The Fiscal Year 2023 EPA Budget (House Hearing, Serial No. 117-84, May 17, 2022)
Summary
The record of a hearing, The Fiscal Year 2023 EPA Budget, before the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change of the Committee on Energy and Commerce on May 17, 2022, Serial No. 117-84, with Paul Tonko presiding. The witness is Michael S. Regan, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Tonko says the proposal includes $11.9 billion, a $2.3 billion increase from Fiscal Year 2022 enacted levels, and over 1,900 new FTEs. Ranking member David B. McKinley says that, according to the Wall Street Journal, warnings of electricity shortages are growing, and that MISO expects a five-gigawatt shortfall this summer. Submitted material includes articles and letters offered by Mr. Tonko and Mr. Johnson.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“The Fiscal Year 2023 EPA Budget (House Hearing, Serial No. 117-84, May 17, 2022).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/the-fiscal-year-2023-epa-budget-b7ce04011a/
, SHA-256 4b17cf1574659972945f7488f33f546e0ce8dc10e67740105e5c2649327c0745.Full text
[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FISCAL YEAR 2023 EPA BUDGET
=======================================================================
HYBIRD HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 17, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-84
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-454 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
KATHY CASTOR, Florida DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York BILLY LONG, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
TONY CARDENAS, California MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois,Vice Chair NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware GREG PENCE, Indiana
DARREN SOTO, Florida DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
------
Professional Staff
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Staff Director
WAVERLY GORDON, Deputy Staff Director
NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change
PAUL TONKO, New York
Chairman
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois Ranking Member
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona (ex officio)
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
David B. McKinley, a Representative in Congress from the State of
West Virginia, opening statement............................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Washington, opening statement..................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Witness
Michael S. Regan, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Answer to submitted questions \1\
Submitted Material
Article of April 15, 2022, ``Toxic shower water. Sewage pits.
`Infuriating' woes in east Coachella Valley mobile parks'' by
Janet Wilson and Eliana Perez, Palm Springs Desert Sun,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 65
Article of May 10, 2022, ``Chemical Industry claims economic
harms from TSCA implementation days after reporting `strong
growth' for industry,'' by Terry Hyland and Maria Doa, Senior
Director, Chemical Policy, Environmental Defense Fund,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 78
Letter of May 10, 2022, from Chris Jahn, President and CEO,
American Chemistry Council, to Mr. Carper, et al., submitted by
Mr. Tonko...................................................... 80
Letter of May 17, 2022, from Kathleen Stanton, Associate Vice
President, Technical and International Affairs, American
Cleaning Institute, to Mr. Pallone and Mrs. McMorris Rodgers,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 82
Article of March 31, 2022, ``EPA Plans to Scrap `Affirmative
Defense' Emissions Waiver in Air Permits,'' InsideEPA,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 83
Article of March 25, 2022, ``Environmental Law and Policy
Monitor, EPA Proposes Significant Expansion to Interstate Ozone
Transport Regulations,'' by Melissa Horne and Mack McGuffey,
Environmental Law and Policy Monitor, submitted by Mr. Tonko... 86
Letter of April 1, 2022, from Representatives Carey, et al., to
Administrator Regan, EPA, submitted by Mr. Tonko............... 89
Article of May 5, 2022, ``ERCOT, MISO Warn of Potential Power
Supply Shortfalls,'' by Sonal Patel, Senior Associate Editor,
Power Magazine, submitted by Mr. Johnson....................... 92
Letter of April 6, 2022, from Representatives Slotkin, et al., to
Mr. Regan, submitted by Mr. Tonko.............................. 100
Article of May 12, 2022, ``Power sector warns of blackouts as
demand clashes with traditional plant retirements,'' by Jeremy
Beaman, Energy and Environment Reporter, Washington Examiner,
submitted by Mr. Johnson....................................... 102
----------
\1\ The witness answers have been retained in committee files and
are available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
20220517/114760/HHRG-117-IF18-Wstate-ReganM-20220517-SD047.pdf.
Article of May 10, 2022, `` `Way off track': Chemical industry
slams EPA,'' by E.A. Crunden, GreenWire, submitted by Mr. Tonko 106
Article of May 8, 2022, ``Electricity Shortage Warnings Grow
Across U.S.,'' by Katherine Blunt, Wall Street Journal,
submitted by Mr. Johnson....................................... 111
THE FISCAL YEAR 2023 EPA BUDGET
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2022
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:17 a.m., in
the John D. Dingell Room, 2123 Rayburn House Office Building,
and remotely via Cisco Webex online video conferencing Hon.
Paul Tonko (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding.
Members present: Representatives Tonko, DeGette,
Schakowsky, Clarke, Peters, Dingell, Barragan , McEachin, Blunt
Rochester, Soto, O'Halleran, Pallone (ex-officio); McKinley
(subcommittee ranking member), Johnson, Hudson, Carter, Duncan,
Palmer, Curtis, Crenshaw, and Rodgers (ex-officio).
Staff present: Timia Crisp, Professional Staff Member;
Waverly Gordon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel;
Tiffany Guarascio, Staff Director; Anthony Gutierrez,
Professional Staff Member; Caitlin Haberman, Senior
Professional Staff Member; Perry Hamilton, Deputy Chief Clerk;
Zach Kahan, Deputy Director Outreach and Member Service; Rick
Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and
Environment; Mackenzie Kuhl, Press Assistant; Brendan Larkin,
Policy Coordinator; Elysa Montfort, Press Secretary; Kaitlyn
Peel, Digital Director; Chloe Rodriguez, Clerk; Kylea Rogers,
Staff Assistant; Rebecca Tomilchik, Policy Analyst; Sarah
Burke, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Michael Cameron,
Minority Policy Analyst, Consumer Protection and Commerce,
Energy, Environment; Jerry Couri, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel
for Environment; Nate Hodson, Minority Staff Director; Peter
Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Emily King, Minority Member
Services Director; Mary Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, Energy
and Environment; Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel
for Energy; Olivia Shields, Minority Communications Director;
Peter Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member,
Energy; and Michael Taggart, Minority Policy Director.
Mr. Tonko. The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate
Change will now come to order.
Today the subcommittee is holding a hearing entitled, ``The
Fiscal Year 2023 EPA Budget.''
Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, members can
participate in today's hearing either in person or remotely,
via online video conferencing. In accordance with the updated
guidance issued by the attending physician, members, staff, and
members of the press present in the hearing room are not
required to wear a mask.
For members participating remotely, your microphones will
be set on mute for the purpose of eliminating inadvertent
background noise. Members participating remotely will need to
unmute their microphone each time you wish to speak. Please
note that, once you unmute your microphone, anything that is
said in Webex will be heard over the loudspeakers in the room,
and subject to be heard by the livestream and C-SPAN.
Since members are participating from different locations at
today's hearing, all recognition of members, such as for
questions, will be in the order of subcommittee seniority.
Documents for the record can be sent to Rebecca Tomilchik
at the email address we have provided to staff, and all
documents will be entered into the record at the conclusion of
the hearing.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Today we welcome EPA Administrator Michael Regan back to
the committee to examine the President's Fiscal Year 2023
budget requests.
Mr. Administrator, thank you for being here and for
accommodating the congressional schedule. We are expecting at
least one interruption this morning.
Last year at our hearing on the Fiscal Year 2022 budget
request I said EPA was in need of a reset. Before Administrator
Regan joined the agency I believe EPA suffered from a shift
away from its mission. In those preceding four years EPA
experienced the loss of some 1,000 employees.
After one year I am very pleased with the change of
direction of the agency under Mr. Regan's leadership. This
year's proposal includes $11.9 billion, a $2.3 billion increase
from Fiscal Year 2022 enacted levels. It supports a wide range
of national environmental and public health priorities,
including climate change, clean water, chemical safety, and
land remediation.
And of course, this request builds upon last year's
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which provided historic funding
for several key EPA programs. These funds are already on their
way to communities in need, which will result in long-overdue
investments in our water infrastructure and the replacement of
lead service lines.
The bill will support economic revitalization by
remediating Brownfield and Superfund sites and enable American
children to take a pollution-free ride to school on zero-
emission busses. These funds are going to improve people's
lives, reducing public health threats, while creating jobs. It
is truly a win-win.
But we must remember that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
was always intended to supplement, and not supplant, EPA's
annual funding. The proposal recognizes this by requesting
funds for the State Revolving Funds Brownfield Program and
other popular and successful programs that received boosts last
year.
I also wanted to recognize that, under the administrator's
leadership, EPA has centered its agenda around environmental
justice. I have seen this firsthand. Administrator Regan joined
me for a community meeting at the Ezra Prentice Homes in
Albany's South End neighborhood.
We thank you for that, Administrator. And you were very
well received.
We heard from community members that in the past their
interactions with politicians and environmental regulators were
often filled with lip service and, of course, empty promises. I
am proud that Administrator Regan, Region 2 Administrator
Garcia, and the Region 2 staff have continued to actively
engage with this community, and I hope this will result in
community-driven solutions to the environmental and public
health threats facing the neighborhood.
I can attest that the commitment to environmental justice
is not just a line item in the budget. It is a priority day in
and day out for this EPA, resulting in EPA staff and its
leadership reaching into neighborhoods that have not had that
opportunity in the past.
So, Mr. Administrator, I want to say thank you for that,
and I hope we can continue to work together to get resources
into Albany's South End and the many other communities that
have suffered historic environmental injustices across the
country.
Now that we have invested in our country's environmental
infrastructure, it is time to invest in the EPA itself. We
cannot continue to expect the agency to do more with less.
Staffing remains at 1980's levels, even as we are expecting the
agency to effectively administer historic infrastructure
funding. And much of EPA's workforce is eligible for
retirement, or soon will be. We need to rebuild the agency's
staff capacity and attract that new, talented pool of people to
public service.
I was very happy to see the budget request includes over
1,900 new FTEs. I truly hope Congress will support this
request, which will not only benefit current employees, but
also set the agency up for success in the future.
Finally, it is critical that EPA builds upon the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law by pursuing a complementary and ambitious
enforcement and regulatory agenda. EPA has significant existing
legal authorities to tackle climate and traditional air
pollution from power plants and vehicles, keeping PFAS
chemicals out of commerce, and get the lead out of our water
systems more quickly. I encourage the agency to develop and
adopt the ambitious public health protections, starting with
heavy-duty vehicles, which is currently under consideration.
So, Mr. Regan, Administrator Regan, I thank you again for
joining us. I look forward to partnering with you to continue
strengthening the EPA's workforce in order to pursue a robust,
holistic agenda to protect public health and the environment.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. The Chair now recognizes Representative
McKinley, our ranking member of the Subcommittee on Environment
and Climate Change, for 5 minutes, please, for his opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID B. McKINLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome back,
Administrator.
My comments are America's worst fears are now being
realized. Pursuing an ideologically driven goal of 100 percent
renewables in such an artificially condensed timeframe, the
2030 to 2035, is going to cause the grid to collapse. Last
summer, the head of global research at General Electric in New
York told the chairman and myself unequivocally that this was
what was going to happen.
And now, according to the Wall Street Journal, warnings of
electricity shortages are growing across the United States. In
the Midwest, MISO is working to prepare for the ``worst case
scenario,'' and expects a five-gigawatt shortfall this summer.
Last Friday, Texas took steps to reduce its strain on the grid.
Nearly three gigawatts of capacity have gone offline because of
high temperatures, and even California had to extend the
operation of its gas-fired power plants last year.
So what is the EPA doing to preserve and protect our
electric grid? It just seems like President Biden and the EPA
are increasing regulations, instead of addressing the pending
crisis we are facing. So, rather than ensure a reliable,
resilient grid and keep the lights on across the country, the
EPA is requesting almost $12 billion, primarily focused on
climate change and environmental justice initiatives.
Look, with today's science, renewables simply aren't ready
to power our grid, fully power our grid. According to the EIA,
the Energy Information Administration, wind, we all know, only
works 35 percent of the time, and solar only 25 percent of the
time. And the Lawrence Livermore Lab found that 81 percent of
wind projects and 84 percent of solar projects have not reached
commercial viability. So why does the EPA continue to pursue an
agenda that will only take more fossil grid capacity offline?
Mr. Chairman, the threat of electricity shortages has
utilities taking steps to keep aging power plants running
longer, but they are fighting regulations. The EPA is not
cooperating.
And Congress has made significant investments over the last
few years in carbon capture like Coal FIRST and Net Zero. These
investments will help us protect our grid if it weren't for
more obstinance from the EPA.
But the EPA generally doesn't recognize--you seem to want
to fund more climate change, environmental justice programs,
instead of taking care of America, neither of which are going
to lead to grid reliability, only blackouts across the country.
Mr. Chairman, Administrator Reagan, America deserves better
from the EPA.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McKinley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. David B. McKinley
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Chairman Pallone, chair of the full committee, for 5
minutes for his opening statement, please.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko. I want to welcome
our EPA Administrator Reagan back to the committee.
Since your last appearance, you have worked to restore EPA
and put the agency on a better path toward combating climate
change and protecting public health. And I am pleased to have
the opportunity today to discuss how we can build on this
progress and continue to deliver for the American people.
Last year Congress passed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
that provided much-needed resources to EPA to uplift
communities across the country. And we have an opportunity to
use this law to rebuild our communities and economy stronger
than before, while providing the environmental leadership
needed to usher a healthier and more sustainable future for
every American.
Now, while EPA's efforts are certainly heading in the right
direction, there is, obviously, much more ahead of us, as I am
sure the administrator would agree. The Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law was just a downpayment on our clean and
climate-safe future, which is why the EPA's budget request
builds on the downpayment to address the challenges ahead.
Time and again, we see evidence that a strong economy and
strong environment and public health protections go hand in
hand. This budget reflects that evidence to provide critical
investments in the health, safety, and prosperity of our
families and our environment.
For example, the budget includes $1.1 billion for EPA to
improve our Nation's air quality. It does this by developing
and enforcing critical safeguards, as well as by funding grants
to states and tribes, and scientifically sound research.
