[Senate Hearing 119-277]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-277
HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF DAVID FOTOUHI TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND AARON SZABO TO BE ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 5, 2025
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
62-682 WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Chairman
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Ranking Member
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina MARK KELLY, Arizona
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska ALEX PADILLA, California
PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas ANGELA D. ALSOBROOKS, Maryland
JON HUSTED, Ohio
Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
Dan Dudis, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MARCH 5, 2025
OPENING STATEMENTS
Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
Virginia....................................................... 1
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 3
WITNESSES
Mullin, Hon. Markwayne, U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma.. 5
Husted, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio............ 6
Fotouhi, David, Nominee to be Deputy Administratorof the
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 8
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 13
Senator Merkley.......................................... 18
Senator Markey........................................... 22
Senator Schiff........................................... 24
Senator Blunt Rochester.................................. 28
Szabo, Aaron L., Nominee to be Assistant Administratorof the
Office of Air and Radiation of the Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Capito........................................... 34
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 34
Senator Markey........................................... 50
Senator Blunt Rochester.................................. 52
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letters of support for both nominees:
Statement by Senator Cynthia Lummis.......................... 75
Letter to Senator Capito and Senator Whitehouse from:
The Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy...... 76
American Trucking Association (ATA).................. 77
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
(NRECA)............................................ 78
American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA).......... 79
The Aluminum Association and 13 other groups......... 81
Letter to Senator Capito from American Fuel &
Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)................. 83
Letter to Senator Thune from the Independent
Petroleum Association of America (IPAA)............ 84
Letter to Senator Thune and Senator Schumer from
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM). 86
Letter of disapproval for the nomination of David Fotouhi from
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO)............. 88
Letter to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency........................... 93
Public Financial Disclosure Reports to Senator Capito from:
Aaron Szbabo................................................. 97
David Fotouhi................................................ 98
HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF DAVID FOTOUHI TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND AARON SZABO TO BE ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2025
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Shelley Moore
Capito (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Capito, Whitehouse, Cramer, Curtis,
Ricketts, Husted, Kelly, Padilla, Schiff, Alsobrooks.
Also present: Senator Mullin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. Good morning. I am going to call this
hearing to order and thank everybody for coming this morning.
Today we will receive testimony from David Fotouhi, the
nominee to serve as the Environmental Protection Agency's
Deputy Administrator and from Aaron Szabo, to serve as the EPA
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. These are two
very important positions in the agency. I'm looking forward to
this productive conversation about how Mr. Fotouhi and Mr.
Szabo will ensure President Trump's agenda to get the agency
back to its core mission and reestablish American energy
dominance.
Mr. Fotouhi currently is a partner at Gibson, Dunn and
Crutcher, where he has represented clients on matters relating
to environmental law. He previously served as the Acting
General Counsel and Principal Deputy General Counsel at the
EPA. He is no stranger to EPA. Mr. Fotouhi has been recognized
by multiple national law publications for his work in
environmental and energy law, and as a leader on those issues.
Mr. Fotouhi's previous experience at the EPA provides him a
wealth of perspective on the Agency's critical role in
protecting our Nation's air, land, and water while doing so
within the boundaries of the legal authority that Congress has
established.
The EPA Deputy Administrator is generally tasked with
overseeing the day-to-day operations of the agency. In this
role, Mr. Fotouhi will coordinate the work of the EPA's
important air, water, and chemicals offices, in addition to the
EPA's regional offices research, enforcement, and General
Counsel teams. Effectively integrating the agency's work will
be at the top of Mr. Fotouhi's list of responsibilities.
Facilitating economic growth while protecting public health
and the environment requires the agency to establish consistent
and legally defensible regulations, fairly and clearly enforce
those rules, and communicate with the States, communities, and
entities impacted by these regulations.
Mr. Szabo, President Trump's nominee to serve as the
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, is
currently serving as a Senior Advisor to the EPA Administrator
after representing a wide variety of clients in the private
sector on energy and environmental matters. For more than 10
years, Mr. Szabo worked as a career civil servant, first for
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and then the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, known as OIRA, and then the
Council on Environmental Quality.
As an NRC career staff member, Mr. Szabo was repeatedly
recognized with awards for his excellent performance in the
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
In June 2016, during Mr. Szabo's tenure working for the
Obama administration's OIRA, he received the Special
Achievement Award. Mr. Szabo's nomination to lead the Office of
Air and Radiation will place him in a central role to roll back
the Biden administration's extreme attack on reliable, baseload
energy sources.
Under the Biden EPA, American energy producers were subject
to a barrage of legally suspect regulations that were intended
to bankrupt oil, gas, and coal companies. These attacks led to
increased energy costs on American families, reduced electric
reliability, and undermined our energy security.
In contrast to the Biden administration's agenda, President
Trump's agenda will right size our environmental regulations
within the bounds of the laws passed by this Congress and past
Congresses, while in turn increase energy production, enable
innovation, and unleash economic growth while protecting the
environment. As Administrator Zeldin stated during his
confirmation hearing, the EPA has far too often exceeded the
legal authority Congress has provided in law.
This pattern, repeated during the Obama and then the Biden
administrations, forced American businesses to pay for costly
compliance requirements, even though the underlying regulation
was ultimately struck down by the courts. Today's nominees
understand the impact of the Obama-Biden regulatory strategy.
Mr. Fotouhi and Mr. Szabo have represented a wide range of
energy and environmental clients in legal and regulatory
proceedings, as well as counseled clients on environmental
compliance and due diligence. While some might suggest that
representing regulated entities, particularly ones they do not
like or agree with in private practice, should bar attorneys
like Mr. Fotouhi and Mr. Szabo from serving in these roles. I
believe that view misses the extensive value of both of the
nominees' public and private experiences.
It is important for all of the EPA's staff, especially
senior leadership, to understand how the agency's use of
statutory authority and enforcement tools affect States and
regulated entities, as well as how that regulatory action can
best achieve compliance and maximize positive environmental
outcomes.
I am confident our witnesses' legal training, previous
government experience, and professional experience will serve
them well in the positions for which they have been nominated.
The EPA must get back to what it does best: facilitating
cleanup of polluted sites in communities across America,
establishing scientific sound and achievable regulations, and
fulfilling the cooperative federalism model of working with
States to meet national environmental standards.
I look forward to exploring these issues in more detail
with our witnesses.
I now recognize Ranking Member Whitehouse for his opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Chairman.
Today is Day 45 of the second Trump administration. In his
first month and a half, we have seen attacks on the rule of
law, willful disregard for the Constitution, a funding freeze
that is threatening to kill jobs and drive up energy costs for
families, and to use the Project 2025's own words, ``trauma''
inflicted on dedicated career staff at various agencies.
We on this dais have oversight responsibility for the
Environmental Protection Agency. Despite my asking, many times,
I am still trying to figure out what is happening within the
walls at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue. I have sent reasonable
requests to EPA for information and have been met with near
total radio silence.
On January 31, along with all the Democrats on this dais, I
wrote to Administrator Zeldin to request that he explain his
legal basis for EPA's funding freeze that continues to threaten
American jobs and jeopardize infrastructure projects from
Alaska to West Virginia to my home State of Rhode Island. Much
of this funding was passed on a bipartisan basis to make long
overdue investments in our roads, bridges, transit, ports,
drinking water, wastewater, and other systems that are the
backbone of our Nation's economy.
On February 6th, I again wrote to Administrator Zeldin and
his counterpart at OPM calling out the administration's so-
called ``deferred resignation'' scam against hard-working civil
servants, again asking how the administration could legally
promise such a thing without congressional appropriations.
Promising money that's not yet there has a name. It is called
Deficiency.
On February 24, I again led all of the EPW Democrats in
demanding answers about EPW's efforts to claw back $20 billion
in congressionally approved clean energy funding for projects
nationwide. Administrator Zeldin has been gaslighting the
American people, manipulating facts as a pretext to terminate
an already obligated, congressionally authorized program that
would lower household energy costs, spur economic development,
and reduce pollution.
On February 28th, all of us EPW Democrats again wrote to
Administrator Zeldin, asking him about reports that he had made
a backroom push to the White House to rescind the EPA's
Endangerment Finding, a 2009 determination based on sound
science that greenhouse gases are harmful to human health.
Now, last night you would never hear any recognition of
what fossil fuel emissions are doing to our atmosphere or to
our oceans. Those facts completely eluded the conversation. We
never heard any recognition last night that 90 percent of new
power coming onto the grid in America is solar and wind and
battery.
The Energy Executive Order does not even define solar and
wind as energy, which would be news to energy recipients in
Texas and Wyoming and Iowa.
That greenhouse gases harm public health was scientific
fact when the endangerment finding was issued in 2009. Sixteen
years later, the evidence has only gotten stronger, and the
looming economic harms more dangerous. One obvious way climate
change is harming Americans across the Country is through
spiraling insurance premiums and a looming collapse in property
insurance markets. Another is through spiking grocery prices.
The only people who benefit from repealing the endangerment
finding are the planet's biggest polluters.
In reply to these four letters, we received just one
response, which didn't come close to answering the questions.
My staff have now twice requested a briefing on the funding
freeze. Those requests have been met with radio silence. I
suspect that's because Administrator Zeldin knows that he has
no legal basis for the funding freezes, the clawbacks, or the
manipulation of science.
Yet, because I and my fellow Democrats do respect the
Constitution and the rule of law, here we are today to consider
two additional nominees to the EPA. I hope they will be more
forthcoming, transparent, and honest in their answers than was
Administrator Zeldin at his confirmation hearing.
