background levels. even epaso low that admits they have not determined how to reach full compliance. the marginal cost of ratcheting down the existing spread -- standard goes through the roof that thestimates standard would cost 3.9 billion dollars to $15 billion annually and the 16 part would be $39 billion annually. cost of study puts the 65 parts per billion at $140 billion a year, which would make this the agency's most expensive .egulation ever the study also estimates 1.4 million fewer jobs and household cost averaging $830 per year. these costs come on top of all of the other rules we have seen manythis administration, of which also impact the energy and manufacturing sectors. moreover, this rule is yet another chapter in the administration efforts to force more extreme client policies on the american people. i would like to just name a few of them. we have done the utility mac, the same and, the cross state the tiertion rule, three, the 111 b, all on top of .his proposed ozone rule i would also like to point out that today in america there are 230 counties not in compliance with the 2008 standard and i would like to point out that epa is just now getting around to implementing guidance for the 2008 rule. thee counties not meeting new standard would be designated as nonattainment. as i said, there are 230 counties in nonattainment around the country. epa estimates that 358 counties that currently have monitors would be in nonattainment if they go to 70 parts per billion, and 558 counties would be in parts pernce at 65 billion based on recent data. this does not include counties nearby or without ozone monitors that may also be designated by to be in nonattainment. nonattainment designation is like a self-imposed recession for some areas. it becomesnties, increasingly difficult to obtain a new permit to build a factory, to expand a factory or powerplant. even permits for existing facilities would be impacted. just last week and a survey of manufacturers, over half of them, 53%, said they were not likely to continue with a new plant or expansion if it is located in a non-attainment area. the same permitting challenges occur for roads and large infrastructure projects. in effect, almost all new job creating economic activity is jeopardized until the nonattainment area meets the which could take years, if not decades. ibility amere poss near location could be designated nonattainment is enough to scare off prospective employees, so the proposed rule may already be doing damage. there is something wrong with our system when you have los angeles, san joaquin valley, major parts of california that have the most stringent environmental standards in the country, and on top of that, epa, and those areas, san joaquin valley, los angeles, may never be in compliance. in they are certainly not in compliance today and have been out of compliance since the beginning of the clean air act. so, we have a system that is not working very well. at this time, i would like to recognize the gentleman from new , for hisr. pallone opening statement. thank you,e: chairman whitfield, for holding this hearing on epa's proposed standards. i also would like to thank janet mccabe for coming to testify before the committee. air quality standards help to ensure that all americans can breathe healthier air. level thatd sets a is safe to breathe. it has been instructional in cleaning the air in protecting public health, including the health of children and seniors. but the currently 75 parts per billion ozone standard has fallen short. since 2008, the ozone standards have been weaker than the facts would allow. as such, the clean air sainted advisory committee may crystal clear that in order to protect public health, epa must strengthen the standard to ensure marginal safety for all individuals. these recommendations were ignored by the bush administration. to correct this flagrant disregard for the facts, epa has anotherosed based on exhaustive review of scientific evidence to revise the standard to the range of 65 to 75 parts per billion, as advised by the scientific committee. epa's decision is fully consistent with the law in their world me litany of adverse health impacts that will be avoided. millions of asthma attacks, missed school days, thousands of premature hats. these are meaningful, real-world benefits that i have little doubt today we will hear much about. supreme courts opinion written by justice thata no less determined if epa establishes a standard, cost may not be considered. that is why congress designed to clean air act. costs are only considered later. for cleanhe standard air and the states find the lowest way to meet it. develop a careful budget and cost analysis. epa estimates the benefits associated with the new ozone standards would range from 13 billion dollars annually to $38 billion annually. industry has prepared dubious and grossly inflated estimates of the projected cost and they fail to consider any of the benefits. that paints a completely one-sided picture of the cost of cleaning our air. costhat ignores the real to people, especially our children. we also hear that the standard will have dire consequences for economic growth. these doomsday claims are nothing new. the reality is over the past 40 years, the clean air act has produced tremendous public health benefits while supporting america pro economic growth. epa's ozone standards are long overdue. we need to let epa do its job to reach the goal of the clean air act, cleaner for all americans, and i look forward to ms. mccabe's testimony. i yield back my time. therman whitfield: gentleman yields back. i recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. olson, for five minutes. olson: thank you. i will be brief. i spent hours studying this. there was a common claim. will i lose my job? members of the atlanta chamber or the partnership, they came ,rom family farms and ranches members of the iowa farm bureau, , a momaska homebuilders and pop store wrote epa and said said to our children, eas, and then you can have dessert. , andays, eat your peas then you can have more peas." the word came from epa's workhorses, the state agencies, to make this rule work. they have no clue about the science used or the health impacts. they worry if they can build new roads. these voices come from all of america. i hope epa starts listening. if one of my colleagues on my side wants some time, i will yield? if not, i will yield back. chairman whitfield: the gentleman yields back. at this time, i recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, for five minutes. rush: i want to thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing on the epa's proposed rules. i also want to thank the acting .ssistant administrator she has always given us her best always pleasant to hear her insightful and forthright testimony before the subcommittee. beenhairman, today, it has duly noted, we are here to discuss the proposed national air quality standards for ozone. has newly mandated to put forth by the clean air act. the clean air act requires the nationalt primary quality standards and concentration level sufficient to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety. concerning pollutants that endanger public health and the environment. thenow the epa establishes standards based on medical and scientific evidence as well as the recommendations provided by the clean air advisory committee, which, mr. chairman, you know is an independent scientific review committee. epa is required to review the standards every five years solely in consideration of public health and they must accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge, mr. chairman. in 2008, the bush administration failed to heed the unanimous recommendations of aircommittee, of the clean ,cientific advisory committee lowering the ozone quality standards. under president bush set the standard at 75 pbb. xt 270 -- 60 270 would be more protective of public health -- 6 70 would be more protective of public health. the obama administration also refused to consider the standard until order to do so by the by a lawsuitear brought by environmental and public health groups. , let's ask the question, mr. chairman. why is this rule so very why is it so important for epa to act? we know there are serious health effects caused by the ozone and the epa proposal will improve in quality and result significant public health benefits. children, the elderly, and diseasesth respiratory such as asthma will be impacted directly by this room. -- by this rule. the epa estimates there are currently 25.9 million people in the u.s. with asthma, including 7.1 million children, and, mr. my city of chicago is and has been disproportionately ozoneed by asthma and the . the most recent study shows that when county and illinois is home to 13,000 children and over 340,000 adults with asthma. , i don't know what value can be placed on preventing all of these dire circumstances, all of these illnesses, all of these premature deaths and emergency , but i know the people who sent me here to represent them are some of the ones who would be impacted by this procedure and this action look forward to engaging ms. mccabe on the rationale behind this proposal. i yield back the balance of my time. chairman whitfield: the gentleman yields back bounce of his time. i want to thank you, ms. mccabe, for coming here early. we apologize for the delay. we are delighted ms. mccabe is here. you are recognized for five minutes for your statement on the ozone role. thank you, chairman whitfield, ranking member rush, members of the subcommittee -- thank you for calling me to testify. i will try to be brief so we can get to your questions. the clean air act requires epa to review