenance and the implementation. Some of the resources we
are asking for is beyond the design phase. It is really to be
sure that during the implantation phase----
Senator Capito. Right, that is what I am worried about.
Mr. Regan [continuing]. we are very, very transparent, and
so we have asked for resources for that. We have also asked for
resources for the Inspector General's office, because I see
them as a partner.
Senator Capito. Well, that was left out of the IRA. It was
put in for the Department of Energy, but not for EPA.
Mr. Regan. What we at EPA want to do is be transparent and
responsible with the resources that Congress has given us.
Senator Capito. That is the correct statement, though,
right? Right.
Let me ask you about the issue about TMDLs in West
Virginia. This is a specific West Virginia. I mentioned in my
opening statement, they announced the agency was entering into
a consent decree with the Sierra Club to impose TMDL on 11
streams in West Virginia.
Here is what the West Virginia DEP said in their statement:
``As the primary regulator of water quality in the State of
West Virginia, the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection is flummoxed''--I love that they used the word
flummoxed, I do not know why I think that is sort of humorous,
but anyway, they are flummoxed as to why it has been kept in
the dark regarding a proposed settlement, which had been months
in the making.
The department is even more astounded that the EPA has
apparently decided, in contrast to the prior litigation and
without any advance notice to the department, not to mount any
kind of defense to the allegations leveled in the plaintiff's
complaint.
Do you agree that the agency's decision to keep West
Virginia in the dark is troubling?
Mr. Regan. I absolutely disagree with keeping West Virginia
in the dark. In 2015, the courts stipulated to EPA and the
State of West Virginia the results of that case that we
contested. We have had, collectively, EPA and West Virginia,
since 2015 to resolve this problem, yet the agency nor West
Virginia could come to a solution.
We are running up against a timeline that a judge has given
me. What our agency did was we entered into the settlement,
which we are legally obligated to do, and we got your letter
about extending the comment period----
Senator Capito. Which you did, thank you.
Mr. Regan. We are going to extend that, but I just have to
push back. I am a former State regulator. We would never do
anything where we just ice out the State. From 2015 to 2024,
that is a long time.
Senator Capito. Well, they apparently disagree with that.
Let me go to the State regulator thing, back to the Good
Neighbor rule that we were talking about earlier, where the 23
States developed, and you know more about the technicalities of
this, the State implementation plans. Two were rejected
outright, and then 21 were rejected by you, blanket rejected,
on the same day or exactly the same time when the Federal
implementation plan came forward.
Did this kind of scenario ever happen to you as a State
regulator, when you were not regulating in this space, but
somewhere else, where you had a State implementation plan, it
was rejected, and a Federal one came right in on top of it?
Isn't the usual way to do it is to work with the States to say
your State implementation plan is falling short here, there?
Let's make adjustments, instead of just outright rejection? Has
this ever happened to you when you were a State regulator?
Mr. Regan. I have never been surprised that a State
implementation plan was either at a crossroads or not meeting
the expectations of the Federal Government.
Senator Capito. No, that is not what I am asking. I am
asking, were you, as a State regulator, ever a party to having
a blanket rejection like this?
Mr. Regan. Yes, during the last Administration.
Senator Capito. Yes?
Mr. Regan. On a whole host of issues, I attempted to work
with the Trump Administration, and we worked through it.
Irrespective of the party who is in charge----
Senator Capito. Well, right, well, this is not the option.
They are not getting the option to work through it. You are
just coming in and telling them the Federal plan. It is getting
challenging for them.
Mr. Regan. The Federal plan is in place until a State plan
is agreed upon.
Senator Capito. You rejected all the State plans.
Mr. Regan. Well, but this is the thing, though, you and I--
--
Senator Capito. I do not even get the sense that you had
State regulators here. We didn't get the sense, the State
regulators didn't get the sense that there was any kind of
discussion going on here. It was just no.
Mr. Regan. Even when I was a State regulator, I recognized
my limitations in negotiating with the Federal Government. If
they rejected it once, I didn't resubmit the same homework.
Senator Capito. Well, no, but you got a chance to resubmit
to have something else before a Federal plan would come in on
top of you. Correct? That is the point I am trying to make.
Mr. Regan. It depends on the timeframe that we are looking
at, and I think when you look at the Good Neighbor Rule, in
order to fend off litigation from other States who have been
asking for this relief for multiple years, we have to use the
tools that we have.