David Fotouhi, nominated to serve as Deputy Administrator,
has held two jobs since graduating law school. First, as lawyer
for a prominent white-shoe law firm defending a raft of big
polluting interests including Chevron and Sunoco. Second, in
EPA's Office of General Counsel during the first Trump
administration, working hard to repeal environmental
regulations meant to protect human health and the environment.
It remains difficult for me to understand how someone who
has made a career defending he very industries that destroy our
environment has any business now being entrusted to protect it.
Then there is Aaron Szabo, who has been nominated to serve
as the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and
Radiation. He is credited by name as a contributor to the EPA
chapter of Project 2025, the extremist billionaire-funded
right-wing blueprint for dismantling the Federal Government
that Trump is now dutifully implementing.
Some environmental highlights from Project 2025: weaken the
Clean Air Act by reversing the Endangerment Finding; purge the
agency and bring trauma to its employees. In case you are not
keeping score at home, Administrator Zeldin is already hard at
work on these.
Mr. Szabo was an advisor to the America First Policy
Institute, the Trump-aligned billionaire-funded think tank
funded by Big Oil interests, and he worked as a lobbyist where
he pushed the interests of major polluters like the American
Petroleum Institute's members.
Is this really what we want for the EPA? Is this really how
we protect clean air and clean water?
As I said at our hearing to consider Administration Zeldin,
I will be watching closely today to see if Mr. Fotouhi and Mr.
Szabo are able to differentiate themselves in any substantive
ways from the polluter agenda.
Forgive me, in light of their client lists and the chaos
and lawlessness that have already occurred 45 days into this
second Trump administration, if I seem skeptical.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Thank you. I wanted to put your little sign
up there.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
Senator Capito. We are very pleased here to have one of our
fellow Senators to introduce one of the nominees. Thank you,
Senator Mullin, for being here, and thank you for joining us.
You are recognized. We miss you on this committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARKWAYNE MULLIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Mullin. Thank you, Chairman. It is with a heavy
heart that I no longer sit on the dais with you guys.
It is a privilege of mine today, Chairman Capito and
Ranking Member Whitehouse, to introduce a fellow Oklahoman to
the Environment and Public Works Committee. David Fotouhi is
President Trump's nominee to be the Deputy Administrator for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. David was born in
Venezuela, immigrated to Oklahoma when he was 4 years old with
his parents, who are here today.
Funny story, side note on that one, they dearly love each
other, but I guess she does not trust him driving, so she flew
and he drove from Oklahoma today. I think my wife may be doing
that 1 day.
After David graduated from high school in Oklahoma City, he
attended Vanderbilt University, graduating with the highest
honors and achieving a law degree from Harvard. An impressive
guy, if you ask me. In Trump's first administration, David
served at EPA in several senior roles, including Principal
Deputy General Counsel, and later Acting General Counsel, where
he lead the office of nearly 250 lawyers and staff.
David's primary focus during the time included EPA's
program under the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act,
Clean Air Act, Superfund and Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. In addition to working closely with leaders in multiple
agencies such as the Department of Justice, throughout his
service at EPA David prioritized stability, regulation that
duly benefited both our environment and the economy, and did so
with the highest personal standards of integrity.
Prior to EPA, David worked as a partner with Gibson, Dunn
and Crutcher in the international law firm practicing
environmental law. There, David developed a wide breadth of
litigation regulating experiences helping clients understand
their legal obligation to reach compliance standards with State
and Federal environmental law, which led to many legal
publications, publicly recognizing him for his talented work.
There is no doubt that David has the talent, experience,
professionalism and temperament to be able to work with a broad
group of career employees at the EPA and stakeholders of all
kinds in this new position of responsibility as the EPA's
Deputy Administrator.
I am proud to be able to introduce a fellow Oklahoman this
morning nominated to such a position in our Federal Government.
I am confident that David will serve the EPA Deputy
Administrator with the high personal and professional standards
he is known for throughout his entire career.
On a side note, I will say, ma'am, I am very deeply sad
that I do not sit on this committee. I would take a great honor
today to be able to sit up there with pride and see David down
here answering questions and putting the EPA back on track and
not just serving one side of our constituents base, but the
entire Country, making sure that our economy and our
environment can both thrive.
With that, I yield back.
Senator Capito. Thank you, and thank you for being here.
I am now going to turn to Senator Husted to give his
introductory remarks. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON HUSTED,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Husted. Thank you, Chairman Capito. I appreciate
the chance to introduce Aaron Szabo this morning. It is my
honor to do so. He is President Trump's nominee to be the
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation at the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Joining him today is his wife, Pamela, and his parents,
John Szabo and Teddi Fine. Welcome, I am sure you are very
proud.
I have no doubt that Aaron's background will be impressive
to the members of this committee, and he will do a great job in
this important position. As someone who worked 25 years in
State government, I know very well what Federal regulations can
do to a State's economy. I have seen the EPA delay, provide
conflicting advice, provide poor customer service at time, and
negatively impact Ohio businesses and the Ohio economy. We know
that time is money.
I also know that we must be important, that it is important
that our State and Federal regulators are good stewards of our
natural resources. We have seen in an industrial State like
Ohio how to strike that balance and we know how to do it right.
States are in the best position to be able to do that, because
they know what is best for their communities, they know what is
best for their environment, they know what is best for business
and the people, the people of the State that they represent.
We know that protecting the environment and growing our
economy are not mutually exclusive, and I know that, I believe
that the colleagues, my colleagues on this committee understand
that the people of their State know what is best and can be
great collaborators, and in fact, they must.
As we consider Aaron Szabo's nomination to serve at the EPA
today, I want to note that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin
traveled to East Palestine, Ohio just days after he was
confirmed to lead that agency along with Vice President Vance
and Senator Moreno and I were both there as well. Administrator
Zeldin decided to make it his first trip in his new role to
meet Ohioans on the 2-year anniversary of the devastating train
derailment at East Palestine.
I spent time on the ground with Ohioans there. I was there
for many days after that happened, saw the effects firsthand. I
can tell you that it matters that this administration remembers
us, the people in East Palestine, and is working to keep our
air clean and our economy thriving as we recover, as the people
particularly of that community, as I have witnessed it, recover
from those unthinkable hardships.
I am also pleased to see the Trump EPA focus on working
with States and not against them in our joint efforts to
protect the environment. That is why I look forward to working
with Aaron and the EPA to advance our shared mission in Ohio
and see that the EPA work similarly with every State. That
partnership working with the States is so very, very important,
because they get it, they know what needs to be done.
Let me share a bit more about why Aaron is here with us
today and why he belongs at the EPA. Aaron understands how to
promote a healthy environment and successful communities
firsthand. He has followed in his parents' footsteps as a
career civil servant. He began his own career as a public
servant at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission while he was in
law school.
Aaron continued to serve in other career positions at the
Council on Environmental Quality and at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs. He worked on issues related
to the important statutes, such as the Clean Air Act, the
National Environmental Policy Act, and regulations surrounding
power plants.
That experience will serve him well as an EPA Assistant
Administrator. After more than a decade in public service,
Aaron helped businesses navigate environmental and energy
issues as a regulatory affairs attorney. He is highly qualified
to fill this role, and he is motivated by service.
Aaron understands how to keep Americans safe and healthy
while powering the great American comeback. I believe he will
lead the EPA Office of Air and Radiation with expertise and
integrity, and believe me, that is what we all want in a person
in charge of air quality. He understands these issues well.
The Office of Air and Radiation developed policies and
oversees the implementation of core environmental statutes like
the Clean Air Act. Aaron will leverage his extensive experience
to navigate complex issues for the America people. I have
confidence in his ability and I am glad he is here today and
willing to take on this responsibility as a continued work in
public service.
Congratulations to you, Aaron, to your wife, Pamela, on
your nomination, and thank you for the opportunity to introduce
you today.
Madam Chairwoman, thank you, Ranking Member, thank you for
the opportunity to share the reasons why we should support the
nomination of Aaron Szabo.
Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you very much.
I will ask the witnesses to move up to the witness table,
if you would. Do not sit down, because before we move to
opening statement for our nominees, I will administer the oath
to receive their sworn testimony.
If you would raise your right hand. Please stand, raise
your right hand and answer the following question.
Do you swear the testimony you are about to give to this
committee is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
[Witnesses respond in the affirmative.]
Senator Capito. Thank you. Let the record show that the
witnesses have answered in the affirmative. We will now proceed
to our opening statements. Thank you both, and thank the
families for joining them as well.
Mr. Fotouhi, you are going to be recognized first for 5
minutes for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF DAVID FOTOUHI, NOMINEE FOR DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Fotouhi. Good morning, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member
Whitehouse, and distinguished members of the committee. It is
my honor to appear before you today as President Trump's
nominee for Deputy Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
I want to thank President Trump for the confidence he has
placed in me and Administrator Zeldin for support of my
nomination.
If confirmed, I pledge to work every day for the American
people to advance the mission of EPA to protect human health
and the environment, and to support Administrator Zeldin as he
does the same.
I want to thank my family, current and former colleagues,
and close friends for being here to support me, many of whom
have traveled great distances. In particular, I want to thank
my parents, who are both here today, for their sacrifices and
unabating support.
EPA's mission is deeply personal to me. I am an immigrant
to this Country. I was born in Venezuela and came to the United
States as a child with my parents, with the hope of a better
future. As a naturalized citizen, I have a unique view of our
Nation's heritage of conservation and strong environmental
protections that are not shared by many other countries.