the national ambient air quality standards every five years to make sure they continue a protect public health with measure of safety. -- with an adequate margin of safety. estimated that this is critical work for those with asthma, including children. if you examine thousands of scientific studies including new studies since epa last revised standards in 2008, and based on the law, a thorough review of that science, the recommendation of the agency's scientific advisors and the assessment of epa scientists and technical experts, the administrative judgment was the current standard of 75 parts per billion was not enough adequate to protect public health. she proposed to strengthen those standards to a range between 65 tp 70 parts per billion -- 65 tp 70 parts per billion. it included an alternative of 60 parts per billion in also recognize stakeholders and offering comment on retaining the existing standard. we also propose to update the air quality index for ozone to reflect the air quality standard if one is finalized. americans real-time information so they can make choices to protect themselves and their families. ozone seasons are lasting longer so --they used to, the epa has also propose to revise the secondary standard. based on new studies that add the evidence that repeated exposure has harmful effects on plants and trees and reduces growth, the administrator judged that a second standard within the range of 65 to 75 parts per billion, the same as the primary standard proposal would protect public, particularly damage to trees and echo systems. in addition, we plan to smooth the transition to revise standards, maximize effectiveness in the state, other tribal, and monitoring programs and give the needs for monitoring precursors. all of these updates are designed to ensure that americans are alerted when ozone approaches levels that may be unhealthy, especially for sensitive people. the administrator from proposal is designed to better protect children and families from the harmful effects of ozone pollution. we estimate that it would prevent an estimated 380,000 missed school days, asthma attacks and children, and 710 premature deaths per year. parttands ready to do our to stand with states and tribes to streamline implementation. local communities, states, have already shown that we can reduce pollution while the economy continues to thrive. we fully expect this progress to continue. existing and proposed federal measures are leading to substantial reductions in ozone nationwide, which will help improve air quality in will help many areas meet revised standards. we receive over 105 -- we received over 140,000 comments during the public comment period, and we are reviewing ofse comments for october 1 this year. thank you very much. chairman whitfield: thank you, ms. mccabe, very much. i recognize myself for five minutes of questions. many of us believe the clean air act needs to be changed. i say that, just as mr. rush mentioned and you mentioned, epa looks at impact on health care by making it more stringent, these ozone rules, for example and you eliminate some many cases of asthma, whatever, --tever, which is important but under the act, you do not have any responsibility to look at those pockets of the country that are in noncompliance and the impact that the stringent controls have on jobs. we have had economist after economist come in here and talk about loss of jobs and the onact that that has health care, for children, for infants. yet epa, every time they, p or, it is all about the benefits, the benefits, the benefits -- here, ite they come up is all that the benefits, the benefits, the benefits. because as you know, if an area is in noncompliance, they cannot build a plant unless they get a permit. it does have an effect on jobs. for chili, areas like los angeles that have never been in -- fortunately, areas like los angeles but have never been in compliance, they rely on the entertainment industry in high-tech, so they do not have worry aboutt -- basic industry jobs. how do you account for the fact that los angeles is still in noncompliance? in your own rules state that some of these areas, the only way they will ever be in if they useill be unknown controls -- controls we do not know what it is. your ownderstand testimony, your own documentation shows that many parts of the country will be in noncompliance, whether it is evan d or six -- whether it is 7065. even president obama tried to prevent the implementation. he delayed implementation of the , and now, ofeview course, environmentalist groups, who do a good job, they have a role to play, but they are driving epa, because they are andys going into court under the strict construction of the language, some of which is sometimes quite nebulous, the court say you cannot delay. they are driving the decisions because of the strict language in the original clean air act. so, i hope you get a sense of the frustration in many parts of , wecountry and kentucky will have more counties in noncompliance. we will have 23 more at 65. every major city in kentucky will be in noncompliance. at some of these levels. that afterconcerned all this time that areas like los angeles and san joaquin's ill can't even make the old standards? chairman, there is a lot in your question there. i will try to address as much of it as i can. thee are certainly parts of country where meeting the standard has been extremely challenging due to a variety of factors, including challenges in southern california. what that means is, people who live in those areas are exposed to unhealthy air. the good news is, air quality has improved in seven california, as across the country -- chairman whitfield: but they are still noncompliant. do not meet the standards, but the levels are lower in the area is making progress in a way that supports a vital local economy -- chairman whitfield: how much time does los angeles have to comply? i don't know if they are severe or extreme, but how many years to they have to comply? ms. mccabe: los angeles is in the extreme category. if the standard is revised this fall, they would have until 2037 to meet that standard. what that means is, the area has a lot of time to bring reductions into place -- but theywhitfield: have been working on it for 15 or 18 years. they are not even in compliance today. that is right. the air is still not healthy for citizens to breathe. chairman whitfield: i see my time is expired. many of us feel very strongly you should just continue to implement this existing rule for a while and give the country time to catch up, since you're implementing guidance is not been issued until just recently. i will recognize the german from illinois for five minutes. rep. rush: ms. mccabe, you know nationally ozone layers have fallen -- ozone levels have fallen by a third. -- 97%. what will you say to the argument that we have already reduced our average ozone levels that further lowering the to 75 or 70 or 65 will not give us the initial health , as opposed to the cost of trying to reach those higher standards? congress, in the clean air act, directed epa every five years to look at the science and make a determination about whether the current level is adequate to protect the public health. and based on all of that review and a very open process with external peter review all along -- external peer review all along the way, we determined that it is not sufficiently --tective, that is based sufficiently protective. that is based on all the science. that is her job to do under the clean air act. that is what the proposal is all about. you also point out since 19 80 we have reduced our air pollution by nearly 30% and our economy has tripled and we not all of the epa can consider the cost of implementing the primary or , butdary quality standards can only consider the health benefits. have there been any cost-benefit analysis by the epa or any other agency, before, during, or after the proposal? ranking member rush, .ou are correct there is a distinction between what the science says and deciding how to meet that standard, which the states are in charge of, because it is their air quality, their sources, with considerable help from the federal government. we do not know exactly how the states will go about meeting the standard, because we know that they will, as they have over the years, they will find cost-effective ways to do that, with the help of rules from the federal government. but we do provide, as part of process,aking illustrative costs. that is done consistently with the obligations and the requirements that they put on us to do those sorts of economic reviews. rep. rush: ms. mccabe, the chairman talked about los angeles and other places. what is your viewpoint? why do they stand out? is the epa going to try to bring them into more compliance? there are a lot of that maketures southern california very challenging. there are air quality standards. there is the unique geography and topography of being the mountains and the ocean and the meteorology there that makes it very challenging. the epa, as well as really progressive and innovative agencies and california have led the way of figuring out how to reduce omissions in cost-effective ways to protect citizens. significantided support and assistance through grant programs, technology and certainly will continue to do that in order to bring the kinds of programs that need to be in place there. might the advantages of that, the innovations in california have helped the rest of the country in terms of bringing new new ideas andg approaches into use in ways that can benefit the rest of the country and the economy. you, mr.: thank chairman. i yield back. chairman whitfield: recognize john from texas, representative