The State implementation plan has been available for those
State secretaries for a number of years. They didn't get the
job done. Now, there is a Federal plan in place until they can
negotiate those State implementation plans. It is not a closed
door.
Senator Capito. Well, it will not be, because the courts
are going to come in and tell you you have overextended your
authorities here, and you have to give the States the ability
to do exactly what you are saying, rework their plans so that
they can meet the standards that the Federal Government wants.
Thank you very much.
Senator Carper. Sure. You may want to continue this
conversation beyond the walls of this room.
Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
Senator Carper. I am sure you would welcome that
opportunity, Senator Capito.
OK, we have been rejoined by Senator Ricketts. Thanks for
coming back.
Senator Ricketts. My pleasure, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
much for allowing a second round of questions so I can continue
the conversation you were just talking about.
Senator Carper. You bet.
Senator Ricketts. Administrator Regan, we talked about,
when I was doing the questioning earlier that when it comes to
the 85 grams per mile, we are going to followup on the current
vehicles, gas, diesel, hybrids, in the 2024 model year, any
make of those, so I think that, because you said you had
conversations with car makers on that. You also said that we
were on track with regard to charging stations, so we will
followup on that.
One of the questions I wanted to also ask you is, I presume
that you do expect there to be a greater mix of both plug-in
hybrids and electric vehicles to be able to make the 85 gram
rule. Has your agency done any work with regard to the
additional power generation that will be needed to be able to
do that?
Mr. Regan. We have, yes.
Senator Ricketts. What do you project the amount of new
power generation to be required by, say, 2032 to be able to
meet the demand or meets the needs of however many more
electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids?
Mr. Regan. We can provide you those statistics, those
details.
Senator Ricketts. What about transmission lines, have you
done that as well, looked at transmission lines?
Mr. Regan. We have worked in close concert with the
Department of Energy, who is investing tremendously into those
transmission lines. Yes, the thorough analysis of the demand,
meeting that demand, reliability, we have done a thorough
analysis of how all of our rules impact the grid in all of
those areas, and we would be happy to provide those details to
you and your staff.
Senator Ricketts. OK, but you do not know off the top of
your head how much more power generation on a percent basis we
are going to need?
Mr. Regan. No, that is not a number I retained.
Senator Ricketts. I presume, again, the power generation
you are talking about also takes into consideration that you
have your Clean Power Plan 2.0, which Ranking Member Capito has
already talked about, is going to put constraints on coal
plants, essentially putting them out of business, natural gas
plants as well it is going to constrain.
Your power generation plans are going to take into
consideration all of that. Is that accurate?
Mr. Regan. The power plant strategy, I want to be very
clear, it is not a Clean Power Plan 2.0. This is a power plant
strategy that I have talked with the industry about over 2
years, and yes, it takes into account the generation and the
demand, the reliability, and the cost.
Senator Ricketts. All right. Now, I also want to get into
your modelling when you are talking about, how do you get to
that 85 grams per mile. I believe what you model is that EVs
are charged with 100 percent renewable energy. Is that correct?
Mr. Regan. I would have to get back to you on that. I do
not know if we model it at 100 percent renewable energy. I do
not think we would do that.
Senator Ricketts. OK, do you know what State has the
highest percentage of its energy coming from renewable energy?
Mr. Regan. I do not.
Senator Ricketts. It is Iowa. I presume, since you didn't
know it was Iowa, you do not know what percentage it is,
either. Do you?
Mr. Regan. No, I do not think our rule is predicated on a
State generating 100 percent renewable energy. Your question is
sort of so out there, it is throwing me off. That is why I am
responding like that.
Senator Ricketts. OK, so the point is, your model calls for
all EVs being charged, my understanding is, that it is from 100
percent renewable energy. Iowa is the leading State for
generating electricity from renewable energy, and it is at 60
percent. Nebraska, actually, is pretty good. I think we rank
number 12. We are at 31.7 percent.
Where you have a lot of EV use here on the east coast, the
States of Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, and
Pennsylvania, they are all under 5 percent of their electricity
coming from renewable energy. New York, they are actually doing
better. They are at 7.2 percent. Massachusetts, and I am sorry
Senator Markey is not here, because they are actually, on the
east coast, one of the leaders, at 16 percent.
My point being is that your model is a lie if it is relying
on, if you are telling the American public you are charging
your EV and it is with renewable energy, that is just not true,
because most States are not generating that much of their
electricity from renewable energy.
