environmental protection agency administrator michael reagan testified on president biden's 2025 budget request before the senate environment and public works committee. he was asked about a recently announced role in power plant

production and took questions on water infrastructure and concerns about overreach at the epa. this is about two and a half hours. [inaudible]

[inaudible] additional investments to better protect the health and well-being of our constituents across america. those of us who care about the future, and i think that is everyone of us, want in epa that has the resources that it needs to take common sense steps to combat the greatest threat that we face today, climate crisis. every day we see the signs of the crisis, wildfires ravaging the land, polluting air filling our lungs, extreme heat, communities and much more. here and around the world we

repeatedly sound the alarm to reduce the emissions and a slow change for the health of the planet and our people. in 2023 the united states experienced 28 climate disasters. let me say that again. 2023 looming united states experienced 28 climate disasters. for comparison, the u.s. experienced only seven climate disasters in 2013. only seven and 2013. in ten years the number of climate disasters has literally quadrupled. on top of that, the disasters the country experienced last year in 2023 cost american taxpayers a total of $93 billion, that is billion dollars with a b. to put that figure into perspective it is more than eight times the size of the epa's proposed budget for 2025.

fortunately the proposed budgets would enable the epa to continue its work to address the climate crisis and reduce greenhouse gas emissions all while protecting public health data supporting. would provide the funding it needs for the bipartisan infrastructure law as well as the inflation reduction act. directing the epa to tackle the climate change and address and grow the economy. thanks to these, we have empowered to help build a clean energy economy that has claimed millions of jobs across america lowering the unemployment rate to near record lows while also

lowering energy and costs for households throughout america. just last month, the administrator announced it would distribute some $27 billion for clean energy projects through the greenhouse gas reduction fund and as you may recall the greenhouse gas. thanks to the greenhouse gas reduction fund, homeowners throughout america will be able to make repairs and investments in order to make their homes more energy efficient and business owners will have access to the financing they need should they choose to d carbonite three buildings to install solar panels, just to

name a few examples. and at the bipartisan infrastructure we invested in the work to clean up legacy pollution from contaminated superfund sites as well as to improve solid waste management and recycling programs. one of many examples last year in northern delaware they received a million dollars from the bipartisan infrastructure hazardous chemicals and at that site to protect. there's many more examples like that across the country. i look forward to continuing to work with you, we look forward to continuing to work with you to support for decades to come. the epa also as you know to develop and finalize rules formed by cutting-edge

scientific research to remove dangerous pollutants from the water that we drink and the air that we breathe. the epa's new climate in the regulation would result in billions of dollars in public health benefits across the country all while encouraging america's innovation to help industry meet stronger standards on these timelines and by releasing new rules to implement like the toxic substance control act the superfund law and safe drinking water act. i think each of those happened in this room let me start out by saying you have a tough job i think we all have tough jobs,

but also really important jobs and i think we are headed for the most part in the right direction thanks in no small part to your leadership during an especially challenging time in the nation's history. we look forward to your testimony today and welcome you. before we hear from you i want to hear from the ranking member. the chair started off the same way i would start. that is you can tell a lot about priorities of an administration by reviewing its budget and actions it takes. this is where the statements will diverge. many of the concerns i will raise today are the same ones i raised last year and i'm frustrated not to have seen more course correction in the past

years. if anything they've accelerated the pace of the crippling unrealistic explorations with a total regulatory cost imposed by the biden epa. chief among my concerns is a group of the regulations that make up the electric generating unit or power sector strategy. your and hand with of the regulations is pretty clear impose new costly federal mandates and a short period of time to make continued investments. at this time it's not just against cole but also natural gas in american manufacturing. by issuing the rule individually, the epa tried to hide the total cumulative cost to businesses the end of the american people of its power sector strategy. but the collecting potential

harm is daunting and real. the agency's rules threaten the availability of reliable affordable electricity at the time when american pocketbooks are already being hit by inflation worsened by this administration's policies. during the rulemaking's energy and reliability experts sounded the alarm about the damaging effects each could have on the grid. at the end of last year, the north american electric reliability corporation identified the six power sector rules under development as having, quote, the potential to influence generators to seek deactivation despite the resource adequacy were operating reliability. they made attempts to claim the concern. last year at the same time as the good neighbor rule the agency announced a joint memorandum of understanding with the department of energy to

coordinate and to ensure reliability is not harmed by the regulatory actions. the epa touted how they would provide a robust and durable framework for continued interagency coordination consultations on reliability issues at a time of significant dynamism and the power sector. i do think the agency for responding to an oversight letter i sent asking about the memorandum of understanding. in that response, however, the epa stated that it's held a total of three meetings and the regional transmission organizations and independent service operators. three meetings, that said, in just over a year. the letter confirms this initiative is a little more than window dressing and not a genuine attempt to address the root of the self-created reliability problem. the demand for baseload power from data centers and forced transition is quickly rising and projected to balloon into the

epa regulations would cause the baseload power supply to shutter. it is not rocket science to see the problem. demand is going up and supply will be going down. the reliability is not the only area where the regulations are ignoring reality. i have repeatedly said we need the epa to finalize reasonable drinking water standards to protect from exposures. to develop the standards the epa ultimately released raised more questions. the agency has set extremely low parts per trillion standards that do not align with the levels other countries have said. it lacks robust support and doesn't fully consider the financial strains for compliance particularly rural and historically disadvantaged communities into they will only be worsened by the designation.

they had a real opportunity here to set durable standards to remedy a real environmental concern. i would have been strongly supportive similar to the obama administration's health advisory level and addressing through other statutes would have mitigated we've had one and maybe two hearings that show concerns about this. they chose decisions based on the debate rather than a finalized sound and practical regulation. foundational environmental laws such as the clean air act and clean water act are based on the principle of cooperative federalism. states lead in managing environmental protection and the

borders while the epa provides support and only steps in when this data doesn't act but the biden epa hasn't followed the framework including in the so-called good neighbor rule that i've already mentioned. despite repeatedly stopping this from going into effect, the epa hasn't recognized the failings of the rule quite the opposite actually because in january the agency chose to double down on the overreach and proposed to add five more states to its regulation. recent actions by the regions present another troubling example of the disregard for states authority. after a year of closed-door negotiations without even notifying the regulators, the epa announced a dissent decree with activists and environmentalist groups to impose total daily loads and west virginia.