olson, for five minutes. rep. olson: ms. mccabe, welcome back. we know much of the ozone america is beyond our control. epa calls this background ozone. some of this ozone is natural. here. a slide this was houston. ozone. that is not our some belongs to mexico. --get it to cause of annual we get it because of annual crops of earnings. -- crop burnings. i have another poster. the last time ms. mcarthur was here, i showed her this snap of ozone pouring into america from china and asia. in your proposal, you admit that ozone from mexico and china can be a huge problem. ,our rules says, and i quote there are times when ozone levels approach or exceed the concentration levels eating proposed -- being proposed in large part due to background sources. texas, iteadville, makes us violate your new rules. that seems very unfair, ma'am. my first question is, is it true the nearly one half of ozone america is here naturally or comes from overseas? i don't know that i would agree with that formulation exactly. we do address the background background levels very across the country and across different times of year. as you know, they come from a variety of sources. clean air acte does not old states responsible for pollution that they do not control. and there are provisions in mechanisms in the clean air act to help states that -- ma'am, i am sorry. i only have five minutes. off.e to cut you i apologize. your answer goes against your own data. ozonemit -- it says more all over this country. foreignthat natural and ozone are not going away and are .ikely to get much, much bigger that means we must squeeze more and squeeze more from smaller and smaller sources of ozone. thisays we can't say how can be achieved. you don't know. epa says most of the technologies needed to meet these new rules are unknown today? is that true? yes or no? ms. mccabe: i would not characterize it -- the technologies we do recognize in certain parts of the country, there may need to be controls identified that are not in existence today, but there are many controls that are in existence today that will reduce the air pollution that causes ozone. ma'amentative macarthur: -- one examplema'am, -- a stark contrasting answer. one other question. is it true that the epa will not even consider whether an ozone rule is achievable. is that true? formulation, can we do this with technology? ms. mccabe: our job under the clean air act is to 10 if i the standard that is necessary to protect the public health. that is what this rule is about. it is about letting the american people know what is safe and healthy -- can't take into account achievability by law? is that what you're saying? the supreme court has spoken to this. this is about science. rep. olson: it sounds like we need a changeup. one final question, ma'am. law requires the epa to change rule every five years -- you just have to review it. you say you have to change the current role because the 2008 will does not protect human health. home, the texas commission on environmental quality points out that in your own modeling in your "health and risk exposure assessment" it would result in more deaths in houston, texas with the lower standards. concludes either epa cannot read their own data or they are excepting a lower ozone standard that makes health worse. can you expand a fact, ma'am? ms. mccabe: i would very much disagree with the way pcq characterize the data. if you look at the entire body of the data, you will see the health benefits of the ozone standard are substantial. we welcome everybody's concepts hashe rule, and tcq provided analysis we are looking closely at. rep. olson: thank you. chairman whitfield: this point, we recognize the german from california for five minutes. >> earlier in your testimony, in response to mr. rush, you said you looked at thousands of reports and you concluded to protect the communities, 75 .as a little too high are we splitting hairs or we talking about large-scale effects? ms. mccabe: we are talking about millions of people who at lower levels would not suffer those effects. rep. mcnerney: was there a rule that the epa must look at the ?ffect ms. mccabe: yes. rep. mcnerney: the chairman ed san joaquin valley, which is my home, so i appreciate your attention, mr. chairman. one of the things that we do is, -- incentivize some of the old he so equipment to be replaced by new diesel equipment. but that takes time. that is not something we can require all of the farmers to do. it takes time. i appreciate keeping the standards in place. i just want to say the bay area contributes a lot of the ozone to the same mccain valley sort of like what mr. olson was saying. that andu to take think about those penalties assessed when you do not make those attainments. i appreciate mr. olson's comments on that. i was the epa going to assess drought impacts on air pollution is ozone -- and ozone? themccabe: yeah, we know drought situation is incredibly severe and challenging and troubling in california and elsewhere. that will continue because of increased dust. but we also have tools in the clean air act that can allow to evaluate air quality as it is being influenced by natural conditions, and we are looking closely with states to make sure our guidance and expectations our current with situations like drought and wildfires that are also a challenge to make sure that states are not responsible for natural conditions that can create ozone situations. would youney: confirm my observation that air quality is improving in the san joaquin valley? ms. mccabe: yes, i certainly would. rep. mcnerney: do you have something you could say here? ms. mccabe: i don't have those figures with me. i could get those to you, congressman. air quality has been improving and it due to quote -- programs like you have been mentioning, replacing older, dirtier injuries with newer ones and working closely with the agricultural community and everybody in the san joaquin valley to find sensible things to do. ms. mccabe: -- rep. mcnerney: some nonattainment does not penalize us in terms of backtracking the air quality in the region? ms. mccabe: not at all. it is a moving the right direction. rep. mcnerney: can you expand the difference between secondary standards and primary standards? ms. mccabe: primary standards focused on protecting human health. secondary standards are focused on protecting public welfare. those are things we care about, as people who live in this country, economic fx, effects on , the otherdings things that make our economy and quality of life what it is. rep. mcnerney: so, you are going to step to the primary and secondary standards the same with ozone? ms. mccabe: there is an that ine discussion of the preamble in the proposal and our clean air act. the science advisory committee spoke directly to that. data shows thehe 70 will provide the welfare that the impacts require. chairman whitfield: at this time, i would like to recognize the gentleman from illinois for five minutes. shimkus: thank you. just you, personally as an individual, don't you think having a job with good pain benefits is protective of human health? ms. mccabe: i think it is very important -- rep. shimkus: and health care. ms. mccabe: of course i do. ms. mccabe: -- rep. shimkus: that is kind of our challenge. you as epa do not have the authority to evaluate that with respect to your primary mission, which is protective of human health, the air regulations, right? you just can't weigh in. you're not making those cost benefit analysis. we say we are to some extent, but they are so far down the decision tree, many of us believe they just do not happen. so, let me go to another question based on a comment you made, because a lot of this is 2008 -- per billion in many states have not met those yet. but now we are ratcheting down even more and there is a lot of uncertainty. that will move onto my third question, once i get there. in your response, you talked about background is different in different areas. are you considering a different regulation standard based upon the variance of background? could one area of the country have 70 parts per billion and another have 65 parts per billion? answer the question. is mccabe: the standard supposed to reflect what is safe for people to breathe. a child living in florida and a child living in oregon should be entitled to -- rep. shimkus: but background is background. background is there in essence without human contact. ms. mccabe: that's right and that comes into play when states are putting their plans together and epa is working with states to figure out how much time and what needs to be done in order to reach those standards, so areas -- rep. shimkus: but if an area has 70 parts per billion background, you can get them to 65? through the power of government. are twobe: but there very important elements to the standard. one is for people in that area to know whether the air they are breathing is healthy or not -- rep. shimkus: so they should move? is that the answer? get out of that 70 parts per billion area because it is not healthy? ms. mccabe: no, but they should know -- rep. shimkus: what should they do? it is naturally occurring, background. ms. mccabe: ozone changes from day to day -- rep. shimkus: so they should take a vacation during those days? you see our problem. i would think in rolling this -- backgroundope is important. background should be a standard. we should not try to have government force something that is not naturally occurring based upon nature without man's intervention. ms. mccabe: if i could clarify a point on the background, because i think it may be -- people may be thinking this is pervasive. in fact, across the country, most of the ozone that is contributing to high