If you are thinking you are saving carbon because, and you
are giving car manufacturers credit for having an EV, assuming
that it is powered by renewable energy, it is just not true. It
is just not true. We have got to be able to tell the American
people the truth about how these models work.
Mr. Regan. I am not accepting what you are promoting here.
If you look at our power plant strategy, it is not 100 percent
renewable energy, and we know that our power plant strategy is
going to electrify this Country. That is the purpose of best
management practices and technology.
Senator Ricketts. That is how it interacts, but I am not
talking about the power plant strategy, I am talking about
charging EVs and plug-in hybrids.
Mr. Regan. How else do you provide power to those EVs
absent than the power sector?
Senator Ricketts. Right. My point is, if you are assuming
that the EVs are charged by renewable energy, it is actually
not true, right? It is partially true, but it is not totally
true.
Mr. Regan. I contest that our model is making that
assumption. Our modeling, when we look at our power generation,
our power sector and what that means in terms of affordability
and reliability on the grid, and you overlay that with our cars
and trucks rule, I am not aware that any of our modelling says,
ignore all of the generation from clean natural gas, from using
hydrogen, from using CCS, to create electrons that tackle the
grid, and we are going to parse out and just use renewable
ones.
That is not the purpose of the EPA. EPA sets standards to
control pollution and allows for companies to choose
combinations of technologies to provide cleaner power, and that
cleaner power will fuel our cleaner vehicles.
The wedge issue here, which I would love for our staffs to
converse about, is the notion that all of the new electric
vehicles would solely rely on renewable energy. That is the
first time I have heard that.
Senator Ricketts. OK, great.
Second, my time has expired here, so I am going to bear
with the Chairman just a moment more, but we will followup on
this, so I will not ask you to respond back to it.
There are other cost considerations in this as far as
heavier electric vehicles and, for example, guardrails, or wear
and tear on the roads and stuff like that. I would like to know
if the EPA has also modelled that into their cost-benefit
analysis.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for doing a second round
of questions. I appreciate it.
Senator Carper. We are glad you came back. Thanks for your
thoughtful questions.
We had a bunch of young people here today. There are still
some young people out in the audience, but we had a bunch of
young people here. I do not know if they are in high school or
college or what, but I was sitting here thinking about when I
was in their shoes, we didn't give much of a thought to solar
energy and the ability to meet our energy needs on solar. We
didn't think much about wind, either.
People talked about fusion, but you know, I think we were
more confused about fusion than anything else. Now, fusion is
on the edge of actually happening. Senator Capito and I have
been pushing hard for a legislation that she has authored
called the ADVANCE Act, which is advanced nuclear reactors, but
there is a lot going on there in terms to meet our energy
needs.
I drive an electric vehicle. I replaced a 2001 Chrysler
Town and Country Minivan that I drove for 20 years that had
600,000 miles on it. My wife finally said, either that minivan
goes, or you go. I said, it goes.
We actually sold it to a guy that does yards in our
neighborhood, and I still see it. It looks worse than it used
to.
The last thing I would say, I studied a little bit of
economics through Ohio State as an undergraduate, and after
that, after I got out of the Navy I moved to Delaware, I got an
MBA. I studied a little more economics, and I am a big believer
in market forces. We have not talked a lot about market forces.
One of the reasons why I like driving an electric vehicle,
it is just a hoot to drive it. It is just so much fun. I know
it does good things for the environment and so forth, but it is
also a lot of fun to actually get out and drive, so we, it
looks like we ought to keep in mind market forces and how do we
harness market forces for the good.
OK, last question. Senator Capito and I have worked a whole
lot, along with our teams, and at least one of our colleagues
from Arkansas, on recycling. We have a couple major recycling
bills that we are trying to move through the Senate and the
House and get signed into law, and I appreciate very much your
leadership on that.
As we have discussed many times on this committee, there
are significant issues plaguing our Nation's solid waste
management system. I was proud to help lead the inclusion of, I
think it is $275 million of funding in the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law, for the solid waste infrastructure for the
Recycling Grant Program at EPA.
This funding provides the agency, I believe, with about $55
million per year through Fiscal Year 2026 to support the
establishment and expansion of recycling infrastructure. I
understand that this funding is helping to implement the
national recycling strategy, which EPA published in 2021 in
addition to two subsequent strategies on plastics and organic
waste.
Here is my question. Would you, as we prepare to close out,
would you please describe for us the progress that EPA has made
thus far in implementing the National Recycling Strategy and
why continued funding from Congress is necessary to accomplish
EPA's goal of achieving a 50 percent recycling rate by 2030?