The Administration's budget also prioritizes programs to
urgently tackle climate change, like cutting methane pollution
from oil and gas sources, and implementing the American
Innovation and Manufacturing Act. This bipartisan bill, co-
authored by Chairman Tonko and Representative Peters, will
reduce the production and use of potent hydro fluorocarbons in
our atmosphere.
The budget request also complements the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law's reinstatement of the Superfund chemical
tax to fund more cleanup actions, an effort I have personally
championed to ensure that polluters pay to clean up their
contamination in our communities. About 22 percent of Americans
live within three miles of a Superfund site. Cleaning and
revitalizing contaminated properties creates jobs, mitigates
threats to human health, and directly benefits the communities
around contaminated sites, which are often low-income
communities and communities of color.
And the budget works to ensure that no community is left
behind by investing 1.45 billion in programs that will advance
racial equality and secure environmental justice for
historically overburdened and under-served communities. And I
am particularly pleased that EPA is creating a new
environmental justice national program manager position to help
deliver on its promises to disproportionately impacted
communities who struggled with legacy pollution for far too
long.
Clearly, we are expecting EPA to tackle an enormous amount
of critical work right now to protect our communities and our
families. The agency is taking the lead in replacing the
Nation's lead service drinking water lines; it is managing the
risk from dangerous chemicals under the Toxic Substances
Control Act program; and it is revitalizing other contaminated
sites through the Brownfield program. EPA has a lot on its
plate right now, and that is good, but it faces a serious
challenge when it comes to staffing and resource shortages.
And that is why I support the budget's request for more
resources to bolster EPA's capacity, develop a pipeline of
qualified staff, strengthen and support scientific integrity,
and ensure EPA can meet the statutory obligations that we set
for it.
The dedicated EPA workforce have worked tirelessly to
fulfill the agency's core mission without adequate staffing or
resources, in my opinion. And the increase in resources
proposed in this budget will not only help EPA fulfill its core
mission, but also to process permits more efficiently and
provide needed certainty to regulated industries.
So I look forward to today's discussion to examine EPA's
budget priorities. We are ready to work with you to ensure that
everyone in every community, regardless of their zip code,
realizes their right to clean air, clean water, and clean land.
And so thank you, Administrator, for all that you have done and
that you will do.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pallone. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mrs. Rodgers, ranking member of the full committee,
for 5 minutes, please, for her opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome back to the Energy and Commerce Committee,
Administrator Regan. Your annual testimony on the President's
proposed EPA budget is an important chance to examine your
priorities and your agency's performance.
EPA serves a critical role in our Nation's effort to
protect the environment and public health. This role includes
standard setting, regulatory science, and risk assessments, and
large amounts of technical and financial assistance for states,
tribal communities, and localities.
As you well know, EPA today is operating against a backdrop
of a tremendous record of environmental improvements. A review
released last month by the Association of Air Pollution Control
Agencies noted that, for the past 20 years, the public has
perceived the Nation's environment as getting worse. Yet across
the board, the opposite is the case. Air quality, for example,
has been steadily improving. Ozone, N0x, particulate
matter concentrations are fractions of the levels 40 years ago,
and the trend has continued over the past decade, including in
states with heavy industrial and economic activity.
These positive results extend to land, water, and air
toxics. Let's celebrate and promote these results. I would love
to hear you explain more why you believe this has happened.
I would also like to discuss the challenges ahead, as
tighter requirements run up against technological and economic
limits. Continuous tightening of the screws, especially when
standards are not technologically feasible, risk broader
economic harms to the very people we are seeking to help. I
worry that this Administration's radical climate agenda will
distract EPA from the hard work to ensure existing standards
are implemented, and programs can succeed. We have seen what
can happen.
In the Obama administration they issued several
controversial, damaging rules that threatened to cut
opportunities for people in struggling communities as jobs left
regions. Look at the Clean Power Plan rule, which sought to
regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. EPA
overreached with that regulation, which threatened American
jobs and the economy. A legal challenge is now pending before
the Supreme Court. Senator Capito and I have led a bicameral
amicus brief in that case, focused on the need to stop Federal
agencies from going beyond their statutory authority and
ignoring congressional intent. We are the committee of
jurisdiction. We are the elected representatives of the people.
Because of President Biden's inflation crisis, families and
retirees today are paying more for less, from the gas pump to
the grocery store. It calls for responsible Federal budgets
that focus on core emissions and effective management: the
ingredients for accountability and success.
The EPA fiscal 2023 budget request is nearly 12 billion.
This amount is 681 million more than the requests from last
fiscal year, which was more than a 20 percent increase. States
are tasked with enforcing most of EPA's regulatory
requirements, but this budget request calls for growing EPA's
workforce by ten percent, compared to current levels.
When you testified to the House Appropriations Committee
recently, you said that EPA is not inflating itself because a
majority of EPA's budget goes to the states. But not even 50
percent of your requested budget would go to the States.
I hope that you will agree with me that we need to return
to building, building our economy, not dismantling it. I am
concerned about actions at EPA to destroy next-generation
technologies that have pre-market chemical reviews, but are
sitting ignored on the desk of Federal bureaucrats; create--you
know, the actions that are creating uncertainty, including
delays or cancelations in our permitting processes; the actions
to expand further regulations like the coal ash rule, WOTUS,
and the cross-State air pollution rule.
These are actions that ultimately drive projects out of
America and make us more reliant on countries like China that
have the lowest environmental and labor standards. Projects
taking years to develop, and money lost due to abrupt policy
changes have a chilling impact on people's willingness and
ability to make things in America. To succeed, EPA must not be
an obstacle to development and prosperity for American
families, especially as they are struggling with the everyday
cost of living. We see that we have an energy crisis, an
inflation crisis that is impacting the affordability.
Again, I do appreciate you being here. I look forward to
your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Rodgers. And with that I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair would remind Members that, pursuant to committee
rules, all members' written opening statements shall be made
part of the record.
I will introduce the witness for today's hearing, Hon.
Michael Regan, Administrator of the U.S. EPA.
But before we hear from you, Administrator, I want to make
mention I apologize that post scheduling your appearance here
before the subcommittee, arrangements were made to have a joint
session of Congress to host Greek--the Prime Minister of
Greece, Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis. And so that will
begin at 11. So we will hear from you and then--again, I
apologize that we will go to this joint session of Congress,
and be back immediately following that presentation.
So we will now recognize you for 5 minutes to provide your
opening statement.
I will explain the lighting system in front of our
witnesses, a series of lights.
The light will initially be green. The light will turn
yellow when you have 1-minute remaining.
Please begin to wrap up your testimony, sir, at that point.
The light will turn red when your time expires.
And so now I recognize Administrator Regan for 5 minutes to
provide his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL S. REGAN
Mr. Regan. Well, thank you, Chairman Tonko, and Ranking
Member McKinley, Chairman Pallone, and Ranking Member McMorris
Rodgers, and members of the Committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the bold
vision laid out before you in terms of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Fiscal Year 2023
budget request. In this request, we lay out an ambitious and
transformative plan for EPA with the goal of a healthier, more
prosperous nation, where all people have access to clean air,
clean water, and healthy communities.
President Biden's proposed 2023 budget request for EPA
provides $11.9 billion to advance key priorities, including
tackling the climate crisis, delivering on environmental
justice and equity, protecting air quality, upgrading the
Nation's aging water infrastructure, and rebuilding core
functions at the agency to support and keep pace with a growing
economy.
Over the past year we have made important progress toward
many of these goals, and I am proud of the foundation we have
laid and the partnerships that have underpinned the successes.
But there is a lot more work to do to ensure that all of our
children have safe, healthy places to live, learn, and play, to
build a stronger, more sustainable economy, and to advance
American innovation and ingenuity.
Put simply, investing in EPA is an investment in the health
and well-being of communities that we all serve, and in the
economic vitality of this great nation.
I have had the privilege to visit many communities in your
states, and see firsthand the environmental and public health
challenges many of your constituents continue to face, from
unprecedented flooding events to crumbling wastewater
infrastructure. I have spoken to mothers whose children have
been led-poisoned. I have met with people who are living with
toxic waste in their backyards. I have seen conditions that are
simply unacceptable in the United States of America. From
investing in our Nation's climate resilience to cleaning up
contaminated land, there is no shortage of critical work that
needs to be done.
So members of the committee, I want you to know that EPA is
up to the task. We are eager to work with all of you to deliver
for our fellow Americans and to secure our Nation's global
competitiveness. But we need your support. Both the urgency and
economic opportunity presented by climate change require that
we leave no stone unturned. The 2023 budget invests $773
million toward tackling the climate crisis, but reaping the
benefits that come with it: a healthier community, good-paying
jobs, and increased energy security.
The communities hit hardest by pollution and climate change
are often communities of color, indigenous communities, our
rural communities, and our economically disadvantaged
communities. For generations, many of these communities have
been over-burdened with higher instances of polluted air,
water, and land. This inequity of environmental protection is
not just an environmental justice issue, it is a civil rights
issue.
In 2023, we will expand upon the historic investments made
in environmental justice and civil rights to reduce the
historically disproportionate health impacts of pollution in
communities with longstanding environmental justice concerns.
Across the budget EPA is investing more than 1.4 billion to
advance environmental justice and equity, cleanup legacy
pollution, and create good-paying jobs in the process.
Across the country, poor air quality continues to affect
millions of people, even though we have seen improved air
quality, perpetuating harmful health and economic impacts for
some communities. In 2023, the agency will protect our air
quality by cutting emissions from ozone-forming pollutants,
particulate matter, and air toxics. The President's budget
includes 1.1 billion to improve air quality, and sets standards
that reduce pollution from mobile and stationary sources.
A thriving economy also requires clean and safe water for
all. Although progress has been made, many still lack access to
healthy water, face inadequate wastewater infrastructure, and
suffer the effects of lead pipes.
America's water systems are also facing new challenges,
including cyber threats, climate change, and emerging
contaminants such as PFAS. The budget proposes more than $4
billion to upgrade drinking water and wastewater infrastructure
nationwide, with a focus on under-served communities. These
investments build on the historic resources allocated by the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
The 2023 budget positions EPA to create durable
environmental policy that sets our Nation on the path to win
the 21st century. It increases the agency's capacity to allow
us to meet the pressing needs faced by millions of Americans,
and fundamentally improve people's lives for the better.
Thank you all for the opportunity to be here to offer this
testimony. I look forward to our continued partnership, which I
share with many of you, and I look forward to achieving these
ambitious, yet necessary goals.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Regan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, sir.
And the subcommittee will stand in recess for the purpose
of attending the joint session of Congress with the Prime
Minister of Greece. Upon completion of that presentation, we
ask that people please return immediately to the subcommittee
hearing.
We are in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Tonko. I call the subcommittee back to order.
We again thank the administrator for his patience, and we
apologize for the disruption.
We will now move to member questions, and I will start by
recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
Administrator Regan, thank you for your testimony.
EPA has a big job to do, administrating historic funding
for water infrastructure remediation activities, and clean
school busses, on top of a renewed commitment to developing
environmental protections while enforcing existing laws and
requirements. But you are trying to do all this with 1980's
staffing levels. EPA employees are some of the most dedicated
public servants in the Federal Government, but the agency's
agenda will be hamstrung without additional personnel.
So, Mr. Administrator, can you discuss the budget's
proposal, please, to grow and develop EPA's workforce?
Why is it important, and how will EPA prioritize hiring
adequate numbers of full-time employees, diverse recruitment,
and prioritize fair and equitable promotions to indeed ensure
retention at EPA?
Mr. Regan. Thank you for that question, Chairman Tonko, and
I appreciate that opportunity.
It sounds like hyperbole, but you are correct. We today
have about maybe 100 or 150 or so more people than we actually
had in the late 1980's. Yet, you know, society has changed so
drastically.
And so, if we want to win the 21st century, if we want to
keep pace with the growing economy, we need to have adequate
staffing. And I think, as we take a look at a lot of the core
functions, EPA staff has dwindled not just over the past four
years, but the past decades, as you have laid out. And so we
need to rebuild that core. I can give you a few specific
examples.
In 2016, when this Congress refueled TSCA and gave the
agency a charge, it was given a charge without the resources.
Over the past--previous administration, the previous
administration did not ask for the necessary resources to
fulfill the obligations under TSCA. And so, as a result, right
now, the last Administration missed the statutory deadlines for
finishing nine of the ten risk evaluations that Congress asked
the agency to perform.
We are on track to--on the clock to complete about 21 risk
evaluations while rewriting rules. And I can tell you, we have
about 50 percent of what we need to do that.
You will be hearing from our friends in the agriculture
sector as we think about pesticides and herbicides. And as the
courts mandate that we take certain products off the market, we
have lots of petitions for new market entrants that we don't
have the resources to evaluate.
So you know, it is not a good idea to starve the agency
when it comes to trying to protect the public health and keep
pace with market demand. And so those are just two examples of
what we are asking for in this budget. These are pragmatic
asks. These are asks that we are making to keep pace with the
growing economy and protect the people of this country.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And Administrator Regan, this
committee played an instrumental role in reforming TSCA some
six years ago. And while I am glad to see that you are--you
have reversed some of the previous administration's policies, I
remain concerned with the pace of progress, especially since,
for some of these chemicals, delays are literally a matter of
life and death.
Can you help us understand why the agency is still
struggling to meet its deadlines, and how does this connect to
your workforce needs?
Mr. Regan. You know, we continue to struggle because, as I
mentioned, we have about 50 percent of the dedicated personnel
and resources that we need to meet the requirements of TSCA.
You will see that in our budget we are specifically asking for
those bodies and those resources so that we can meet the
expectations of Congress.
We have to rebuild the agency. And when we look at what we
are asking for, we are asking for these resources not only to
help repair our polluted lands, really get on top of these
pervasive chemicals like PFAS, 1,4-Dioxane, and others, but we
are also needing to do this to keep pace with the technological
revolution that we are seeing today.