values is locally or regionally created. there are very few areas, very few parts of this country where background can get as high as approaching the level -- rep. shimkus: ok, but you understand our concern, even if it is a very low possibility. anyway, i'm going to move on to the last question. we just finished our congressional baseball game last night. we lost again. me think about what chairman whitfield was addressing. had we started the game and then halfway through the game, the strike zone changed, or in the the second inning the number of outs changed or the foul lines changed or the outfield walls got moved -- that would make for a very frustrating, impossible game, don't you agree? is not aboutzone rules. it is about science. is aboutkus: this utility mat, boiler mac, cement 1-b, particulate matter, tier three. we are changing the rules on the fly and the people creating jobs in this country cannot manage it and that is our problem with what is going on with epa. i yield back my time. chairman whitfield: recognize the gentlewoman from california, representative cats. you, mr. chairman. i may be biased because i have been a public health nurse. this is a standard set by congress and the clean air act. it is a standard upheld by the supreme court and for good reason. clean air has very real and significant impact on the well-being and health of all americans and this is underscored by our ranking member, bobby rush, who is from chicago, where they know a thing or two aboutthing air pollution, too. it translates to real economic benefits. colleague, mr.my the point inmade the other direction, good jobs with health benefits are even better in the context of clean air and even polluters benefit from help your employees taking fewer sick a's. so, just asking you to elaborate -- what is the economic value? ms. mccabe: yes, it's absolutely true and i think many agree that a clean and healthy environment is very positive for the economy as well as for public health. showslustrative analysis at a standard of 60 parts per billion, there would be benefits in the range of 6.4 billion $13 billion to the economy, and that comes from some of the things you have less missed are -- school days, emergency room visits, that sort of thing. , ms. mccabe,nd does the clean air act required the epa to set standards based on how many areas currently meet the standards, or on protecting public health? ms. mccabe: it is based on protecting public health. rep. capps: what resources are available to help lower the ozone layer? i think the word smog is -- of the los angeles area. we struggle every day. are these areas on their own or does the federal government provide assistance? ms. mccabe: absolutely, this is a partnership between the federal government and the state governments. the federal government promulgates national rules like which brings tremendous benefits, and other rules that make sense to do a national level. the states by providing financial assistance and support, technical assistance and grants, and your area has certainly benefited from those programs that can be very targeted to the specific needs of a targeted area. rep. capps: thank you. to return to climate change briefly -- this is increasingly impacting our economy and daily lives. storms are getting stronger, floods are getting worse, droughts -- as i know very well in california now -- are getting more severe, and clement change also increases the levels of ozone in the air we breathe. -- and climate change also increases the levels of ozone in the air we breathe. can you ask plane how climate change will affect ozone levels and how will that affect human health? ms. mccabe: sure. as the client is warmer, warm conditions are conducive to ozone formation. it can lead to increased ozone armation and ozone is also climate pollutant, so it helps contribute to the kinds of effects we are seeing. briefly,s: just finally, i hear so often across industry as well as here in citing high cost estimates as a reason to a post ring thinning environmental public health standards. standard.proposed while cost should be considered and there is a way you are talking about doing that, these costs ultimately weigh against the benefits. it is important to understand that these estimates represent real people in real life states. how do the epa standards compared to the cost question mark what is the balance? out inabe: as we laid our illustrative case, the benefits outweighed the cost by three dollars for every one dollar spent. rep. capps: studies demonstrated this? allmccabe: it is based in of the information available to us. the things that people are likely to do and the costs associated, cost benefits associated with the health benefits. ms. mccabe: thank you very much. i yield back. time, i whitfield: this recognize the tillman and for mississippi, mr. harper. : good to have you back. it seems like you do hang out here a lot. ms. mccabe: i do. : good to have you back. if we eliminate all ground-level ozone, there would still be people with respiratory illnesses. you agree with that, don't you? manyccabe: sure, there are causes for respiratory illnesses. i'm really: concerned, if we look it is, if we revise the current ozone standards, how that will impact transformation conformity requirements. if you could briefly say, transformation conformity -- what does that mean? ms. mccabe: transformation conformity is a provision in the act that wants to make sure that as states and municipalities are working to improve their air quality, that transportation taken into account and that transportation planning takes air-quality into account, so that areas will not undermine their efforts to improve air quality inadvertently through transportation projects, that could increase air pollution. -- soarper: so,'s dates states and localities will have that responsibility? ms. mccabe: they do now, and working with the federal government. rep. harper: what kind of tools will be cities need to use? there are tools that the epa provides, and we work with the states to analyze those impacts. we have been doing this for a long time. how olson: -- rep. harper: reasonable or what type situation is it for smaller cities? are you expecting smaller cities to do the same analysis? is that reasonable? what are you anticipating? we would certainly provide any assistance we needed to for any community. this is a focus in larger communities, more populous communities, but we would provide whatever assistance we needed. rep. harper: the focus is on larger communities. are you looking at extending it to every community? ms. mccabe: we would follow the guidance and the requirements and the act and the regulations. rep. harper: so, if epa allowed existing federal measures to work, existing now, wouldn't many cities avoid having to do these time-consuming transportation conformity analysis? ms. mccabe: we look at what we expect to happen to air-quality in the future, looking at the rules that are in place now and nowr development year -- and we see the vast majority of areas we see right now would have levels exceeding the , would come 2025 into attainment of the standards through these measures. of. harper: we have lots importance issues and one of those is what to do with our highways, bridges, infrastructure issues in this country. many of those need to be repaired. we need new ones that need to be built. ozoneion of -- stringent standards will make it harder to show that proposed highway projects conform with ozone standards. has epa considered the economic impact on crucial infrastructure transportation projects? ms. mccabe: i do not foresee this blocking projects, especially once needed for safety reasons. rep. harper: you have not seen that under the current, but if we have more stringent requirements, can you explain that? ms. mccabe: i don't expect the system would work differently in any areas. newon't expect a lot of areas. so these areas we are generally familiar with and are already working in conformity with the transportation system. those will continue to apply. rep. harper: thank you, i yield back. chairman whitfield: the chair recognizes the dome from texas, mr. greene, for five minutes. green, for five minutes. : has epa approved the knock standard? x standard? the kno if epa had not reviewed the standards, what would be the regular timeline, 2015? ms. mccabe: the last time it was revised was 2008. the act says every five years. there have been more than 1000 studies published since the last standard. epa acknowledged there is brand-new scientific data that epa could not consider. epa states there are significant uncertainties regarding some of the studies that epa did include regarding lowering the standard. most important and re-air toxic standards will for volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter that is important because epa acknowledges reductions would account of 3/4 of those benefits. the standard not more appropriate after the 75 parts per billion standards and ep eight reviews the information and data? is mccabe: the clean air act as a kind cable of every five years and we are late on that. because this is about letting the american people know what is healthy air quality for that. green: earlier estimates thatpa it would take up to three years and incorporate over 1000 health that these and documents. given legal constraints and that epa has missed deadlines, the n concluded it compute would need best to complete the review. make a similart decision now since we are in 2015 tnow? ms. mccabe: because we are now in the regular review. we are subject to a court rhedule to finalize this ule. there haveive green: been times when you view as the late it in the past. ms. mccabe: on the