lastly, and you and i talked about this at the hearing before the appropriations committee. i am very concerned about the risk of waste, fraud and abuse as the epa manages the unprecedented $41.5 billion and the democrats so-called inflation reduction act. the epa announced plans to obligate office funding for its largest program the greenhouse gas reduction fund which amounts to 27 billion between now and at the end of september. i would note 27 billion is nearly three times the total amount of appropriations the epa receives each year. it is an astronomical sum of money. i fear they will make a lot of mistakes in the rush to get this money out. i will go off script here, the response last week was you're simply granting this money down to eight different entities across the country.

that said to me they are the ones that are going to be responsible for the waste, fraud and abuse. i think it is the epa responsibility and we need adequate oversight by an inspector general. with that, i will turn back to the chair. >> administrator, welcome back to the public works committee. you are recognized to proceed with your statement when you are ready. >> thank you chairman and ranking member cap of thailand members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear to discuss the vision laid out by the epa's fiscal year 2025 budget request.

for 100 million people for cleaner and safer drinking water and we've worked hard to write many of the historic wrongs the communities faced for generations. reducing elevated cancer risks for those living near these facilities by 96%. the epa is committed to protecting public health and of the environment for all american people. but more than just the health impacts we are undertaking my agency is also working hard to implement the historic laws passed in the past agenda. president biden not only directly in communities nationwide but it's generated nearly $700 billion in funding for private sector manufacturing and clean energy projects protecting the planet and

enhancing our global competitiveness. i was pleased to join senator markey last august to speak about how the inflation reduction act and the reduction fund is addressing climate change head-on while unlocking billions of dollars in private sector investments to lower energy costs, improve public health and create good paying jobs. together president biden investing in the agenda and epa fiscal year 2025 budget request will continue to invest in environmental actions that would promote cleaner communities and produce economic benefits for years to come. last august on my journey to justice to her i joined senator sullivan and alaska to spotlight the environmental justice concerns of alaska native tribes. we met with tribal leaders and heard first hand about the challenges facing the communities including climate impacts and adaptation, food insecurity and border infrastructure. are there, he and i announced along with senator murkowski $50 million and funding from the president investing in america

agenda that would help fund projects across the state. upgrading the infrastructure fighting the climate crisis and advancing environmental justice. millions of people across the country are still grappling regulatory tools and partnerships that promote

environmental stewardship but reinforces market movement. clean and safe water is the foundation for healthy communities and the thriving economy. the challenges to achieve in this scope and the effect pose risks to the nation's supply and american people. the budget request includes a total of $101 million for two epa grant programs dedicated to remediating. for the clean contaminated land and water there's no shortage of

work that needs to be done. we need your support. it continues in historic progress and advancements made by the administration and to advance our vital mission of protecting public health and the environment. thank you for the opportunity to be here to submit testimony. >> thank you for that statement and joining us today and taking on a really tough job and thanks to the family about three and half years ago we sat here in the front row. it's a sacrifice for them and their service.

a couple of questions i want to lead off with. while congress is steadily adding to its responsibilities. it needs more people within the additional funding to fulfill the critically important mission which is reflected in the president's proposed budget. here's my question. how it was additional funding the president has requested help

this agency, your agency fulfill its mission to protect public health and the environment while growing the economy and jobs? works thank you for the question, senator. it is critical in order to have a viable strong partnership with our state we need to be able to provide technical assistance demonstrate that partnership in our regions. more than 50% this budget will go toward regional staff to provide the technical assistance. but, we need resources to continue to deal with building our capabilities in the area of emergency response. whether it be the wildfires in maui or the train derailment in east palestine. where contingency disasters you have to respond to so we need to build our emergency response capability. we need to ensure the safety of chemicals that are needed to propel our electric vehicles, semiconductor industry continues to move forward. and listen, we went to continue

to administer a congressionally directed spending assignments all across the country. such as the $4 million to the city of wilmington first tour separation. with this resource you will continue to build that capability to not interrupt the economy but also provide technical ability so we can all compete at a federal and state level pickwick sort thank you. next question through the inflation reduction act in a bipartisan infrastructure much of which was authored in this room, this committee may distore historic investments to tackle the climate crisis make our communities more resilient at the same time. epa fiscal year 2012 a budget bills on those historic investments and reaffirms the administration commitment to tackling climate change with the urgency the science demands by dedicating $3 billion to climate related programs here's my question. administrator, how important are the investments provided by the

inflation reduction act bipartisan infrastructure law and the president's budget for u.s. emissions to head up climate change why do these investments matter? cooks these investments are critical to preserve both the economy in the environment. if we are able to leverage the historical resources that we received from the bipartisan infrastructure lot and the inflation reduction act we are able to marry those financial incentives with the statutory regulatory obligations that we have it. we are seeing significant infusion and technological advancements to help curb those submissions. but we are seeing significant level of resources to harden our water infrastructure per increase or water cybersecurity to make them more resilient for the changing climate in the international threats that we are facing. so, coupling those investments

with regulatory obligations crates a win/win opportunity for global competitiveness >> my last question before yielding his epa recent efforts to cut emissions of greenhouse gases and toxic pollutants from power plants are expected to deliver significant public health benefits spike focus some focus intently impacts to grid reliability related complaint schedules. my question, administrator, as i understand epa has carefully considered those potential impacts in the development of's new regulations could you briefly describe for us the mechanism to ensure grid reliability is maintained question but the second half is what actions will they take in the future to avoid challenges to grid reliability? works thank you for the questions. i'm happy you much the public health benefit. the public health benefits are

astronomical in terms of cost-benefit 2035 alone our regular impact analysis estimates will have up to 1200 avoid premature deaths 870 voided hospital emergency room visits, 1900 reported cases of asthma onset. over three and a 60000 avoided cases of asthma symptoms so the health opportunities or grand. when carrying out our duties to protect public health and the environment, we teamed up with the department of energy. we have multiple meetings we had engaged with eei, those who are responsible for grid management. we understand are seeing increased demand. we are also under sink is a tremendous investment from historic legislation and technological advancement and investments in grid that will make all this possible. we are confident with mitigate

any grid reliability issues that are current and that could potentially be a future threat. >> okay, thanks. >> thank you. administrator reg and i want to talk but the power sector strategy and the six different epa regulations you put out all at once. and it 2022 speech you said if epa actions unfold while the rest of the federal family leading states and firms in the sector mobilizing the tools of resources, our actions a clean energy investment signals that they send will work as they should hand in glove. so, if i understand your statement by issuing six rules in a short timeframe at the same time the ira is being implemented epa rules will send clean energy investment signals to the industry, is that correct? >> that statement was intended when i address the utility leaders. we would issue for rules