Many people think that all we do is regulate. The reality
is that we provide technology standards for our regulatory
entities so that they can make long-term investments. We need
capable, competent staff. We need the staffing numbers and the
expertise to win the 21st century. We have a staffing plan in
place. We have the best staff in place now, but we have a
diverse talent pool that we want to bring in, new talent. And
we are excited about the opportunities to do that. And this
budget reflects those requests.
Mr. Tonko. Last week, EPA decided to cease collecting data
from several air monitoring sites in the CAST Network. I am
very disappointed by this decision. These newly mothballed
sites monitor important pollutants, including acid raid, ozone,
and ammonia.
So, Mr. Administrator, will you work with me to help me
understand why these sites were selected for closure, and what
opportunity exists to reconsider EPA's decision and to resume
data collection?
Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question. And I share
your frustration.
The fact that the agency had to make a decision to pause 28
monitors is not something that we take pride in. But we were
forced to do so because we did not receive the request that we
asked for through the appropriations process in 2020. So we
found ourselves robbing Peter to pay Paul.
I would love to spend time with you and your staff on how
we arrived to those specific closures. And I can assure you
that, if we receive the resources that we are asking for in
this 2023 budget, we won't be facing these kinds of closures.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, sir. We will take you up on that
offer, but I thank you for your concern.
With that, we will now recognize the gentleman from Ohio,
Representative Johnson, for 5 minutes, please.
Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Administrator Regan, for being with us here today.
Mr. Chairman, first let me request a few articles be
entered into the record.
First is the Washington Examiner article entitled, ``Power
Sector Warns of Blackouts As Demand Clashes with Traditional
Plant Retirements''; the second is the Wall Street Journal
article entitled, ``Electricity Shortage Warnings Grow Across
the U.S.''; and finally, Power Magazine's article entitled,
``ERCOT, MISO Warn of Potential Power Supply Shortfalls.''
Now, I don't know about you, but this is alarming to me.
Temporary blackouts for millions of people and dwindling
reliable grid capacity, we are headed in the wrong direction.
And why is that? Well, here is a clue: in 2022, 41 coal units
are scheduled for closure; in 2023, 21 coal units; in 2024, 18
more; in 2025, 23 units; and more in the future.
Well, what is so concerning, and what defies logic and
common sense is that these closures are happening with too few
alternatives to make up the shortfall. We know that EPA
regulations are contributing to these early closures, including
several in Ohio.
And what is the Administration doing to ease this coming
energy disaster for American families and businesses? Hmm,
let's see.
Administrator Regan, you yourself have said that we need a
``suite of regulations'' on the coal power sector. Seriously?
So we have got coal combustion residuals rules, regional haze
rules, ozone transport rules, the ACE replacement rule,
affluent limitations guideline rules, the cross-State air
pollution rule, and this isn't even an exhaustive list.
So Administrator Regan, MISO, for example, is already
warning of temporary blackouts during periods of normal demand,
in part because of premature coal retirements. Are you just
going to press ahead here, even if grid reliability is
compromised and the power goes out?
Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for your question. I would like
to first clarify the record. I never said anything about a
suite of coal power sector. I think what I have said is we need
to have a suite----
Mr. Johnson. I will get you the quote that you make.
Mr. Regan. Yes, I have been having----
Mr. Johnson. I will get that for you.
Mr. Regan [continuing]. A lot of conversations with the
power sector in general. And one of the things that they have
requested of me is regulatory certainty.
The list of regulations that you just laid out that the
Clean Air Act requires that we do, we have been having very
constructive conversations with the power sector about how EPA
doesn't surprise the power sector, how we don't darken their
door one regulation at a time, but present to them a suite of
options, so that they can understand what their investment
strategies need to look like for the future----
Mr. Johnson. OK, well, how do you avoid the conflict, then,
Mr. Regan, between your agenda to shut down coal and the need
to maintain grid reliability? How do you balance that?
Mr. Regan. I think we have to look at the facts. And the
facts are there hasn't been coal regulation since the Obama
administration. And the markets are what is driving these coal
closures.
If you have the conversations that I have----
Mr. Johnson. And there is a good reason. That is probably
one of the reasons why we were energy independent under the
previous administration, was because of the lack of those
burdensome regulations. But go ahead.
Mr. Regan. Now those same coal plant retirements that you
just laid out happened during the previous administration, and
happened during the previous administration.
The markets have decided that traditional coal investments
are not competitive. The power sector has decided that it is
investing in new generation opportunities.
The last thing I would say----
Mr. Johnson. Well, these articles would dispute your
assertion on that, Mr. Regan.
I am concerned that EPA's aggressive regulatory agenda
gives no time for meaningful feedback from the states and
entities responsible for electric reliability. So will you
provide this subcommittee for the record a list of EPA
interactions with states and grid operators concerning the
impacts of your agency's regulatory activity affecting the
power sector?
I got only a few seconds left. That is a quick yes-or-no
answer.
Mr. Regan. That is an easy yes. We----
Mr. Johnson. OK, great.
Mr. Regan. --[inaudible] states, and----
Mr. Johnson. Will you commit to providing meaningful
opportunity for these grid operators in affected states to
provide technical feedback on any proposed rules or enforcement
actions that may impact future grid reliability?
And will you commit to considering the feedback from the
states and grid operators in your actual rulemaking?
Mr. Regan. I think your question pre-judges that we are not
doing that. That is exactly----
Mr. Johnson. No, I am just asking you, will you commit to
doing that?
Mr. Regan. We will continue to do that.
Mr. Johnson. OK, thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado, who serves as chair of
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, Diana DeGette,
for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
And Administrator Regan, welcome. We are really glad to
have you.
Last month, along with Representatives McEachin and
Grijalva, I co-led an appropriations request to help the
landmark efforts that EPA is making under your leadership to
advance environmental justice.
And I spoke with you during the break. In my community we
have an environmental justice area--Elyria-Swansea and
Globeville. And there is really two burdens that these
communities face around the country: No. 1, chronic under-
enforcement of environmental requirements; and No. 2, the
cumulative impacts of multiple sources of pollution.
So my first question for you is, how much do we know about
how different pollutants interact, once they have entered our
bodies?
Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question, and thank you
for your leadership in this area.
I can say that we have developed analytical methodologies
and tools to characterize and distinguish and quantify the
different impacts of cumulative impact, or different aspects of
cumulative risk impacts. We know that cumulative impacts
underlie health disparities resulting in higher rates of
asthma, cardiovascular disease, cancer, poor birth outcomes,
and reduced longevity.
So we are focused on the continued research of how we can
quantify these impacts. The Office of Research and Development
has a few streams of work that we have underway for both
cumulative impact and cumulative risk. And so we are working
very, very, very laser-focused on that.
Ms. DeGette. So as I often say, Administrator Regan, is if
it was an easy problem to solve, we would have solved it by
now. And we know it is going to take many decades to fully work
out the science.
But what should EPA and its State partners be doing right
now, for example, with permitting decisions and other actions
to try to prevent these cumulative impacts?
Mr. Regan. You know, that is a great question. And what we
are doing is we are working with our State and local and
community partners to take what we know into consideration as
we think about our traditional permitting regimes. We have
information now. We can act now.
In some of our programs we have the statutory authority to
consider cumulative impact, and some we don't. And we have to
think about how we use that information to make smart
decisions. And so we will continue to make very strategic
choices as we move forward that put communities first, while we
also continue to do the research and development so that we can
more seamlessly integrate it into our decisionmaking.
Ms. DeGette. Well, if we do need to have some statutory
changes for some of these key programs, let us know, because we
will be happy to work with you.
One of the tasks identified under EJ2020, which is, of
course, the agency's Environmental Justice Action Plan, has
been for EPA to focus on at least 100 communities experiencing
under-enforcement of environmental requirements. And for
example, the neighborhoods I was talking about in north Denver
have a refinery right north of them that has been violating its
air permit, literally, hundreds of times a year.
So is the EPA currently identifying overburdened
communities for special compliance review?
Mr. Regan. You know, we are taking a very focused look at
communities that are disproportionately impacted. And the first
thing that we have to do is understand that there are laws on
the books currently that protect people more so than maybe the
protection that they are actually receiving. And so we are
prioritizing these communities as we think about our
enforcement capabilities. And it is important that people know
that, where the laws are clear and clearly violated, we will
enforce those laws.
Ms. DeGette. And what metrics are you using to enforce
those laws?
Mr. Regan. In terms of?
Ms. DeGette. In--are you--do you have the metrics you need
to know--you need to be able to tell whether these need a more
robust enforcement?
Mr. Regan. Yes. In many instances, we have the data that we
collect through monitoring, you know, best management
practices, you know, consulting with the company itself and/or
the communities that they reside in.
And so we have full capability to assess many of these
situations, and we are going to take action----
Ms. DeGette. You are just making a priority of it.
Mr. Regan. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. OK. One last question. Another issue that I
have been working on is methane waste prevention. And I am--
just quickly, I am wondering, are you seeing promising
advancement in remote methane detection technology?
Mr. Regan. We are.
I smile, because I was in Houston, Texas at a conference
not too long ago, where some of that technology was
demonstrated. And it is amazing to see artificial intelligence,
robotics, and other things that are ready to be used today.
Ms. DeGette. And you are leaning in on that?
Mr. Regan. We are leaning in very hard.
Ms. DeGette. Great.
OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from the State of Washington, Mrs.
Rodgers, who is full committee ranking member, for 5 minutes,
please.
Mrs. Rodgers. Great. Thank you very much.
I want--the new chemicals program at EPA is the gateway to
innovation. It is critical to innovation and winning the
future.
Administrator Regan, you testified EPA needs to double its
new chemicals budget and raise user fees by 25 percent because
EPA, ``inherited a budget that wasn't funded to do the job,''
and this was despite the user fees being increased over 600
percent.
Between 2017 and 2020, EPA averaged 265 risk determinations
each year, and placed restrictions on almost 80 percent of
those determinations. The Biden EPA has only made ten such
determinations this year. Clearly, we were more efficient, more
effective in reviewing the chemicals between 2017 and 2018,
with the same budget and staffing as the current EPA.
Congress is currently considering legislation to boost our
technological competitiveness, but I am concerned that this is
hampering our ability to develop and utilize innovative new
materials, the EPA approach right now.
How will the EPA meaningfully improve its efficiency of the
new chemicals program, regardless of funding?
Mr. Regan. You know, I think I would have to take a closer
look at the stats that you have versus the ones that I have. I
know, when we are talking about the TSCA program, the previous
administration missed nine of its ten statutory deadlines.
Those are just the facts. And we have a number that we have to
catch up on.
I think I have had a number of conversations with our
agriculture sector in terms of looking at chemical evaluations
and the lawsuits that the agency is currently facing or will
face as a result of 50 years of not complying or coming close
to not complying with the Endangered Species Act.
And so, when we think about these new regimens and
opportunities for new chemicals to enter into the market, the
facts just don't bear out that the previous administration was
putting more products on the market than we currently are. That
is just not the conversations I am having with the herbicides
and pesticides industry, and that is not--those aren't the
facts I am looking at when I look at the TSCA program.
Mrs. Rodgers. My understanding is that 265 new chemical
applications depend upon EPA action. I am really focused on the
new chemicals.
Will EPA--and the question is, will EPA continue its
oldest-first review policy of new chemical applications, or
preferred--will preferred technologies get a preference?
Mr. Regan. I think the staff that I have working on new
chemicals are working night and day to get the products that
are ready to go, ready to go. And so I will take a closer look
at that exact list that you have for new chemicals, and we will
have staff followup with you on that.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK, and will it be based upon the oldest
first, or is the Administration going to be, you know,
issuing----
Mr. Regan. I am not quite sure that the decisionmaking is
oldest first, as it currently stands. And so I would like to
have a deeper conversation with what that exact criteria is,
and where age fits into the trajectory.
Mrs. Rodgers. Well, my--I believe, historically, it has
been oldest first. So that would be great.
When you talk about laws being clearly violated, I wanted
to draw your attention again to Puget Sound in Washington
State. And this is critical, this is a critical issue to orcas,
to endangered salmon, taxpayer outlays, environmental justice.
You have said that you are committed to cleaning up Puget
Sound, but cleanup will continue to be a constant problem if
King County and the State continue to look the other way when
there is millions of gallons of raw sewage being dumped into
Puget Sound every year, endangering salmon runs and polluting
the waters.
If you look at Washington State's latest State of the
Salmon Report, Snake River fall chinook are approaching their
goal, and steelhead are making progress. But the Puget Sound
chinook and steelhead, those stocks that are most important to
the orcas are in crisis. EPA's failure to act is eroding three
Federal efforts protecting orcas from extinction, safeguarding
the salmon that are essential to orcas' diet, and promoting
salmon populations.
Will you use your backstop authority to end this excessive
sewage dumping by major municipalities?
Mr. Regan. You know, what we have done is we have done what
I believe to be a very strong job of enforcing the consent
order that is on the books. And I think I have mentioned to you
before--and I have promised the Governor of Washington--that we
are going to continue to work with the State to enforce that
consent order.
One of the good things that I can report is, thanks to the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we have got about 89 more
million dollars to put toward projects like the Puget Sound, so
that we can get the cleanup on the trajectory that needs to be.
This is one of those examples, just like you just raised
with the air quality. There has been progress over the years.
We can't ignore that there has been progress----
Mrs. Rodgers. Well, my----
Mr. Regan [continuing]. But not enough progress.
Mrs. Rodgers. Excuse me, I am running out of time. The
State continues to issue the permits. Millions of gallons of
raw sewage every year being dumped into Puget Sound,
endangering salmon populations that are going extinct. I ask
for you to give it more attention.
I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from the State of Illinois, who
serves as chair of the Consumer Protection and Commerce
Subcommittee.
Representative Jan Schakowsky, you are recognized for 5
minutes, please.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Regan, I would like to start by thanking you
for your continued work and leadership on fulfilling the
President's--it is--Justice40 initiative.
For far too long, our most vulnerable communities have
faced the worst effects of climate change and pollution. And
now I want to raise the issue that is so significant to my
State of Illinois, and that is that of lead service lines.