regular review, there have been times we have not met that deadline. i think you are talking about ozonerozone -- reconsideration. for the review cycle, we have missed deadline and we are in that situation now. : thesentative green concern is we have not met that current standard suit to put a new standard on with all this is maybe starting to early before we see that the benefits are, the other things that the industry and everyone else is complying with. epa has delayed it in the past. other thingsse coming into play, we will have better data then. that thee: i will say fact of those various measures will affect air quality. revised andd is folks you can look at which areas do and do not meet the standard, all those programs will be bringing air quality down so that fewer areas will be in nonattainment, and those programs will provide assistance. one of mytive green: concerns is particularly matter in my area is because of a lack of infrastructure improvements, so we could be hindering those infrastructure improvements if we make it more difficult. i am out of time, but i appreciate you being here. representative mckinley: what is the timeframe for us to getting your questions? >> 10 days. representative mckinley: welcome back. should a rule is that helps withheldalth be because of a regulatory burden that we have been referring to hear? ms. mccabe: i am not sure i understand. representative mckinley: should rule?a told the ms. mccabe: the clean air actms. setse: sets the epa that the standards and issues related to implementation are a separate matter of consideration, not to be considered in determining whether proper -- youesentative mckinley: have heard us several times mentioned that the presidents that in and said this was going to cause regulatory burden, and heldked that the rule be back for a time. that is an accurate statement, is it not? ms. mccabe: that was a -- thatsentative mckinley: was in 2011. which changed? is he felt this rule should not have proceeded because it had regulatory burdens with it, what improved since 2011 -- will be industry?nsome to those were his words, that he just said if it has a regulatory burden, i think we should hold it back. ms. mccabe: i disagree that is what he said, congressman. that decision was made in the context of knowing that there would be the required five-your and the decision was to defer and stop consideration -- process -- i request: he said the administrator withdrawal the ozone standards. i curious to see what has changed how the economy has improved or the regulatory board is less. yet answered about as much -- i have limited time on this. i am curious on how a county is supposed to work in actual functioning? in my 20 counties i represent, 75% of them are going to be in noncompliance if you go to 65. 75%. how are the supposed to -- in a real-world, not from academia, how are they supposed to function when they are going to be in a nonattainment counties? 15 of his counties -- what are they supposed to do? ms. mccabe: there are counties all caps the country that had experienced air quality and have been designated nonattainment, and states work to get programs in place to improve air quality -- mckinley: give me an example. how are they going to change air quality in jefferson county 81?h right now is at ms. mccabe:ms. mccabe: at the top better about my home state of indiana -- mckinley: three counties average 72. we telling them and the kids and families him when they fit the cable cannot get a job is because their air quality that it was fine at 75, that now as they can to 65, there is coming to west virginia? ms. mccabe: what states do in nonattainment situationsms. mccabe: is they look at the available sources of air pollution and put in place sensible measures to reduce those. it might be local industry, -- how --ntative mckinley: hasmccabe: local industry controlled evolution markedly. in indiana, we have a an area -- representative mckinley: we have some counties, they just have one industry. they are not in attainment. ms. mccabe: and there are many counties from which evolution is not generated within the air y.unt the is why epatates, moves slower with federal 3,grams such as the tier which makes traffic much cleaner -- i wantntative mckinley: to follow a metric of how are we going to make it to the our job opportunity -- why are the tribes excluded from this regulation? ms. mccabe: they are not excluded. the tribes have the opportunity to regulate themselves, and if not, -- theesentative mckinley: tribes are not obligated to conduct ambient monitoring for asian test for ozone -- that does not look like an exemption to me. ms. mccabe: the federal government influence the standards in the indian country unless a tribe seeks to do it itself. the standards apply to you indian country. regulations get put in place. it is that the federal government has initial responsibility to do that -- representative mckinley: i'm just wondering how they are going to change their operation. >> i recognize the gentlelady from florida. representative castor: welcome. colleagues' my comment takes me back to the time when i was younger. the clean air act was originally adopted by the congress in the and there have been significant amendments in the 1970's and especially in 1990. to we have al qaeda live to this era, and i do not think anyone can argue that america is better off because we bad cleaner air. -- cleaner air. eathe we have the strongest in the world today. yes, we had our challenges from our setbacks, but we have been able to combine environmental progress, cleaner air, cleaner water, oversight of chemicals with economic progress and good jobs. i remember very well in the late 1970's walking outside, and the air was awful. we are a warm climate, so we have very foggy days. now it is much better. it is noticeably better. anyone that lives in the 1960's industrial or not, you understand the progress we have made. i want to thank you for your cleaner air that we agreed, what a privilege it is to live in a country that has been able to show such environmental stewardship and down it against economic progress. and that is the history of this country. i'm confident we will continue to make that kind of progress. what is the ozone standard right now? ms. mccabe: 75 parts perms. that means an 8 billion units of air, no more than 75 of those should be ozone in order to provide healthy air quality. how longative castor: 75? it been 1978.cabe: representative castor to now is to go where now ms. mccabe: somewhere between 65 and 75 want per billion.s it is an external asked for advisory panel that epa convenes and has assisted with all reviews of national ambient air quality standard. it is a special panel convened to review all + epa develops epa develops, and they go through a process reviewing multiple documents, both science and give usocuments feedback on the science that we are looking at. : theyentative castor consider all sorts of levels. >> yes, and a look at all the studies that we looked at and consider that information -- considered that information. >> that committee concluded that there is adequate scientific evidence to recommend a range of levels or a program -- revised primary ozone standard from 70 parts per million to 60 parts per billion. the committee said that based on the scientific evidence, a level of 70 parts per billion provides little margin of safety for protection of public health, particularly for sensitive subpopulations, like children, the elderly, people with respiratory problems, although 70 units per billion is more protective than the current standard, it made night -- it may not meet the statutory standards with an adequate margin of safety. what are they saying? >> they are a balloting -- they are acknowledging that it is the demonstrators job -- that it is the administrator job -- look at all this information and they see evidence in the science 70 downrom the level of to a level of 50 that shows impacts on public health from ozone at these levels of exposure and what they are saying is that in that range, there is less cushion and margin of safety and at lower levels in that range. >> this was taken into account as the administrator developed the proposal? >> it was. that theou consider help health benefits for children and elderly and respiratory diseases, we all know someone in our family or someone with asthma. 