The American legacy of stewardship toward our air, water,
and land was not my birthright, it was not something I was
predestined to enjoy. Thankfully, I do get to enjoy it, along
with every other American. We need to look no further than to
places like Venezuela to see how differently things can go.
From my perspective, I see environmental protection and
conservation as woven into every fiber of this Country. They
are at the core of what makes this Nation great and prosperous.
EPA's human health mission specifically resonates with me
in a deeply personal way. Like millions of other Americans, I
am a cancer survivor. EPA plays a critical role in protecting
the health of all Americans, including by reducing cancer risk
through programs addressing air and water quality along with
hazardous waste and chemical substances, across the agency and
directly in communities facing the greatest challenges.
Professionally, I have devoted my life to environmental law
and environmental issues. I have practiced environmental law
for nearly 14 years, including my prior service at EPA.
In private practice, I have represented a broad array of
clients and spent much of my career helping them understand and
achieve compliance with their environmental legal obligations
and responsibilities.
As mentioned, I served for nearly 4 years at EPA,
culminating in my time as the agency's acting General Counsel.
It was a privilege to work alongside the career lawyers and
other professionals at EPA, where I found some of the most
knowledgeable and most dedicated public servants.
If confirmed, I will work every day to earn their trust and
respect as I did during my prior tenure at the agency.
That tenure also reaffirmed my belief in the importance of
the rule of law. Indeed, it is critical that EPA upholds the
rule of law by carrying out its mission based on the enumerated
authorities given to it by Congress. EPA must also provide
necessary clarity and certainty so that every American
obligated by an environmental requirement knows exactly what is
expected of them.
If confirmed, I will work every day to earn and keep the
public's trust in EPA and its actions.
America has made dramatic environmental progress in my
lifetime. More Americans now have access to clean drinking
water than ever before. Sulfur dioxide air emissions in 2023
were 94 percent lower than they were in 1980. NOx emissions
were 75 percent lower.
America accomplished this while growing our population and
GDP, setting an example for the world. We have much to be proud
of, but there is more work to do.
In 2023, our major cities experienced more days of
unhealthy air quality than in any year of President Trump's
first term. More than 1,300 contaminated sites across the
Country remain on the National Priorities List, not ready to be
fully returned to their communities for reuse.
Drinking water supplies in some communities face challenges
from lead and emerging contaminants like certain PFAS
chemicals. Our changing climate demands work at home, like
fully implementing the AIM Act and expediting carbon
sequestration permitting, and work abroad to ensure a level
global playing field that does not disadvantage hardworking
Americans.
EPA must work with States, tribes, and local partners, as
well as with the regulated community and NGO's, to confront
these and other issues consistently with the law and while
preserving our global economic dominance.
I am confident EPA, under Administrator Zeldin's
leadership, can make progress through smart, transparent, and
cost-effective regulatory solutions rooted in sound science;
through compliance efforts that achieve real pollution
reduction and enforcement efforts for violators who refuse to
follow the law; and, importantly, through unleashing American
innovation and our economic growth engine to find tomorrow's
solutions for today's challenges.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today. I look forward to learning more about your priorities
and answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fotouhi follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Fotouhi.
Now we will turn to Mr. Szabo. I will now recognize you for
5 minutes for your opening statement. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF AARON L. SZABO, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIR AND RADIATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Szabo. Thank you, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member
Whitehouse, and distinguished members of this committee. I am
honored to be here today and deeply grateful to President Trump
for nominating me to serve as Assistant Administrator for the
Office of Air and Radiation at the Environmental Protection
Agency and help protect America's air.
I also want to thank Administrator Zeldin for his trust,
both in my current role and this nomination.
I would also like to thank my wife Pamela, my parents, in-
laws, and other friends and colleagues that are here supporting
me today in person and virtually. I would not be here today
without them.
I sit before you today as the nominee for Assistant
Administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation who suffers
from a chronic lung disease. I was diagnosed with cystic
fibrosis at 6 months old. Throughout my life, I have taken
hundreds of thousands of pills, spent countless hours using
nebulizers, and been hospitalized multiple times. While it has
not always been easy, unlike many others with cystic fibrosis,
I am blessed to be alive today.
Of my lung disease, I have always been acutely aware of air
quality. Growing up, I could feel the impact of poor air
quality in my lungs. After college, I followed in my parents'
footsteps as Federal employees and began my professional career
in government service as a career employee at the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission).
At the NRC, I had the privilege to work with and learn from
exceptional hard-working career staff for six and a half years.
In 2014, I joined the White House and served in the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs. At OIRA, I had the
opportunity to work with EPA career staff and both Democratic
and Republican political officials. I saw firsthand the process
of translating policy direction into regulatory outcomes
consistent with laws and facts.
For example, during the Obama administration I worked as
hard as I could to complete the Clean Power Plan, the 2015
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and oil and
natural gas methane regulations. Then, during the Trump
Administration, I continued with that same dedication while
working on rescinding the Clean Power Plan, revising the oil
and natural gas methane regulations, and implementing President
Trump's Two-for-One Executive Order.
After over 10 years of Federal service, I transitioned to
the private sector where I learned how regulated entities
comply with the Federal Government's thousands of regulations
and policies. I also saw firsthand that the people working in
these companies want to ensure the environment is properly
protected.
I rejoined the Federal Government on inauguration day for
the first time as a political appointee. Currently, I serve as
Senior Advisor to the Administrator of the EPA.
If I have the honor to be confirmed to be head of the
Office of Air and Radiation, I commit to you and to the
American people that all this experience will guide me in this
role. I will give my utmost every day working with the talented
career staff and responsible stakeholders to provide the best
and most durable air quality solutions for the Nation.
Since the enactment of the Clean Air Act, the United States
has made remarkable progress in reducing air pollution. We have
seen significant decreases in carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide,
lead, ground-level ozone, particulate matter and other
hazardous air pollutants, all while our economy has continued
to grow.
I believe all those who worked to improve air quality for
the past 50 years, whether it be within or outside the
government, deserve our appreciation for their successes.
Congress structured the Clean Air Act around the principle
of cooperative federalism and controlling air pollution at its
source is the primary responsibility of States and local
government. EPA must always work hand-in-glove with its State
partners to ensure that air quality standards are attained and
maintained.
The best environmental results are reached in a
collaborative way. This was the wise decision by Congress in
establishing the Clean Air Act and it remains the best approach
today.
One subject area that was not on Congress' radar when it
enacted the Clean Air Act in 1970 was climate change. I believe
the climate is changing. EPA must always carefully analyze all
matters before it to make sure they are squarely grounded in
statutory authority, are sound policy, and are based on a
robust evidentiary record.
Finally, if confirmed, I will work to ensure that we are
mitigating traditional air pollution. As someone with a lung
disease, I find it deeply concerning that there are around 140
million people that currently live in nonattainment areas, many
of which have been living in those nonattainment areas for
decades. We should prioritize helping these areas achieve
compliance and improve air quality.
Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse, and all the
members of this committee, thank you again for your time and
consideration. I look forward to answering your questions and
discussing the issues that matter to your constituents.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Szabo follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you both.
I will start with the questions, but first I would make a
comment that you both have very compelling personal stories,
particularly as it regards to your own personal health. I think
that is one of the main missions of EPA, to help folks that
have been affected much like you, but also for future
generations. Thanks for being so open about those issues.
I want to ask my first question on cooperative federalism.
We have talked a little bit, a couple of us have mentioned it
already. The environmental laws are based on the principle of
which States are co-regulatory partners with the Federal
Government.
Rather than considering the States as partners, the
previous Administration has sort of overlooked and treated
States as subordinates. State and local environmental agencies
are dedicated to working to working together with Federal
regulators and a lot of times, certainly understand the areas,
their own personal, their own regions a lot better. State
agencies are best suited to understand the diversity in their
geographic, economic and social elements.
I will start with you, Mr. Fotouhi. Will you commit to
engaging with States under the cooperative federalism framework
to establish workable rules and implementation strategies--this
is for both of you--to protect public health and the
environment?
Mr. Fotouhi. Thank you, Senator. Yes, absolutely. The
environmental statutes, as you said, broadly speaking, are
drafted in a way that the Federal Government and States and
tribes and others work in partnership to achieve the results
that Congress intended when the statutes were promulgated.
Doing so in a way that empowers States through cooperative
federalism, as you mentioned, providing the technical
assistance that States need to understand their resources best,
and also to encourage States and tribes to assume the
responsibility for Federal permitting programs will be a
priority of mine if confirmed.
Senator Capito. Thank you. Good.
Mr. Szabo, same question, and can you describe what you see
as the primary benefits and, I didn't know if you had had
experience with this in your prior government service.
Mr. Szabo. Thank you, Senator. I would say that for me, it
is, as I mentioned in my opening statement as well as in my
conversations with you and other Senators on both sides of the
aisle, the importance of cooperative federalism, as David
mentioned, it is important that States have the primary role in
regulating. They know what is best for their States. It is
something I believe and it is something which the Clean Air Act
requires.
States know how to regulate their entities the best, and it
is important to allow them to do that under the Clean Air Act.
Additionally, it is also important not to punish those States
for emissions that are not the fault of their own State.
I think that we can work better in a cooperative manner
with the States and provide those environmental protections
faster.
Senator Capito. Thank you. I think it is important to note
in the last administration under one of the provisions the
States were asked to do a State implementation plan when doing
that, to the EPA, of their oversight. They just scrapped all
the State plans and said, no, you are going to do the Federal
plan.
That to me does not speak of cooperative federalism. I
think, again, we want to keep our eye on where are the core
functions, but also what functions the best.
