Transcripts For CSPAN3 EPA Administrator Testifies On Presidents 2023 Budget 20240707

>> we are pleased to welcome back and in the straighter reagan for this committee, and i will never forget, back behind you, for hours of a hearing during your confirmation hearing. give -- our best, please. we are pleased to welcome you back before our committee to discuss the president's 20 23 budget proposal for the environmental protection agency. why do presidential administrations go through the trouble of putting out a budget every year when they do this? budgets are forward-looking documents, there are opportunities for presidents, administrations to describe their priorities and play out a vision for the american people. last week, the biden administration released its full federal budget proposal, and i believe it is clear that this administration sees it is in line with the needs of the american people and what we all face. the united nations and our government panel on climate change released a new comprehensive scientific report with dire warnings regarding the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions going forward. the president's budget calls to address the climate crisis while ensuring it benefits from doing so, for most disadvantaged community. the proposal also goes on this committee's work last year to rebuild our nation's aging infrastructure, groundbreaking greenhouse gas in mission reduction, and job creation. in short, the combination of this budget and infrastructure, it shows we can do good and do well at the same time. it's no secret that congress has provided the environmental protection agency with the resources it needs to execute its mission. flat budgets provided by congress had undermined the agency's ability to do its job, and sometimes there were deep budgets with deep cuts. we have not been able to afford the catastrophic harm that the last administrations buzz it proposals -- budget proposals would have inflicted. president trump's budget first proposed -- would increase the epa's current budget and fiscal year 2023. this increase in funding is after too much neglect and failed leadership. in addition to having epa rebuild its workforce, which is followed by about 1000 people since the year 2016, this includes funding to help the nation rebuild as well. i was happy to see the address of bipartisan legislation, drinking water and wastewater infrastructure act of 2021, while the bill set us off on the right path going forward. our bill became the foundation of bipartisan infrastructure, and the state revolving loan fund provisions, as you may recall. with this budget from this administration, president biden has prioritized the drinking water and wastewater grant programs that are essential to addressing a variety of water infrastructure needs, especially those with small, disadvantaged, rural, tribal and native alaskan communities as well. in fact, the budget calls for addressing a host of critical environmental justice communities by investing $1.5 billion in clean air and water, and other cleanup grant programs. these would make the president's justice 40 initiative ensure that all communities, including those that have been overlooked historically, receive their own fair share of federal assistance from epa. as cofounder of the senate in dire mental justice caucus -- environmental justice caucus, this budget focuses on the needs of our most vulnerable, low income communities, communities of color as well as tribal communities. something i know you, mr. administrator, have prior itized at epa. particularly when americans are feeling the impact of climate change and the reliance on fossil fuels, i am encouraged to see the administration treat the ever-growing threat of climate crisis with the urgency it deserves. 700 $5 million for epa's clean air and climate programs. a 60% increase from fiscal year 2022. these climate and clean-air investments, including funding for the american innovation manufacturing act and diesel emission reduction act, would not only drive down emissions and energy costs, but it would also help grow our economy by supporting american-made products and technologies. additionally, this budget would further empower efforts to regulate methane and other greenhouse gas emissions, by providing the agency with the financial support needs to do so. when it comes to leaving behind a flag for future generations, i strongly believe, we strongly believe that recycling is an important tool for improving sustainability and creating economic opportunities. to that end, we are pleased to see the president's budget will prioritize investing in infrastructure, and otherwise manage initiatives at epa. these additional funds will help implement epa's new national recycling strategy, which the agency crafted, reflecting in remarkable ways the recommendations made by our committee members. this is sometimes thought to be a bad thing. it can be a good thing, because you took our recommendations, and they are right there and what the agencies do. thank you for that. the president's budget also addresses --. i appreciate the long overdue request. better known as tosca, many of us will remember the extraordinary bipartisan effort by the former chairman of this committee, former senator tom udall, our colleague from new mexico, and other members of this committee to reform it. it is one of the most remarkable bipartisan efforts i have seen in all the years i have been here, and i commend you, senator inhofe, for your leadership. the president asked for nearly $125 million increase to implement this. when we passed the act six years ago, finally, if i could, i will to my hat to you one more time, mr. regan. and the many hard-working experts at epa. you provided a specific, robust, and a roadmap to deal with a host of problems that chemicals create. this is an issue that our ranking member and i care about deeply. these states have probably been more deeply affected, as the state of west virginia. in lamenting this roadmap requires significant investment to keep these chemicals out of our air, out of our water, out of our land, out of our bodies. i assure you i will work with you to make sure that officers have the resources they need to address this with the urgency and speed that our children's health and well-being demands. let me close by saying the president's budget represents a brighter vision of the future for our nation. one that delivers on the promise of clean-air and water in every zip code and tries to ensure that every american has an opportunity to live up to their full potential. i think we are heading under that direction under your leadership at epa. with that, i returned to ranking member, senator caputo. >> i look forward to the rest of the hearing on the questions. as an appropriate her, i am fond of saying that the president's budget is aspirational, because congress still retains the power of the purse, as you know. but there is a lot we can learn about the direction of policy. as we have said, your agencies goals and requests for funding for next year, i have deep concerns by the actions undertaken by your agency in the entire by an administration regarding domestic energy production, energy exports, and financial markets. in particular, -- focused on killing domestic energy production. this is hard to understand, particularly if we see what is going on globally, as the political winds blow. this would make us and our allies less energy secure and contribute further to near record inflation, particularly from gasoline. the fcc's announcement that it will be requiring broad climate emission disclosures for companies, divers pipeline policy changes that were recently walked back due to bipartisan uproar, to the epa 's strategy to climb down -- clamp down on the oil and gas sector, the administration enters into an agreement with the eu to shift this to europe to help our allies break free from russia. climate czar gina mccarthy is saying this is now a fight against natural gas and infrastructure investment. it seems like the left-hand does not know what the right hand is doing, and sometimes i wonder, what is the real message and who is the real messenger? a year ago, i saw sir inches that unaccountable czars would not be the one guiding real policy. now i believe it still remains a real question. every agency seems to be creating out of thin air and disturbing epa's role and your role as the lead agency for environmental issues. with epa playing a supportive role in the administration's assault on our energy economy, economic security, i think we are right to be skeptical about providing additional funding or authority to the agency until we have a therm or understanding of who is calling the shots and who in the federal bureaucracy should be accountable for these policies. unfortunately, sometimes i cannot tell what epa is up to. on this committee, despite our jurisdiction, we do not have the oversights into how epa's decisions are being made. when we talked at our future confirmation hearing, you pushed numerous times to be transparent and found that sometimes you are, sometimes you are not so much. it has now been 343 days, almost a year, sending information to the naturally determined contribution to this committee, and you have not sent that information. the american people and congress do not know how the administration plans to meet a climate goal of 52% greenhouse gas reduction by 2030. what it might mean to their jobs and energy costs, and the price of goods and services during a time of already historic inflation. the ndc is not the only place where the administration is hiding the ball. in november 9 senate committee ranking members sent a letter to the white house, asking for development into greenhouse gas figures. these figures have far-reaching impact into our entire economy. we have expressed concerns about the lack of transparency in this process, and have asked for basic information from the interagency working group. cathy mcmorris rodgers and i followed up with another letter on the same issue, and we have not received a response to either letter. the ndc and social cost of greenhouse gas figures are two examples of policies where the administration refuses to be transparent to the american people and to congress. many of our oversight requests are related to policies on the office of air and radiation, which is overseen by clean power plant architect joe goffman, the unconfirmed -- oh, there goes my phone. sorry. the unconfirmed lead political official in that office and/january. a few weeks ago, president biden nominated goffman to lead that office as assistant administrator. but the two of you have announced plans to layer on new regulations that would raise electricity prices, including coal, oil, and natural gas at a time of record prices. epa's mission of protecting human health and the environment is too important to be sidelined by important political signaling and the lack of transparency and accountability, all at the expense of the american people. i would add, after that strong statement, that i would like to thank you for your offer to come and visit west virginia and oversee some of our water systems as we are implementing the iija, and i am hoping we can do that in the future and talk about some of these issues we did not cover during questioning. thank you for being with us today. >> mr. reagan, if you are ready, you are recognized to make your presentation. hopefully you will have a chance to respond to some of the questions that have been raised by our ranking member. it reminds me, it feels like deja vu. going back four years ago, we had the same kinds of questions from the last administration further failure to