26 million people in the u.s. are estimated to have asthma. we can continue the environmental progress to improve public health and balance it against the economic needs of the country. i think it can be done. thank you for staying true to the law. >> we recognize the gentleman from virginia. >> thank you mr. chairman. as you know, i represent a fairly world district. -- a fairly rural district. it is a stone's throw from the smokies. my understanding is that under epa requirements, in order to construct a new source of emissions or construct a news -- or expand a current source, there must be an offset. is that accurate? >> it depends on how that area is designated. areas that are the least polluted in terms of ozone, it changes as the area gets more and more severely polluted. kentucky's air regulator has raised concerns about the impact on rural counties. that statutory requirements will severely restrict -- counties would be disproportionately negatively impacted with little opportunity for economic development. will states be able to seek relief some of these offset requirements? thehere is a section of clean air act that focus on rural counties. stateld work with any that wanted to come forward and talk about rural counties. >> you said represented or transported ozone. the problem that i fear some of my areas may have with the new requirements is that it is not transported, but it is natural. producenow, trees volatile organic compounds which combined with sunlight produce ozone. smokey mountains and blue ridge mountains because the trees produce ozone. it's not necessarily transported, it is ozone because we are in fact rural and have trees that produce some of this. 80%, but it is a significant contributor, particularly in rural areas like mine. the 2014c american in june report said various trees are significant producers of volatile organic compounds. is there anything that would give us that offset, or do we have to go out into the forest and say you have to cut down the black gob and willow trees down? as i mentioned in response to a previous question, our fines areas with significant challenges to background ozone are in the rocky mountains, the higher elevation areas. we are not seeing that kind of situation with background in other areas of the country. >> you think the central appalachians will be ok. >> i do. >> what about this offset. if it is not transported, with that rule also cover naturally occurring ozone? >> as we look forward, i would be happy to get you this , on particular -- on virginia in particular. we look at areas likely to be in nonattainment. we will look at air quality in future years to make that determination. i don't think we are seeing widespread on attainment in rural areas. do, theres where we are opportunities there to work with them. >> i appreciate the opportunity to work with it and i am concerned about it. you some of these questions off-line because time is precious. us the basic give process of what states have to do. what is the process and range of time this process can take to police -- can take to complete? approve a does not states implementation plan, what happens to the state? does it become sick -- subject -- subject to a federal plan? act lays out a lot of the steps, depending on the severity of the area that dictates how much time the state has. if an area is considered -- most areas were designated as marginal nonattainment, which means they were not obliged to do a plan because they work expected to come into attainment. once at moderate or above, they usually have three years. >> what happens if the state plan is not approved? >> generally we worked back and forth with the state to get it to a place where it is approvable. >> but what if it is not? you come up with a federal plan? >> if the state did not want to make a plan which is approvable, the cleaner act does provide that the epa would step into a federal plan. raree to say that is very because states want to do their plans because they are possible and because we work hard with the state. where they places don't want to because you may be standards so low, you may see more litigation, thank you. >> we recognize the gentleman from new jersey for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. some of my colleagues are quick to argue that the proposed standard would hurt the economy. that cleaningus up pollution can benefit the economy as well as the environment. the clean air act is a perfect example of how we can do that. we have to choose between clean air and economic growth? what does the history of the act tell us about our ability to cut pollution while growing the economy? >> it shows us that that two can go hand-in-hand. economy has grown, we have shown that this country and businesses have innovated and come up with pollution control technology that employ error -- american workers and make us leaders in the world. >> when we talk about air pollution, my colleagues also focus on cost, but they are not talking about the costs of being exposed to unclean air. how do the cost of able letting -- of inards stack up lamenting the standards stack up? >> in our analysis, it shows that the benefits of the rule would outweigh the costs by three to one. >> we estimate the cost of this rule would be $140 billion annually, making it the most expensive rolling in history. the epa estimate was much lower. could you tell us how much the epa expects this standard to cost? >> these are illustrative because states would make their own choices. parts per of 65 billion, we are looking at the 90 -- at the range of $98 billion -- i said that can really wrong. from $3.9range billion to $15 billion depending on the standard. >> so this warty billion-dollar -- this $140 billion price tag does not seem reasonable. >> it does not match our figures. consistentlyry has exaggerated the potential cost of controlling pollution. how would these -- how have these doomsday predictions measured up? >> they haven't, given the information that people have in front of them. in 1997, there were similar claims made that the standards were going to kill the economy. it absolutely has not come true. >> i wanted to ask you something based on some of my republican colleagues. i'm not trying to be critical, but can you confirm this? can you confirm that under the projections for west virginia and virginia, there would be wouldounties in 2025 that exceed 65 parts per billion? >> that is right. >> let me get to some of the questions about science-based standards. the act requires that epa reviews the science behind the standards to ensure the best information is used. -- examined thousands of given this body of evidence, some of -- what are some of the health impacts associated with breathing air that contains ozone and who are the ones most at risk? >> breathing ozone can have impact on the respiratory system, inflamed lungs, asthma. compromised respiratory systems, the studies also show an association with premature mortality and exposure to ozone. cleannderstand that the scientific advisory committee recommended that the standard be strengthened to a level within the range of 60 to 70. the administrator has proposed to strengthen the standard to a level between 55 and 70. is the proposed ozone level and aggressive action, as some have claimed? >> we believe that the range is very well supported by the scientific information and as you noted, by our external peer-reviewed panel. >> thank you very much. >> we recognize the gentleman from missouri for five minutes. time epa isme moving forward with this proposed -- with its proposed proposing, it is also its clean power plan which would require states to prepare plans to submit to the epa. expect we realistically you be a to manage several new rounds of state planned revisions that will be needed with the new ozone standard at the same time that they are our -- that they are managing new standards? expect to use- we our resources to work with the states to get this work done. >> you expect to, but is it practical or feasible? a lot of people want to do a lot ,f things and have lofty goals but when push comes to shove, they can't get it done. do you realistically think that this is something the agency can handle? >> i do. this is our job and we will make sure that we get it done. >> i know it is your job, but i question how it can possibly -- how you can have the resources, the time. you are behind on several things already. and the employees to accomplish this goal. >> some of this work is overlapping. some of the technical work that we do in terms of air quality model -- modeling. it is sufficient to do some of these things together. >> some of the state planned revisions overlap? >> the technical work that overlies the work that epa and the states need to do in order to implement these plans. ago, i met with city officials from springfield, missouri. branson,nt them, southwest parts of missouri and they are one of the most forward thinking cities and have done more work on a integrated plan that about anybody. they were invited out to just of them and one other city. there are only does go cities in the united states who were invited out to present how they did their plan and what they do. discussed this plan for an lamenting mandates from the environmental protection agency and the cost of the mandates over the next 20 years. i've heard some people speculate that things are never as bad as --y seem, but this was even if this was even 50% accurate, it is not doable, it is devastating. they found that complying with the mandates would cost each individual in my district, each constituents, $40,000. you can cut that have -- you can cut that in half, but it is not feasible. you're looking at billions of dollars in compliance for ozone and the environment -- the financial impact it will have on manufacturing, transportation, and it will affect -- have an impact on each of my constituents. do you look at the comprehensive financial and economic impact to these regulations at all that they are going to have on the states? >> i'm not familiar with the study you are talking about. >> i will get it to you. an integrated plan for the city of springfield for the next 20 years, i will be glad to provide that. let's say that you are familiar with it. do you look at the economic impacts? at its rule looks impacts in the light that came before it. there is an understanding of the rules and the impacts, both benefits and costs that are associated. consideration given to the cost? >> whatever we do regulations, there is an evaluation of cost and benefits. i guess i'm about out of time. with that, i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. you -- how does the market price risk? if you know what the cost of something is, it has a price. if you don't know something, then the price is higher because you have risk, right? >yes, ok. in 2010, the epa, when they propose going to 60 parts per billion, they said that would cost $90 billion. to $40, you reduce it billion. what happened over that four year. period? tell me what made it go down. >> we