I want to talk a little bit about electric energy
reliability. We know that the Clean Power Plan has certainly
had a lot of experience with this, intentionally designed to
impose unattainable requirements to cause the early retirement
of our lot of coal and natural gas plants.
During the same time, prices have skyrocketed and our
reliability has been called into question. The North American
Electric Reliability Corporation forecasts that well over half
of the U.S. will face potential electricity shortages and
blackout risks. This is a large result of reduced supply
baseload power.
Mr. Szabo, I warned your processor, Mr. Goffman, about the
potential for his strategy to undermine the reliability of our
electric grid several times. Based on his actions, he ignored
these warnings.
As you oversee and implement the Clean Air Act's statutory
obligations to protect public health and environment, will you
ensure that the agency takes into account electric reliability
and energy affordability on the impacts on American families?
Mr. Szabo. Thank you, Senator, for the question. Currently,
and then also if confirmed, we are bound by what is stated in
the Clean Air Act, and that includes the consideration of costs
and impacts on the Country. With respect to any action within
Section 111 that the Clean Power Plan was, or the Clean Power
Plan 2.0, whichever version you want to call it, was
established under, we must follow the law and that includes the
consideration of impacts on electricity reliability.
Senator Capito. Well, I would say too the prior
administration, at one point I remember seeing a chart of
where, you know, this is No. 1, two, three, four, they
reordered where the priorities should like in terms of looking
at reliability. I would discourage that.
Mr. Fotouhi, do you have a comment on that, on the
reliability issue?
Mr. Fotouhi. Yes, thank you, Senator. I think the agency
needs to heed the decision of the Supreme Court and the West
Virginia case in particular. That was very clear that EPA is
not a grid-wide energy regulator. It is not an entity that is
responsible for determining whether generation shifting should
occur between different sources. EPA should always, when
implementing the Clean Air Act or any other program, abide by
its statutory authority that Congress has delegated to it.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Before I turn to the Ranking Member, I will have to slip
out, we have a roll call vote over in Commerce, so I will go do
that, and then I will come back. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Szabo, good morning. What effects
are carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion having
in the earth's atmosphere?
Mr. Szabo. Thank you, Senator, for that question. I cannot
speak to generally what the specific impacts would be from
fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide in combination with other
greenhouse gases can result in heat being trapped in the
atmosphere.
Senator Whitehouse. Can result, or are actually resulting?
Mr. Szabo. My understanding is that there is some heat
trapping that occurs from greenhouse gases.
Senator Whitehouse. Is it not scientifically established
that CO2 and methane are both greenhouse gases that trap heat
in the atmosphere?
Mr. Szabo. That is my understanding.
Senator Whitehouse. What effect does methane leakage from
fossil fuel production and transport have in the atmosphere?
Mr. Szabo. Thank you for the question. As I mentioned
previously, I cannot call out what the specific impacts would
be from methane from fossil fuels. Methane in general is also a
greenhouse gas that can trap heat in the atmosphere.
Senator Whitehouse. Can trap heat in the atmosphere, or
actually does trap heat in the atmosphere right now?
Mr. Szabo. It does, I am not specific to every single
molecule of methane. I know in general methane does trap heat.
I just am not a scientist and do not know what the impact of
every single molecule of methane may be in the atmosphere.
Senator Whitehouse. What effect are carbon dioxide
emissions from fossil fuel combustion having in our oceans?
Mr. Szabo. As I mentioned previously with respect to just
carbon dioxide in general, it does result in acidification of
the ocean, as well as there is heat trapping in the oceans, as
you mentioned in your opening statement.
Senator Whitehouse. How much heat trapping? How would you
measure what the oceans are taking up in terms of excess heat
from carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion?
Mr. Szabo. As I mentioned, I can not speak to specifically
from carbon fuel combustion but my understanding is, I believe
NOAA has stated that 90 percent of the heat is trapped in the
ocean.
Senator Whitehouse. You have no disagreement with that?
Mr. Szabo. I am not a scientist, so I defer to the
scientists.
Senator Whitehouse. Do you understand that the excess heat
going into the ocean is measured in zettajoules, which is an
enormous number with 21 zeroes?
Mr. Szabo. As I mentioned, Senator, I am not a scientist.
If that is the number, I am not aware of the exact number.
Senator Whitehouse. Have we hit the 1.5 degree climate risk
threshold, and why is that important?
Mr. Szabo. My understanding is that we are on a trajectory
to hit that threshold, according to scientists. The stated
importance of that, I believe, is that climate impacts would
get worse at that degree temperature. However, my understanding
is that was also a policy decision that was made as part of the
U.N. discussions and the Paris Climate Accord.
Senator Whitehouse. You used the word ``stated.'' Does that
indicate any hesitation in believing that?
Mr. Szabo. I have not--my understanding is there is various
scientific studies on the impact of 1.5 degrees as well.
Senator Whitehouse. What do they generally conclude?
Mr. Szabo. I mean, it would depend on which, I mean, as I
said, I am not a scientist.
Senator Whitehouse. I said generally. What do they
generally conclude? What is the strong consensus message about
1.5 degrees as a risk threshold?
Mr. Szabo. That it could result in increased climate change
based on that temperature threshold.
Senator Whitehouse. What are key climate tipping points
that you would watch in your position to try to avoid?
Mr. Szabo. Senator, I believe that the climate is changing.
I believe that it is important for us to adapt to any change
including those that occurred with respect to climate.
Senator Whitehouse. Not to mitigate, to prevent it. Just to
adapt to it, even if it is man-made pollution that is driving
it?
Mr. Szabo. I am currently, and if confirmed am bound by the
laws that Congress has established and cannot----
Senator Whitehouse. Last question. Are we now on a pathway
to climate safety? Or do we need to do more to reduce carbon
emissions in order to get on that pathway?
Mr. Szabo. As I stated previously, I believe that we need
to be adapting to all changes, including those to the climate.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
Senator Capito. Senator Cramer?
Senator Cramer. As tempting as it is to give Senator
Whitehouse my time, I am going to take a little bit of it
first.
Thank you both for being here. I join the Chairwoman in
thanking you for your personal testimoneys, and being so
transparent. It is inspirational, to say the least.
One or both of you have referenced the United States'
contribution to the global issue. I think we flaunt it too
often, take all the blame for our own excellence, compared to
the world that is not, it is quite mediocre in comparison, in
my view.
In fact, I also share Chairman Capito's affection for
cooperative federalism. I mean, for the life of me I do not
know why a State like North Dakota or West Virginia or any
other State of excellence would relinquish that excellence to
mediocrity at the Federal level.
That being said, I want to explore a little bit with you
the contribution of the United States emissions to compare to
the globe's emissions. As I see the reduction, and I think on
or both of you have testified to this, the reductions that we
have been making as a country while growing our economy and
growing our manufacturing base, growing even our energy sector
at a time when there is actual electricity hogs out there, just
waiting for a place that would welcome the opportunity to
invest, why would they seek the United States if we are going
to have these, what I think are actually very non-competitive
regulatory issues?
That said, I have been looking at a lot of the--by the way,
I am not as smart as you guys, but I am fairly nerdy and pretty
resourceful, and having been an energy regulator for a long
time. The issue of reliability is a really big deal. The issue
of availability at a time when again these economy, whether it
is AI, crypto, the energy hogs, are looking for places to land,
I think it is really, really important.
I would like to explore our contribution and our declining
contribution in the global State of things. Maybe Mr. Szabo,
you could start with what you may know about the various models
and data and how the United States measures up.
Mr. Szabo. Thank you, Senator Cramer. It isn't going to be
shocking to anyone, but we have significantly decreased both
our greenhouse gas and traditional air pollution emissions
tremendously, especially over the past 20 years. While other
countries such as China have significantly increased their
greenhouse gas emissions as well as their traditional air
pollution emissions over the years, and what we are seeing now
actually is that international emissions, as you kind of
mentioned about not talking about some of the other things,
traditional air pollution from China goes and impacts States
like California, due to the transport from the Pacific.
Generally, if we shut off all greenhouse gas emissions in
this Country tomorrow, that would not have any real impact with
the increases that we have seen from other countries around the
world, specifically China.
Senator Cramer. Mr. Fotouhi, anything to add to that?
Mr. Fotouhi. Thank you, Senator. I would echo those
comments. I think something over the last 20 years or so, as
Mr. Szabo was saying, American greenhouse gas emissions have
decreased by something like a million tons per year, while
China's have increased by something like six to seven million
tons per year, completely swamping our hard-earned reductions
in greenhouse gas emissions.
I think to the extent there needs to be work to be done to
address that issue, it needs to be done both domestically and
globally.
Senator Cramer. I have been looking at some MAGICC data in
modeling. Would it be an exaggeration to say that our trend of
going down and the rest of the world, particularly the big
polluters going up in terms of emissions, that our power sector
can be like contributing less than .2 percent of the emissions
in the future, with current trends? Does that sound plausible?
Mr. Szabo. Senator, I would have to go look back at the
exact data, but happy to work with you on those numbers after
talking to staff and make sure we are working with you on
getting those values.
Senator Cramer. I would welcome that opportunity and wish
you both well. Thank you.
Senator Capito. Senator Padilla?
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank
both of the nominees before us for their public service and
their willingness to continue to serve. I especially appreciate
the comments that have been made by you, Mr. Fotouhi, by Mr.
Szabo especially and even the Chairwoman recognizing our
collective mission to achieve clean air. Clean air is possible,
not just environmental, but the health impacts that pollution
contaminants have and the recognition that State and local
governments have a primary role.