The EPA is required to update its drinking water needs
survey every four years. This survey is used to calculate the
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund for the formula. And the
America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 also requires the
EPA to evaluate and include the cost of replacing lead service
lines.
However, we are very concerned, because, in the State of
Illinois alone, we have 680,000 lead service lines in homes
throughout the State, the most of any State.
So I know that one of the ways the decision is made is by
this evaluation that takes place. And so far, because it
doesn't take into account that we are the State that has the
most lead service lines, that we are going to have to wait
longer than we need. We are very concerned about how the money
that has been allocated is going to be spent, and wonder if
there is any way to move up Illinois in the timeline. That is,
to make decisions based on what states are really facing the
greatest problem, and not just other different kinds of
calculations.
We are really in need. I don't have to tell you the
consequences of lead in the pipelines.
Mr. Regan. No, you are absolutely right. And I have spent
time in the Midwest, in Chicago, and other places. And there is
no acceptable level of lead exposure. We have over six to ten
million lead service lines in this country.
And so we are working very hard. I know that we are working
with the states and the tribes to gather information about the
needs, specifically for approximately 4,000 drinking water
utilities nationwide. We know where a lot of these lead service
lines are, as you have mentioned. And I think, as we implement
this survey, we will have a better layer, more granular layer
of information around exactly where these lead service lines
are.
Ms. Schakowsky. Let me ask you, is there any way that you
could commit to expediting the process to update the State
revolving formula, so that Illinois can move up the timeline
where we can get some help?
Mr. Regan. We are looking very closely at it. We know that
we want the State Revolving Loan Fund--No. 1, we have got to
follow the statutory laws that exist for those formulas. But we
also understand that there are some unique circumstances, as
well.
So between the SRF, some of our other environmental justice
grants, other resources, we are trying to expedite these
processes to get the resources to those who need them the most.
Ms. Schakowsky. You know, we have heard for years--and I
certainly agree--the problems that we have seen in Flint,
Michigan. And I have to say that Illinois is right up there,
and the concern for--you know, many schools already have their
water fountains shut down. Many communities, again, especially
communities that are in need the most, have a lot of lead
service lines.
And so I am really pleading with you on behalf of our State
and constituents in the Chicago area, where we have the
greatest number of these lead service lines, to help us. So I
want to thank you, and I will yield back.
Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that. And I will tell you I
have been in conversation with Mayor Lightfoot and the
leadership in Chicago, and we are doing everything we can to
get these resources to those who need it the most.
Ms. Schakowsky. And she is, too. So we need your help.
Mr. Regan. Thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from the State of Utah, Mr.--
Representative Curtis.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. You are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Administrator, the EPA website states that you
developed a passion for the environment while hunting and
fishing with your father and grandfather, and exploring the
vast lands, waters, and coastal plain of North Carolina. That
sounds amazing.
I, too, had this type of experience with my father. But
rather than North Carolina, I grew up in the mountain west
part. My district includes Bears Ears, Arches National Park,
and much of the Uinta national mountain range: different, but
equally as spectacular as North Carolina. Perhaps you and I
should spend some time in both areas enjoying this beautiful
place.
I mention this because, like you, Utahns have a great love
of nature and the outdoors, and you can imagine their
frustrations sometimes as they are painted as not caring about
this, or not wanting to take care of it. And I truly believe
that my constituents and you, as the EPA, have the exact same
goal, but often times it gets frustrated with the communication
or the implementation, if that makes sense.
So I come to you from that perspective. I would like to
bring up two areas where we hope to have a meaningful dialog
with your office. I will submit more detailed information,
because we do not have fully time to do it today.
But let me mention Energy Fuels. It is one of the largest
employers and property taxpayers in San Juan County. San Juan
County is a very rural part of my district. This facility is
quickly becoming a critical minerals and rare earths hub for
the United States, which I am sure you can agree is vital to
our renewable energy production, national security, and much
more. And so I am going to assume that you agree with me it is
important to ensure that domestic manufacturing of rare earths
and critical minerals continues.
A nod of the head is fine on that.
Mr. Regan. Yes, yes.
Mr. Curtis. Recently, I was bothered to hear that EPA was
actively communicating with Congress about alleged violations
related to recycling material before actually contacting the
company. And you can see how that got off to a bad start. And I
just wanted to ask you to commit to work directly with Energy
Fuels in region 8 to ensure that we maintain a fair and
consistent regulatory framework, particularly as they invest in
the rare earths process that is necessary for renewable energy
production in the United States.
I share with you the goal of making sure that they are
doing it right. But I would rather that we work toward a yes
than a no. And are you good with that, and will you help me
with that?
Mr. Regan. I am definitely good with engaging directly with
our stakeholders. I think that is important.
Mr. Curtis. Good. Thank you so much.
My new district, with redistricting, encompasses the Uinta
Basin. And within the guardrails of technology and economic
feasibility, I agree we need to reduce methane. This area has a
lot of oil and gas. I agree we need to reduce the things
emissions from oil and gas production, and would urge maximum
flexibility in how EPA allows companies to achieve this goal.
I sent a bipartisan letter with Congressman DeGette urging
maximum technology flexibility in how EPA allows companies to
address methane issues. I would love to ask you to please
review this letter and implement, to your maximum capability,
our bipartisan recommendations in the rule.
Mr. Regan. Absolutely. I will take a look at that.
Mr. Curtis. Good. Thank you so much.
I would like to ask if EPA has considered alternative
compliance pathways for technologies that go above and beyond
EPA's recently proposed rule on methane emissions.
Mr. Regan. You know, I will say that I was just recently
briefed on where we are with our methane rule, and potentially
where we go with the supplemental. We received over 500,000
comments on our methane rule, many from the industry. And I am
really pleased that our folks are embracing and looking at
maximizing the technology, the AI, the innovation that we are
seeing in the space for controlling methane and capturing that
wasted gas that can be used as a more permanent product.
So absolutely, we are excited about the potential there.
Mr. Curtis. Good. You know, as I talk with industry, like
you, they acknowledge, hey, this is a product we don't want to
waste, we want to capture this. And figuring out how to work
with them and motivate them, I think, is important for all of
us.
Let me just mention, on a similar note, the elected
officials in this Uinta Basin have expressed concern to me that
the placement of the EPA air quality monitors has led to
artificially high ozone readings. And I would love to ask you
to look into that, and see if it is truly a placement issue,
and if that is what is causing their higher ratings out there,
or if we have a more significant problem. We would love to
engage with your office on that, as well.
Mr. Regan. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Mr. Curtis. Good. Well, we look forward to hopefully
getting you out to Utah. I know you are busy and at many
places, but we would love to show you our beauty and scenery
out there, and I am sure you would enjoy it as much as North
Carolina.
Mr. Regan. I look forward to spending time with you in the
district.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Administrator.
Mr. Regan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
now recognizes the gentlelady from the State of New York, from
the heart of Brooklyn, Representative Yvette Clarke, for 5
minutes, please.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank
Ranking Member McKinley for convening us for this important
Fiscal Year 2023 EPA budget hearing.
Administrator Regan, let me thank you for coming before us
to testify today. Your leadership has helped to re-establish
the agency and its rightful role as a champion of human health
and environmental stewardship. And yet I am sure you agree
there is still a lot of work to be done.
One area where I believe EPA has both the authority and the
obligation to act urgently is in the transportation sector
emissions area. Not only is this sector our Nation's leading
contributor to the climate crisis, it is also a major source of
health-harming air pollution that disproportionately impacts
communities of color in urban areas like Brooklyn.
Back in March, EPA released the notice of proposed
rulemaking to develop a clean trucks plan for vehicles starting
in model year 2027. However, I have concerns about the degree
to which this plan would further the transition already taking
place toward electric vehicles. New York State recently joined
California in adopting an advanced clean truck rule to phase in
greater sales of zero-emission trucks. And our Federal
Government should now help lead in this effort.
So, Administrator Regan, how will the EPA ensure its clean
trucks plan builds off electrification progress already taking
place at the State level?
And are there other regulatory options you are considering
to advance the transition to electric trucks beyond this
immediate rulemaking?
Mr. Regan. Well, thank you so much for that question, and
thank you for your leadership in this area. It has been great
working with your team and your staff to help stay focused on
this.
You know, with the heavy-duty vehicle rules, we have sort
of a two-phased approach.
Step one, we wanted to honor our commitment to push our
rule as quickly as possible, as stringently as possible, but to
stay focused on the N0x pollutants that were really
disproportionately impacting so many of our urban communities
and communities of color, while we also push that technology to
zero emissions. And so, in the heavy-duty vehicle rules pathway
you will see in step one very aggressive, or as aggressive as
we could go, really focused on N0x pollution, but
also coupling the greenhouse gas opportunities there,
reductions through electric vehicles and other low-carbon
fuels.
But then, in step two, as we look at, you know, beyond
those years, we are really looking at the technologies that
will be ripe for that zero-emissions profile. We are really
trying our best to walk and chew gum at the same time, make
sure that we are controlling those health-based pollutants
while we keep an eye on greenhouse gas emissions, but also
looking at that long-term horizon that we know climate change
is that existential threat.
Ms. Clarke. Well, we definitely have your back, and we will
be pushing it.
It is similarly crucial that we improve air quality by
electrifying dirty diesel school busses, which currently pose a
major health issue for children in environmental justice
communities in my district and across the Nation. As you know,
the recently enacted Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
included over 3--excuse me, $5 billion for this purpose to be
administered by EPA.
How do you plan to ensure this funding is distributed in a
manner consistent with the President's Justice40 goals, so that
disadvantaged school districts with limited resources who need
the support most are not last in line to receive clean school
bus investments?
Mr. Regan. Well, I can tell you this is one of the things
that brings a smile to my face, when we think about
electrifying our yellow school busses in this country.
You know, we are laser-focused on this. We are creating a
very easy process, a very easy online process, by which people
can apply. We are also gearing ourselves up to provide
technical assistance to those who have not had a seat at the
table in prior years.
And to the point you just made, we are working directly
with the school districts. Luckily, I have been traveling all
across the country, I have been meeting with mayors, I have
been developing relationships on the ground. I know how
important that is. And so we are going to leverage our
relationships with our mayors and our school districts to be
sure that those who need to have a seat at the table have a
seat at the table, and know how to navigate this process.
Ms. Clarke. And then finally, in EPA's Fiscal Year 2023
budget it included a monumental proposal to establish a new
environmental justice national program. Could you expand upon
the need for this stand-alone program area, and how it will
help EPA better work with overburdened communities to tackle
local pollution and contamination issues?
Mr. Regan. Absolutely. You know, leadership starts at the
top, and it started with the President of the United States,
who said environmental justice would be a central theme to this
Administration, and we are taking that very seriously.
As I look across the agency and think about the needs that
we have, we need to have a national program office, that sole
priority is to focus on equity, justice, inclusion, and to
ensure that that is being done in a very objective way. And so
we are working on this national program now to help sit
alongside our program leaders that look at the future for air
quality, water quality, and land management.
We don't want to just put window dressing here. We want to
see a systematic change. And at EPA we know that we need
dedicated political appointees, we need dedicated career staff,
we need dedicated research and development work done. And so we
want to have a program office whose full-time job it is to
ensure that justice, equity, and inclusion is incorporated into
every single thing we do: every policy, every regulation,
contracts, procurement, hiring, the whole thing.
Ms. Clarke. I am excited, and I have gone over time. I
yield back, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your indulgence.
Mr. Tonko. You are most welcome.
The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now recognizes the
gentlelady from the State of Michigan, Representative Debbie
Dingell, for 5 minutes, please.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding
today's hearing, and thank you, Administrator Regan, for
testifying here today.
As I mentioned to you, Administrator Regan, at the last
time you came before us, you have taken over the EPA at a
critical time, as United States looks to make a much-needed
transformational shift to a clean economy, as the specter of
climate change intensifies, as well as reversing the harmful
policies of the last administration to protect public health
and environment. I applaud what you have been doing at EPA. I
look forward to working with you more on many issues, and to
support the robust budget the Administration has put forward.
But I got a lot of ground to cover in my few minutes.
Let's start with PFAS. These harmful chemicals persist
everywhere in the modern world, and we are finding new
contamination sites regularly nationwide. As the sponsor of the
PFAS Action Act, I was very pleased to see you took real action
with your PFAS strategic roadmap announcement last October. In
it, the Fiscal Year 2022 omnibus directs EPA to develop a 60-
day spend plan to address PFAS. It is my understanding that the
spend plan is due soon.
Can you provide this committee an update on this report, as
well as how the agency plans to prioritize this funding?
And can you provide this committee a brief--brief, because
I have many questions--update on EPA's progress to complete the
agency's PFAS strategic roadmap?
Mr. Regan. Well, I can tell you we are really excited, and
taking this to heart. And I was just taking a look at--what I
will do is I will provide to you in writing the exact details
of the spend plan.
Let me just take a step back, though, and tell you we took
a step back and we created this PFAS strategic roadmap, and we
are really focused on the research and development components,
the technological pieces of that. But we are also focused on
some very serious rulemakings here, one that designates PFAS
under the CERCLA program as a hazardous pollutant, and the
other is setting a drinking water standard. So I will get you
those specific----
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
Mr. Regan [continuing]. Details on the spend plan, but I
can tell you we have an aggressive plan.
Mrs. Dingell. It is going to be critical to designate
robust funding and manpower to--for PFAS so you meet those
deadlines.
Specifically, the PFAS strategic roadmap set a spring 2022
deadline to propose the hazardous substance designation for
PFOA and PFAS, the two most notoriously harmful chemicals,
which will--help accelerate. Administrator Regan, will EPA meet
that deadline? Yes or no?
Mr. Regan. Yes.
Mrs. Dingell. PFAS strategic roadmap includes a fall 2023
deadline to issue a final drinking water standard for PFOA and
PFAS, and I have had a lot of promises since I have been in
Congress. Administrator Regan, will EPA meet that deadline, yes
or no?
Mr. Regan. Yes.