were looking at a change of that standard from the previous standard of 85 parts for billion -- 85 parts per million to -- 60.his was not a 75 to in your proposal to go to either 75 or 60, a significant amount of the control technology does not exist today, and that is where the risk question comes in. do you know what the cost is? it's about $175,000 a time -- a time -- a ton. >> we looked across -- >> give me a number. >> i believe -- >> about $15,000. if we know what the cost to offset a ton of ozone is, where $15,000 forup with imaginary technology that does not exist? >> by looking at the history of the cost of pollution control technology over the past several years. this is based on the actual cost to control pollution. >> is that a publicly available document? >> all of them are. >> it does not pass the smell test. when we know today what the cost is for offset, and you have imaginary technology that does not exist and we just priced it and gave it a walmart price tag. that is crazy. let's talk about background ozone for a minute. here's a background ozone map. pers has about 70 parts billion of background ozone. if you take the level 65, what is texas supposed to do? get a big vacuum? >> that number does not sound right to me. >> let's use something a bit more discreet. how about rocky mountain national park, the background of 60 -- of 77. >> there is no -- are a few areas where we are seeing high background so -- >> you said you had a national standard, so how are you going to clean up national parks? upit's not possible to clean air pollution it does not create. >> what is the mechanism, how do you clean up rocky mount national park? >> to the extent that pollution is coming from places that we can control, -- >> in this case, it is not. 77 parts per billion as background means it is not coming from there, it is coming from somewhere else. >> it is coming from motor vehicles around the country where the air pollution is coming into that area, our rules will help reduce that. >> under your 2010 regulatory impact analysis of renewable fuel standards, bpa concluded that the program would contribute to the ozone as a consequence. disregarding that altogether, -- would lead to higher levels of ethanol and according to the studies of the journal of geophysical research that measured emissions of ozone , it is five times higher than the original estimate. so the one hand, you are seeing -- you are saying that we need to reduce to 65 parts per billion, on the other hand you are trying to cram more ethanol into the system which has five times more ozone impact on the economy then does the production gasoline. >> we now recognize digital and from north carolina -- recognize the gentleman from north carolina. >> i represent rural north carolina, i certainly understand the importance of protecting the environment. like many of my colleagues, i have concerns about this rule and i was fascinated. my colleague from florida said the air quality in tampa is clean. i looked up hillsboro county, florida and the ozone levels were 71. by her definition it is clean, i believe her. even tampa would be out of attainment. what i want to talk about is one of my counties, montgomery. it is very rural. a majority is part of a forest. this county has been decimated with job loss. there is no significant industry in the county, yet this county has 66 parts per billion ozone, so it would be out of attainment. it has two rivers, a lake, the air quality is wonderful. do with thehe epa county in a situation like that? >> we need to be careful about which counties and which -- which counties would be an won't be in attainment. we don't know what the final standard will be, if one is to made to revise it. those decisions will be made on future air quality. the numbers you are citing is from data from 2011 to 2013. we will use the most recent air data when we make those decisions and it is trending in a good direction. we need to not assume an area will or won't be nonattainment based on information from prior years. >> you think the level with say about 70? >> which one? >> the one that epa sets. >> i'm not speaking to that, i am speaking to the information people are citing about whether areas based on air quality now will be in attainment if there is a revision to the standard. we just don't know that. the comments that many of the members have made about the rural areas and we do have the ability to work with those areas. recognizer act does the areas that don't control their air-quality and they don't hold those areas responsible for reducing pollution if it is not being produced. >> i appreciate that and become ray county desperately needs jobs and if we get to a nonattainment situation where we can't attract new industry, it is devastating. what specifically what we do if it were in nonattainment? do we file a lawsuit against a local city? programs like the motor vehicle standards will improve air quality everywhere in the country where motor vehicles are used. this is an example of how the federal state partnership works where federal programs bring cleaner air across the country and will take care of the air pollution in many areas where there is not a lot of local industry that is contributing. >> we had to give up our pickup trucks and suburbans? >> as people buy newer cars, fuels are getting cleaner and so air quality will improve. >> what percentage you think motor vehicles contribute to that? >> generally, about a third of air pollution in the country, and it is not just cars driven in montgomery county, it is cars driven in the region that beats to regional air pollution. >> i have three resolutions i would like on the record. one is from the regional chamber of commerce, no one is the roman county of commissioners, and the -- all his organizations oppose this new standard and i like to have them in the record. thank you for your testimony, we i just have concerns that are setting standards so low that they are not attainable and when rural areas that are near industrial areas can't reach the attainment, a significant be usingi think we may the wrong metric. that is my concern. gentleladynize the from north carolina. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for being with us today. i want to start out as my colleague from a carolina was pointing out, the concerns that we haven't with her line of. just in our home state, this rule will kill over 13,000 jobs a year and decrease the gdp drastically, at a time where we can afford it the least. the proposal raises serious concerns. i have some questions for you, starting off with september of 2011. president obama requested that withdraws its proposal to some standard, based on his concerns about the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover. agreed to withdraw the standard but now you are proposing a revised standard. let me explain that at that time, the agency was engaged in a reconfiguration of the 2000 and eight -- 2008 ozone standard. we are under a mandatory standard to read -- we look at the standard every five years. >> there are less regulations now? >> this is about science and public health and what the science says about what is healthy in the air to breathe. not to interrupt you, but to point out that the president said that he was asking for you to decrease the amount of regulations. what regulations have a discreet -- have you decreased which can move us forward? what is it that you have done to make this process move forward so that we can all come together and work on it? >> we put up regulations like the cure for your -- the tier three regulation that will improve air quality all caps the country. that is something states will not have to do. >> is that less cumbersome than what existed in 2008? >> it will hate -- help states and municipalities meet the ozone standards. the first question that any economic developer asks when locating do plants or -- locating new plants or expanding -- areasones designated as nonattainment are immediately excluded from consideration. the clean air act requires -- result from various strategies or attainment and maintenance of such national ambient air quality standards. given the adverse economic impact of a revised standard, why are you not requiring tay-sachs to take all of these things into consideration in regard to economic development? in setting the health standard, we have been directed by the supreme court that looking at the implementation implications is not part of the setting the health standard. >> the supreme court told you that economic development is not significant and should not be considered? >> it is not relevant to the setting of the public health standard. designation and discriminate leeward disses development associated with military bases. this is particularly important for north carolina as we have a strong military presence there. the standard of the level of the national background as it is currently being considered would place at risk our military readiness. how is your agency planning on ensuring that your revised standard will not jeopardize national security? >> i'm not aware of any instance in which the ozone standard has interfered with our military readiness. >> i would love to work with your office, because my understanding is that there are some situations affecting some of our north carolina bases now that this will genetically affect. i would like to continue the conversation. >> we would be glad to follow up. thisstly, part of continued problem is how work are manufacturers -- how are manufacturers going to -- what are the options if they cannot meet the standards? are they to buy expensive offsets? what do we do, how do we help our manufacturers? >> we work with the state and business