Did I get that language correct from your testimony, for
both of you?
Mr. Szabo. Yes.
Mr. Fotouhi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Padilla. Okay, thank you. It is in that spirit,
proudly representing the State of California that prides itself
in policy leadership in so many areas, but including and
especially when it comes to environmental protection and clean
air.
Given the special collaborative relationship over the years
between the State of California and the Federal Government, I
would like, Mr. Szabo, for you to walk me through the statutory
basis for EPA's authority to grant California a waiver of
Federal preemption under the Clean Air Act.
Mr. Szabo. Thank you, Senator Padilla, for that. It was a
pleasure talking to you earlier about various issues related to
California.
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to provide a waiver to
California assuming that certain requirements are met with
respect to that. To my knowledge, we currently do not have any
waivers in front of EPA.
Senator Padilla. That is not my question. I am well aware
of what was submitted in the prior administration, waivers that
were granted, requests that have been withdrawn. Just for the
record, it is from Section 209 of the Clean Air Act, which
allows California to exercise this waiver opportunity and adopt
its own emission standards if those waiver requests are
granted.
In reading the statutes, can you share with us, Mr. Szabo,
under what specific statutory conditions can EPA deny a waiver
request?
Mr. Szabo. Thank you, Senator. At this time, I cannot
recall the exact provisions in Section 209 and I do not want to
provide incorrect information to you. I am happy to get back to
you with that information.
Senator Padilla. Okay. Colleagues, red flag No. 1.
Obviously you are up for consideration for a very critical
position. We are talking about air quality, must the
environment's impact to health impacts that you both personally
shared with the committee your experience.
We are talking about the State of California, not just the
most populous State in the Nation, but home to the largest
number of people by far who live in non-attainment levels. We
know the Federal Government hasn't done as much as it can and
should do to improve air quality in California and elsewhere.
We know that California has taken upon itself to do more.
Given the jurisdictional balance and relationship between
State and Federal Government, California has been successful
through the waivers process to achieve more gains, yet you can
not articulate for me the basis for denying a waiver request
when you are going to play such a critical role is concerning.
Let me ask this, then. Does the Clean Air Act give EPA
discretion to deny a waiver simply because the Administrator
may disagree with California's policy goals?
Mr. Szabo. That, my understanding is no, it would not be
just because of policy goals.
Senator Padilla. Their answer is not discretion, then, on
behalf of the Administrator and the agency?
Mr. Szabo. From my recollection, within Section 209, there
is nothing that states that it would be related to just a
policy difference between California and the Federal
Government.
Senator Padilla. Do you believe that California faces
compelling and extraordinary conditions when it comes to air
quality?
Mr. Szabo. When it comes to traditional air pollution, I
believe that that can be the case.
Senator Padilla. Then by traditional air pollution, the EPA
is tackling pollutants and air quality?
Mr. Szabo. I believe when it comes to National Ambient Air
Quality Standards that that is right, as well as hazardous air
pollutants. That is what I mean by it.
Senator Padilla. To your knowledge, has an administrator
ever denied a waiver on the ground that California does not
face compelling and extraordinary conditions?
Mr. Szabo. I believe that was part of the justification in
the 2020 Safe Vehicle Rule Part 1.
Senator Padilla. Okay. Well, for the record, let me share
with our colleagues that the answer is actually no. The EPA has
tried to deny on other grounds, but never for the argument that
California does not face compelling and extraordinary
conditions.
Mr. Szabo, my time is running out, so I will end with this.
Can you point to where in the Clean Air Act it gives EPA the
authority to revoke a waiver once it is granted?
Mr. Szabo. I believe that would be within Section 209 of
the Clean Air Act.
Senator Padilla. Actually, no. We know that there will be
efforts to do just that. I will end. I know my time is up, with
the recognition, very important distinction between a waiver
request, a waiver denial, and a waiver being granted versus
rulemaking. When there are attempts by Congress to utilize the
CRA to undo a waiver that was granted, precedent has
established that that is not appropriate because a waiver is a
waiver, not a rule.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Husted?
Senator Husted. Thank you, Chairman Capito. I appreciate
the opportunity to talk with the nominees today.
Mr. Szabo, I want to bring up an issue that we talked about
briefly, based on my experience in the East Palestine train
derailment and subsequent fire and disaster that happened
there, just for the sake of sharing something that can be
hopefully helpful, is that one of the things that happened in
that crisis moment is that while we had a team of people on the
ground there from the EPA who were very versed in the rules and
regulations they weren't very versed at crisis management.
I just shared with you in our conversation that I, this
administration in the course of 4 years will face one of those
moments. It is inevitable that the unexpected will occur. I
just want to share thoughts, and either of you, actually, can
respond to this about thoughts that you have on how we can be
better prepared for a time of crisis.
Mr. Fotouhi. Senator, I am happy to respond initially. It
is a critical function of the agency, its emergency response
function. I had the privilege, when I worked in the agency
during the first term of the Trump administration to work
closely with the career civil servants who are housed in that
emergency response office within the Office of Land and
Emergency Management and across EPA's regional offices. They
are often the ones who plan for natural disasters, things like
hurricanes, making sure that industrial sites are prepared so
that there are not environmental incidents as a result of a
natural disaster.
Similarly, they play an important role in responding to
issues like the East Palestine derailment or the fires in Los
Angeles or the floods in western North Carolina. Administrator
Zeldin, in his first month on the job, has made the emergency
response function of the agency a critical priority. If
confirmed, I would support him in that effort.
Senator Husted. Great. Thank you.
I have, my next question is also largely an Ohio-related
question. It is because in the final, literally the final day
of the Biden administration, they imposed a new rule at EPA
over, it is called a nuisance rule. It was enacted on January
the 20th, regarding rules on air, dust, grime, things like
that.
It is unique to Ohio. We have our own nuisance rule
regulations in Ohio to be adjudicated through the Ohio EPA and
the Ohio court system. Now we have one State that was
identified, basically picked on, the EPA and the
administration, to put this new rule in place. The Ohio
delegation is united behind eliminating that.
This is what we talk about, when we talk about the Federal
Government imposing things on States without the cooperation of
those States and the people who understand what makes sense in
those States. I just would ask for your support in our efforts
to overturn this rule and that any comments that you have about
that or the partnership between Federal and State regulators in
general.
Mr. Szabo. Senator, thank you for that question. I know in
my time at EPA I have heard about the issues with that action.
If confirmed and just in general right now, as I stated in my
opening statement and in our conversations, cooperative
federalism is key. That is working with the States, not against
them. I look forward to working with you as well as the State
of Ohio in resolving these kinds of concerns and issues that
have been created.
Senator Husted. Thank you. I just will close with this
thought. The people who run State government, the EPA, the
Governors, the communities that are affected, they care more
about their States and their communities than anybody else.
They know what is best. Please be collaborative with the States
of this Nation and their regulators and their enforcement
entities to make sure that they can solve environmental issues
and do it in a timely manner, but also in a manner that is not
burdensome to the people who are trying to live and operate in
those States.
Thank you.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Alsobrooks?
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you so much, Chair Capito and
Ranking Member Whitehouse.
Mr. Fotouhi, Mr. Szabo, good to see you. Congratulations on
your nominations.
Last week at his cabinet meeting, the President said that
Administrator Zeldin ``thinks he is going to be cutting 65
percent or so of the percent of the people,'' is what he said,
from the EPA. Administrator Zeldin later clarified that he
meant 65 percent of the agency's budget.
I have questions for both of you. I just want to be clear
and get a direct answer. Do you support cutting the EPA's
budget by 65 percent?
Mr. Fotouhi. Senator, thank you for the question, and I
appreciated the time that you took to meet with me earlier in
this process. My view on that is that what Administrator Zeldin
has referred to publicly on that issue is that the reduction
would pertain to a baseline reduction from the amount of
expenditure in 2024, which included a significant amount of IRA
funding as opposed to a reduction of the base budget, which is
of course congressional, is for Congress to determine.
Senator Alsobrooks. Okay, so you agree, then, that the role
of setting funding levels belongs to Congress, and not to the
administration?
Mr. Fotouhi. Senator, Congress sets EPA's budget.
Senator Alsobrooks. Okay. Then if you are confirmed, will
you enforce the law, including appropriations law, and ensure
that that function continues to remain one that is a
congressional function?
Mr. Fotouhi. Senator, thank you for the question. On this
issue and all issues, if confirmed, I will always follow the
law and always advise Administrator Zeldin in the same manner.
That extends to issues related to appropriations and budget.
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you.
Now, in Maryland we are doing really great work where
climate is concerned. We are also working to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and air pollutants.
Right now, there are many actions related to Maryland's
State implementation plan for the Clean Air Act that are
pending approval at the EPA. This plan is very critical to
Maryland. It ensures that my constituents have healthy air to
breathe, and it also provides certainty to businesses who are
investing in Maryland.
I understand that there are similar backlogs in other
States, and it is because the office that you have been
nominated to lead is understaffed and not overstaffed. The
question is, in light of this concern around slashing budgets,
how would you achieve the efficiencies that will be necessary
to ensure we have clean air to breathe and that we meet our
other goalposts, if we are cutting budgets and slashing work
force?
Mr. Fotouhi. Senator, thank you for the question. It is a
priority of mine, if confirmed, to ensure that across the
agency that we are reducing backlogs for things like State
implementation plans under the Clean Air Act, for water quality
standards from States under the Clean Water Act, other
submittals like permit applications and the like. Working to
ensure with Administrator Zeldin that appropriate staffing is
put in the right places and that we have the expertise needed
to process those applications and State implementation plans in
a timely manner would be an area of emphasis to me. I look
forward to working with you and your staff on the Maryland
issues that you raised specifically.