simultaneously. that was the focus on a wastewater discharge, cleanup, focus on controlling mercury on the fourth is reduction in carbon pollution. when i talk to the industry leaders about was these regulations have to come from the agency. in the past they've come in staggered waves or ways that did not work in a cross purpose way. we decided i said this two years ago when i worked with the industry would put out for rules of the same time to have their own unique statutory authority and requirements but that they could see the cost associated and make strategic investments long-term investments to provide affordable reliable power question one to six instead? from four to six? >> we announced before the same time. quick so now we have six of the good neighbor rule and all that pulled together, correct question eric some of those rules we issued prior to >> you

change semi- rules. you wanted actions wanted to be durable provide certainty. you have proposed the mention of an opening seemed to add five more states and 23 covered by good neighbors. you're arty changing your rules even though you state you want to provide security or certainty. >> know when you look at the good neighbor rule there's a number of states that are actually controlling their omissions and not contributing to states next door we think about the good neighbor rule we are responding to the states that have said you have a federal obligation to protect our citizens. he also a federal obligation not to penalize us for doing what we need to do all other states may not be controlling >> of the same time you do not listen to the state plan she went forward and said were going to have a federal plane and that is it for all the state plans are pretty much neutered, correct? >> know, we absolutely listen to the state plans as a former state regulator i understand the process extremely well.

i solve a lot of colleague serving as state secretary. listen, the bottom line is the federal government has an obligation to exercise a duty to control pollution. sometimes pollution does not understand boundaries. they are polluting neighboring states to avoid litigation from the states who've done what they said they're going to do we have an obligation to make sure we protect the states. >> us of is a big challenge in the courts your ability are actually right to do that. let me ask you, i get so frustrated right now our power mix is 60% fossil fuel, 16% coal, 43% natural gas, 18% nuclear, 20% renewable. the plan that you put out clean power plan that will basically make every coal plant extinct because nobody's going to be able to afford to do that audit aging coal plants. so this will be gone. that'll be in the 2030s and

nobody will build a new one unless they only run under 40% because they are not going to be able to meet the demands. do you know that cce u.s. requirement they put into that bill, or is that plan? >> i think i'm going to push back on the notion that this rule is going after coal. i think when we talk to these utility ceos they provided to us their plans. some coal plants were already going to send that because they transition to natural gas. some of these coal plants we do believe will be able to take advantage of this technology. >> is anyone doing that now? >> the answer is no. >> north dakota spent of the governor and wyoming. there are utilities putting on this technology and beginning to use it. they're also taking full advantage of the resource provided by the bush reduction act tax codes by the inflation

reduction act to invest in this very technology. so, our timeline it doesn't match with the resources currently going to utilities who are investing. >> here's another problem. we had a pipeline at west virginia natural gas pipeline that goes down towards north carolina. we all that we went through to get the completion of that prayer we had to have a presidential signature to get that completed after it a bit in and out of the courts for years. it's like triple the cost that originally was. how in the world can you say were going to do at ccs, we are going to build pipelines that are going to carry carbon? that is not going to happen. >> the countries arty doing it. the countries doing it for other sectors of the economy. and here is for the whole of government >> i would love for you to give me interstate pipeline that has been recently built that carries carbon. that'll be quiet about it. >> is a pipeline currently being built from through north dakota

to iowa. >> what was it permitted question because i have to get you those details for. >> yes a long time ago. i'm going to stop here. >> thank you. before i recognize senator stabenow i'm going as soon as consent for the record materials describing forthcoming carbon capture projects across our nation demonstrating the administration policies and deployment of carbon capture systems to the power plant emissions. and just last month i'm told west virginia regulators approved the largest gas power plants with carbon capture and our nation. generally millions of dollars of benefits for the surrounding communities. center at seven not welcome this morning for. >> thank you very much mr. chairman and ranking member. thank you so much for holding the hearing. it is wonderful to see you administrator again. i want to thank you for being here and the work you put into

developing epa fiscal year 2025 budget. i have to say from my perspective at michigan when i look at this budget i see a commitment to a lot of long-standing priorities of mine. and the people i it represents. i want to thank you for that. i see increased investment in a water infrastructure including vital funding to replace lead pipes address emerging contaminants. the impacts of which michiganders knelt far too well. certainly you don't have to go any further than flint, michigan. we understand the critical nature of health and safety and what needs to be done. the recognition of the impact of the climate crisis and emphasis on ensuring our communities have the resources to address and adapt to new climate realities. as the state robust voting for our great lakes.

including for the great lakes restoration initiative program i a programi offered back in 2010w it serves as a most important till we have to restore and protect our great lakes. i am so appreciative this committee reauthorized our bipartisan bill to extend the great lakes restoration initiative this is very, very important i do what to say that one of the things that brings the climate crisis home to us in michigan is the great lakes are now warming faster than the oceans. and lake superior, our largest deepest gorgeous northern lake is now one of the five fastest warming lakes in the world. we never could swim in lake superior and now you can. which may sound great, but it is not great actually. so thank you for all that work.

let me first also asked question about light-duty vehicle emissions. eps commitment to engaging with our automakers. and autoworkers and thank you very much for listening, working with them and developing an ambitious but achievable final rule for a light in medium duty vehicle admissions. if arty said michigan automakers of the best in the world. there is no question about it. i'm glad epa took their inputs into account when developing the rules so they have the capacity to continue to lead. so moving forward, do i have your commitment to continue working with our automakers and autoworkers on the rules that impact them for the future? >> absolutely pray thank you for your leadership in helping us to establish some of those relationships to keep that

conversation going. aptly commit to work with automakers and with the unions they're supporting the automakers. >> thank you very much. let me go on to another strong passion of mine wishes eat 15 in our biofuels industry. to thank the epa for issuing an emergency fuel waiver to allow e- 15 gasoline, gas a blend with 50% ethanol to be sold in the upcoming summer months. can you speak to how enabling the year-round sale of eat 15 as you have permitted and both 2022 and 2023, two similar waivers could help protect consumers against fuel supply shocks by reducing reliance on imported fuel. and as we look ahead, what will be the impact of epa's recent final rule related to state

waivers? >> this is another opportunity for me too thank you and your staff are helping us to navigate what was contentious but ended up being a great situation. yes, we did issue the emergency waiver summer of 2024. as we've done in 2022 and 2023 to ensure our domestic producers can't compete on the biofuel side. but also to begin to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. we have worked on satisfying the waiver request for eight states. fiscal year 2025 and beyond those waivers will be permanent for those states to use e- 15 throughout the seminars. that gives eight states a level of certainty for future investments biofuel so we can kid needs to keep our prices low but keep globally competitive. >> this brings up ep w of the