respond. what did they say, consistency is the hot gossip? >> mr. administrator, you are on. >> members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the bold vision laid out in the united states epa's proposed fiscal year 2023 budget request. in this request, we lay out an ambition and transformative plan for epa with the goal of a healthier, prosperous nation where all people have access to clean air, clean water, and healthy communities. president biden's proposed budget request provides $11.9 billion to advance key priorities, including climate crisis delivering on air quality, upgrading the nation's aging water infrastructure, and keeping pace with the growing economy. over the last year, we made important progress towards many of these goals. i am proud of the partnership that underpinned our success. there is still so much work to do to ensure all children have safe, healthy places to live, learn and play, and to build stronger, more sustainable economic status and to enhance american innovation and ingenuity. put simply, investing in epa is an investment in the health and well-being of communities we serve. in the economic vitality of this great nation, i have had the pleasure of visiting many communities in your state and seeing firsthand the environmental and public health challenges your constituents continue to face. i have spoken to mothers whose children have been dashed. i have met 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 nations climate resilience to cleaning up contaminated land, there is no shortage of critical work to be done. members of the committee, epa is up to the task. we are eager to work with you to deliver for all of our fellow americans and our nation's global competitiveness, but we need your support. the urgency and economic opportunity presented by climate change require that we leave no stone unturned. the budget, $773 million towards tackling the climate crisis, and reaping the benefits that come with it with healthy communities, good paying jobs, and increased energy security. the communities hit hard by pollution and climate change are most often communities of color and economically disadvantaged communities. for generations, many of these vulnerable communities have been overburdened with higher instances of polluted air, water and land. this inequity of environmental protection is not just an environmental justice issue, but a civil rights concern as well. for fiscal year 2023, epa will expand upon the holistic investments made by environmental justice and civil rights to reduce the historical health impact of lucian and communities with environmental justice concerns. epa is investing more than $1.4 million to enhance environmental justice, cleanup legacy pollution, and create good paying jobs while in the process. poor air quality affects millions of people, perpetuating harmful health and economic impacts. the fy 2023 agency will protect our air quality by committing particulate matter and air topics. the president's budget includes 1.1 billion to improve air quality and produces pollution from mobile and stationary sources. this provides certainty to industry, built on advances in technology, and reinforces market movements towards a clean-air energy system that will provide reliable and affordable energy. a thriving economy also requires clean and safe water. although progress has been made, many still lack access to healthy water, face inadequate wastewater infrastructure, and suffer the long-term effects of exposure to lead pipes. america's water systems are also facing new challenges, including cyber security threats, climate change, and emerging contaminants. the budget proposals upgrade to drinking water infrastructure nationwide, with a focus on underserved communities. this investment builds on historic investment of the bipartisan infrastructure law. the fy 2023 president budget positions the epa to create durable environmental policy that sets our nation on a path to win the 21st century. it will allow us to meet the pressing needs faced by millions of americans and fundamentally improve people's lives for the better. thank you for the opportunity to be here today to submit this testimony for the record, and i look forward to our continued partnership, our achieved success, and the ambitious, necessary goals that we all are tackling. thank you, and i welcome your questions. >> thanks again for joining us, and thanks again for your statements. thanks for your willingness to respond to our questions. if we are all honest and this committee, and i think we are, we would admit there have been times when we have been approached by constituents. i go to you or call your office, i did not get a response. i hate that. i don't remember the last time somebody said that to me in the state of delaware. i would make sure that the idea that the community leaders are talking about, not getting a timely response to probably tough questions, that's not acceptable. the other thing i appreciate very much, your visit to delaware last year. we are grateful that you came and put that at the top of your to do list prior to west virginia. mr. administrator, i do not think of you -- you have been there, and if you have not, please do that. the president has requested $124 million, 400 50 additional people to implement the frank r -- chemical safety for the 21st century act. that law was a bipartisan achievement of this committee that involved many of us working around this dais, about 5, 6 years ago now. despite the administration's failure to request funds to support the limitation, epa professionals have worked extra hard to meet the aspirations and the mandates of the act. my question, would you describe for us the resource challenges that the programs are currently facing, and how the agency plans to fulfill its obligations under the lautenberg act if congress gives this sizable increase in resources? >> unfortunately, the last of administration never asked congress for any resources. >> i recall that all too well. >> this committee showed outstanding leadership when it reformed in 2018, and unfortunately, the last administration missed nine of the 10 deadlines for the chemical risk review evaluation. meanwhile for us, the work alone has doubled. we have 20 risk evaluations to do, 10 rules to write, but we are still working with the same budget that we had with the broken law. as a result, epa only has about 50% of what we think we need to review the safety of new chemicals quickly in the way that the law requires. the 2023 budget reflects what we actually think it will take to implement the chemical safety law in the way that congress, industry stakeholders, and the american people expect and deserve. we will put those resources to good use and make up for lost time, and keep pace with what congress requested we keep pace with. >> throughout my time in public service, i hear one consistent ask from the business community. i think if they were here, they would say the same thing. it's not just fortune 500 businesses, but the needs for federal government to provide flexib -- predictability and certainty. businesses need that to thrive and grow, and the federal government especially at epa. the last administration did not provide epa regulatory certainty for communities, and the resource needed to fully function and process applications and permits in a timely manner. my question is, please tell us how this budget for epa will be good for the environment and public health, and good for predictability and certainty for businesses that desperately need it. go ahead. >> senator, i have spent most of my time, or attempted to spend most of my time out from behind a desk. in my meetings with many other members, we all recognize that volatility and the lack of certainty is not good for long term --. we have met with the power sector, the automobile industry, making tremendous investments in new technologies in a clean energy future. but they are making those investments with an absence of certainty in terms of our regulatory future. what we have done for the light-duty vehicle and car standards, we spent time with ceos of the companies, i spent time with the unions, understanding where their investments are going and we crafted rules we believe were complementary to where the market was going that provided rules for engagement. we are meeting now with oil and gas industry is now around the methane standards. the technology is there, the market momentum as they are, what these ceos have asked me for our conversations, transparency, and to present rulemaking in a way where they can make responsible decisions as they make investments. with the power sector as an example, ceos have asked me, is there a way you cannot darken our doorstep one rule at a time, but prevent us with a suite of rules that are upcoming so we can take a look at the compliance obligations, the investment opportunities, and whether we have double down on investments are invested in the future. with resources we are asking for here, we are asking for resources so we can keep pace with the growing economy and technology that is advancing at a rapid rate. we want to provide rules for the road and certainty so we have a 5, 10, 20 year investment they are designed to make. >> most people don't think of delaware as a rural state, but we are, with the chickens, corn, and soybeans. we have an electric co-op in delaware that is part of a regional opportunity working with other states, working to make electricity needs. we met to hear what they are doing in terms of changing up their mix, moving away from coal, moving to renewables as well. the folks you are meeting with, i urge you to meet with the electric co-ops that play a major role in north carolina, where you hail from. there are a big part of the solution and i am sure they would welcome your attention. thank you. >> thank you. i will go right to the national determined containment question. the administration put out a long-term strategy for 2050, promising that the 2035 or national climate strategy would be coming out soon. we still have not seen that and i think this is going to have heavy impact on jobs. how can we get this information from you? >> we have had some great conversations around this, and epa did play a role in the ndc process. how do we participate in this process? that was providing greenhouse gas inventories and updated versions of that, then quantitative discussions around how --. i pledged from the beginning to follow the signs and follow the law, and i think with the law requires of epa is not to prejudge or predict where any of our regulations would go in terms of technology choices. what we want for our finalized rules of hsc's, finalized rules for light duty vehicles, our proposed rules for methane, our proposed rules for heavy duty vehicles, that's where that rigor, that analysis happens. we would be more than willing to sit down with you and your staff and -- >> we have asked for that and have not received that, the ability to have it on this particular --. you have alluded to it, and when you say you are going to reach this level of emission control, who in reducing emissions, who is going to lose the jobs here? you know that is what is going to happen. you know the frame of mind that i am coming from, not just a producer, but our power sector is heavily reliant on what we produce in our own state. what's going to happen in the eeg you strategy, oil, gas and coal, it will be at the tip of the spear here. >> i can only go on my conversations with the ceos of these power companies, they have indicated for the past decade that the market has been driving them to make investment decisions, and they have had to make other decisions. 