Senator Alsobrooks. Okay, thank you. Just one final
question, and this question I would be asking of Mr. Szabo. The
cost of homeowners insurance is on the rise. Since 2018,
homeowners insurance non-renewals have increased by 30 percent
in Maryland. This means that major homeowners insurance
providers are dropping hundreds of thousands of policy holders
in response to frequent extreme weather events caused by
climate change.
I want to know whether or not you acknowledge that the root
cause of climate change, including reducing greenhouse
emissions, has a very serious connection to what we are seeing
in terms of unaffordable insurance premiums, and ask what you
intend to do about that.
Mr. Szabo. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
In my current role and if confirmed, while I believe that
it is important that we as Americans and we as humans continue
to adapt to all changes, including those with respect to
climate, I would not have any regulatory authority over the
insurance markets themselves and how those insurance companies
may or may not react to changes in the climate. I am fully
supportive of Americans and people adapting to any changes in
the climate that may be occurring.
Senator Alsobrooks. The last part, and I know my time is
up, would you agree that the effects of climate change are
driving economic hardship for families?
Mr. Szabo. I believe that there are impacts to climate
change.
Senator Capito. Senator Curtis?
Senator Curtis. Thank you, Chairman.
It is great to be with you, both of you, thank you for
coming by my office. Some of what I want to talk about in my
short 5 minutes we discussed. I think it is important to have
this discussion so that everybody, particularly back in Utah,
can hear our discussion and your thoughts on it.
We discussed, and I tried to make the point in this venue a
lot of times, Utah's unique geography and natural phenomenon
require a nuanced approach. Approximately 80 percent of our
ozone comes from, ozone emitting from the earth surfaces or
from outside of the region. As Utahns, that means we only
control 20 percent of the ozone in the area.
Utah's air quality has improved significantly, and that is
because our publicly elected officials, our education, our
business leaders, all have made commitments and we have had
great investments in new technology to improve our air.
I might say I am very grateful for the new administration's
early jump into this and some of the relief that we have
received already. Please pass along my appreciation for that.
Utah's Uinta Basin faces similar challenges of oil and gas
production in the region where we provide affordable, reliable
and clean energy are burdened by EPA standards and do not
account for this unique geography that we have in Utah.
Fortunately, all of our stakeholders, as I mentioned, are all
committed, the education community, the political leaders and
business communities are all committed to this.
Despite this, in the final stretch the Biden administration
EPA reversed course, instead of granting the extension as
previously proposed, the agency issued a final ruling
redesignating northern Watsatch Front Uinta Basin as non-
attainment with significant impact to it economically and
otherwise for our area.
Once again, thanks for your help there.
I would like to just ask both of you, so folks back home
can hear, if confirmed, can we count on this flexibility in
working with regional administrators to follow their lead in
dealing with these tough issues? Hopefully we can have that
commitment from both of you?
Mr. Szabo, if you want to jump in.
Mr. Szabo. Sure. Senator, it was great talking to you
yesterday about these issues as well. In my current role as
well as if I am confirmed I will commit that we will work with
the State of Utah as well as all the States on each State's
unique issues, but specifically Utah's.
Senator Curtis. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Fotouhi. Thank you, Senator, and I also appreciated the
time meeting with you. You have my commitment to work together
to resolve these issues and to do so in a way that protects our
air and also protects the economic development and growth that
your community is looking for.
Senator Curtis. Thank you. I am glad that you mentioned
that. Everybody does want to protect the air, everybody wants
clean air. We just have some unique geographic features.
Also part of the Uinta Basin, we have a number of small
suppliers. They really struggle to meet the methane
regulations, not out of will, but just simply out of resources.
We find that EPA sometimes has been overly restrictive in how
they fix the problem, rather than defining what they want fixed
and letting people get there through using different types of
technologies.
Once again, I would like to ask for your working with
regional administrators to get to the end goal and not be so
prescriptive on how we get there.
Mr. Szabo. Absolutely, Senator.
Mr. Fotouhi. Yes, you have my commitment on that, Senator.
Thank you.
Senator Curtis. Good, thank you.
Mr. Fotouhi, we talked in the office about this chemical
approval problem. I would also just like to clarify, previous
administration we had zero percent of chemicals approved within
their statutory guideline. Many of these chemicals would
replace currently problematic chemicals that are bad for our
environment.
By not approving them, we are actually really harming our
environment. I would like to just have you assure with my folks
back home your commitment to work on getting these chemicals
approved in a timely manner.
Mr. Fotouhi. Yes, thank you, Senator Curtis. It is a
critical function that the agency performs to review new
chemicals. It needs to do so in abidance with its statutory
timelines and in consideration of the science as well.
As you said, those chemicals often replace older
chemistries and the newer chemicals are often more
environmentally friendly. You have my commitment to take that
as an area of emphasis, so that EPA gets back on track and is
meeting its statutory obligations in its new chemicals program.
Senator Curtis. Thank you.
With all my love and affection for you and your new boss,
we will have a honeymoon period and then I will use this pulpit
to be really tough on you as I was your predecessors, if we are
not getting those approved.
Thank you, I yield my time.
Senator Capito. Senator Schiff?
Senator Schiff. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Szabo, is climate change real?
Mr. Szabo. Thank you, Senator. Yes, the climate is
changing.
Senator Schiff. Mr. Fotouhi, the same question, is climate
change real?
Mr. Fotouhi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Schiff. Mr. Szabo, would you agree that human
activities contribute to climate change?
Mr. Szabo. Senator, I believe there are many things that
can create the climate to change themselves.
Senator Schiff. That would include human activities, would
it not?
Mr. Szabo. In the aggregate, there is a potential impact
from human activities on the climate.
Senator Schiff. You would agree, Mr. Fotuhi, that human
activity contributes to changes in the climate?
Mr. Fotouhi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Schiff. Some of those human activities include
burning coal, oil, and gas, Mr. Szabo?
Mr. Szabo. I believe there are many activities that can
release greenhouses gases into the atmosphere in general.
Senator Schiff. Well, I am asking you in particular,
burning coal, burning oil, burning gas contributes to climate
change, does it not?
Mr. Szabo. Those activities do release greenhouse gases
into the atmosphere.
Senator Schiff. Mr. Fotouhi, you would agree that burning
coal, oil, and gas contributes to climate change?
Mr. Fotouhi. Senator, emission of greenhouses gases into
the atmosphere plays a role and does contribute to the changing
climate.
Senator Schiff. In particular, burning coal, oil, and gas
contributes to climate change?
Mr. Fotouhi. Senator, those activities, depending on how
they are undertaken, can result in the emission of greenhouse
gases, yes, including methane.
Senator Schiff. In trying to address climate change, would
you agree that trying to reduce our reliance on coal, oil, and
gas as they are contributors to climate change makes sense, Mr.
Szabo?
Mr. Szabo. I believe that it is important that we adapt to
any changes, including those with respect to the climate. I
believe that the American people can adapt to those changes.
Senator Schiff. That is a bit of a murky answer. If coal,
oil, and gas are contributing to climate change, wouldn't you
agree that one strategy to address climate change would be to
reduce our reliance on coal, oil, and gas?
Mr. Szabo. I believe, once again, that we can adapt to the
potential impacts to climate change without causing potential
issues to our reliance on our natural resources within this
Country.
Senator Schiff. I am not sure I understand that answer. If
coal, oil, and gas are contributing to climate change, would it
make sense as part of our strategy to address climate change to
reduce our reliance on coal, oil, and gas? Yes or no.
Mr. Szabo. Senator, I think it is important to take the,
with respect to the potential impacts from those sources of
emissions with respect to the global nature of any with climate
change, and consider it that with respect to any policy
positions moving forward.
Senator Schiff. I am still having trouble understanding
your answer.
Should we reduce the consumption, the burning of coal, oil,
and gas as part of a strategy to mitigate climate change? Yes
or no.
Mr. Szabo. Senator, I believe that it is important that we
follow the law with respect to any actions we take. If Congress
wishes for us to take a different action on climate change, I
would leave that into the decision of those in Congress about
what policies the United States would take with respect to
that.
Senator Schiff. As a potential top official in the EPA, you
would agree, would you not, that if coal, oil, and gas
contribute to climate change and climate change is resulting in
horrendous fires like we had in Los Angeles and stronger
hurricanes and more flooding, that one part of a sensible
approach to dealing with climate change would be to reduce our
reliance on fossil fuels that are contributing to that crisis?
Wouldn't you agree with that?
Mr. Szabo. Senator, I would say that the wildfires in
California were very tragic. There were many reasons as to what
the results of those, why those wildfires occurred in and of
themselves.
Senator Schiff. Mr. Szabo, do you think the oil industry
has a disproportionate impact on our ability, willingness, to
speak plainly about climate change? You seem to be having
difficulty. Does the oil industry exert too great an influence
on our policy dealing with climate change such that you can not
answer that question?
Mr. Szabo. No. I am curious if you are insinuating that I
am somehow under the influence of the oil and natural gas
industry. I have been consulting with career executives----
Senator Schiff. I think this whole Congress is under the
influence of the oil, coal, and gas industry. That makes it so
difficult to answer a simple question about if these are
contributors to climate change. Wouldn't a sensible policy be
to reduce our reliance on them? There is some explanation for
why that question is difficult to answer, and it is not
science.