Mr. Regan. Thank you for this. This is, as I travel the
States and the world, this topic is one of those topics that
our youth and young people gravitate to so much, so quickly. We
were excited to be able to work on a national recycling
strategy.
The first part of the strategy was creating the Solid Waste
Infrastructure and Recycling Grants Program which we have, and
to date, we have selected about 164, or 165 applicants. We are
providing about $199 million through that.
We are just seeing a lot of demand for these grants. We are
actually creating a market and a demand to get more and more
creative and innovative ideas in place around recycling,
whether that be waste, plastics, and the like. This is a great
way for us to look at this closed-loop cycle system that will
benefit our economy and the environment.
Senator Carper. OK.
Before we adjourn, Senator Capito, any other questions?
Senator Capito. Yes. I just want to thank you for being
here. I know I have been a little contentious with you, but I
have great respect for your work. I think you know that.
I will say, in your characterization of the new clean power
plan, you have emphasized stakeholders, stakeholders, power
generators. The National Rural Cooperatives very much
vehemently oppose this plan. Jim Matheson, my former colleague
from the House, is in charge of that. They provide power to
over 42 million people, 92 percent of which live in
persistently poverty areas. He characterizes this plan as, they
characterize it on behalf of their members, because they are a
membership organization as unrealistic, unachievable, and
unlawful.
Thanks for coming.
Mr. Regan. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Capito. It is just a
pleasure and a joy to be a partner with you on all these
issues. I thank you and your staff, along with the members of
our own team.
I have been given by my staff a correction to a unanimous
consent request that I had asked. I am not going to read the
whole thing again, but in the original, I just want to modify
it quickly.
I will begin that unanimous consent request to submit for
the record materials with a correction, including a statement
from President Biden on the strength of the U.S. economy.
According to the data, over 15 million jobs have been created
since he took office. That is more than the population, I
mentioned a number of States.
With today's unemployment rate under 4 percent, the U.S.
ties the record for the longest consecutive monthly streak set
in, I think, the late 1960's. It has been under 4 percent for
more than 27 months in a row. I think that might be a record.
Inflation is down by 60 percent since it peaked out in June
2022. It has been less than 4 percent since June 2023, and now
it sits at 3.5 percent. That would be a revised UC request,
without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Now, a closing statement, if I could. We
want to thank you not just for showing up today, but we want to
thank you for showing up ready for, not for battle, but rather
just to have a really informative and, I think, collegial and
productive exchange of ideas. Hopefully, we helped set the
stage with our opening comments, and you certainly have helped
as well with your thoughtful remarks.
All of us realize that leading EPA has more than a few
challenges. I want to thank you, Administrator. You are
providing the strong leadership we need to deliver on the
priorities and the promises that we and the President have made
to the American people. As we have heard today, robust funding
and experienced staff are essential for the EPA to successfully
protect human health and the environment and provide greater
certainty and predictability to stakeholders, including
businesses.
With that in mind, I hope that our members will join me in
supporting the President's Fiscal Year 2025 budget request for
EPA.
A little bit of housekeeping, if I could. Senators will be
allowed to submit written questions for the record through the
close of business on Wednesday, May 22d. We will compile those
questions. We will send them to you and to your team. We would
ask that you reply to us by Wednesday, June 5th.
Before I adjourn, I just want to say, my sister and I were
born in a coal-mining town, as Senator Capito knows, in West
Virginia. My dad and all my uncles, all of our uncles, were in
the military and served in World War II or Korea or both.
I spent many years in the Navy during the Vietnam War and
after. I have known a lot of service members, men and women,
who had spouses who also served. I have said to many spouses
just as recently as this last weekend in Dover, that sometimes
we think the person who wears the uniform in the military is
the person who is serving, and oftentimes, it is not just the
person wearing the uniform who serves, but the person, the
spouse alongside the service members who serves.
I would just say to your family, to your wife and son,
thank you to them. Welcome to the family. Just a real thank you
to them for their service and, again, their willingness to
serve you.
I especially am pleased with how many States you visited
and how often you visited States. You have a few that you have
not been able to make it to, but you got five, six, 7 months
left for the year, and who knows after that. Knock them out,
and you will maybe hold the record for State visits by an EPA
Administrator. That would be a great record to hold.
Anything else, Senator? With that, I think we are done. It
is a wrap. Thank you so much. With that, we are adjourned.
Thanks so much.
Mr. Regan. Thank you all.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]