80% of that, those investments have not been driven by epa regulations. what they have asked us for so we can make longer-term investment decisions is if there are regulations that are coming from epa for air quality, for storage, for water quality, that i would be accommodating in a way if possible to align some of these time frames so that some of them, when we present these regulations, are looking at them in one fell swoop and not one at a time. they want more certainty. api and the chamber and gas sector, before i arrived and since i have been here, we need a regulation on methane. what they have asked me specifically to do is to not codify a regulation or put a regulation in place that codifies outdated technology. they want to be able to take advantage of new data models and take advantage of robots that can walk along these pipelines, drones, satellites. we have to design a regulation that meets the moment of this technological revolution. that's what they have asked us for. >> ok, but you are still not telling me how to get to the administration's aspirational carbon emission goal. how many of those industries or ceos are telling you -- i am not anti-renewable. i am good with that. that is great. but you have to be realistic. look at what is going on in europe right now. you have to have baseload energy, and that comes from nuclear, natural gas or coal. our coal in west virginia is like gold over there now. i do want to follow up, but i will stop here and wait for the next round. thank you. >> before i turn to senator cardin, most of us have had the opportunity to meet with european ambassadors a couple of weeks ago in the capital. i asked the german ambassador, any advice for us on what to do about our aging nuclear plants? should we get rid of them? in germany, my family on my dads side is german, but we closed the nuclear power plants so they would have an opportunity now to buy gas from russia. we have to be smarter than that. all right. you are on. >> thank you you, mr. chairman -- >> wait, i need to ask a unanimous consent request to place materials in the record as far as reducing greenhouse gas emissions. >> i will not object to your request. thank you for being here. i appreciate your cooperation with the stakeholders of maryland. i have heard positive comments from state and local officials in the private sector officials about the ability to work with epa. i thank you for that. we have a good relationship. the army corps of engineers, we announced $84 million available to deal with the restoration of midday and baron and james owen in the chesapeake bay. >> also, the restoration of our coastline in the chesapeake bay and the work that we do. part of that funding came out of the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which we were all proud to support, and included in that bill were additional parts that will help us in chesapeake bay, including the state revolving funds. it also includes a direct help for the chesapeake bay program, which we appreciate. the president's budget appropriates $98.6 million for the chesapeake bay program. we authorize $91 million, so we are close. we are not going to complain about that, we appreciate the president's budget, but $47.5 million was made available through the infrastructure bill. we really need to move forward particularly with on the ground projects, particularly with coastal restorations, challenges with storm runoff, particularly with extreme weather events and to deal with agricultural practices. i want to give you a chance to talk about how your agency has prioritized these additional funds for the chesapeake bay. >> i think i share your level of enthusiasm for the bay. i just took the helm of the chesapeake executive council, so epa is more than committed. i am committed to the leadership there. we are grateful to the resources congress provides for 2022. we have consulted with our partners and made important decisions on how to use the funding we received so far. on april 18, we are set to announce the allocation of $40 million from fy 2022 infrastructure funding. we will target this money for the infrastructure nutrient and sediment reduction grants. this funding will support the on the ground implementation and efforts to increase. we also plan to provide $36 million to the national fish and wildlife foundation, which will innovate nutrient and sediment reduction grants. we can follow up on some of these things, but we are putting the resources we received to good use on the ground. i believe my role on this executive council will be partnered there, and we are also hopefully close to securing a chesapeake bay advisor to the administrator. >> thank you for your personal nutrient production programs. this expands the stakeholders interest in more people getting engaged in the chesapeake bay best ration -- restoration efforts. it's a small amount of money, but it is incredible opportunities. a lot of schools have taken advantage of it, local communities have taken advantage of it, innovative approaches have been taken to storm runoff. i am glad to see that that is a priority for the allocation of these funds. i want to ask you one additional question dealing with a provision that senator capito and i authored dealing with resiliency in our water infrastructure. could you briefly tell us how you plan to implement those programs to deal with the threat of extreme weather and cyber? >> the cyber is one that we are really paying attention to verse some time. in the new budget, you will see a $100 billion request focusing on cyber and on some of the threats that you just mentioned. we saw this week in the news from the ipcc, the window for managing these climate threats is narrowing. we are excited to say that we have some really focused -- we can, through the bipartisan infrastructure law, even more from the resources we have asked from the president, to shore up our nation's crumbling water infrastructure and pivot and pay very special attention to the stocks. >> the reagan administration, first of all, let me thank you for the time you and i spent together to get used to each other and what we are doing, what we are trying to accomplish. one of the issues has been ongoing for decades. at least 60 years that i know. i have been involved in aviation that long. i think i speak for all members of the panel that want to see a safe and smart transition and are working towards that. however, there remain concerns of the epa's impending announcement of the endangerment finding, the transition to unleaded fuel could be in jeopardy before we get started. there are over 200,000 aircraft and 1800 different engine types in general aviation today. a large sector of the fleet needs to operate. let me start with one question that i think is probably pretty self-evident. will you committed to fostering a safe and smart transition and working with the faa industry to help ensure that fuels available today remain available until a solution is fully approved and widely available. >> senator, absolutely we would have to do this in a very responsible way. to your point, this issue has been bounced around for a number of years. i think what we decided to do is responsible instead of just talking behind closed doors, to take on the process that actually pursues whether or not there is an endangerment finding. that process will be very public. we are at the beginning of that process and we will be very transparent with stakeholders so there will be no surprises there. >> i appreciate that. we have a company in oklahoma called a general aviation modification incorporated. they are leading the nation in this new field. they have done so very successfully and i think we are in a position now where we will be able to maintain what we have now until such time as we have the security behind it. one other question, mr. ambassador. in january 2021, on the president trump's last day in office, the price of gas was $2.38. this past month it worsened by i believe the biden administration policies. the national average cost per gallon surged to $4.33. think about that. $2.38 to $4.33. that makes it the highest average price we have ever had on record. president biden keeps breaking records. those records are breaking american budgets. in november you really stay proposal that was imposing new burdensome methane regulations on the oil and gas sector that could lead to devastation, devastating consequences for american jobs. immediately. democrats in congress have proposed a methane tax that would increase the average families electricity and heating bill by 17%. which is huge. we will keep talking about that because it has to be talked about. mr. administrator, would implementing the methane tax on the oil and gas industry have any effect to lower the energy cost for americans? is there any spend that can be put on this that somehow this will lower the price for fuel in america? that we can create a framework capturing a lot of lost products, millions of dollars. >> my time is up but i have to get an answer. i do not think there is an answer to this. you are saying a tax increase on methane, on oil and gas, somehow, can lower energy costs for americans? is this what you are saying? >> i am saying that it is properly designed and it is congress's responsibility that a methane fee, according to the industry -- >> every time i hear the industry it is interesting because my phone starts ringing off of the hook saying, i did not say that, i did not say that. that is their reality. my time is up. i would ask, >> i will ask my colleague to hold it for another round. >> we have in armed services meeting so this is the only chance i have. >> go ahead. >> ok. how would you assure every american that the epa's proposed regulations will not contribute to the elimination of jobs in the fossil feel sector or increasing gas and other energy prices for consumers, for the record, ok? mr. reagan: i sold my 2001 chrysler town & country minivan last year. every day when i drive to the train station to catch a train to come here i drive by the same bp gas station i have driven by for the last 30 something years. i have been watching with alarm and concern the price of gasoline there. last year my wife and i bought an electric vehicle. i do not have to stop at the gas station anymore. the gas is over four dollars a gallon. one of the best things we can do with respect to supply and demand, if we had less demand for gasoline because people were buying energy efficient vehicles that could help as well. i have a unanimous consent requested to submit for the record at two studies that highlight the need for smart farms to highlight methane capture for consumers. the first is a study by the nonprofit environmental defense fund that finds oil and gas operators are raising hundreds of millions of dollars into the air remaining that this potent greenhouse gases heating our planet instead of heating our homes. the second study is by not dashed by the nonprofit resources for the future which fund -- says the policies congress is considering today could achieve substantial reduction with new zero cost to consumers -- near zero cost to consumers. >> let me say i am informed by the planning my state has to do for a change in our map as a sea levels rise against our shores. we will use -- and a lot of coastal property and face significant economic damage. especially related to fossil fuel emissions. from that background let me say i completely reject the arguments i am hearing from the other side that it is ok to not meet climate goals or that the oil industry is not responsible for gas prices. or, that oil and gas can ever achieve energy independence. or, that chief and -- cheap and abundant pollution