coming together of issues to lower price for consumer. dress and cleaner environment but also jobs, a lot of jobs particularly rule america through our bio economy so appreciate you work with us on that. thank you, mr. chairman for. >> thank you. senator stabenow was a number of passes my colleagues know. one of those is chairman of agriculture coming on behalf of all of us a big thank you for making sure legislation dealing with degenerative agriculture focuses on agricultural policies with a variety of other things. the ways that would enable the farmers in this country to actually do good things for our plan at the same time in that at model provides more money for them in the pockets of the end of the day is called the generative agriculture and we applaud your support for that

policies. thank you so much. >> quickly fellow brother quickly with that. and thank senator for at least a vessel but let's get a farm built on before you retire, please of get that done. okay good, thank you. we need production agriculture to feed a hungry world. i'm going to pass now and go right to where you left off. first of all the pie plate yo are referring to from iowa to north dakota is designed to take co2 capture trip ethanol plants from the corn belt they get to north dakota geology which is suitable for carbon capture and storage and has oil recovery would not want more of that? it is not yet permit i don't know that it's finishing any of the states. we will see if that happens. secondly what is interesting to me as you referenced in the rule

in carbon capture storage as a prescription for meat and the standard for power plants. you had 90% referenced earlier which is in that rule has never been achieved. one of the things about admission standards requires adequately demonstrated the illustration used is a fast power plants that has carbon capture on it. it captures after years of fine-tuning 65 -- 70%. it looks to me that 90% is a set up for failure the goal is to shut down cold to go after coal. when you prescribe a solution is not adequately demonstrated it looks to me i can impossibility by design. the second thing i would say the supreme court was very clear in

the west virginia case you cannot prescribe outside the fence line. it seems if co2 which has to be piped to g a lot of difficult formations able to take the co2 could be hundreds of miles away that is by definition outside the fence line. how do you have a durable rule in the face of a supreme court decision and have to stay within the fence line? >> on that latter point the supreme court indicated that you cannot take credit for actions that are occurring outside of the pipeline or the defense when excuse me. you look at this technology that will be on site of the facility it is the facility that is reducing those emissions are folks look very carefully i just want to say we are not attempting to be cute or step outside the supreme court ruling. not having programs designed to try to get reductions outside and get credits from outside. that fence line we are fully focused on technology the

performs on the facility themselves. >> of the disposal of co2 is different than solving the admissions issue that will be debatable certainly would be litigated i would hate to see millions and millions of more federal dollars and dollars to turn back the epa when they are stepping outside not just the fence line right outside their authority which is what i believed to be the situation. i actually have another question about whether this is even productive? particularly 2.0. the rules set where i think is an arbitrary 20% annual run time limit for simple cycle natural gas plants. realizing that other than natural gas the only other fuel that's not nuclear that is 24/7 is cold. so the only way to backup unreliable intermittent energy sources like wind or solar is to

have these natural gas turbines if they can all be run 20% of the time before you threshold of rulemaking that is prohibitive financially, everett utilities going to have to have simple cycle gas plants to backup the unreliable energy the clean energy i do not see that as a cost savings. that's like unnecessary redundant investment. has anyone considered this might be counterproductive? works we looked at that. the way you are describing it and this rule applies to future natural gas which is why we set aside existing we wanted to avoid a problem you just laid out for existing sources. we look at future natural gas plants in our conversations with the industry for those building the future and gas plants they are looking at the simple they also that ccs option. these are direct results from conversations we have had with

the many in the industry. what i would point to that i think is a rub is not if we should do with the time frames associated with it. the desire to pursue the technology is no way to do this in looking at the transition. we've had a lot of very positive conversations with the industry. i think when you get into is it too stringent on the percentages or looking at a time line that is where the real heart of the debate is. i get a little bit nervous when people attempt to undermine what is happening in wyoming or north dakota, places were proven out about the ceo early this week there are investment significant investments going into carbon capture storage. right now they're levering tax credits on the inflation reduction act we are more over time and stringency not whether we should do this quickly final rule is pretty prescriptive in both of those things and quite honestly, going back which i

said is going to cross over and i promise i will wrap up here probably come back. all of this looks to me like we are having very quickly, very quickly in the transition to note fossil fuels and i am just thinking maybe it would be a good idea to have an experiment let's turn off all fossil fuel for a week and see how it goes. i have a feeling while you and i are long gone after all this kicks in that's the reality some people are going to have to deal with economically, competitively it's not going to make us more competitive in the global marketplace. we need to be more realistic will get through the round a little bit. >> thank you, senator for those questions. welcome. >> administrator at reagan, welcome, nice to have you here. i want to do with one aspect of the infrastructure initiatives that we have that deals with

affordability to consumers and have debate water bills today about one out of every three consumers are challenged on affordability of water. working with senator wicker we include a rural low income water assistance pilot program in the legislation we passed it. the challenge is that it is not funded because we need to have the report from the epa as the basis to moving forward with this. the program, which was passed has a sunset of 2026. if we do not get started soon it will be over before we can get started. so, can you just tell me where we are in regard to the study under the epa whether we can anticipate having that report in a timely way so congress can consider finding the pilot program in order to get the started? >> absolutely, senator think if your leadership and focusing on the spirit of the partnership with your staff and senator

wicker staff. the bottom line is will have done this and we understand the urgency of the time frame will have the report to congress by the summer for. >> thank you glad you have a specific time. want to make one other point on this. local authorities that are responsible for setting mortar rates, the rate payers are stressed alternative sources are helpful but not enough to deal with the issue so affordability is becoming more and more urgent with her aging infrastructure. i am pleased to see will have that report the summer but i hope it will be in time for us to act on the appropriation cycle. let me move on to chesapeake bay. arley goes by that i don't mention the chesapeake bay would to thank my colleagues for their support we've increased authorization for the chesapeake bay program of the resources in the chesapeake bay program or under senator stabenow's leadership we've gotten help under department of agriculture pruitt who got help from other

of our programs. there is a committee that you'd youchairs not been reconstituted recently. which is coordinates the federal agencies. the federal leadership committee. i understand and conversations with senator ben holland we have both expressed to you the advisability of reconstituting that committee with your leadership as chair. considering we are reaching 2025 which is the next plateau on the commitments made by the states for what they can do and reducing the challenges in the bay enforced by tmv ills. so, can you just assure us that will beat reconstituted or reinstated to coordinate the work of the various federal agencies?