Mrs. Dingell. And I will remind you of that. But I know you
are working toward that. Thank you.
Let me switch. Now I want to move to tailpipe emissions and
electrifying the transportation sector.
In the last couple of months, EPA has finalized a new,
light-duty vehicle GHG emissions standards for model year 2026.
I applaud you for getting it done. Automakers have been
supportive of those standards, though they have said that
significant increases in electric vehicles will be needed to
get there. We stood together as the White House set that goal
for 2030, but a lot of things are going to--require to get
there, a host of complementary investments and policies at all
levels of government, including consumer incentives,
infrastructure, and resilient domestic supplies.
In addition, within the next two years, EPA aims to
finalize GHG standards for model year 2027 vehicles and beyond.
Administrator Regan, can you speak to the importance of
these needed investments and policies to grow the EV market in
the United States?
And after you do that, briefly, I am going to submit a lot
of other questions for the record.
Mr. Regan. Absolutely. Listen, to your point, we have stood
together--industry, regulators, Congress, all the leaders--and
said that we can do this. We can do this. I think, if we can
follow the President's leadership, Congress's leadership, get
some of the tax incentives that are sorely needed to help give
that shot in the arm, we are well on our way to owning the 21st
century, as it relates to transportation. We have got an
industry that is committed. We are getting the environmental
benefits that we need. The jobs are there, the unions are with
us. And so, yes, we can do it, we just need the tax incentives.
Mrs. Dingell. But we are not going to get there if we don't
get the policies that are going to support making those cars
affordable, getting the batteries developed, building the
infrastructure, and upgrading the power grid.
OK, I have seven seconds, so I am going to give you
questions both on the EPA workforce in Ann Arbor, which is very
concerned about their being return to work under what they
consider--and others have documented--unhealthy worker
[inaudible], and then we also need to talk about the Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative, and why the reports are always
late.
And so, Mr. Chairman, I am going to have a lot of questions
for the record. Thank you.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Tonko. The lady yields back. You are most welcome.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Delaware, the
dean of the Delaware delegation, Representative Lisa Blunt
Rochester, please, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling
this important hearing.
And thank you, Administrator Regan, for your testimony, and
also your visit to the State of Delaware. We appreciated having
you.
Administrator Regan, you and your team at EPA are playing a
critical role in creating and maintaining healthy communities,
while also advancing the best available science to address
ongoing environmental challenges. The Biden Administration has
made historic environmental commitments to overburdened, under-
resourced, and marginalized communities. Those commitments
include mitigating and adapting to climate change, and
addressing pollution of our air, water, and land.
I know in my State, like others, the air that we breathe
and the water that we drink can lead to vastly different public
health outcomes, depending on where a person lives.
Environmental burdens can vary from one farm to another,
between neighborhoods and even block by block. This is a major
reason why it is so important that the EPA work hand in hand
with local communities, and follow their lead on the ground.
And so I thank you, Administrator Regan, for your
leadership at this very important time, and a time of change
and a time of opportunity. And I want to start out with my
questions. I want to focus on water affordability.
As we all know, the water affordability crisis has existed
pre-pandemic, and has only been exacerbated since the pandemic.
Last year I introduced H.R. 3293, the Low-Income Water Customer
Assistance Programs Act, which would establish permanent
drinking water and wastewater assistance programs at EPA to
assist low-income water customers in paying their water bills.
We found that in Wilmington, Delaware nearly one in three
customers are behind on their water bills.
And public outcry all over the country of rising rates led
to the bipartisan authorization of a pilot water assistance
program based in part on my low-income water customer
assistance legislation. This legislation also included a
requirement to conduct a needs assessment to inform the pilot
program.
Administrator Regan, can you provide an update on the
agency's progress regarding the assessment?
Mr. Regan. Yes. I will say, No. 1, thank you for your
leadership in this area. I think affordability is something
that we don't talk about quite enough.
And, you know, one of the things I can say is, as you are
aware, HHS is actually now rolling out there our more than one
billion low-income household water affordability program. So we
are working very closely with HHS on how we design our
partnership there, because that is going to be critical.
The bill also authorized a new, low-income water assistance
pilot program for EPA, but we have not received those
appropriations yet. But I can tell you that EPA's assistant
administrator, Radhika Fox, has a deep working knowledge and
experience working with water systems and water affordability.
So the combination of all of those actions, I think, are
giving us a competitive step on how EPA is planning to
complement your leadership, but also work on water
affordability issues.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Great. And while the infrastructure
law established the pilot program, as you mentioned, you
haven't received the funding yet. We know that this program
would leverage your staff's expertise in these areas and, in
particular, awarding grants and also working with public water
utilities.
What will this funding mean to communities who are
struggling to afford water services?
Mr. Regan. It will mean a great deal. We have really
focused on infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure. But
the President has not lost sight on people, as well. So we can
walk and chew gum at the same time here. And I think, as we are
making significant investments into our water infrastructure to
be sure that it is clean and reliable, we cannot forget that
affordable piece.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Yes, yes, and I want to shift gears a
little bit to the Office of Air and Radiation at EPA, and how
you set the standards for air quality across the country,
standards that are critical to reducing toxic air pollutants
and addressing the climate crisis. And we know that the
government can't do it alone.
So could you please share with us why State and tribal
leadership is so important in these efforts?
Mr. Regan. You know, speaking as a former State regulator,
I am probably biased. But states, State leaders, tribal
leaders, mayors know their communities better than the Federal
Government ever could. And we don't need to be prescriptive or
academic; we need to look at the solutions that are already
baked on the grounds, and--on the ground. And we need to match
those solutions with resources.
We are finally at a place now, thanks to Congress's
leadership through the American Rescue Plan, the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law, we have resources now that we can match
with solutions that are on the ground, and EPA is ready to do
that.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. I did not think I would be in the
position of Mrs. Dingell, and having to submit questions for
the record, but I have more questions and I am out of time.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much, and I yield back,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Representative Carter,
who comes to us virtually.
Mr. Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Administrator, for being here.
Administrator, look, I may not like certain laws, and
certainly I don't like certain laws, but the only thing that I
really ask is consistency and--across the board. And I am
afraid that what we are experiencing in my district, in my
region, in Region 4, is a lack of consistency, because it
appears that Region 4 is using a different rulebook for
enforcement compared to some of your other regions. And this is
impacting businesses in my district, it is impacting the
Georgia ports.
I have the honor and privilege of representing the entire
coast of Georgia, which includes the Port of Savannah and the
Port of Brunswick. And the different interpretation of these
rules and regulations is scaring businesses off, and it is
harming our ports, and harming other businesses, as well.
So I just want to get from you a commitment that you will
streamline and harmonize enforcement of the statutes in EPA for
each of the regions.
Mr. Regan. Yes, I believe very strongly that we need to
have some consistency by which we apply the law, while also
recognizing and affording some autonobility (sic) to the
different characteristics that exist within our states and our
regions.
But your point is well taken; we need to be able to provide
regulatory certainty to our business community and have an even
hand at that. And so I will take a look at what is happening
specifically in Region 4. And if you have specific examples you
can provide to me and staff, we will take a very close look at
that.
Mr. Carter. Well, I am going to take you up on that,
because I do have specific examples. And as you can imagine, it
is very frustrating. All we want isfairness. All we want is to
be treated the same. And we don't feel like we are getting that
in Region 4.
So thank you for your commitment to that, and I am going to
take you up on that, and I am going to send you examples of
what I am talking about here.
Mr. Regan. OK.
Mr. Carter. You know, if I could shift gears for just a
second, it appears that a theme of all of my colleagues is the
agency seems to be stretching itself kind of thin here. I mean,
this is the largest budget request ever by EPA, a 28.6 percent
increase from last year. And this is on top of the $55 billion
the agency received through the infrastructure law. So I have
got serious concerns about EPA being able to manage all of
this.
And, you know, having been a State legislator for ten
years, I feel very strongly with state and very strongly about
sovereignty and I am just concerned that EPA is going to be
dictating everything from up high, and inserting itself into
every issue from Washington, DC. And I just want to make sure
that the Administration understands this, and especially when
it comes to air quality standards. It is--you know, it has got
to issue timely guidance, so that states can put together their
State implementation plans.
And I just want to make sure that you understand how
important that is, and to ask you why are you not--why is EPA
not working with states and providing more resources to improve
their State implementation plans at a faster pace?
Mr. Regan. Well, I can tell you that I definitely agree
with you on that. As a former State regulator, I was
responsible just a couple of years ago on developing those SIP
plans and implementing those SIP plans.
Just a couple of months ago, I convened a meeting in
Asheville, North Carolina that had about 45 to 46 of the 50
State environmental secretaries to talk about the importance of
the relationship between the Federal Government and the State
government. We are co-regulators, and I respect that
relationship, and I actually believe in the real definition of
cooperative federalism.
So the goal, really, is for us to be really good partners
with our State regulators, and to be sure that we are working
hand in hand. And I can assure you that me and this team are
really focused on playing EPA's role as a Federal agency, but
also understanding the importance of that co-regulatory role
that our State secretaries have. And so you have my commitment
to continue to work on that, as EPA administrator, the same way
I enjoyed that as a State secretary just a few years ago.
Mr. Carter. Very quickly--I am about out of time, and they
are calling me to the floor here--but I noticed that you have
convened or called for some roundtables to be held in different
regions, but I can't help but feel oversight here in the sense
that Georgia was not invited to any of those. You don't have
any panelists from the State of Georgia. And I just want to get
a commitment that your staff will come to Georgia to hear
specifically from our businesses and my constituents about what
is going on with WOTUS, in particular.
Mr. Regan. Yes, you have my commitment that we will engage
with the State of Georgia. I believe we have. I have--luckily,
have a pretty good relationship, and hopefully will have a
meeting soon with the President of the Farm Bureau, who is, I
believe, a Georgia native.
And so we are talking WOTUS with all of our states. There
were ten regional roundtables set up, you are right. We tried
to choose regions that typically have not been afforded the
opportunity to talk about WOTUS in the past, but could
represent some of the interests that have not had a voice. But
I can assure you that staff will followup with you and your
team, and we will engage Georgia, just like we are trying to
engage every other State.
Mr. Carter. OK, thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Carter. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from the State of California.
Representative Peters, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Administrator, for being with us. It is good
to see you again.
Before I ask my questions, I want to thank you again for
your leadership on the water pollution challenges at the U.S.-
Mexico border in San Diego. As you know, we have been battling
one of the largest environmental catastrophes in the hemisphere
for decades. You came to visit it firsthand. I want to thank
you for that. You prioritized it, and you are working to
expedite the projects that will help us address the problem
once for all--once and for all. And so, on behalf of the entire
region, I want to say thank you again. And we will continue to
work to support you with the resources you need and the
flexibility you need to succeed there.
Mr. Regan. Thank you.
Mr. Peters. I and many in this room are committed to a
transition to a clean and a clean-powered economy, and we see
evidence that the economy itself is interested in that. But
even the most optimistic of us know that this will take years.
So as we transition, we need to remain aggressive about
reducing emissions from our existing infrastructure. So let me
ask you about two topics today.
The first is methane from oil and gas operations. There are
now technologies that can provide 24/7 continuous monitoring of
methane emissions at oil and gas facilities from the ground.
And due to customer and investor demand for clean gas, many
companies are investing in calculating carbon intensities of
their oil and gas supply chains to gain a competitive advantage
so they can sell what is considered clean gas to these
customers who are interested in it.
I am encouraged by the private sector innovation in methane
monitoring. We can't rely entirely on it. And, as a government,
we need to promote the highest possible standards for
monitoring, reporting, and verifying methane emissions. So can
you tell me a little bit about how EPA can contribute to better
monitoring and measurement of methane emissions across the
supply chain, and how EPA could encourage more widespread
adoption of continuous emission monitoring technologies?
Mr. Regan. Well, I thank you for that question, and I agree
with you. I can say that we are really excited about our
proposed methane rule that will regulate both new and existing
sources. There are just lots of opportunities there to deploy
technologies and best management practices. Artificial
intelligence, I mean, this is some really interesting stuff
there.
We are also tracking efforts to quantify carbon intensity
of oil and gas supply chains. We have met with many of our
external entities to be sure that we are on top of that game,
while we are looking at another full suite of options.
We also provide important raw data to these private sector
entities, so that we can ensure that they have the best data
and we are sharing the right data. Many of these companies and
groups rely, actually, on our greenhouse gas data programs to
develop their emissions estimates. So we feel pretty good that
we have got a handle on what is out there.
And additionally, we support better monitoring through our
industry stakeholder engagement programs like our Methane
Challenge program, where we have--many members voluntarily step
up, offer better management practices or technological ideas--
--
Mr. Peters. Right.
Mr. Regan [continuing]. So we can codify that through
voluntary actions and through rulemaking, which we are
underway----
Mr. Peters. I----
Mr. Regan [continuing]. Which is underway.
Mr. Peters. I hope you will call on us as an ally, and I
know you don't want to talk about the rule in this context. My
concern is this.
I helped lead the effort to restore the Obama-era methane
rules from 2016, but the technology has come so far since then.
And what I hope is whatever rule you establish will recognize
that technology will continue to evolve, and will give us the
flexibility to take advantage of those technologies as we leave
behind the technology of today, because we really want to get
at the methane problem, not proxies for the methane problem.
And so I am really encouraged by this on-the-ground, continuous
monitor--monitoring opportunity.
Second, I want to talk a little bit about heavy-duty
trucks. I am grateful for the EPA's leadership on reducing
emissions from the transportation sector, moving us to zero-
emission vehicles. In the meantime we need to continue to
reduce emissions from non-electric vehicles that will be on the
road for some decades to come.
How will the heavy-duty truck proposal that you have at EPA
contribute both to deploying more zero-emission vehicles and
reducing carbon and criteria pollution from the non-zero
vehicle emissions still on the road for some time?
Mr. Regan. Well, you make a very good point, and that is
why, with our heavy-duty vehicle rule, trucks rule, we have
sort of a two-pronged approach.