is every good thing. i reject all of those propositions completely. i also reject the proposition that the fossil fuel industry should change and the map of my state should change. we come from very different perspectives in this regard. from this perspective, as i understand it, with respect to carbon emissions point sources, 15 months into the administration the epa has no rule for power plants either coal or gas, is that correct? >> we are looking at a proposed rule for gas. we are working on or towards a proposal for -- >> so no rule? >> well we have this supreme court decision we are keeping an eye on. we want to be sure that the role we design will fall within where the supreme court will answer that we will be within the realm. >> will you be ready to go within a week or a month after the decision? are you doing the prep work? >> we will be ready as soon as he put supreme -- as the supreme court rules. >> i hope so. with respect to methane emissions as i understand it does not address venting and flaring it, the two most frequent matters of emission. i guess you are in the process of trying to improve methane reporting. but do you concede that for years what the epa took as methane emissions and linkage reporting has been dramatically underreported? >> i concede that we believe that emissions have been underreported. i also recognize that we propose a rule and we today take -- we take significant comments, over 5000 comments on the proposed methane rule that covers a lot of issues that were taken very careful thought waves. >> i do talk -- chemical plants, do you have any rule for point source carbon the oxide emissions from chemical plants? >> we do not have that yet, sir? >> how about refineries? >> we are working towards all of these stationary sources. >> how about cement plants metal plants and paper mills? >> we are taking a look at all of the sources of co2 and looking at what authorities we have to act on them. >> with respect to mobile sources is it failed to say your cars and light trucks rule is essentially a return to the obama era rule? >> it's not. >> we will follow up on that. is it fair to say your heavy-duty trucks and buses rule is weaker than california and it does not require decreased zero emission? >> we have proposed to step one but there are multiple steps to how we regulate heavy-duty vehicles. and light duty vehicles. >> you have no rule regarding aircraft emissions? >> no new rules for aircraft emissions. >> how long you think you have? >> senator, i think we have to be honest about the state that the epa has found itself in when president biden was elected. we have to look at the level of resources that the agency currency -- currently has. we did not get the resources we requested for 2022 or make a significant ask for resources this year. since i have been there the past year we have staff working nights and weekends. we are playing catch-up. we are digging out from under court cases and i am really proud of the record we have when you look at the rules we have proposed and finalized within the first year of the biden administration. i know we cannot dig ourselves out of this hole overnight but i can say that when you look at the hse rule, when you look at the proposed methane rule, the proposed methane rule is the most stringent ever proposed for oil and gas looking at new and existing, when you look at the rule we finalized for light duty vehicles and the proposed rule for heavy-duty vehicles and the suite of options we are considering to bring the powerplant sector in line, i am proud of what the agency has done over the past year with their resources we have. >> an emergency effort does not count. results count. that's the problem. thank you. >> thank you, senator whitehouse. senator greene, please proceed. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you administrator for being here. i appreciate senator whitehouse but when he says we come from different perspectives he is right. but i remember what you said last week about emissions standards and energy production goals do not have to be mutually exclusive. i agree with you. we should find more ways to capture natural gas. rather than venting and flaring. there is no productive use of venting and flaring natural gas. let's work on common goals together. i will get to that in my second question. first, a separate issue. then i will get to the methane rule and natural gas. when you are in north dakota, and thank you again for coming out so quickly after you were sworn in to talk to farmers, ranchers, and others about laws in the u.s.. you met with our agriculture commissioner doug goehring. but early february of this year commissioner goehring sent your office a letter. they are still waiting for a response. it was into the office of pesticides programs. it relates to the existing stocks of unusable corp. e if this -- and unusable chemical. last year the epa banned the use of this chemical and gay farmers and retailers six months to dispose of it. -- gave farmers and retailers six months to dispose of it. farmers have a lot of this on their shelves. they are coming up on having to dispose of it. it is the same with retailers that have purchased this in anticipation of the next growing season. there has been very little to no guidance on how to dispose of it. our state is not prepared to do that. what i worry about, honestly, is a perverse incentive to dispose of it improperly. if there is a punitive threat in store. or, use it illegally, which i do not advocate. i just want to bring it here at attention -- i just want to bring it to your attention and want you to assure me that the epa will not punish growers who hold the product and work with state agencies to properly handle disposal. in north dakota we are coming up on planting season. if you could just raise that to the top and get back to commissioner going for me that would be appreciated -- commissioner goehring for me that would be appreciated. >> as of 2021 at the court indicated the epa abdicated responsibility since 2007. they told us we could either prove that the chemical was not harmful at all or we have to take the action we took. it was a hurtle that the agency could meet. one of the situations we found ourselves in especially with pesticides is because of an action over decades the court is now putting us on these timelines. i can commit to you that we are working, our regional offices working with your state now to think about how we appreciate -- navigate that tough terrain. we want to be part of the solution. i'm grateful for that. i will run out of time before you get to the next issue. i will started. i want to turn to methane regulation and the whole of government approach i think is necessary to meet the goals you have laid out. something that has come up already a couple times is the bipartisan infrastructure bill that provided among several things streamlining for the buildout of natural gas infrastructure for capturing natural gas. where we produce a lot of oil and natural gas is a byproduct so we have some venting and flaring. i have a chart that demonstrates the range of capture of natural gas from oil production from 56% to 94%. the good news is the state average is 93%. i will make a point here. the 94% is all state and private land and the 56%, 83% is lead -- largely either tribal land or other public federal land. my point is we need to do better on the federal land. bureaucracy. take bureaucracy and add another layer of bureaucracy with tribal land and you have lots of bureaucracy. as we work through this, these goals, these not mutually exclusive goals you spoke of last week, i really hope that -- a lot of this is bia, well, some bia but largely anterior jurisdiction. but the infrastructure bill did provide the need. in fact, it waves in epub -- waves neap up on federal lands. if you are capturing the gas you are reducing. i want to make sure the whole of government is working together. if you are working with the interior or they are seeking assistance, i think we can get to these goals that the white house and kevin cramer both have to get the courts off your back and do the right thing with the product that is more valuable. i almost did it in under five minutes. >> a for effort. >> thank you. >> grading on a curve. >>[laughter] >> i can assure you that on that topic the doe, the epa, we are all looking at all of the resources we have to ensure we are going in the same direction. >> next, you will be next in line. a center joining us on the web asked if he could go ahead of you. >> i love being on this curve. average is -- everyone's average is 6.5 minutes. so, the work done by the epa and the department of transportation in improving the fuel economy of the vehicles we drive, to reduce greenhouse gases, excellent work making up for the five years we lost because of donald trump. the problem is we import 600,000 barrels of oil and day from russia. all of that money was going to vladimir putin, $20 billion a year. we lost five years because of trump. because we put 70% of all the oil we consumed into gasoline tanks. that was a huge blow to our country that trump imposed. we are glad you have promulgated new rules, that dot has promulgated new rules. but we are way behind where we should be. for every 50 million all electric vehicles we deploy, we backed out of russian oil. the next 15 million vehicles backs out all the saudi oil, etc., etc.. so it's a tragedy. but were making up for it. in terms of the new rulemaking towards the 2027 standards. where were you in the process of starting to look at the standards that would begin in 2027? >> we are there. we are working hard. we have just completed 2023 and 2027. we aligned the regulations with dot so we can have for the first -- both agencies aligned for the first time in a long time so the industry can absurdity. -- can have certainty. >> how are you doing for the next ascent beginning in 2027? >> we started. >> do you have a go for the completion of that? >> i will have to get back to you on that exact timeline but it is one we are tackling urgency test urgently. -- we are tackling urgently. we are working on restoring the california waiver so california and other states can move forward. >> that is critical work and it has to be done but in the same way as you are saying that the market needs predict ability on propane, well, it needs predict ability on long-term vehicle standards. i just urge you to put that front and center and finish it quickly, handed in early, you know, so the market knows there will be regulations 27, 28, 29, 30. then we can plan towards backing out all of that imported oil. the best way to do it is to just unleash our private sector to be able to do it but they need unpredictability. the question of environmental justice is very important as well. talk a little bit about local air quality monitors and environmental justice communities. can you talk about where you are now? >> we are thankful for the $100 million congress awarded through the american rescue plan for enhanced air quality monitoring and environmental justice. in this budget of 2023 we are asking for a 100 million dollar increase to develop and implement community air quality monitoring notifications. we have looked at our air quality monitoring system in the country. it is antiquated. it is not technologically up to speed in a way we believe is most protective of our communities. so we mapped it out. we know where we need more monitors. i have been meeting with the states. i just met with 45 of the 50 state secretaries this past monday. in these states we know where we lack adequate air quality monitoring. we will identify those areas and put monitors in those places first. >> that is key. you cannot solve a problem if you do not know where it is. getting all of that information is absolutely imperative. on toxic substances, what are you doing right now in terms of remediating the dangerous pcbs present in schools and childcare facilities and how can congress help support those efforts in the 2023 appropriations process? >> you know, it is my understanding that the get the toxic substance out of school at bill authorizing grants and assistance to remove chemicals like tcb from schools is alive and well and i believe under the leadership have engaged. are actively engaged with senator sanders and your staff to be sure that we can strengthen that and have it as innovative and impactful as possible. >> thank you for that. you have a great team working on that issue. i yield back the balance of my time. >> for 2027, it looks like we will have it proposed by the year 2023. >> great news for the automotive industry. it gives us the predictability they so desperately need and call for. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate the accommodation. i think all of my colleagues can appreciate. i will submit most of my questions after for the record. i have the opportunity to raise at least one issue. last week scientists from princeton university published new research modeling the impact of wildfire smoke in the west. the research found that westerners particularly reasons -- residents of northern california, my home state, received particle pollution from wildfires increased by more than 50% by the year 2050. that is in the relative near-term. that will potentially triple by the end of the century. it also found that not only is climate change making wildfires more frequent and catastrophic, but, climate change drives other air conditions like air stagnation that further increases dirty air. the state of california and the federal government in partnership have made a lot of progress to ensure our communities can breeze clean air like working in partnership to cut air pollutants for vehicles. we have a lot more to do to mitigate against the harmful impact of wildfire smoke. that is why this study was so critical. it shows it is only getting worse. i was back to see that in the fiscal year 2023 budget the request includes $6.5 million for wildfire prevention and readiness programs to identify, to predict and communicate when and where smoke events are occurring. i was wondering if you can spend a minute elaborating on what the epa plans are to implement those dollars? >> thank you for the question. we know the public depends on us to provide information about air quality conditions and the health impacts before, during, and after fire and smoke events. so we do the research to build the tools needed to understand those impacts on air quality but also water quality and health. epa's air now website and mobile app received over 13 million page views in 2021. we are improving that map so users can view in real-time and learn about actions they can take, personal actions, to reduce their exposure. you know, we are also working on improving notifications, planning, and, when feasible, advanced notice of smoke events. so for our budget request, to support the need for improved readiness by enhancing wildfire data and communication, but also, to enhance the technical capability of what we desire to push the information out to those who needed the most. we have so many parents, so many mothers who when they drop their kids off at school during a wildfire event, they want to know if their children are safe so that families do not have to have their entire lives altered during and after these wildfire advents as a relates to the smoke inhalation and impacts to public health. >> thank you for your response. following up with you on this topic, and the others will cement to the record. thank you mr. chair. >> thank you madam chairman. welcome administrator reagan -- regan. i want to talk, as did mr. padilla, about air issues. in 1997 congress added section 19782 the clearing air act -- clean air act, that was a national goal prevention of any future and remedying of any existing impairment and visibility in mandatory class when areas, which impairment is from man-made air pollution. in 1999, epa issued its first rule requiring states to submit plans that include measures necessary to make reasonable progress towards meeting the national visibility goal. the rules have been amended a couple of times and the epa's in the process of acting on the second round of state plans. this is a program to improve visibility. is that correct? >> yes. >> so, would you agree that visibility continues to show improvements in our nations class when areas? -- class 1 areas? and visibility has improved in the west? >> i believe that is correct. >> i am a little concerned that this administration is turning a program that was clearly intended to address visibility, instead as a means to advance an goals, which congress has never given epa the authority to do. the focus should be on visibility. thank you. another question on ozone transport. the epa claims that it is committed to return scientific integrity to the agency, but in 2015 under president obama, the epa said, in the federal register, that the epa would not apply the cross state air pollution role or casper wihtou -- without first evaluating additional criteria specific to the west. they recognized that applying an eastern state program on the west, required additional analysis. some of the differences between east and west, one of which was just knowledged by mr. padilla. includes wildfire ramifications, background concentrations, altitude, typography, meteorology, international contributions from asia and elsewhere. what western specific ozone transport study has epa completed since that 2015 proposal? >> i am not quite sure if i understand the question in terms of, if you're looking for a specific study or are you are looking at how we approach a program? the program has been approached as a nationwide program. taking a look at all of the data that we have collected, from 2015 up until today, then looking at what the clean air act is requiring that epa do in terms of reducing that ozone pollution, i think that is what you are seeing in the rules we are proposing now. >> are there -- are you aware of any western specific ozone transport studies? if you are not, that is fine. i will submit this in writing to you, so you can go and check. >> what i can say, as we have considered the latest and greatest science data and so my assumption is if there is a specific study of their, we have considered it. but more importantly, we have considered all of the data, especially peer-reviewed, or data with scientific integrity as we have decided to make these decisions. >> i am anxious to find out whether epa engage stakeholders to participate and review any such studies, it sounds like they have. so i will just submit in writing a little request to look at some of the western specific data. thanks on that. i want to talk about a small refinery exemption. on the others of the capitol building there is a hearing in the house energy committee talking about oil and gas prices at the pump. and blaming the oil and gas companies. so, we have gone from listening to some administration saying, first they do not control the price of gas, then they say president putin is responsible. now, oil companies are responsible. i'm having trouble keeping straight who was responsible. president biden has said he will use every tool at his disposal. he will work like the devil to bring prices down. so i want to make a suggestion of something that would help. rather than asking dictators like the one in venezuela or iran, that shouts a death to produce more oil, has the epa considered renting relief under the rfs program? analysts are saying that that at somewhere between $.30 to $.50 a gallon. it would be an easy way to quickly relax and relieve gas prices. does that come up? >> i think what i would say to -- two points. i would say i am not quite in agreement that this relief would have that impact on gas prices. but more importantly, i would like to point to the law. and what the law specifies in terms of fre's. we have learned in the past 4-6 years where the agency actually has legal authority to give these. i think the 10th circuit recently spoke on how we look at these economic hardships and who qualifies for these. so, i would say the agency has taken a close look at them and what flexibilities we have and what we have learned from the past in terms of what the courts have told us we can and cannot do. >> thank you. i am out for time. i wish other agencies would pay attention to their legal authority, like the requirement that the department of the interior shall issue oil every quarter. i yield back. >> senator duckworth. how we heard from senator duckworth -- have we heard from senator duckworth? she is muted. so we are muting her. -- unmuting her. >> senator ernst go ahead, if you will. >> thank you very much madam chair. ranking member chair. thank you very much. thank you administrator regan for being with us. i'm going to come at the rfs as well as a method of relief for our consumers. maybe a little different than senator lummis. but with the gas prices that are skyhigh out there and the administration stating they want to do absolutely everything they can to bring down the cast to our consumers, e 15 is the most affordable or often the most affordable option that exists for consumers at the pump. so, administrator, are you going to allow for e-15 to be sold the summer like it has over the past three summers? or will this low-cost option b eliminated during our summer month? >> i think the president has indicated correctly that we're looking at all of the tools in our toolbox. we are evaluating what flexibilities we have around e-15. this is a conversation we have been having quite a bit as of late. i can tell you we are evaluating what clean air act authorities we have it to potentially take advantage of e-15. >> i hope we are able to do that. i do believe, that it was trading at a dollar lower than just straight up gas. it will be a considerable saving to our consumer if they are filling up their vehicles. administrator regan, we are already seeing rod costly policies it -- rod costly policies. on an unjustified basis which is increasing energy costs on american families. harming our international economic competitiveness and placing unnecessary burdens on our nations taxpayers. we are seeing one of the same coming out of the epa with a large target on something near and dear to my heart, agriculture. i have fought for farmers and we are now back to the same fight we have had in the past over the waters of the u.s., the waters of the united states. we are currently waiting on the supreme court's decision that will inform the scope of the epa's jurisdiction. administrator, you planning on using agency resources on a new role making, even though it will likely need to be changed once the supreme court comes back with their verdict. >> what we have done is gone through a rule they can process. we are continuing our roundtable discussions around the country with our farmers and elected officials. the reality is we are dealing with uncertainty in terms of where the courts have placed us with pre-2015, plus some decisions people are having to make now. what we are going to continue to do, we believe we have done a good job in the rulemaking process, taking into consideration, many of the concerns that have been expressed by the community and the other side. we are engaging in a regional allow -- roundtable now. we are still on a path to produce uncertainty while we see what plays out in