>> absolutely. thank you for your leadership on getting historic investments to the chesapeake bay. we have been digesting all these historic investments in getting our stuff together. we are going to have that leading reconstituted that group are constituted for fall meeting. we see it as a huge opportunity to get all the executives around the table and be sure that we are pursuing those goals that you and others would like us to pursue. >> okay the summer for affordability of the fall for the leadership coordinating committee. let's see if i get something for the winter done. how are we doing on lead pipe that was a major part of the biden initiative and the infrastructure package. baltimore has significant problems today the public schools are not connected because the connecting pipes can you give us a progress report on

how we are dealing with the remedial issues concerning the lead pipes? >> to date $9 billion in federal funding available. the president announced in the $3 billion recently. this year marilyn sh get 30 million of that. these are transforming committees all across the country. especially cities like baltimore. maybe 225 lead service lines that distance 2021. it's a huge shot in the army appreciate those resources. >> it's a very, very high priority for us with older cities. particularly the connectors between the main lines and that users in public facilities such as schools.

less burdensome but the co2 standard of 85 grams per mile in 2032 is the same as what you originally proposed. this is an average reduction of ten to 12% a year.

how many current gas diesel into traditional hybrid vehicles make the standard today? >> it's based on projections they are making themselves. i don't know how many to date. i just know the automobile association and others supported the rule when you say that goal looks similar because what the automobile industry gave to us through the comment period if you look at the penetration of plug-in hybrids that exceeded what we budgeted for and for that gap in terms of what people

anticipated the percentage to be. be. >> there aren't any gas diesel or hybrids meeting the 85 grams per mile today is that accurate? i think that's an appropriate caveat. >> of the communities in my state 27-one the number out there and of the renewable energy laboratory estimates 1.1 million will be needed to

support the goal do you know where we are on this? >> we are moving forward. it was designed in coordination with both of the investments in the department of energy from the infrastructure law and inflation reduction act but also with the metrics and data provided by the automobile industry so when you look at the rule and at the time frame and level of stringency one of the reasons they supported this rule is they believe that it's achievable and that coincides with where the investments will

be in 2022. >> you talk a lot about the manufacturers. as part of the conversation what happens to the price of used vehicles if it goes for 33,000 33,000the family spends 12,000 e cost part of this conversation when you're talking to automakers? >> we take into consideration a lot of things and affordability is one. we took to heart what they were telling us about the vehicles if so what we see is a cost savings from maintenance and durability.

we talked about all of the new vehicles moving forward. >> i think my time is blinking here. did i run out of time? did i break the timer? i hope we get a second round of questions. >> good to see you again. i want to start by talking about air quality. in the phoenix metro area we are seeing the concentrations increase this is happening is the phoenix area is becoming one of the largest manufacturing hubs in the country of microchips and electric vehicles

the project is not only create a great paying jobs but they are the type of investment to combat climate change

the administrator provided me and my staff with some commitments to making progress on the rules to afford to move i've been it's been a few months since his visit so i want to ask for an update. after the administrator visited arizona, epa region nine provided maricopa county with a commitment to conditionally approve rule 205 if the county committed to make some minor technical changes and they sent a letter to the region confirming that they would make all of the required technical

changes. that means the next step is for the epa to conditionally approve. so can you confirm epa region nine will move forward with providing congressional approval for rule 205? >> yes absolutely. >> and when will they be able to grant this approval? >> we anticipate being able to do that this summer. >> can you confirm that they will work closely with maricopa county to ensure that final approval is granted to rule 205 within the next year? >> yes. >> and in 204, which i will note was submitted back in 2019 to date no action has been taken but during their visit, the

assistant administrator committed that after we got approval on 205, we then turn our attention to 204. will you commit they work with maricopa county to decide whether to zero four can be approved and if not, identify with the changes are needed to make it approvable. >> we can absolutely do that. we will be shifting all of the resources to get that done in a timely fashion. >> thank you. as you may know epa issued a finding of failure to submit a state implementation plan for the nonattainment last year. we now face a deadline to submit

however because of how long it's taken for 205 to be approved, we may have to submit very close to the deadline and i understand it can take time between when it is submitted and when it's considered received. we don't want arizona to be penalized for passing the august deadline because of an epa paperwork processing delay. will you commit as soon as the state of arizona submits it's been received so sanctions are not imposed on arizona. >> as a matter of fact the staff talking with the state anticipate getting that late june and early july so we believe we are on track could i have one more minute?

>> i also want to ask about some exceptional rules and i understand they established the quality standard for a particular matter earlier this year. you committed to putting out updated tools to help the managers accept demonstrations for days in particular between 2016, 2015 and 2019, the maricopa association of government submitted documentation for 33 days where the image and succeeded legal limits because of wildfire smoke but to date evaluated the documentation for 19 and they granted the exemption the failure to quickly review the

demonstration submitted sit difficult for the region to develop a plan to get into attainment. can you explain how the new exceptional event tools for wildfires and i'm going to ask this for the record can you submit for the record how the new tools the epa committed to as a part of the agencies and easily submitting demonstrations? >> thank you. >> we will be submitting a variety of questions for the record and that is one of them that will be included. >> thank you chairman and administrator. you are hard not to like. i just don't like the agency you work for. >> i think that is a complement. >> it's as close as a compliment as you're going to get.

>> i mean, that sincerely. i get the role but it seems they constantly look back at the laws that were passed in the clean water act and clean air act and continue to rewrite them and go after the industry over and over again and not understanding the add costs or what it does. you take the economic impact. asking about the vehicles i did some quick research on it but you talk about trying to have better fuel efficiency but the role and it runs the gas mileage down and is worse for the environment. you see the stuff all over the floor you can remove it from a truck that is illegal.