I yield back.
Senator Capito. Senator Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. Great. Thank you, Chairman. Appreciate
it. Thank you, Ranking Member, for calling this hearing today.
Thank you to our witnesses for being willing, or our nominees
for being willing to serve in the Federal Government. I
appreciate it.
I do want to hit upon some of the things that have come up
in this topic before. First of all, the cooperative federalism,
States being responsible--nobody cares more about our
environment than the States. That is, as a former Governor,
that is what we want to do, we want to protect our environment,
we want clean air, clean water. We do want to work
cooperatively with the EPA to be able to have it. When the EPA
just throws out State implementation plans, it really is a
disregard for the law and our system of federalism. I think
that is one aspect that I want to hit upon.
Also I wanted to hit upon this idea of consensus. There was
a consensus early on in the pandemic, and I was just introduce
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya at the Health Committee about, we should
lock down schools. Well, it turns out that, because this was
just wrong, right? Science is about arguing, it is about
research, it is about everything, like you may have an idea,
you have a theory, you test it, you have research, and there is
going to be research not always going to agree.
Consensus is meant to be challenged, right? That is what
the point of science is. We want to make sure we are thinking
about those things. For example, when you are, the Senator from
California was just talking about oil and gas. Well, why do not
we sequester carbon dioxide, if you are worried about that? We
can burn coal and sequester the carbon, the technologies could
be out there, we do not have to reduce it. We can just
sequester the carbon dioxide, if that is the problem you are
concerned about.
There are other solutions out there. I do not think we have
to run to a one-size big government solution about how to fix
this, and that has been the problem for the last
administration. They tried to mandate certain solutions, like
EVs, that do not work in places like Nebraska. Let's let
American innovation solve these problems.
One of the innovations that we can solve happens to be
biofuels. I know the Chairman knows I love talking, being on
this committee, talking about biofuels.
[Laughter.]
Senator Ricketts. The good news is biofuels are safe, can
save consumers money at the pump, they cleanup our environment,
all the things the Senator from California wants to do, and it
is good for our farmers and ranchers.
What I want to do is just work on making sure we can do
that. E15 is one of the things we can do to do that. The EPA
has been issuing waivers to be able to do that.
This is a very simple question for the both of you. Waiver
is an annual emergency thing. To make it permanent, Mr.
Fotouhi, do not we actually need to pass a bill on E15?
Legislation has to be passed by Congress to be able to make E15
all year around permanent, is that right?
Mr. Fotouhi. Senator, thank you for the question. That is
my view. When I served in the first term of the Trump
administration at EPA, we attempted a regulatory proceeding to
allow for the expanded use of E15, and ultimately a court
determined that the agency lacked the adequate statutory
authority for that action.
My view is that congressional, if that is the congressional
intent, then congressional action is required for EPA to be
able to take that on without going through the RVP, Reid Vapor
Pressure, waiver or emergency waiver process.
Senator Ricketts. Mr. Szabo, same question.
Mr. Szabo. I would just echo what David said, and yes, we
would need a legislative solution.
Senator Ricketts. Great. Perfect. Second, additionally,
timely review of renewable volume obligations are mandated by
the renewable fuels standard, that is a law, should be a
biofuels priority for the EPA here. RVOs are powerful signals
to producers of the fuel markets. They need to be published
reliably in thoughtful increments and should be reflective of
market realities.
I understand you cannot prejudge the outcome of an agency
rulemaking, but I want to get you on the record here. Will you
commit, again, because the RVOs that were supposed to be
published November 2024 are not supposed to be done now until
December 2025, a year late, Mr. Fotouhi and Mr. Szabo, do you
each commit to implementing statutory directives in the
renewable fuels standard to publish a timely rulemaking for the
renewable volume obligations?
Mr. Fotouhi. Senator, thank you for the question. It is
important that we hit our statutory timing obligations for
setting RVOs. My recollection is that in the Biden
administration when EPA set the RVO for 2023 half the year had
already passed. That is not the type of clarity and certainty
to all market participants that are needed from this program.
My view is that the statutory timelines are very important.
Mr. Szabo. Senator, I agree with what David said, and
commit to make sure that we get RVOs out in time to provide
that certainty for industry.
Senator Ricketts. Great. Follow the law is exactly the
right answer from both of you. Thank you very much. I look
forward to your speedy confirmations.
With that, Chairman, I turn it back over to you.
Senator Capito. Thank you. We may have some others coming.
We did commit to have a second round.
I have one question, then I will go to the Ranking Member.
Then Senator Padilla, do you have a question for a second
round? Yes.
Mr. Fotouhi, you have served as an attorney who has advised
and litigated on behalf of both private clients and the EPA for
almost 15 years. How would that experience guide your approach
to ensuring the EPA rules are consistent with statute and
durable for the long term? I think this is part of the problem.
I have been on this panel for 10 years. The swings in
administrations and regulations and viewpoints and other, even
reflected really on the questioning that has been coming from
the panelists, from the Senators, as well, I think is a
difficult part of the system. I do not know how people adjust
from a business standpoint, environmental, municipality,
whoever, even a State.
How does your past experience, would it be consistent with
not just the statute, but more durable, so we do not have these
swings that we have seen recently?
Mr. Fotouhi. Thank you for the question, Senator. Rule of
law is my touchstone. It is extremely important to me as a
professional, as an environmental lawyer, as it was the case
when I served at EPA, in my role there advising the
administrator on options and legal issues.
The critical touchstone has to be, in every occasion,
ensuring that we are following the congressional authorization
and statutory language that has been drafted by Congress. The
Supreme Court has been very clear on this point, repeatedly. In
the Biden administration alone, the Biden EPA lost every
Supreme Court case that it had in front of a court over the
last 4 years.
We need to restore trust in EPA's actions, and part of that
is to ensure that those actions are done consistently with the
law, and that we are not over-reading our statutory authority
and exceeding the boundaries that this Congress has placed on
the agency.
With regard to your point about switching and lack of
predictability or certainty, I think the Waters of the U.S.
Rule is a prime example of that, where the court has now spoken
in the Sackett decision in a very prescriptive manner about
what is and is not jurisdictional for regulatory purposes under
the Clean Water Act. It is incumbent now on the agency to
clarify that for the American public, so that they can
understand when they need a permit from the Corps of Engineers
or from EPA or their State and when they do not, without hiring
a legion of consultants and attorneys to tell them what the law
means.
Senator Capito. Senator Whitehouse?
Senator Whitehouse. Thanks very much.
Mr. Szabo, let's go back to your work for Project 2025. You
were a contributor to that document and were thanked by the
author of the chapter on EPA, correct?
Mr. Szabo. Yes, that is correct, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. How did you contribute? What precise
advice did you give to the document's authors?
Mr. Szabo. Thank you, Senator, for that question. I
provided just general advice and thoughts with respect to
policies that, within the Clean Air Act section specifically.
Senator Whitehouse. Do you have, or do they have any record
of the advice that you gave?
Mr. Szabo. I am not aware of any records they may have. I
was a volunteer, and I do not have any records myself.
Senator Whitehouse. You have no notes, you have no memos,
nothing was in writing on all of this?
Mr. Szabo. I have no records, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. Is that because you had records and you
have gotten rid of them, or were there never any records?
Mr. Szabo. Senator, I have no records.
Senator Whitehouse. That does not answer the question.
Is the reason you have no records because you got rid of
your records of your engagement with Project 2025?
Mr. Szabo. Senator, as a private organization, I am not
sure what their recordkeeping policies were or are. I do not
have any records.
Senator Whitehouse. Did you submit anything in writing to
them at any point? Did you ever have records? You not them,
you.
Mr. Szabo. Senator, I provided advice to Project 2025.
Senator Whitehouse. How? By email? By phone? Personal
conversations? Memos?
Mr. Szabo. Senator, I provided them advice in a number of
ways.
Senator Whitehouse. Including ways that were in writing?
Mr. Szabo. Senator, that is likely.
Senator Whitehouse. Likely? Isn't that something you would
actually know, since it was your advice and you would have
written it down? How is that likely? Isn't that yes or no?
Mr. Szabo. Senator, I would have to go back and, as I said,
I have no records. I would have to go think more about whether
there were----
Senator Whitehouse. Well, I will ask you to think more and
also to make this a records preservation request. We will
followup as appropriate.
The EPA chapter of Project 2025 has dedicated five pages to
the Office of Air and Radiation, which you intend to lead. Do
you stand by the policy recommendations in that subsection
related to NAAQS, climate change, HFCs, mobile and stationary
source permitting, Clean Air Act sections 111 and 112,
radiation and EPA personnel?
Mr. Szabo. Senator, thank you for the question. My
understanding is these are aspirational ideas that were put out
by a non-profit which are very similar to what other non-
profits have done, including the Center for American Progress,
for decades, for potential candidates. I was not involved in
any sort of final review or determination as to what went into
that chapter or any of the other chapters within Project 2025.
Senator Whitehouse. Were you compensated for that work?
Mr. Szabo. No.
Senator Whitehouse. What is your intention, well, let me
just go back a step. What we have seen is everybody from
President Trump down saying, we had nothing to do with Project
2025, and that is not our blueprint. Then as we watch things
roll out in real life, we see that it is the Project 2025
blueprint, over and over and over again.
My question to you, is it your intent going into this job
to implement the recommendations of Project 2025 in the office
that you intend to lead?
Mr. Szabo. Senator, if confirmed, I believe in an open door
policy with respect to ideas from all potential stakeholders,
whether they be conservative or democratic. I am open to any
groups' ideas. I believe that is the best way to be a regulator
is to have an open, collaborative framework with anyone who
would like to engage with the Federal Government.