the supreme court. >> the point would be we do not want to spend resources on efforts, they would have to be changed later on. we will continue following it. we have seen you do conversations on the rulemaking. in alaska and north dakota, can you commit to coming to iowa as well? and having the conversations with our stakeholders as well? >> let me circle back. i know we are doing regional roundtables. we have chosen 10 states. let me circle back to see if you are not one of the 10. if not, i will chat with the assist administrator to see what we can do. >> that will be helpful. we have a lot of stakeholders that are very engaged in the number of the original discussions. we would love that opportunity to visit face-to-face with members of the administration and share our concerns. so, overall, of course we want to make sure we are unleashing american agriculture and allowing us to feed and fuel the world. it is very hard when we have burdensome practices, whether it is changes to the rfs. we want to make sure we are able to provide, especially as we see crises around the globe where we may have food insecurities in other nations. this is a time where the u.s. can really step up and be part of that solution. so, thank you administrator i appreciate your time this morning. i yield back. >> senator duckworth, is trying to join us by the web. are you out there? senator duckworth? with that in mind, senator kelly is here, life in person. >> timing is everything. i did have some questions as well. but i think senator ernst covered some of that. i might get back to that in a second. i want to start with p -- p vast instead. -- pete. it is a rapidly growing challenge in the state of arizona, in tucson, which relies on a sole-source drinking water, there is a growing plume and it is jeopardizing the community's secondary source of what drinking water. as drug conditions get worse they can go from being our second source of drinking water the primary source, making it even more critical we address pfas contamination sooner rather than later. that is why as we were drafting the bipartisan infrastructure law we ensured that there was dedicated funding for pfas treatment projects that could be allocated to the states quickly. i am hopeful that as epa develops guidance, the unique needs of drought prone estates like arizona can be kept in mind. as you finalize guidance under the infrastructure law for the small underserved, disadvantaged communities -- community's grant programs, how are the areas experiencing drought conditions receive assistance when addressing these cleanups? >> thank you for that question. one of the great things about the the foundations of the bipartisan infrastructure law is it provides the spacing communities with the flexibilities to address the unique needs on the ground. i think what you will see coming from epa as it relates to these -- the water infrastructure resources is existing flexibilities, but the reliance on our states as co-regulators. we believe the states and communities know their people better than we do. so as we prescribe these programs, it is done with an eye towards the innovation and creativity and flexibility that the states have been focused on for those specific issues that are unique to the states. like in your case, the sole-source and and -- and pfas contamination. >> one issue is that, over the last 20 years, we have been suffering from this historic drought. so that something at epa, that is part of the consideration? >> absolutely. we are laser focused on providing our water utilities with the technical assistance and the resources that you need for a resilient 21st century water infrastructure. we need to see more reviews, -- reuse, water efficiency, we need to improve the quality of the water. all of those things are top of mind. we believe we are designing our relationship with our co-regulators, such that it is not an academic exercise, but more so an opportunity to execute and implement real underground solutions. >> do you believe that the pfas contamination poses a particular challenge for affected communities? >> absolutely i do. >> if you could outline, i only have about a minute and a half left, how do you think the process of pfas removal, what does this look like 10 years from now? >> it fits well with our pfas strategic roadmap. number one, with asked for the resources to pull in more health related data, more science data so we understand the impact and implications of pfas. number two, we need the data so we can establish drinking water levels as well as cleanup levels that latter is so important. once we get the health data we need to establish these cleanup levels, then we can hold the polluters accountable. we can force the polluters to use their resources and set of taxpayer dollars to clean up the mess they have caused. >> to think it is reasonable to expect in coming years, we could get -- i know you do not have the data sitting in front of you, to get the tucson aquifers and the others that are contaminated by pfas in a state of arizona and other states back to where they need to be safe and reliable drinking water sources? >> that is our desire, our hope. i saw this firsthand in north carolina, the devastation it caused. i know how much money is costing these water utilities, especially small utilities to provide a safe reliable, and affordable drinking water. we have to give that to the marking people. >> thank you. >> if you are ready to go. you're recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. administrator. it is good to see you. i look forward to having a good discussion. you have seen this chart before. it is an important chart to me. i tried to show it a lot. this is the issue is you and i have talked about of life expectancy in america. the whole country. where life expectancy has increased, it's lighter blue, darker blue, even purple, some areas of the country's life expectancy, 1980 to -- a 25 year period. it has decreased in some areas, most of it is opioid and drug-related. the area that i like to highlight, this is alaska. it is the area where life expectancy in america over the last 25 years increased more than any other place in the country. you look at the north slope of alaska, our rural areas, it is up to 13 years. can i ask you, is there more important policy indicators of success or failure as --or are americans living longer? giving one. i have asked that, no one can give me one. is this a policy indicator? the people you represent are living longer. to think anything is more important than that? >> longer and healthier. >> longer is healthier. >> possibly. >> yeah, well it is. >> we want people living long, healthy lives. i agree. >> this is an easy answer. yes. yes, hell yes. thank you. good job. here's my question. it is an important one. when i look at the proposed budget, there is a lot of area on advancing justice and environmental equity. i agree with that. a whole host of areas i agree that we need minority communities, indigenous unities in particular in my state, to live longer. the reason this map is so successful in terms of living longer is a, the native people in my state, most 20% of my population have started a low base, because they did not have things like clean drinking water or jobs or hospitals or gyms. things most americans take for granted. running water. then, what happened in alaska? in all of these areas, economic opportunities in the form of responsible resource development took place. one of the things i am often frustrated by is the discussion on resource development, particularly with this administration and the obama administration. we are going to set down resource because it is bad, oil, bad, mining, bad. it is not that bad, it creates opportunities for people to live longer. this administration has issued 22 executive orders and actions against my estate, solely against my state. in almost all of them, impact economic -- opportunity and many of them are targeted at the native people in alaska. to think that helps minority communities? >> we should not be targeting any people. >> i think you are strong on this, i appreciate this. i take it at face value the times you and i have discussed this. i know it is in your heart. you see that chart is a good thing. i do too. but, i am concerned that the policies of targeting minority communities and their access to jobs, economic activities -- opportunities, is continuing in this administration without a, reference to that but b, environmental equity. this turns environmental justice on its head. my state, the indigenous people, are being targeted by this administration. is that environmental justice? >> the targeting of any -- i am not quite sure i understand what you are -- what your assertion is. >> when you go into a native community and say you're going to shut down this economic activity of guest of element, that is what i'm talking about. >> i do not think eps and that. >> i'm talking about the administration. talk your cabinet official. she seems to do it every week. it is a frustration of mine. you have a strong voice in the biden administration cabinet. let me ask, you have had in your budget, environmental justice, small grants, opportunities, some of these are focused on this, educating the public to create greater acceptance of trees in cities. how does that compare to getting more economic opportunity to people and indigenous communities? >> i think the theme of what we're looking at with the resources we have asked for her environmental justice and inequity is to focus on how we bolster and strengthen infrastructure. >> i agree with that. >> healthy water. >> water for sure. i have 30 communities in my state that have no running water or flushing toilets. american citizens. that is an epa issue we need to work together. >> it a heartbreaking issue and i can tell you whether it is an indigenous community, or white family and appalachia, we need to address that. justice and equity. we need to look at the disproportionate impact that pollution is caused many of these communities, whether it is some of these superfund sites, whether it is pollution from a neighboring refinery or a power utility. when you look at our budget and look at what we are requesting in all seriousness. we are looking at requesting resources to combat these issues to those who have been impacted in the ways -- >> i am out of time, i appreciate your comments and your focus. i believe you are sincere in this. i just hope your budget and the biden administration's budget prioritizes the things you mention, roads, water, sewer, over no offense but programs to educate people on the importance of more trees in the city. but does not seem to fit well. i would welcome the chance to have a hearing in this committee about the 22 executive orders and actions my state has been singled out with. they are not doing that to delaware or anywhere. you wake up in alaska it is a new smack down by this administration, hurting my constituents, many of whom are indigenous minority people. it is wrong. it is damn wrong and i wish this committee would help me on this. if a republican administration was doing this to democrat colleagues of mine, i would help my democrat colleagues. i am pleading for help. thank you. from you to mr. administrator. >> i hope this is a true statement. from the beginning in our conversations whether it is air-quality, contamination, water infrastructure, i believe our office has been working hand-in-hand with the state of alaska to be as flexible as possible to provide the best service from epa to your constituents. >> i need your voice with other cabinet members in this administration to stop the war in alaskan families, particularly in minority