i understand that. you can take it off of a truck and increase gas mileage by 30, 40, sometimes 50%. but you don't take that into consideration but you still continue to push that and now the farm industry we see the protein price going through the roof and it continues to climb and we have a hard time finding enough markets to go through right now. we have meatpackers that are pretty consolidated for the processing plants and we see by your own admittance you said that this is going to cause some plants to close when you see it

is spiking at higher prices than we have seen how is this positive for the consumer and for the epa to be making this move right now? >> we haven't finalized the rule and we've taken a look at what we are seeing in terms of these discharges to eliminate some of the negative environmental impacts. but as we look at the -- >> have they done a tremendous job on changing a lot? they've gone a long way where they are at a 50 years ago to where they are today and yet it's still kind of not good

enough. >> when we look at the standards we do have people and a majority in the industry are performing and doing well so we want to create that level playing field for those that are not taking additional investments. >> why wouldn't you just work with those individuals by themselves rather than make it a new rule and affect the entire industry? this is going to add a tremendous amount of cost to every dinner plate and breakfast plate and sandwich served. because of the minimum wage increase where a hamburger at mcdonald's is not going to be affordable is it so funny now? this is going to add cost. you know it at this is going to add a tremendous amount of cost

when you can just work with a few of those bad apples rather than changing the entire industry on how they are discharging right now. the industry is moving forward. by law we have to update our standards that match with where the industry is going. >> meeting the standards today and moving the goalpost again. >> many of them are executing. >> great. why are you moving the goalpost and see the need to move the goalpost because you know there's no way you can deny this this is going to add cost to protein. is it or is it not? >> we haven't finalized it so i don't know the answer to that. >> is it going to cost to them to spend millions of dollars? the answer to that is yes. >> we have to look at the benefits. there's a lot of people benefiting from the industry

moving forward are these the same industries that are going to lose the largest employer in the community because they can't afford to make the changes? we are talking about the people that live in these communities that we recognize work in the facilities and also drinking the water and breathing the air. we want to balance those with the jobs in economics and many industries as you pointed out or doing it the right way. how do you explain this to the people struggling to put protein on the plates for their kids as they speak or knowing that this

is going to add cost you know this is going to add cost to protein. how can you say this is a positive mood for the country? >> what i would tell them as we have a farming and ranching federal advisory committee and agricultural office advising specifically on the impacts none of the advisories are doing that. they are the professionals at work in colleges and universities that if a have a tremendous amount of theory. >> i will challenge you on that and provide the details for those that are farming and ranching on the committee. >> and i will recognize you for another round.

good to see you, administrator. i like you. [laughter] and i love your agency. the time of the gentleman is expired. >> six years after the agency was created so served in congress for 90% of the life expectancy of the epa and i know how much longer life expectancy is because of the epa and that is a big benefit for our society. mr. administrator, congratulations on making the greenhouse reduction fund awards for the clean financing i knew this would be a transformational program. if done right and you did it

right and i'm leaving in an appropriations letter to fight for your request for oversight as well the claimant bank money is out the door and it's ready to bring power owned by communities into the grid, help working families cut their bills and leverage new private dollars into projects that will do good for the public. is that a priority for the agency going forward to make sure that it's up and running this year? >> absolutely is. thank you for your leadership and dedication. we were glad to get it done and loved doing a visit with you in boston. but i feel really good about the program. we consulted outside, inside. we knew that it would pull billions of private sector capital off the sidelines so yes it's the prayer ready we want

the oversight we are asking for the oversight because we know we have a solid program so we appreciate your support on that. >> we are late but still long time to make a big difference. early this year the environmental protection agency finalized the rule that will help us accelerate towards our climate targets and put the brakes on drivers dependence on pricey fossil fuels and i think my colleague for talking about the importance of investing in chargers and i would love to work with you on that so people have confidence with of this anxiety that plays a role and of the rule that has been promulgated is estimated to avoid more than 7 billion metric

tons of carbon pollution equivalent to four times the annual emissions from the entire transportation sector making this the single most significant climate rule in u.s. and world history. so in addition to the claimant benefits, is this regulation going to cut costs for the american drivers as well? >> thank you for the question. it's proven that it will cut cost over the duration of the regulation. i think i want to just say not just me, the car companies are running $7 million super bowl ads to the constituent future if hybrid and electric. what we've done is put together a regulation that coincides with where technology into the market is going so it's not only for the environment but the economy and it will be good for people's pockets. >> and again it's projected to

prevent 25,000 premature deaths. a big benefit. and also save $6,000 for the lifetime of the vehicle. last year epa selected 16 technical assistance centers to provide technical support and grant writing assistance to disadvantaged communities and grassroots organizations interested in the inflation reduction act, historic funding opportunities and while the centers were set up across the country, region one which serves massachusetts, rhode island, still does not have an office in the region. for a center that can partner with massachusetts environmental justice groups stood up in region one by the end of this

year. we can commit to setting up the technical assistance resource region one. >> administrator, is the recently announced environmental justice clearinghouse another tool that community organizations can use to understand from the inflation reduction act? >> absolutely this is a multiagency tool that we put in place that speaks to not just the grant opportunities and epa but the multiple grant opportunities that span the entire administration, and this is sort of the fingertip way of getting information on technical assistance and funding opportunities as well as screening and mapping tools to ensure the grants that submitted are competitive. >> it comes to the power plant

regulations and hydrogen of a very different tune of what we heard when working on the inflation reduction act and i'm glad we have seen the new rules and i urge utility lobbyists to figure out what hymnal they are singing from fd hydrogen are off the table i would be happy to help my colleagues find a better use for the billions in subsidies and support but i'm glad the administration and if you are moving forth with those proposals. they are taking advantage of tax credits and resources and we should ensure that there is a future for those specific technologies. >> they are interested and

enthusiastic. >> the tension points that are happening are based on timing and percentages, not whether we pursue it and how we do it. >> thanks for joining us and for your good work on a number of these issues given your background in state government to lead with policies grounded in reality is and in the states and maintain a healthy perspective of the hard-working american families who work under the rules and regulations, but that hasn't happened. people in wyoming are struggling with rising prices in every area of their lives. with the policy prescriptions do and this administration is a torrent of regulation that you

know will need to scarcity and higher cost because your restricting baseload energy. let's start with the clean power plant which forces coal and gas fired power plants to close down if they don't spend billions of dollars and meet unrealistic targets. these metrics are not achievable. facts and rational arguments have been presented to the epa but they are robust. the ideology winds at all costs, and the costs will be great as gas and coal fired power plants account for around 60% of the nation's electricity at a time at the time when cloud computing

to fuel the current energy needs wyoming and the nation are global leaders in clean energy. so it's absolutely surreal to see the epa the state energy production even if energy demand has increased for more data centers, artificial intelligence and your own epa or excuse me ev mandates. the supreme court ruled against the epa for overstepping its authority on the first clean power plant and rightfully so because congress did not grant to the epa sweeping authority to regulate the nation's generation and uses of electricity. so last i checked they destroyed livelihoods, annihilated jobs and wrecked the economy and evidently, that is your agenda.