industry. we look at the -- where the pollution is coming from and we developed a program that is targeted at addressing the most cost or -- that is what we have done for the whole history of the clean air act. manufacturing has moved forward and diplomatic new technology and has been able to grow. >> do existing rules exist right now -- >> the images reader did not propose a 60 parts per billion standard. when we look at the range of 65 to 70, we identified a number of controls -- >> what are those existing controls? scrubbers,engines, lower foc paints and coatings. a variety of technologies have been developed over the years that many areas are not yet employing. >> we recognize the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for joining us today. increased access to low-cost, sustainable natural gas production has helped tremendously in fueling the manufacturing renaissance in this country. this expansion has resulted in cleaner gas and electricity for manufacturers, but also it provides a new source of natural gas liquids which are essential in many applications. a study conducted by the ,onsulting firm neera frequently contracted by the department of energy, shows dramatic cost increases in natural gas under a 60 parts per billion standard. quick question, can we expect our manufacturing renaissance to continue under this type of scenario? >> i can't speak to that study, but i know they're certainly has been a significant increase in the development of natural gas. it is very important >> that -- >>we know that, but when we are essentially taxing it with these standards. i might point out to you that in a recent trip we made to europe, businesses and residential are takingin europe a strong second look at their energy profiles because of this exact problem. making their businesses , and theirive unwillingness to pay exorbitant high prices for energy that will result from a rule like this. how can we expect the renaissance to continue when we are taxing essentially the very energy that is providing that renaissance? >> i don't think we are taxing the -- >> sure you are. an increase in the cost of natural gas is essentially a tax. you can call it whatever you want, but it is a tax on the industry. we will agree to disagree. let me focus on how the epa has speculated be benefits of its proposed ozone standard. there is the issue in a nutshell. instead of calculating only the benefits from reducing net oxides and volatile organic compounds, the constituents of ozone which are admitted from cars, trucks, and stationary sources, epa also incorporated the co-benefits from reducing particulate matter from name -- from those same sources. this rulemaking has nothing to do with particulate matter. national separate ambient air quality standard for particular matter, not only -- without the benefits from pm reductions, the ozone rule would have very little to show for it. dr. ann smith of neera has pointed out that these po -- p.m. code benefits are larger ozone benefits. if you don't accept those, how about the former -- he helped prevent a proposal from being finalized because it was too costly. here is what he said about this and i quote " some of the agencies estimates, the net benefits would have been zero. moreover, a strong majority of the benefits would not have resulted from ozone reduction, but from co-benefit reductions in particulate matter, which comes as a incidental benefit." this prompts a number of questions. first, can you explain to me and our committee the epa's legal justification for engaging in this kind of double counting? how can you justify a lower ozone standard using benefits from a different -- a different pollutant? that is not science, that is a shell game. >> it's not double counting. those benefits are real. >> that's not what this rule is supposed to be going after. >> it is having additional benefits -- >> but little in terms of the ozone, in comparison to be benefits coming from particulate matter. further, talk to me about how transparent you have been with this to the american public. there are charts buried in the proposed rule where maybe someday with a phd can go in for this information -- inferred this information. have you told the american people that the benefits are coming from somewhere else, from a pollutant that is already well-regulated by the epa? >> we are very clear and i have personally talked about code benefit that are achieved by programs that we lament. and think it's a shell game i think it is economically mytructive to the region of -- my region of the country and other industries that are providing the jobs and economic vitality. >> i have a couple of other questions i want to ask. -- nted to ask the science advisory committee is appointed by whom? -- there wastee is an office with an epa that administers the science advisory board and has a very open process for -- >> but the people who serve on the committee, how are they selected? >> they are nominated. >> by who? >> themselves or others, through a public process. >> who makes the decision of who serves? >> that is a decision made inside the agency. >> so epa decides who serves on the science committee. how long do they serve? >> i do not know. >> how many people serve on the committee? >> i don't know the answer to that. >> could you get is the list of the people on the committee and how longer term of office is? >> sure. >> thank you. >> how long has that committee been in existence? i don't know. we can certainly find out, but it has been many years. the committees and the panels are very well-balanced to make sure that there is a range of views represented. >> would you say that it is bipartisan? >> i would. i have one more question. we keep hearing about the president's decision in 2010 on the ozone standard. let me read from that. with that in mind, this is what i want to read. [inaudible] in the reconsideration of the ozone standard in 2013. ultimately, and this comes directly from this. ultimately, i did not support asking state and local governments to begin implementing the new standard reconsidered.n be comments?ember those >> the president was recognizing that the regular five-year review of the ozone standard was already underway, and that was what he was directing the agency to focus its attention on. if i could clarify something is said before, i agreed with your characterization of the science advisory board. it is probably better to call it nonpartisan. mr. chairman, i do not have additional questions, but i do have a unanimous consent request to enter into the record, a letter from the public health organization, opposing legislation or amendments that would block or delay epa's work to update the ozone standards. also a letter from the national association of clean air agency's, supporting the epa's proposal to revise the current ozone standards. without objection to the order. >> i yield back the balance of my time. >> i would also like to ask unanimous consent that documents be entered into the record. a survey released by the association of air pollution and control agencies, entitled state environmental agency perspectives on background ozone and regulatory relief. 2013 article june titled challenges of a lowered u.s. ozone standard and number three, comments of a texas -- one of the texas commission on environmental quality on epa's proposal on the ozone rule. the texas commissioners comment. without objection, that will be entered into the record as well. that concludes today's hearing. thank you for being with you are being with us. we look forward to continuing engagement with you as we went forward and we will keep the record open for 10 days for any questions or comments on material and the hearing is now adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, wiich is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> the c-span cities to her visits literary and historic sites across the country to hear from local historians author, and civic leaders every other weekend on c-span2 book tv on an american history tv on c-span3. you can hide our cities to her here on c-span every weekday on 6:00 p.m. eastern time. today we look at the state capital of nebraska, lincoln. a conversation with the governor. and later, the reverend al sharpton, education secretary arne duncan, and the national league -- urban league conference. involved police shootings, and education. you can watch that on c-span at 8:00 p.m. eastern. tonight, on the communicators. arthur and british technology pioneer kevin ashton on the creative process, and how that process takes work. >> why did the right brothers fly first, and what was the process they used? they wrote the first people to -- were not the first people to have the idea of a flying machine, and they were not the first to try. the with a once to succeed when everyone else failed. they understood the problem they were trying to solve much better than anyone else. notidea being creative is liable inspiration. it is about solving the problem one step at a time. the problem with a piece of ,aper, the problem of balance that was key for the right brothers on their

Related Keywords

Alexandria , Al Iskandariyah , Egypt , San Joaquin Valley , California , United States , China , West Virginia , Mexico , Iowa , Mccain Valley , Chicago , Illinois , Tampa , Florida , North Carolina , Germany , Texas , Missouri , Springfield , Kentucky , Indiana , Ray County , Virginia , San Joaquin , Oregon , Mississippi , United Kingdom , Hillsboro , New Jersey , Nebraska , Greene , Montgomery County , Houston , Ohio , Jefferson County , Americans , America , German , British , American , Arne Duncan , Ann Smith , Los Angeles , Kevin Ashton , Al Qaeda , Janet Mccabe , Al Sharpton ,