communities. thank you. >> let's follow-up with senator capital. -- capito. >> i understand. >> we are going to try once again with senator duckworth. she is going to try to join us by telephone. can you hear me? >> i sure can mr. chairman. >> go right ahead. >> hooray. i wanted to say thank you to everyone for being here today. i'm excited to hear that one of epa's priorities includes water infrastructure and the budget request includes an increase of nearly one dollars to fully fund the water program authorized in my drinking water infrastructure act. if we keep this level of funding consistent, we have a chance to correct this gap in accessible funding for low income communities and communities of color. when working to get the citizens of illinois federal money to help mitigate their sewer flooding situation, it was disheartening to find there was almost no viable options to give and grant funding that met the needs of the community. there was almost no eligible funding opportunities to assist in underserved community from getting raw sewage out of the yard. i specifically lowered because the shares and increased grants to finally open the door to funding for communities just like this across the country. mr. administrator, could you explain how the increased funding requested in the epa budget and accessibility to funds created will help impact this advantaged and underserved communities with their water infrastructure? >> absolutely. thank you, senator or that question. it is unfortunate that we have the circumstances in this country where people are facing some of the things you just described. the first thing i will say is, the unique aspect of the bipartisan infrastructure law is exactly what you said, which is the opportunity for communities have never had a seat at the table to actually compete for these resources because they are forgivable loans or they are not required significant matches. what we are doing to increase their competitiveness is we are providing unprecedented resources for technical assistance so that many of these disadvantage communities to put forward competitive proposals so they can finally receive the resources they need. what i would say is we are grateful for the construct of the bill. you will see the request we have made in our budget builds on that. we want to deploy additional resources to provide technological assistance for communities like some of the other cities we have seen across the country as well. >> thank you. mr. administrator, it is no secret that low income community's and communities of color are affected by pollution and climate change. that is why it is so important for the epa's fy 23 budget request includes lower spending levels, like the environmental justice lock rent program. -- block pogrom. -- block program. to elevate and maximize the benefits of environmental justice efforts across the epa. i would love to be helpful on this. can you talk about this idea and how you expect the program help to address systemic, underinvestment in an addresses communities? are there opportunities for committees to be built into this program to ensure the funding meets -- needs are being met? >> absolutely, there are opportunities for community engagement. i have hired an advisor to help us bridge a lot of these gaps. when we think about the disproportionate impact of pollution, it is complicated, in terms of how we tackle this issue. we know that black and brown communities, tribal communities, low income communities, this is where the evidence leads us. we see the disproportionate impact in these communities. having an elevated position at the epa, with an equal seat at the table, as we have talked through our land pollution, water pollution, air quality and climate pollution, having someone at an equivalent level also talk from a scientific standpoint about how we develop policies and regulations that alleviate the disproportionality of these impacts is very important. it is the only way we can create the rising tide that will lift all boats. this is important to the president. this is important to be. it is an opportunity for us to demonstrate that our environmental laws, policies and regulations will provide equal protection for every single american in this country. >> thank you. i would like to associate myself with my colleague from iowa, for year-round e-15, especially during this russian war of choice in ukraine at a dollar per gallon. it seems the biden administration is missing an opportunity to introduce a readily available of strategic ethanol into the economy. you would actually stretch the availability of diesel fuel itself or you'd -- fuel itself. do you think it can provide a less expensive fuel option for americans at the pump? >> i do believe e-15 can provide a less expensive option based on the data that we have seen as of late. i also can say we are evaluating what options we might have at epa to look at utilizing e --15 at a -- e 15 at a level, to help alleviate the pain that we have seen since russia has launched its war against ukraine. the president has pledged all hands on deck. and for us to look at every single option. i will tell you, along with e-15, that is one of the reasons why i have been focused on providing certainty to the rfs program in general. congresses -- congress'intent is that biofuels will have a larger part in play. we need to have a comprehensive approach to alleviating our dependence on oil. this is a path we should pursue and we are. >> thank you. thank you mr. chairman, i am weight of time. you have been generous. >> thanks so much. before i turn to senator capito. are you ready? i'm going to ask you, in the record materials, describing the biden administration's actions to reduce energy prices, energy security, including the vehicle standards nation, by senator markey, without objections. senator capito. >> i would like to enter into the record a number of industry letters about hobby administration policies contribute to higher energy prices. i want to talk about your -- how many people right now are full-time equivalent of epa? >> we have about 14,200 equivalents at epa. >> you said several times in the community that during the four years previous to the biden administration that 1000 people were -- had left. i'm going to assume that if your numbers are over 14,000 you've rehired into those positions? you have said that 1000 people left epa. i'm going to assume that over the course of the last 16 months you have rehired into those positions? >> we have not. i do not think we have hired the full 1000. >> you can only go to a 14,000 297 -- 14,297. i could assume you have hired some of these back? >> yes. some, not all. >> you're asking for another 1900. >> yes. >> the conversation we had at breakfast, several months ago, you said by february you have everybody back into the office full-time in person. is that occurring? >> we are on track to meet most people being back in by april. >> what is most people? >> beginning april 28? >> what is a percentage of most? --the percentage of most? >> we can get back to you on that exact percentage. >> i would hope it is close to 100%. that makes sense for an agency that is impacting so many. >> i am being told all employees are scheduled to be back by the last paper period in april -- pay period in april. >> you want to hire another 1900. that includes the 450 that you mention for the --that includes that number? >> yes. >> why do you need 1900 more people? you were given money in the arp, did you use that money to hire? >> we were given money for activity, now for personnel. 20 think about the 60 plus dollars we received from the bipartisan infrastructure law, just $50 billion looking at water infrastructure, we were not given resources to higher. >> it does going to the revolving funds, right? >> -- four -- yes more money going to a different -- two existing programs. some of that money is more flexible than the money that went to those programs. we need more bodies to help manage those programs and push the money through to get to the states. >> you anticipate after five years you would not need those folks because this is only a five year program? to push the extra money because the extra money will not be there like five years. >> when we look at the resources that we received, which was $50 billion, the country has more than 720 doing dollars of infrastructure needs, the country is going to need continued help to rebuild its national infrastructure from its debt from a cyber standpoint. >> now that we're talking about the water there's quite a bit of money. we agree and it is great. this is the bill that came out of our committee and we are excited about it. epa has given guidance that pushes states to rewrite their definitions of disadvantaged communities and affordability criteria in line with the administration's initiative. you answer the question of how important it is to have the flexibility, give the states the ability to do that. you are a former state administrator. you know the state has been tasked with defining disadvantage communities in the past. why is that not working under this initiative? why is it changing? >> what we are doing, again, the existing state programs, traditionally operate with a different flexibility. a lack of flexibility than what the bill provides. there is a specification that 49% of those resources go to distant antics communities. everest -- disadvantage communities. every state has a different definition. some of these states have said, we need for you, mr. administrator to be more specific and offer up some criteria because we want as core regulators to meet the full intent. >> the states are asking for this? >> yes. >> we have not given mandates, we have provided criteria around what we believe the intentof the bipartisan infrastructure law is. these are characteristics we believe fall within a safer round of how we get the resources to those who need it the most. >> i am for that. but i will give you an example. in my state of west virginia, if we use the online tool that is available to define disadvantaged communities, i got excited about this because we have a small community called institute west virginia that hasn't historic -- has historic black college, or katherine johnson went to school and graduated, it is also next to a major chemical facility that is much larger in the past. there been issues from time to time as we have seen that footprint change over the years. this community does not fall within the disadvantage community pool that you are all putting together. it is probably well over our state average in terms of minorities who live there. my understanding is because it is next to the school, there's faculty that live there. but it totally qualifies for what we are trying -- what the joint message -- miss -- mission is here tell communities. why would you not let the estate make that determination? >> you offered a good example of where states feel -- fill the gaps. we have seen areas where states have said, we do not know if we are accurately defining disadvantage communities. the short answer is, this is a process that is being developed together by the state and federal agencies as core regulators. i do not think that anyone has a monopoly on the perfect definition on environmental justice or disadvantaged communities. we are having active conversations with the state commissioners and state secretaries all across this country. we are saying we believe this is the definition of the states and together we are coming up with what we believe, are the best solutions for those individual state to be sure no one is left behind. >> i do not want to leave anybody behind. here is where i am concerned. if your definition, and