The first is stay laser-focused on those health-based
pollutants that we need to focus on, like N0x,
especially those that are disproportionately impacting our
urban communities, and communities of color, low-income
communities.
In step one of our HDV rule, we remain very focused on the
best technology available to ensure that we reduce that
N0x pollution, those health-based pollutions, while
also gliding toward that electric technology, or the zero
emissions technology. So in step one you will see us working on
health and climate at the same time.
But in step two you will see us transition to that
technology that is zero emissions----
Mr. Peters. Right.
Mr. Regan [continuing]. It is good for the planet, but also
is far enough out where we don't lock in the types of emissions
that we don't want to see locked in.
Mr. Peters. Right. I want to thank you for being here.
And Mr. Chairman, just to put in a word for zero emissions
rather than just electric--because I think hydrogen and other
technologies can play a role, too. So thank you very much, I
yield back.
Mr. Regan. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
Representative Palmer, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
Administrator Regan, I come from a perspective that
Congress sets the EPA's agenda and processes, and that EPA can
prioritize its work among these programs based on current risk
and law. But during the Obama-Biden era, the EPA--it seemed
like there was a strategy to use--allow outside groups--I won't
say use outside groups, but allow outside groups to use
deadline suits, lawsuits, and legal appeals as a workaround to
force new regulations that were not part of the agency's stated
regulatory plan.
And even worse, this really gave short shrift to the public
notice and comment period.
So what I want to know is--and by the way, the Trump
Administration clamped down on these practices by promoting
transparency and the rule of law. But the EPA, your agency,
repealed that about 60 days ago. I am just hoping--and I am
concerned--that the EPA is not going in this direction again,
where you are going to have a number of consent decree lawsuits
that will put you in a position of saying, well, this is what
the court decision was, and so this is the new rule.
Can I get your assurance that that is not where you are
heading with this?
Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
Mr. Palmer. I appreciate that so much. I do not want to see
us in a situation where we are having outside groups file
lawsuits, litigate it almost privately, wind up having a
settlement, and having a judge appoint a special master or
control group to basically impose new laws on people without it
going through congressional oversight, without it actually
being presented through the EPA, through your official agenda.
So I appreciate your response on that.
I also have a question about--in another area. EPA is the
lead sector risk management agency for water and wastewater
cybersecurity. It is a growing concern. And we have heard
different things about attacks, cyber attacks, on our water
systems.
This committee helped enact steps to improve water sector
cybersecurity in 2002 and in 2018, yet the EPA and this
Administration seem to be moving in a different, troubling
direction, actually, that would increase cyber vulnerabilities.
And one example of that is the EPA's plan to expand water,
public water system sanitary surveys, to include a review of
cybersecurity practices which would publicly disclose a
system's cyber security vulnerabilities.
So what I want to know is when will the EPA fully implement
all of the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act section
1433, including creating a process for EPA to recognize cyber
standards used by third parties?
Mr. Regan. Well, I can tell you that we are laser focused
on this cybersecurity issue. I think, you know, 180,000 water
systems all across the country, many of them--and I am working
with my State partners. I came from a State, as a regulator. I
know that a lot of states don't have a handle on just what the
health of their cyber situation is.
I know that my staff is working with this committee hand in
glove to be sure that we are using all of our statutory
authority to pursue cybersecurity in the water space that we
can.
Mr. Palmer. Well, there is a certain amount of security
that we need to provide in discussing these vulnerabilities. I
mean, we do not need to publicly disclose any problems that
water systems are having with their cybersecurity.
What we need to do is get together and take action to fix
the problem. So with that in mind, can I get your commitment to
the following: the EPA will not outsource its leadership
responsibilities for cyber security in the water sector to
other Federal agencies?
And can I get your commitment that EPA will regularly
engage with the water sector and its Coordinating Council on
Cybersecurity?
And finally, will the EPA support the Water Information and
Sharing Center's efforts?
Mr. Regan. Well, what I can say is we are not in the
business of abdicating our responsibility to anyone else. We
take cybersecurity in the water space very seriously.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you.
Mr. Regan. And I do want to go on record as saying the
survey that we put out to help begin to assess and shore up we
don't believe violates or provides any additional security
information that is out there.
But I look forward to working with you and your staff on
this. I have talked to my staff about this. This is a serious
issue for us. And I want to be sure, as administrator, that we
are using all of our statutory authority to tackle this issue.
Mr. Palmer. I believe that is exactly what you want to do.
Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do is submit those
requests in writing.
And Administrator Regan, I would really appreciate it if
you would respond to each one of those assurances that I asked
you for in writing, and get them back to the full committee and
to my office, as well.
Mr. Regan. We will be responsive.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, sir. I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. Representative Palmer, we will review all of the
requests at the end of the hearing. So thank you.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tonko. And the gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Representative
McEachin, for 5 minutes, who joins us virtually.
Welcome, Mr. McEachin.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be
with you.
And to the administrator, it is good to see you again, my
friend. I want to start off by thanking you for coming to the
4th Congressional district and visiting with us, and
particularly in the city of Richmond, and seeing some of our
needs, and also hearing me out in terms of the rest of the
district.
And I know that, actually, you had asked for some
information from the district, and we have sent you a memo
about--probably about a month ago on the district and some of
the needs that we have seen. And I have no doubt that you have
not seen it. I have no doubt that your staff is scrubbing it
diligently. But I would appreciate an answer in the near
future, if you can manage one. I know how staff can be, and how
they want to make their boss look good, but they need to
understand that you already look good to me, so I just look
forward to a response.
Mr. Regan. Yes.
Mr. McEachin. I am concerned, Administrator, that we are
almost halfway--or maybe we are halfway through the first term
of the Biden Administration. And I look forward to working with
him to--for him to secure a second term. But if the worst
should happen, and that not happen, we have got about two years
left for you to do some good work.
And I am particularly interested in how I can help you get
your Justice40 initiatives down into the 4th congressional
district, and particularly the rural part of the district. I
know you have a heart for rural localities, and I am not just a
big city Congressman. I have a whole lot of rural counties
between Petersburg and the North Carolina border that you are
undoubtedly familiar with as you drive down I-95.
So what can I do? What can we, as a Congress do, to help
you get your Justice40 initiative kick-started in those areas?
Mr. Regan. Well, No. 1, I appreciate the partnership that
we have with you and your office. It has been invaluable.
And I think that we will continue to contribute to the
White House's efforts around Justice40. They are quarterbacking
that. And many of us in these agencies are serving as pilots to
prove out the Justice40 theory. I will say that in December we
announced $1 billion investment on the cleanup of the backlog
of our Superfund sites. And, you know, what I can say is about
60 percent of those sites that are receiving the resources for
cleanup are in historically under-served communities.
And so, when we think about the Superfund program and the
Brownfields program, we are really hitting our mark on sort of
that 40 percent of the benefits go to the communities that have
been disproportionately impacted, or impacted the most.
The other thing is, with our SRF program, as we think about
the $50 billion-plus that we have to shore up our water
infrastructure, just looking at the statutory authorities and
the structure of that program, that requires 49 percent of
those SRF funding dollars to go to disadvantaged communities.
While I will say that the term ``disadvantaged,'' you know,
has a different definition, slightly different definition in
every State, provides a State with a certain level of autonomy
to really define disadvantaged, we are really on track with
that 49 percent number, whether it be in the State of Texas or
the State of North Carolina or the State of Virginia. There is
enough autonomy there, but focus and criteria there to ensure
that we are meeting and/or exceeding those Justice40 numbers
that the President pledged.
Mr. McEachin. I would like to--and not that you are
prepared to do this today, but I would really like to get with
you or someone on your staff, because in that memo that I
referenced earlier, we took a look at--I believe we took a look
at disadvantaged communities. And as I shared with you,
Virginia is 400 years old. We have got--been using water all
that time. We have got water infrastructure in all sorts of
different states of disrepair, from not knowing to where they
are located, to them being wooden, to being lead-filled in some
cases.
I shared with you that if I could just get the water
infrastructure in the 4th congressional district fixed before
the end of the Biden Administration, I would have--would feel
like that was an accomplishment. And so I don't believe that
is--I don't believe we have had a whole lot of assistance yet.
And so I would like to figure out how we can get with you and
get that jump-started, because that is a critical, critical,
number-one need in the 4th.
Mr. Regan. Absolutely. I was just conferring with staff. We
are on it, Congressman McEachin, and we will be in touch on
that very issue very soon.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you very much.
And Mr. Chairman, my gift to you, my friend, is 17 seconds.
I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Representative Duncan, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, and thank you for
being here in person today.
A couple weeks ago we had Energy Secretary Granholm testify
in front of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and I
asked her if she was anti-fossil fuels. And she replied, ``I
would like to transition away from unabated fossil fuels to a
clean energy future.''
Administrator Regan, I want to pose the same question to
you. Are you anti-fossil fuels, and do you agree with Secretary
Granholm's policy objective to transition from fossil fuels?
Mr. Regan. What I would say is we are focused on
controlling the emissions.
I think that question is interesting, because when we think
about the President's directive for us to focus on carbon
capture and storage, we are focused on the technology that
would capture the carbon emissions from fuel sources like
natural gas.
And so, when we think about the future, in my opinion, and
we look at the regulations that EPA is focused on, we are
focused on controlling the carbon emissions that we see in our
economy. And we know that it is going to be a combination of
things: energy efficiency, wind, solar, battery storage. We are
going to have to have advanced natural gas infrastructure in
place. We are going to have to have carbon capture and storage.
We know that we are going to have to have a suite of options if
we are going to win the 21st century.
Mr. Duncan. I agree with you on carbon capture, and I
actually like the aspect of that.
Let me ask you a question I asked her: How did you get up
here today?
Mr. Regan. I am sorry?
Mr. Duncan. How did you get to the Hill today?
Mr. Regan. Government vehicle.
Mr. Duncan. And that was a Suburban?
Mr. Regan. Yes.
Mr. Duncan. So you got a [inaudible] detail [inaudible]
second Suburban, as well?
Mr. Regan. I am sorry?
Mr. Duncan. Did you have two Suburbans? You had a security
detail, as well.
Mr. Regan. Just one.
Mr. Duncan. Just one?
Mr. Regan. Yes.
Mr. Duncan. OK, and that is an electric vehicle, I assume.
Mr. Regan. I am riding in the vehicle that our current
contract allows. And when our contract is up, I will take a
look at my options.
Mr. Duncan. Well, you should. If you are going to talk
about emissions, and everything that you mentioned earlier, I
think you should.
Let me shift gears, because we have talked about natural
gas just a second ago. Political reality is it is impossible to
build a natural gas pipeline in the United States right now.
Did you know that?
Mr. Regan. Well, you know, what I would say is that, in the
role of EPA, as we think about the power sector in the future,
we are actually having conversations about, if we were to have
new natural gas turbines, what would that look like, and how
can we best position that then in the future, if natural gas
isn't the option, but let's say the option is hydrogen----
Mr. Duncan. We have natural gas pipeline--turbines, you
have to have a natural gas availability, and that requires a
pipeline. But yet the EPA aids and abets environmentalist
groups that take them to court, and litigate these projects to
the point where they can't be sustained or completed.
An example, I am worried about South Carolina's ability to
meet our energy demands in the future because the ACP, the
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, was stopped, basically, on the
litigation side of it.
Mr. Regan. I think, if we are going to cite that one, I was
State secretary in North Carolina, and I can say that, for the
record, under the Cooper Administration and under my watch, we
approved the Atlantic Coast Pipeline permits that were under my
jurisdiction. A different outcome for the Mountain Valley
pipeline.
And what I did was I focused on the science, and focused on
the law. So since you raised Atlantic Coast Pipeline, I just
want----
Mr. Duncan. And I appreciate you mentioning your approval--
--
Mr. Regan. I just want to be on the record----
Mr. Duncan [continuing]. Of the ACP, but ultimately the ACP
got canceled by Duke Energy because of litigation cost. The
litigation costs came from the environmental groups who we
defeated--the Supreme Court--on the Appalachian Trail aspect,
but they were continuing to litigate it. And this isn't an
isolated example. The ACP is just one I used because I was
actively involved in the Appalachian Trail amicus brief that we
actually won in the Supreme Court.
But the fact is the environmental groups continue to
litigate these pipelines. And the ACP is just one. And so we
are going to see a continued thwarting by EPA and others on
natural gas pipelines.
Mr. Regan. Well, I don't want to conflate. I worked for the
State of North Carolina. I work for the EPA, not environmental
groups.
I hear your arguments. Your arguments sound like they are
levied toward the environmental groups. And so I want to be
responsive in the capacity that I am in, which is not an
environmental group. I am trying to be responsible and engage
with our industry, provide certainty, and focus on
technological solutions that win the future. I don't work for
an environmental group.
Mr. Duncan. So for the energy regulations that fall under
the EPA's jurisdiction, Clean Air Act mainly, Clean Water Act,
can you commit to instilling certainty for these groups that
want to build these companies, that want to build pipelines, or
provide natural gas and other resources for energy production?
Mr. Regan. You know, I was just criticized earlier for
saying this, but, actually, what I am doing to respond to the
power sector and EEI, I am actually spending time with these
CEOs, and they have asked for certainty.
And so what we have done is we have taken a look at all the
rules that we are statutorily required to put out, and we are
putting them in a package. We are not darkening their doorstep
one at a time, death by 1,000 paper cuts. We are trying to
present a uniform package so that our power sector understands
what investments might work for the future.
What I can commit to is doing what I have been doing, which
is working very transparently with the oil and gas sector and
with the power sector on the rules that are coming forward, and
how we can really take advantage of technology and innovation
so that we can drive down the emissions that we are seeing, not
only that contribute to climate pollutants, but also to health-
based pollutants.
Mr. Duncan. And certainty, as well as the existing rules
and regulations that are in place today.
Mr. Regan. We need certainty for our companies to be able
to make the long-term investments that we need.
Mr. Duncan. I like what you have said. I appreciate you
saying that, and I look forward to questioning you again in a
year and finding out if that certainty has been applied.
Mr. Chairman, thank you so much.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from the State of Florida.