you said so yourself. stating, and i'm quoting, when you get an expedited facility retirement, that's the best tool for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions. i joined many of my colleagues in anticipation that this attack on energy is overturned again by the supreme court. the epa finalized rules. it's astonishing the federal government is telling americans what kind of vehicles to drive and pushing an agenda that doesn't work outside of major areas. clean power plants one and two you've exceeded your authority. congress did not direct you to mandate electric vehicles. wyoming is a world high-altitude estate of nearly 100,000 square

miles with famously harsh weather conditions. a gas or diesel powered car or truck or natural gas. the average is over $10,000 more expensive than the average gas powered car and they don't work at altitude. they don't work when it's that cold and they don't work when you can't get them charged because there are no charging stations. judging by the numbers sales are around six or 7% and dealerships are saying to pump the brakes on electric vehicles for the good of the country pull the plug on

this mandate. lastly all of us value clean drinking water. that is not the issue. the regulatory approach was flawed from the beginning and leaves innocent parties vulnerable for the costly abilities and i will tell you, and i know my time is running out, just this in a fairness we seek the approach instead epa placed the financial burden on receivers like water utilities, industries and people who did not create the substances. you would force the rural providers to bear those costs when they are already feeling these federal mandates. in closing i urge you to consider the real world impact

within the government these go too far. i yield back. >> there's not much to yield back. we have probably the biggest stake and what we are talking about here today and the opportunity to support themselves. with that in mind, senator whitehouse, it's good to see you. what timeframe can you commit to for the power plant rule? >> we are working on that

process right now and we've engaged to start that process and we will move as quickly as possible. can you commit to any endpoint at all? >> i would like to provide a data that is grounded in the facts of how the process will be designed and going. >> we've given authority to regulate methane emissions and we require that you use empirical data which means you are supposed to actually measure it, correct? has the epa underestimated from the fossil fuel sector? >> most underestimated. >> the epa for sure has because it relied on industry reporting in order to come to its numbers,

correct? >> i think that it informed, yes. >> and the result was underreporting. in 2018 which is five plus years ago, first reported that the methane numbers were too low and reported 60% higher than your inventory numbers and then state reported to further and said they were two times higher than epa was relying on. a stanford last year put out its own research showing it is three times higher than the epa has been relying upon.

one of the things we asked you to do is to acquire satellite data and we appropriated money to do that. what is the status do you presently have access to the satellite data? >> i do know we started a process to acquire and we are leveraging the acquisition from some of our sister agencies. >> when do you think you will have actual access? >> what i can say is, and you will see this in the actions we've taken and we've used the resources and put out this call for competition to look at the best technologies you will see that it's specified as something we want to consider in our acquisition with our federal family to make sure we are working with of the same numbers. >> at a minimum it puts up a

pretty good flag for further inquiry through drones, aircraft or on ground measuring, correct? and are you currently deploying that information to trigger those further investigative methods? >> we are looking at all of the options above. >> there's a point that looking and doing has to begin. >> i think there were a number of years the agency was prevented from pursuing the pursuit of climate change gases and so with the resources you appropriated i will say that we have moved as aggressively as we can and we will continue to do so. >> on vn enforcement aside some time ago, the administration

announced that it was putting together a methane task force which is a preposition makes a lot of sense because if you have the data that points to the methane leaks and allows for further methods to be deployed or if it's reliable enough to pursue it on that basis you might want to be talking to the department of justice about what their capabilities are and to the department of interior about what they can do to push those. what is your view right now of that task force and whether there is a set up to be operating in.

>> all of the agencies had been working on this and when we look at the regulations that set the bar for some of the ways we could enforce these actions. there is a constant conversation and relationship the department of justice looking at how we enforce the regulations with interior we have all received resources from the inflation reduction act so as we look at how we develop those grants and use the information and at the data and technology we are trying to be sure we leverage the resources together in this whole of government approach. it does take coordination but the development of the enforcement regulations and grant programs is being done in concert with not just the doj that the enforcement standpoint

and interior and others as well. >> my time is expired. unanimous consent to submit for the record materials including statement on the strength of the united states economy. over 15 million jobs have been created a sense. that's more than populations of delaware, kansas, nebraska, new mexico, new hampshire, oklahoma and west virginia combined and with today's unemployment rate under 4% for the longest consecutive month set in the late 1960s. it's been under 4% now for more than 27 months in a row. inflation has been under 4% for more than two years and it's falling by ten percentage

points. thank you for joining us and you are recognized. >> i want to start by thanking you and your staff for your collaboration on the pressing chemical cleanup and clean air challenges that we face in california. we know from the discussion and many letters that they've been consistently focused especially across the transportation and good movement sectors which i'm so grateful for the recent rulemaking is on light duty and heavy duty vehicles.

can you take a moment to reaffirm the final image for both light and heavy duty vehicles do not infect span the engines? >> they absolutely don't. clear and concise. can you now spend a minute or two and emphasize the benefits of the rules to communities across the country not just those in california but across the country and the people who live in these corridors? >> we know there's over 72 million americans that live along these corridors that are disproportionately impacted especially from our heavy duty

vehicles. over 13 billion in annual benefits to society there's a lot of people that will be breathing cleaner air and living a healthier life because of these rules. again i think we've done it in a way that we looked at the technology. it's not just us as we said before the automobile industry is running $7 million super bowl ads talking about the benefits of the technology so we have aligned our regulations with technology and we will be beholden to china. we need these rules in place and we need to manufacture these components. >> to -underscore i believe you said about 72 million americans live along these corridors. that's about 20% of the national population.

an idea, policy boot can improve the well-being of one in five americans in one fell swoop is hugely consequential. in addition to all that work, and i know you know we can't stop with cars and trucks given the pollution stemming from the rest of the freight system. california ports is busy and successful as they are moved the goods that fuel not just the local and regional but the national economy yet the california communities that bear the burden in a harmful climate impact that's why i've called on the epa to work to reduce emissions from locomotives and ships and planes and off-road equipment as well. they deserve a lot of credit for launching the efforts this past

month to do just that. the administration launched a strategy to help guide the deployment of zero emission infrastructure along the freight highways by setting a national goal of a zero emission sector. a national strategy encompassing the whole sector including heavy duty vehicles without significantly reduce these impacts while improving american economic competitiveness and job creation we have seen it. can you describe the next steps to implement the corridor door strategy and the goal of zero emission?