the grant area, putting your foot on the scale for certain types of parameters that were not designated into the legislation when we created this on a bipartisan basis. you've graded a definition -- you have created a definition to term another aspect of the law, the state has a different view of this and loses their flexibility, it seems to me, in applying for a grant into these parameters, they are going to be disadvantaged, because when they are not meeting the metrics you have established, this is a deeper discussion, we can get into it later,f i do not want to see a position where you are overwriting what empowered local officials to do for years to make those determinations. this is what concerns me. >> i would agree with you, if what we put out was a mandate. it is not. these are criteria. >> you cap mandate because -- you cannot mandate because it is not in the law. >> the relationship we have with our state regulators is done correctly, whether it is a per minute -- there is a back-and-forth. there's a dialogue. a lot of times states want to consult with epa because they want to ensure they have the cover and it is vice versa. m my intention is to ensure we do not take any of the at todd amis and flexibility from the states. the goal is to work together and try to get the right criteria there so we do not see anyone fall through the gap. >> i think we have some agreement. but i would disagree that you are not putting your mom on the scale in this area. we see this throughout the transportation side, on the discretionary grant decide. we did not specify these things in the law because we wanted a bipartisan bill that we can all agree on and keeping that flexibility within the state was very important to all of us. i can go on and on. i have one last thought. back to the ftes. i forgot i had this information. you could hire up to 15,000 -- 15,324 under the budget. you are still 1100 under what you could actually have. >> let me go back. >> we need to get into this. >> we should talk further. we did not get the 2022 budget. we cannot hire up to that number. but i would like to go to the preceding question to make sure we're talking about the same number. >> ok. thank you. >> thank you for staying with us in continuing this discussion. i want to go back and talk about the methane reduction. for clarification purposes, my intent in crafting and implementing the program is not just a slap a fee on admit or's of methane, but we wanted to is provide up to as much as $700 million in the system to those oil and gas companies that are admitting -- admitting methane. -- emitting methane. we also try to craft language to accommodate for permitting delays with gathering lines. we want to provide accommodation to make sure if there is some kind of delay because of that, we address that appropriately. i have a note, consumer costs will be low not zero, less than 1%. we will come back and figure out what that means. if not, zero. a couple of questions. then the last question will be -- we will close with that. my first question remains what diesel emission. from a former governor asked me one day to be -- asked me on the diesel reduction act, we talked about it and i agreed. it was signed into law. i never seen legislation that impactful move that quickly. when he left us, and inhofe agreed to be on the reduction act, i am very grateful for that. with respect to the diesel emission reduction act, diesel omissions from trucks, ferry boats, all kinds of vehicles, but please see that the president's budget provides $150 million for the bipartisan diesel emission reduction act or gear up as we call it. our nation is millions of dirty diesel engines in use today. these engines can help take our kids to school, run our ports and ship our goods across the country. dirty diesel engines are not only bad for the air, but for climate. it turns out, bad for our pocketbooks in terms of energy costs. i applaud this administration's commitment to diesel emission reduction acts passed by partisan infrastructure, clean school programs which help transition our dirty vehicles to clean more efficient american-made options. our question is, administrator, how important are investments in cleaning up dirty diesel for our climate and the communities that live nearby or downwind? how do these investments whisper economic development -- spur economic element and save consumers money? >> i applaud you and others for the program. it is one of the more exciting things when we look at a program that has effectively taken admissions -- emissions our of p -- out of play. when we look at the success of the program and how it is the foundation in ushering in how we leverage to clean up the yellow school buses is very exciting. diesel admissions contribute to law school -- lost workdays for bus drivers and teachers. this is a transformational opportunity to reduce those hospital visits for kids, parents and for those who have been asked -- exposed. it is an excellent opportunity for those in the manufacturing sector. when we look at some of the school bus manufacturers or those that are participating in the supply chain. this is an awesome opportunity and a way to awaken american innovation. this is a perfect example of how we protect public health of our most precious cargo, promote innovation, and reduce the emissions profile of the transportation sector which is the largest contributor to climate change. >> it reminds you of the same, it is possible to do good and well at the same time. this is a great example of that. my second question, i appreciate the ep's hard work to develop the proposal for making renewable fuel standard programs. the agency is working to finalize it. rfs politics are difficult. more can be done to improve the program. especially at a time of great volatility in the fuel market. my hope is that you will take a second look at the 2022 rfs requirements and act on applications for new advanced renewable pathways, and act on applications for new advanced renewable fuel pathways and fuels that will write consumers with more affordable and environmentally friendly options. epa has been sitting on advanced renewable pathway applications in fuel decisions for not days, not weeks, months, or for years. does the epa have enough resources to have the ability to process the applications? if the answer is you do have enough resources now, what is the hold up? >> i can say that the group of people that are responsible for our rfs program are one of the heavier it taxed groups because they are focused on transportation and stationary sources and all of our climate goals. in our budget will see an ask for increased resources for the office of air radiation because that is where a lot of the work is coming from. we do recognize the importance of looking at these advanced opportunities for biofuels. in the president's pledge and i am pledging we will move as quickly as possible. >> thank you. a follow-up, what more can epa or congress do to help stabilize the rfs market in order to provide great certainty for all parties and encourage the development -- deployment of more sustainable fuel? we talked in the course of this hearing about how businesses -- what can epa and the congress do to help stabilize the rfs market in order to provide greater certainty for all parties and encourage the deployment of more sustainable fuels? >> i believe that we are finally on a path to stabilize this program. we have to deal with these exemptions, whether it be court mandated or decisions epa has to make. we have to get the proposal out in 2020, 2021, 2022. that is the three year span where introducing certainty and predictability into the industry. there are some issues with 2020 and 2022, the reality is that this is not the first time the agency has put a string of three years together to create some predict ability. as we pursue the step model, 2023 and beyond, it is our opportunity to stop ping-pong and back-and-forth, learn from the past lessons of what the court had dictated and move forward in a very sound way to meet congress' intent of getting the biofuel levels introduced into this market that will want to achieve. we have a lot of lessons learned in the past. we are in a path of certainty. 2022-2023, it is the first step. as we go to 2023 and beyond, we have a huge opportunity to push biofuel in the sector i believe congress intended. >> let us make sure we seize the day. i do not know much latin, but seize the day latin is carpe diem. you have a chance to ask yourself a question, we do not always afford that opportunity to people. >> that might be the most dangerous questionable. >> we have a vote. >> i think that before answering a question, i would've liked to have seen, it is answering the question of this administration's level of engagement with all of our stakeholders. i am proud of the level of engagement with our community, our energy community, the rules that we have proposed and finalized over the past year and that we will propose and finalize over the coming years, have been done and what i consider to be one of the most transparent and engaging way in epa's history. i'm excited about crating that level of back-and-forth and relationship with all of our stakeholders. we have hard decisions to make. i am excited that we have those foundational relationships in place, because with build, the american rescue plan, and kindness from congress on this budget request, we have a significant opportunity to protect human health, advanced technology, innovation, like rim never seen before, and increase the global competitiveness of this country. we are doing a pretty good job of trying to assure that in. >> i mentioned this to senator capito, we have the celebration in delaware, along the banks of the river. the part of woman 10 -- part of wilmington, the first ship named after delaware, it was a day of great celebration. i spoke as a keynote speaker, i talked about how delaware was the first to ratify the constitution. for one whole week we were the united states of america. and it opened up for everybody else. i had to ask everybody in the audience to stand up at the end of my remarks and hold hands of the people on either side of them and join me in reciting the preambles of the constitution, which begins with these words. we the people, and all are form, more union. -- in all our form, more union. the constitution was not perfect when it was first adopted. everything i do, and we do, i know we can do that are. we appreciate your leadership. i know you're working hard. i know the folks working for you are working hard. our goal is perfection. we might never get there but at least that is where we are headed. just to reiterate, we will be looking for to hearing from one of our alums who works for you, when you going to west virginia. if you run into my if you run into my family, let me know. i think with that -- anything else? here we go. before i adjourn, senators will be allowed to submit written questions to the reppert -- of the record before april 20. we will compile the questions and submit them to you and your team and we ask that you reply by wednesday, may 4 anything else? this hearing is adjourned. >> thank you. [gavel bangs] [indistinct conversations] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [indistinct conversations] [indistinct conversations]

Related Keywords

Greene ,North Dakota ,United States ,North Carolina ,Alaska ,Delaware ,Illinois ,Whitehouse ,District Of Columbia ,California ,Russia ,Ukraine ,Lautenberg ,Bayern ,Germany ,West Virginia ,Arizona ,Iowa ,Saudi Arabia ,Venezuela ,Americans ,America ,Saudi ,German ,Russian ,Alaskan ,American ,Doug Goehring ,Gina Mccarthy ,Cathy Mcmorris Rodgers ,Kevin Cramer ,