Senator Whitehouse. Yes. Nice in theory, except that your
career working for America First, which is a fossil fuel funded
organization, doing the work for American Petroleum Institute
members, who are by definition fossil fuel corporations,
facilitating Project 2025, which was run by Heritage, a fossil
fuel funded front group, everything in your past shows you
absolutely aligned with the industry that is the heart of
climate pollution. It makes me wonder how it is possible for
you to take an honest look at climate change and the risks that
it presents to us from that background.
My time is expired.
Senator Capito. You can respond.
Mr. Szabo. Thank you, Senator. I would also mention I spent
over 10 and a half years as a Federal career civil servant,
including over two of those, I think two of those, in the Obama
White House, implementing many of those policies. I believe
that based on my extensive career of civil service that that
would be done.
Senator Whitehouse. Time will tell, won't it?
Senator Capito. Senator Kelly?
Senator Kelly. [Remarks off microphone.] As we discussed,
and as I discussed with Administrator Zeldin during his
confirmation hearing, we are facing serious challenges when it
comes to ozone non-attainment under the Clean Air Act. All the
data shows that the overwhelming source of our ozone pollution
does not come from sources within Maricopa County. Yet, any new
development in the region needs to identify offsets to get
their permit.
Of course, the goal of the Clean Air Act, and a goal that I
share, is to find a pathway to improve air quality without
stifling economic development, like Arizona's clean energy
manufacturing industry.
Do you agree that the goal of the Clean Air Act is to
improve air quality?
Mr. Szabo. Senator, it was a pleasure talking to you
earlier, and yes, the goal of the Clean Air Act and my goal
currently and if confirmed is to improve air quality.
Senator Kelly. Of course, as you know, ozone pollution is a
challenge to address. I know you know this, but for my
colleagues here, can you just explain how ozone pollution forms
and why regions like Phoenix are susceptible to ozone
formation?
Mr. Szabo. Yes, thank you, Senator, for the question.
Nitrous oxides and other forms of emissions interact with the
atmosphere, and therefore, create ground level ozone, which can
happen in smog, create smog. With respect to the geographic
nature of your States, that can increase that potential ground
level ozone, especially with potential emissions from outside.
Senator Kelly. Yes, a combination, we have nitrous oxide
and we have volatile organic compounds reacting with sunlight,
it creates ozone.
The problem we have is a lot of this does not come from the
Phoenix area. In fact, somewhere between 80 and 85 percent of
the emissions come from outside of the region, yet when a new
permit has to be issued, EPA requires emissions reductions that
generate offsets or credits that can only come from within the
region, even though the ozone is coming from outside the
region, or the organic compounds or the nitrous oxide comes
from outside.
First, if confirmed, will you commit to making yourself and
your staff available to work with my staff, other Members of
the congressional delegation, and our Arizona stakeholders to
help us work through non-attainment related challenges?
Mr. Szabo. Yes.
Senator Kelly. Second, without prejudging outcomes, will
you commit to ensuring that the Region 9 office and EPA
headquarters dedicate resources to quickly review any pending
new source review permits in the region, ideally before we move
into serious non-attainment?
Mr. Szabo. Senator, I would be happy, if confirmed, and in
my current role, to work with Arizona on those issues.
Senator Kelly. Thank you. Similarly, without prejudging
outcomes, will you commit to ensuring that coordination between
Maricopa County, Region 9 and EPA headquarters continues to
make progress on the two local rules proposed by Maricopa
County? We spoke about these, Rule 204 and 205.
Mr. Szabo. Senator, as I mentioned earlier, I think it is
very important to follow the Clean Air Act with respect to
cooperative federalism, and can commit that if confirmed and in
my current role, will work with Arizona on these issues.
Senator Kelly. Will you commit to having EPA Region 9 and
EPA work with our local officials to ensure our attainment
plans can account for pollution from other countries and ensure
there is a more streamlined exceptional event process for
wildfire smoke?
Mr. Szabo. Senator, yes, I can confirm that.
Senator Kelly. Thank you. I have 40 more seconds; I want to
talk a little bit about staffing issues and cuts. Mr. Szabo, I
understand you have not been a part of a staffing conversation
in your current role. We spoke about that. If you are
confirmed, do you believe you could significantly reduce the
number of staff in the Office of Air and Radiation and still
keep the commitments you just made to me?
Mr. Szabo. Senator, yes, I believe that we can meet our
obligations with the budget provided.
Senator Kelly. My understanding is you have been working at
EPA for the past 6 weeks, is that correct?
Mr. Szabo. Since January 20th, yes.
Senator Kelly. So far, has your impression been that the
Air office is overstaffed or understaffed?
Mr. Szabo. Senator, I believe that both the political and
the career civil servants have been doing a fantastic job
implementing their obligations under the Clean Air Act.
Senator Kelly. All right. Thank you. Madam Chair, my
apologies for going over by 10 seconds.
Senator Capito. Oh, no problem.
Senator Padilla?
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am happy I was
able to make it back for the second round of questions.
I would like to pick up where I left off with questions for
Mr. Szabo. Before I left, I was trying to highlight the
difference and distinctions between the rulemaking process and
the waiver process.
Maybe let me ask you, if you have a minute here, to
articulate for the record your understanding of the difference
between the two procedurally, the waiver process under Section
209 versus the rulemaking process under the Administrative
Procedures Act.
Mr. Szabo. Senator, thank you for that question. My
understanding is that they both go through a comment period
themselves, and for instance, the California waiver granting is
similar to a SIP approval process.
Senator Padilla. Is the process identical, pretty much
identical? Or how are they different?
Mr. Szabo. They are both rules, and the process is with
respect to what the requirements are under the Clean Air Act.
Senator Padilla. They are not both rules. One is a
rulemaking process; one is a waiver process. If you are not
familiar with the important distinctions, let me move on.
Does granting a waiver implement a new EPA policy? Or is it
simply granting, in my case the State of California, the
ability for it to enforce its own standards?
Mr. Szabo. Similar to granting a State a State of
implementation plan that would just be providing that State
that authority.
Senator Padilla. That is my understanding as well.
When the EPA does grant a waiver, when does it go into
effect?
Mr. Szabo. My understanding is it goes into effect when it
is signed.
Senator Padilla. Automatically, right? Immediately. As a
followup, you may or may not know the answer to this question,
what does the congressional Review Act say about the time
length for Congress to act on a disapproval resolution?
Mr. Szabo. I believe it is within 60 legislative days from
the date that it is either the later of the publication within
the Federal Register notice or when it has been submitted to
Congress and GAO.
Senator Padilla. Right. Unless or until that happens, the
waiver is in effect.
Is the granting of a waiver adjudicatory?
Mr. Szabo. It is a rule.
Senator Padilla. Is it adjudicatory?
Mr. Szabo. It is a rule under the congressional Review Act.
Senator Padilla. All right, adjudicatory, the action is
covered under the congressional Review Act.
Mr. Szabo. With respect to the waivers, they are a rule
under the congressional Review Act.
Senator Padilla. They are waivers; they are not rules. That
has been established. For the record, that is why for 50 years,
including under the first Trump administration, the EPA has
treated waivers, including the attempted revocation of a
waiver, as an adjudication and not a rule. That is fact.
I just want to end by spending a minute emphasizing, Madam
Chair, why I have been so insistent and precise with my line of
questioning. As I mentioned earlier, California has a
disproportionate number of people who live in non-attainment
areas, significantly.
On the one hand, I am encouraged by what I heard from the
nominees and from you, Madam Chair, and several members of this
committee, of the State and local governments having the
primary role in improving air quality. For multiple reasons,
from an environmental protection standpoint and from a health
standpoint, that is why EPA can and should help, collaborate,
it should, when it may not be willing to consider this, it
certainly should not hold up States and locals from going above
and beyond if that is what they choose, if that is what their
constituents need and deserve, so that we can have less
Californians and less Americans in the future having to suffer
from cancer or chronic lung disease and other impacts of the
high levels of emissions, pollution and air contamination that
so many communities throughout California and throughout the
Country currently suffer from.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Thank you both very much.
As we conclude here, I would like to ask unanimous consent
to enter into the record letters of support for both nominees.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. I did not give you the three standard
questions that I should have done, and I apologize for that. I
am going to ask you now.
Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this committee
or designated members of this committee and other appropriate
committees of this Congress to provide information subject to
appropriate and necessary security protections with respect to
your responsibilities? Yes or no.
Mr. Fotouhi. Yes, Senator.
Mr. Szabo. Yes, Senator.
Senator Capito. Do you agree to ensure that testimony,
briefings, documents, and electronic and other forms of
communication of information are provided to this committee,
its staff, and other appropriate committees in a timely manner?
Mr. Fotouhi. Yes.
Mr. Szabo. Yes, Senator.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Finally, do you know of any matters which you may or ma not
have disclosed that may place you in conflict of interest if
you are confirmed?
Mr. Fotouhi. No, Senator.
Mr. Szabo. No, Senator.
Senator Capito. Perfect. Okay.
Now we have no further questions. I would like to thank the
nominees, and all my colleagues for their participation.
Senators who wish to submit written questions, and I believe
there are some unanswered questions that we will need you to
followup on, or further research I think you were going to do.
For the record, you have until 5 p.m. this Friday, March
7th, to do so. The nominee responses to those questions are due
back to the committee no later than 5 p.m. on Monday, March the
10th, and will be submitted to the record.
With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you all very
much.
[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]