Representative Soto, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman.
And Administrator Regan, I believe you are the man for the
moment right now, coming from North Carolina and having to work
with both sides of the aisle, that has been on display here
today. And we are really appreciative of that, especially as we
are coming out of the pandemic.
And under President Biden's budget we are dropping the
deficit by $1.5 trillion, $1.5 trillion, the biggest in
history. And that--you have to look at it in context of the
budget request that you are making today, so that you could
ramp up for this infrastructure law implementation. That is
what I want to focus on, both electric vehicles, specifically
school busses, clean water, and environmental remediation,
three areas that you are going to be working on closely.
We have Orange County Public Schools, one of the largest
public school districts in the Nation, and we are really
interested in the decarbonization of our Nation's school
busses, 5 billion. So it would be great to hear a little bit
about how this budget is going to help deliver for central
Florida, for school busses.
Mr. Regan. Well, I am really excited about it. I mean, when
you think about the future, you think about our children. And
so to have our children riding on electric school busses is
just awesome.
One billion dollars this year that we will spend in trying
to get our school busses electrified. In the coming weeks we
are going to announce a $500 million grant. We are working
directly with local school districts. We are going to make it
easy. We are going to put these processes online. We are going
to engage these school districts. We want to be sure that those
people who need these busses the most will have a competitive
chance at getting these busses. So I am excited about that.
Mr. Soto. And we appreciate it, Mr. Administrator.
Next, clean water. This is an issue that has happened in
Saint Cloud, Florida, with aging infrastructure--$50 billion to
EPA for improving our Nation's drinking water, wastewater, and
stormwater.
So is this budget going to help you ramp up to do the job
for so many clean water needs across the nation?
Mr. Regan. You know, the $50 billion from the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law is a shot in the arm. It is a huge--it is a
historic investment.
And so we are going to work with our State partners. I have
written every Governor a letter, every Governor, a letter
walking through how I want to partner with those Governors to
be sure that those resources get to those who need it the most.
We know that the 50 billion is a shot in the arm, but we know
that there is more need there, as well. So we are going to have
to leverage our traditional resources and these bipartisan
infrastructure dollars to be sure that we are protecting the
public, while gearing up for some of the impacts that we are
seeing from climate change.
Mr. Soto. Well, thank you, Administrator, and also
environmental remediation.
We have some of our older cities in central Florida, like
Orlando and Kissimmee, my hometown, where we could be reusing
land that was once for industrial uses or certain agriculture
uses to bring it back into commercial use, 5.4 billion for
cleaning up legacy pollution at Superfund and Brownfield Sites.
How does this budget help you meet the moment for this key
issue for infrastructure, as well?
Mr. Regan. You know, this budget and the budget request we
have in help us to shore up and be prepared, over $5 billion
for Superfund and Brownfield sites. We are talking about a lot
of cleanup.
We are also talking about a lot of economic development. We
are also talking about the removal of a lot of blighted site,
and rebuilding some communities. We are excited about it. I
think that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law gives us the
capital to make those investments.
What you see in the 2023 budget are the types of staffing
that we are going to need to maintain that, and continue that
through the future.
Mr. Soto. And last, Mr. Administrator, we know, because of
both the pandemic and because of the war in Ukraine, gas has
been a real struggle as we are balancing to lower prices with
the environment, dealing with a worldwide shortage. So how do
we strike that balance between environment, and looking at
summer blends, and ethanol, and other things to lower the price
at the pump, while still protecting our environment?
Mr. Regan. I think we have to follow the science and follow
the law.
I think the President pledged that this unprovoked war on
Ukraine would cause some stress and some pressure, especially
at the pump. And he pledged to use all the tools in his
toolbox. He asked us to take a look at what we could do.
I took a look at the science. I looked at E15. And the
reason that the waiver is in place is because we wanted to get
in front of having any kind of supply issues. We know that
there are over 2,000 gas stations in rural communities all
across this country that could benefit from that E15 waiver. We
looked at the science. We knew it would not have adverse
impacts on the air quality for at least a couple of months. And
so, in order to relieve that pressure at the pump and empower
some of our rural communities to have access to those
resources, we put that waiver in place.
Mr. Soto. And we are appreciative. This is a way for our
rural communities to help with this, to be part of the solution
to helping reduce gas prices. So thank you, Mr. Administrator.
And I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Representative Crenshaw, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to
Administrator Regan for being here today. We appreciate it.
I wasn't going to bring this up, but you were just talking
about the Justice40 initiative, which is a White House report,
and it lays out what kind of projects and technologies would
benefit communities, and then it lays out what kind would not
benefit. And I have some concerns here because on the list of
projects on page 59 that ``will not benefit a community,'' this
particular report lays out a list: fossil fuels, carbon
capture, roads, research and development. It just says
``research and development,'' it doesn't even say what kind, it
is just wouldn't benefit a community. Nuclear energy is on that
list. Pipelines are on that list. So according to the
environmental justice warriors, vulnerable communities do not
need electricity.
I think you seem like a pretty reasonable guy. You can't
possibly agree with every aspect of that report, right?
Mr. Regan. You know, I am honestly not familiar with the
report.
Mr. Crenshaw. OK, page 59, check it out. Well, we were just
talking about it. That is why I brought it up.
Mr. Regan. OK.
Mr. Crenshaw. Moving along, I--one of the concerns I have
is that the rhetoric of this Administration does not match the
actions. And I have heard the President say a lot of things
recently in the midst of an inflation crisis, in the midst of
food shortages, supply chain problems.
And he said a lot of things that I happen to like, like we
need to increase our oil and gas production, we need to lower
gas prices. He says we need more broadband and fiber optic
cable, more domestic manufacturing of semiconductor chips, more
wind turbines. He wants to replace lead pipes and improve our
water quality, he wants to reduce our food prices. These are
all really good things to want.
But all of these goals require the very plastics and
chemicals that EPA regulates. And this is my concern, because I
think the EPA is in a position to be helpful here or not
helpful. And based on the various proposals and actions from
your agency, I have to question whether these goals are shared
broadly in the Administration. And I will start with some
examples.
Let's start with semiconductor chips. So the idea is that
we need more chip manufacturing domestically. The problem is
this recent proposal for billion-dollar punishments on the very
chemicals, PFAS chemicals, that go into chips. So why would we
do that if we are trying to increase chip production here in
the U.S.?
Mr. Regan. Being on the receiving end of a water crisis in
North Carolina, GenX, caused by a company, Chemours, as a spin
off from DuPont, I don't believe that you have to choose
between protecting water quality in people's lives and
companies doing the right thing the right way and contributing
to our global competitiveness.
And so when I take a look at situations like GenX or PFAS,
right, we know that there are technologies and ways to reduce
that exposure to mothers, children, and everyone. This is about
holding these companies accountable----
Mr. Crenshaw. I agree there is a good middle ground. The
problem with the PFAS--we are talking about PFAS in
particular--is EPA's proposal to ban a whole wide variety of
them, instead of going individually to each one that might be
considered dangerous.
Well, let's look at some more examples. The President also
wants to lower food prices.
Mr. Regan. That is not quite accurate.
Mr. Crenshaw. OK.
Mr. Regan. I don't think we are looking at banning PFAS as
a class. I think we have looked at before----
Mr. Crenshaw. It is re-categorizing it in a way that would
make it extremely costly to produce it.
Again, looking at food prices, we want to lower food prices
to be easier to make food, and less costly. But EPA bans the
use of one of the most widely used pesticides, and curtails
another.
In another example, the President commits to more oil and
gas infrastructure--actually, I loved this--ordered FERC to
withdraw its proposal back in March, which would further limit
the building of pipelines. But EPA actually wrote a letter
expressing support for those same proposals.
And this one I want to get to, also. So this is plastic
resin. It is produced in Houston. This is the kind of high-
quality plastics that are used in biomedical devices, everyday
devices, everything we need to reduce health care costs, deploy
broadband, replace lead pipes, build out our infrastructure.
But isn't it--it is true, isn't it, that the EPA right now
is considering re-classifying basic PVC plastics as a hazardous
waste product?
Does that seem like a productive thing to do in the midst
of an inflation crisis?
Mr. Regan. I think that what EPA is doing is taking actions
to put the proper classification on any kind of potential
hazard----
Mr. Crenshaw. But this can't possibly be a hazardous waste
product, right?
I mean, this is the kind of plastic that we would use for
biomedical devices. We would put them in our bodies.
Mr. Regan. Yes, I think what EPA does is regulate
processes. And so I think we have to look at not just the----
Mr. Crenshaw. Are you familiar with the----
Mr. Regan. It makes----
Mr. Crenshaw [continuing]. Problem I am specifically
referring to?
Mr. Regan. Yes.
Mr. Crenshaw. Yes? OK.
Mr. Regan. Yes, yes, I am. And listen, I think that I have
heard lots of things, that we plan to ban and put a moratorium
on permitting plastic. I mean, like, there is a lot of stuff
out there----
Mr. Crenshaw. I didn't say that. I said you are considering
it, which is true.
Mr. Regan. We are not, no.
Mr. Crenshaw. Yes, you are.
Mr. Regan. The answer----
Mr. Crenshaw. You are actually required to, by a court
case, considering making PVC plastic----
Mr. Regan. We have no plans to ban----
Mr. Crenshaw. Again, I am just hoping that you have----
Mr. Regan. We have no plans to ban or put a moratorium on
permitting plastic----
Mr. Crenshaw. I didn't say ban, I said reclassify. OK.
Reclassified as a hazardous waste product, which would vastly
increase the cost of doing business, which would vastly
contribute to more inflation. That is why I am asking you about
it. But I am out of time.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Representative Hudson, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Regan, welcome back. It is good to see you.
Mr. Regan. Good to see you.
Mr. Hudson. I appreciate you being here in person to
discuss your agency's Fiscal Year 2023 budget plan.
As you know from our work together over the years,
addressing drinking water contamination, especially GenX, is
extremely important to me, and has been one of my priorities as
a member of this subcommittee. On that note, I appreciate your
agency's efforts to address PFAS, including the release of your
agency's PFAS strategic roadmap last October, which included a
human health toxicity assessment that we have been waiting a
long time for, you and I both, for GenX chemicals.
You are well aware that North Carolina, specifically
Cumberland County in my district and the folks downstream, has
a disproportionate burden in our water basins when it comes to
these emerging containments. Currently, many residents and even
schools that are receiving drinking water from the Cape Fear
River are paying out of pocket for filtration systems to remove
GenX contaminants. And since mid-February, more than 6,200
private wells in Cumberland, Robeson, and Sampson Counties have
been found to contain GenX and other types of PFAS chemicals.
To address this, many households are relying, as you know,
on cases of bottled water for their water-related needs. And
because of this, I and many in our community believe we can be
a model for removing--or removal and remediation efforts.
In 2020, EPA published several fact sheets on emerging
technologies for PFAS destruction, as well as a journal article
on the efficacy of destroying PFAS using super-critical water
oxidation, or SCWO, in November 2021.
EPA's PFAS roadmap also includes a section on evaluating
and developing technologies for reducing PFAS in the
environment. Administrator Regan, what plans does EPA have to
continue to evaluate, validate, and deploy technologies like
SCWO, and can you please provide a timeline for these plans?
Mr. Regan. Well, Congressman, thank you, No. 1, for your
continued partnership on this very tough issue. This is one
that you and I have been working on for quite some time, and
this is a top priority.
I, on purpose, announced our PFAS roadmap from the State of
North Carolina, because I know the experience that North
Carolinians have in combating with this. I will say evaluating
and developing technologies for reducing PFAS is a critical
component of the roadmap. Much of the work that we have done,
much of the scientific work that we have done, as you know, has
been done from the campus there in North Carolina, EPA's
Research Triangle Park campus.
This past February, we released the PFAS Thermal Treatment
Data base. It is an online resource that contains more than
2,000 records from 80 different sources about the treat ability
of PFAS using different thermal processes. A lot of that
information, that rich information, came from folks in the
State of North Carolina.
So I will say that we are laser-focused on the
technological chase. We are leveraging the experience in places
like North Carolina. We are also, you know, working on
evaluating drinking water treatment technologies to support our
proposed water standards for both PFOA and PFAS later this
year.
So we are excited about the partnership. We are excited
about the progress. But you and I both know that we need to do
a lot more.
Mr. Hudson. Absolutely, and I appreciate your commitment to
this, and I look forward to continuing to work with you.
And we would love to have an opportunity to have you come
down and do a site visit later this year, potentially. We have
got a place where some of these technologies are being
deployed, and I would love for you to come see that firsthand.
Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
Mr. Hudson. I appreciate that. Another issue I would like
to put on your radar, in April traces of 1,4-Dioxane were
identified in Chatham County's water supply. And I am
concerned, obviously, about downstream impacts on my district,
where my constituents live.
I know the EPA does not regulate 1,4-Dioxane in drinking
water. However, I would appreciate any insight your team could
give us on any EPA regulatory efforts on this substance.
Mr. Regan. You know, these unregulated emerging compounds
cause a lot of us a lot of heartache. And I can say that we are
going to use our authority under TSCA and the Safe Drinking
Water Act to build a scientific foundation to better understand
and respond to 1,4-Dioxane.
You know, we plan to evaluate 1,4-Dioxane under the Safe
Drinking Water Act regulatory determinations notice, which we
are working on really hard right now. So yes, currently it is
unregulated, it is an emerging contaminant. But I can tell you
we are looking at all of our existing authorities and what we
can do to regulate these emerging contaminants.
Mr. Hudson. Well, I appreciate you doing that, because
folks are really concerned about it back in North Carolina. And
so I look forward to continuing to work with you as you move
forward in that process.
Mr. Regan. Absolutely. Your partnership is critical.
Mr. Hudson. Well, I appreciate that.
My time has expired. I did want to get into a third topic,
but I will followup with you in writing.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Hudson. And again, I appreciate you making time to be
with us today.
Mr. Regan. Thank you.
Mr. Hudson. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman from North Carolina yields back.
Administrator Regan, we are calling--there is a call for
votes. There are two votes. It should be a very short recess.
But unfortunately, again, we beg your forgiveness. We are going
to recess for a short while, and we have about three to four
members yet that I know of that want to question. So we are
getting there.
Mr. Regan. OK.
Mr. Tonko. But thank you for your patience again.
Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
Mr. Tonko. The subcommittee will stand in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. O'Halleran [presiding]. And with that, we will call the
subcommittee back to order.
I will yield to myself for quite--for a statement. I want
to thank the Chair and the ranking member for their putting
this meeting together.
It is great to see you again, Administrator Regan. I want
to talk to you for coming--or thank you for coming to northern
Arizona last September in our windy day that day--and dusty up
there--to visit some of the more than 500 uranium mine sites on
the Navajo Reservation, and to meet with the Navajo leadership.
Since the 1940's and 1950's and 1960's, and into the
1970's, millions of ton of uranium have been mined from Navajo
lands, exposing workers and their families to uranium
contamination and higher levels of radiation. For far too long,
these sites have been poisoning people, water, and land of the
Navajo Nation.
EPA began cleanup of these sites in the 1990's, but has
little to show for it other than the ability to get some money
through different lawsuits and into a trust fund, and some
studies done, and some mills taken care of. But for the most
part, those 500-and-some sites have remained untouched. There
has been a lack of cleanup, a lack of funding, and a lack of
emphasis to prioritize these areas with the necessary resources
administration after administration after administrations. And
administrations from both parties have continued to be derelict
in their duty to the Navajo Nation to clean up these toxic
sites, sites that were there originally to help out the United
States win a war, and increasingly to help us continue to
develop energy for our country in nuclear-powered ships.
In your testimony, you cite the Administration goals for
environmental justice, for the communities affected, which
extends beyond northern Arizona to Utah, Colorado, and New
Mexico. Environmental justice means a swift cleanup of these
toxic sites, with urgency that reflects the serious and
significant health impacts on these communities after almost 80
years.
A question for--in the past we have discussed the need for
the EPA to better allocate funds and personnel to the--
accelerate cleanup. How does the budget align with that goal?
Mr. Regan. Well, first of all, thank you for the question,
and thank you for hosting me in your district, and your
leadership on this issue.
I will tell you one of the most touching experiences I have
had was having the conversation with the Navajo women, and them
discussing as--children playing with yellow rocks because they
didn't know the difference, and the exposure that they had
experienced. And so this is something that has gone on, as you
said, for far too long.
In the 2023 budget we have asked for $3 million dedicated
to support the Navajo Abandoned Uranium Mine Program, which
would help to expedite some of the partnerships and the
cleanups here. We know that there are lots of abandoned mines
that need to be addressed, and lots of past transgressions,
quite frankly, that need to be addressed.
We have also awarded about $13 million in grants under
Superfund to the Navajo Nation programs for their support and
investing in these sites--investigating these sites, and
planning cleanup.
So this is a priority, and so we are putting our money
where our mouths have been for quite some time.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you. What is the expected timeline to
clean up these priority mines like those near homes and water
resources?
Keep in mind that those are--some 200 mines is identified
now, but obviously inflation is having an impact on the
availability of funding for that.
So the timeline?
Mr. Regan. We experienced some significant impacts to that
timeline due to COVID-19, as we discussed during the visit.
But we were able to complete critical field activities to
continue to investigate. And so significant progress has been
made, and it will depend on that field work, including the
selection of cleanup options for 34 mines and nine sites. So we
are planning to complete 130 of those assessments by the end of
2022.
Mr. O'Halleran. I anticipate that we are talking
somewhere--at least another decade or so before we actually get
a significant amount of mines cleaned up. And then we still
have over 207 mines to go, and get us well past 100 years of
trying to get this accomplished.
And I am going to yield and turn it over to Ms. Barragan
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Barragan . Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Administrator, for being here today. I know
it has been a long day with our votes.
I want to just quickly followup to something my colleague,
Representative Clarke, talked about. That was zero-emissions
trucks. And I want to just chime in and to say that we really
cannot wait. We cannot afford to wait ten years for zero-
emission trucks.
And I just wanted to share with you Wilmington, California,
a place that you have come to to visit in my district. Last
week my staff attended a community meeting in Wilmington over
concerns about truck pollution. And they were raised. And my
Spanish speaking constituents said--I am going to say this in
Spanish, and then I will translate----
``Nos estan matando. El puerto nos esta matando, las
refinerias y los camiones.'' Today, ``Todo el mundo se olvidado
de Wilmington.''
Translate into English: We are being killed. The ports, the
refineries, and the trucks are killing us. The entire world has
forgotten about Wilmington.
Administrator Regan, I know that environmental justice is
something you are committed to, and this Administration is
committed to. Environmental justice communities like
Wilmington, California, they can't wait. They shouldn't have to
wait another ten years for zero-emissions trucks. And so I just
want to urge you and the EPA to do everything that you can in
the final rule to try to leave no gap between what is possible
and what is necessary to give our most polluted communities,
those on the front lines, clean air.
And so I just wanted to say that before I go into my
questions, and to thank you for the work you are doing, and I
know the challenges that you have.
So turning--changing course, Administrator, the EPA's Risk
Management Plan Rule, also known as the chemical disaster rule,
is critical for protecting nearby communities, workers, and
first responders. Residents in my district are very concerned
about the risk of accidents at the refineries in Carson and
Wilmington and at Rancho LPG in San Pedro.
I commend your agency's commitment to stakeholder meetings,
so all voices are heard during this rulemaking process. Can you
commit to taking the feedback from your community stakeholder
meetings and comment period to create the strongest rule
possible to prevent future chemical disasters?
Mr. Regan. Absolutely. In June and July of last year we
held those listening sessions. We took to heart what we heard.
We incorporated as much as we could into our proposed rule, and
it is with OMB now. And we believe that that rule will be
stronger because of community participation.
Ms. Barragan . Well, thank you.
Now, climate change has made chemical facilities even more
dangerous as rising flood waters and powerful storms cutoff
electricity and put volatile chemicals at risk of release or
explosion. Will the EPA consider the impacts of extreme weather
and climate change in the chemical disaster rule?
Mr. Regan. You know, in February 2022 the Government
Accountability Office found that about 31 percent of RMP
facilities are in areas vulnerable to natural hazards. So we
agree with GAO's concerns, and we took the report's
recommendations into consideration when we were crafting the
proposal. It is now at OMB, and so I won't comment on what the
contents are, because I am not allowed to. But we took GAO's
recommendations into consideration as we crafted that rule.
Ms. Barragan . OK. Well, we must protect our communities at
risk of chemical disasters. And that is why I co-led a letter
to the EPA on this issue with Senator Cory Booker and 29
Members of Congress. It is important that EPA strong--finalize
the strongest possible rule to protect communities, workers,
and first responders.
For my last question, last Fiscal Year EPA referred just
152 criminal cases to the Department of Justice. Criminal
prosecutions against companies violating environmental laws
have dropped to their lowest levels in three decades. Staffing
is a major issue. As of January, the EPA's criminal division
unit had 161 investigations. In 1998 there were 261.
How does EPA's proposed budget address these staffing
shortages, and how important is having adequate enforcement
staff for your environmental justice work?
Mr. Regan. You know, having the adequate staffing levels on
the enforcement side is critical. I think that I haven't been
shy by saying that we will use our enforcement authority where
it is required and needed. We have made requests in the years
2022 and now again in 2023 for increased resources. We need
those resources not to be overly burdensome, but to enforce the
laws that are on the books, and to ensure that we are
protecting every single person in this country as we should be.
And so what you will see in this budget is a modest request
to bolster up our enforcement arm so that we can enforce the
laws on the books, especially for those who are most
vulnerable.
Ms. Barragan . Great. Thank you, Mr. Administrator.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Regan. Thank you.
Mr. O'Halleran. I now recognize the gentlelady from Texas,
Mrs. Fletcher.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Administrator Regan, for testifying today
and answering our questions. I appreciate the opportunity to
raise with you today an issue that is very important to me, to
my constituents, and to our entire region, and that is the
proposed relocation of the EPA Region 6 lab to Ada, Oklahoma,
from Houston to Ada, Oklahoma.
I was glad to see that EPA has delayed the plans to
relocate the lab until 2027. But I feel very strongly that this
relocation should not go forward at all, and there are many
reasons for that. The lab and its highly trained staff are
essential to EPA's mission of protecting health and our
environment, and we really need that in our community in
Houston.
From your experience I believe that you know that Houston
is home to the largest petrochemical complex in the United
States, and arguably the largest in the world. It is also a
coastal city that is plagued by extreme weather events,
including--we just had three years in a row where we had 500-
year floods, including one from Hurricane Harvey, a category
four storm that caused $125 billion in damage. And in 2019--you
are probably also familiar with a devastating chemical fire
that took place in our area along that same ship channel,
following which we found very high levels of PFAS contamination
in Galveston Bay from the foam that the firefighters used to
put out that chemical fire.
As an aside, I am glad to tell you that, just a few hours
ago in our Science, Space, and Technology Committee, we passed
out of committee a bill that I brought, the Federal PFAS
Research Evaluation Act, for EPA to identify the research and
development needed to advance our understanding of PFAS
exposure. So I am glad to report that to you.
But here is the critical point for this hearing. In the
case of extreme weather events, and in the case of industrial
accidents, the EPA scientists in the Region 6 lab in Houston
are our essential first responders. And I am deeply concerned
that the lab's closure will cause EPA employees to retire
early--as I understand, there are currently no staff that have
expressed a willingness to relocate--and it could also
seriously delay the return of results, threatening Houston's
access to critical air, water, and soil testing performed at
the lab during these kinds of events and at all times.
Now, Ada is two hours away from the closest airport, an
area that is prone to ice storms and tornadoes. If the airports
are closed, if the roads are closed down, samples might not get
delivered, results might not come back. When a disaster
happens, we don't have days to wait for the samples to be
delivered to learn if our water, if our drinking water, is
contaminated. And it is just really important that we know what
is in the air, what is in the water as quickly as possible. And
that is what the Region 6 lab does in our area.
And unfortunately, we have seen that past relocations have
been detrimental to EPA's mission. As you are aware, the EPA
Region 9 lab was moved from Richmond, California at the end of
last year, and is still not operational, as I understand it. I
have also heard that none of the lab employees in California
took relocation offers. And as far as I am aware, there is no
estimate for when it will begin to process samples. So we are
deeply concerned about that in our area.
Also, I know that in 2020 the EPA inspector general put out
a report that found that EPA lab relocations have been plagued
by cost overruns, and the anticipated cost savings were
overstated.
And it also found that, for example, the relocation, the
Richmond relocation, was more than two years behind schedule,
and cost $7 million more than planned.
So, you know, the consolidations, arguably, to shrink the
amount of leased space held by the agency are really having the
effect of shrinking the workforce. And with these staff
departures go years and decades of institutional knowledge and
expertise that we can't afford to lose.
In December 2019 I sent a letter to the EPA OIG asking for
an investigation into the effectiveness of closing the Houston
lab, and what its impacts would be for EPA's mission. The
request was denied at the time, and the reason was that there
was a lack of resources to perform the investigation. I would
ask that the agency reconsider a request for this investigation
as to the effectiveness of closing the Houston lab.
Additionally, I have sent letters with other Members of the
Houston region expressing our concerns about the relocation
most recently in November of last year. We still haven't
received a response to that letter. So I am hoping that, with
this opportunity to connect today, that I can get you to agree
to commit to working with me and my office to address the many
concerns we have about this proposed relocation.
And ultimately, I hope you will agree with me that the
relocation of the Region 6 lab from Houston to Ada, Oklahoma
should not go forward.
Mr. Regan. Well, Congresswoman, thank you, first of all.
And I understand--and we really do understand--many of these
concerns. I would love to spend some time with you and your
staff so we can talk through a number of actions that took
place, starting in 2010, that got us to the point where we are,
and how we can talk about moving forward.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much, Administrator Regan. I
look forward to the opportunity to work with you on this and
many other issues. I thank you again for being here today, and
for your responsiveness.
And I yield back.
Mr. O'Halleran. With that there are no more presentations.
I will request unanimous consent to enter the following
documents into the record: an article from the Desert Sun
entitled, ``Toxic Shower Water, Sewage Pits Infiltrating (sic)
Woes in the East Coachella Valley Mobile Parks''; a statement
from the Environmental Defense Fund; a statement--letter from
the American Chemistry Council; a letter from the American
Cleaning Institute; an article from the Inside EPA entitled,
``EPA Plans to Scrap Affirmative Defense Emissions Waiver in
Air Permits''; an article from Environmental Law and Policy
Monitor entitled, ``EPA Proposes Significant Expansion to
InterState Ozone Transport Regulations''; a letter from
Representatives Carey, Johnson, Balderson, Latta, David Joyce,
Westerman, Grothman, Rodgers, and McKinley to EPA Administrator
Regan; an article from Power Magazine entitled, ``ERCOT, MISO
Warn of Potential Power Supply Shortfalls,''; a letter from
Representatives Slotkin and Walberg and Senators Stabenow and
Peters; an article from the Washington Examiner entitled,
``Power Sector Warns of Blackouts and (sic) Demands Clashes
with Traditional Power Retirements''; a GreenWire article
entitled, ``Way Off Track: Chemical Industry Slams EPA''; an
article from the Wall Street Journal entitled, ``Electricity
Shortage Warnings Grow Across the U.S.''
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. O'Halleran. I would like to thank our witness for
joining us for today's hearing.
Thank you very much. Good seeing you again.
I remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, they
have ten business days to submit additional questions for the
record to be answered by our witness.
I ask that our witness respond promptly to any such
questions that you may receive.
At this time, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:33 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]
File and source
- File
- CHRG_chrg-117hhrg61454_chrg-117hhrg61454.htm
- Size
- 155,807 bytes
- SHA-256
- 4b17cf1574659972945f7488f33f546e0ce8dc10e67740105e5c2649327c0745
- Original
- No public link identified.