>> this is an important topic. the strategy is important and we are working together with the consolidated the strategy. thanks to your leadership and of many on the committee we've got $3 billion in grants that we are going to begin to duplicate to invest in these technologies and vehicles and the like. they want to be globally competitive and they know the future is driven by technology and they welcomed the strategy and investments with open arms and not only will we keep the country competitive we will save lives and reduce hospital visits. >> we have set ambitious goals. we visited, invested. i look forward to seeing you soon back in california.

>> absolutely. >> i want to ask a quick question. administrator when you were the nominee you were questioned about your willingness to visit the states not just of those represented here on this committee but those who are not. i asked my staff to find out how many states he visited thus far and i'm told that you've made as of this week 116 visits in 38 states between you and the deputy administrator you visited a total of 45 states. i think i speak for all of us fact that you've made time to come to the states again and again is much appreciated so thank you for that.

i will yield now to the senator. >> mr. administrator, good to see you and in terms of the states visited thank you for coming to alaska. we welcome you back. i'm going to talk very briefly. i do want to -- we had a bit of a contentious exchange. i want to keep working with your team and staff on this committee on the issues we raise but haven't gotten any data or anything from your team and i think out of courtesy i deserve that and my constituents. there's a lot of people watching what your staff was doing to my state when i was home over the weekend and nobody was happy about it so i would like to continue that debate but i want your staff to brief me

personally on what they are up to. i also want to just touch on the issues you are not doing it so much but there are so many decisions the biden administration takes on the so-called environment that are lawless. the president two weeks ago announced of that he was going to shut down the road that had already been approved in the mining district one of the critical mineral districts in the country. a federal law in 1980 actually mandates that road be permitted. i can read you the language. i'm just going to submit this is a section 201 i would like to submit for the record that violated the law the biden administration on and more that

i submitted a letter. for the two sales mandated and the secretary said she was going to cancel them and even biden omb. i'd like to submit for the record executive orders and actions.

20% of alaska is indigenous. the focus of this administration and environmental justice for the communities when they come after my state so much and hurt the native people. west virginia versus epa, did you read that supreme court case? and i can't remember are you a lawyer? i was going to comment there's not a good lawyers they violate the law but i will give you a pass on that. with regard to agency rules the power it claims do you think

that is something granted to rewrite? i trust my colleagues and follow the law and follow the process. >> i think even the good lawyers and the bad lawyers it's a really important case but let me get to something more positive on the contaminated land issues you know the whole history there. we are talking about it.

we want to authorize an agreement in the indian tribes and alaska native tribes for the purposes of mitigation for a permitted activity under the program. would you support that idea and can you work with me and senator kelly on that idea? >> we would be happy to provide technical assistance and work on those ideas. >> would they support kind of the same category, categorical exclusion for the contaminated land program that comes under the review and maybe that is quick. i can submit that for the record in more detail. >> let us dig into that and i will ask staff. i know in the president's budget there was a significant amount of money on contaminated land cleanup but i will ask you

because i want to be respectful here for the record what other resources or authorities does the epa need to help clean up the native lands, which remember the native people of alaska got the land from the fed, 44 million acres into biggest land settlement probably in the history of the world and a lot of it was contaminated. we worked together the chairman and i to say a couple of years ago they can't be held liable since the federal government gave them polluted land but are there other resources or authorities needed to help clean up these native lands that are contaminated? it's a top priority of mine and i know you learned about this plan we were in alaska and i appreciate you taking the time to meet with the different native groups that were impacted and do the due diligence on this

unjust situation. >> i would ask you to be brief in your response. >> thank you for hosting that meeting. i think you and diana senator murkowski announced $150 million going towards this cleanup. there's more we can talk about. >> i will submit that for the record more detailed answers. >> thank you for the opportunity to talk to an expert on all of this and i am in pennsylvania. some people across the nation really doesn't know what a brownfield is. would you like to give an exact definition? >> they are sites that have been

contaminated that are qualified for programs where we could clean them up whether they are abandoned warehouses or gas stations that are typically blights in our communities and we can turn them into economic entities. >> absolutely and sometimes they can be smaller than your referencing or large, a couple hundred acres. i'm in western pennsylvania and i literally live and am surrounded by brownfields. at one point last century, that was the engine that help shape american society and was about half of the world's steel output and now they were abandoned and left to hold the bag. the proactive investments have now allowed struggling communities to emerge from bankruptcy and i literally live

next door to one. it's magnificent and now it's going to be part of a national historic site, the last standing example and those are the kind of investments that help create so much of an investment and output for the history of the nation and one of my priorities here is to continue that because there's more sites like that in allegheny county where i live but pennsylvania it's a story across all of it and you run a very large agency. i'm not going to throw a lot at you. one thing to take away from that is how critical the funding for pennsylvania absolutely is. it is the lifeline for

communities and now without those kind of investments, those sites wouldn't have anything done for 30, 40, 50 years and it's really created an amazing impact. so if you have five minutes that's an opportunity to talk to an expert like yourself that it means everything and it's almost kind of somewhat related to my colleague from alaska it's land that has a lot of value but it needs remediation as well and of those and best in forgotten communities that were left behind and this is very critical. if there's anything i can do to be a more effective advocate i

would like any feedback on that and i want to thank your agencies it's not just pennsylvania. if you have any observations i would like to see and i think the administration's work on it. >> we appreciate the resources received to supercharge this. we've awarded a $250 million towards our program it's the largest in the epa history and it's a great example of in pittsburgh we work with the states vacant property, affordable senior living, cafés and the like. we see this is a huge opportunity so we will continue to work with staff to make sure we are prioritizing these but

there is a win-win opportunity as you've articulated. >> i have about 30 seconds left and then more and more. thank you for those kind of investments. they would continue to deteriorate and certainly not to beable to prosper and come intoa new phase. >> thank you for joining. your experience and lieutenant governor as well.

[inaudible] some days it might seem that way. i've got a couple of questions. i think you recently announced the selections of entities to administer some $20 billion of funding for greenhouse gas reduction funds created and explained to people when we were talking about the greenhouse fund the average american can participate whether it be energy efficient investing in those kind of things, $20 billion we

worked with the department of treasury and those who specialize in underwriting spent some time with private equity to be sure that as we developed the program we do it in a transparent way that demonstrated the government could put its money where its mouth is and could we bring hundreds of billions of private capital off the sidelines we asked for resources to continue to do so. i try to meet as frequently as possible with our inspector general and there could be a usage so we are trying to oblige that. we want to be as transparent as

possible. >> let me ask about the implementation. we have a hearing i think about a year ago with respect to the implementation with toxic substance control act but there was a disappointing hearing. part of what we heard from the senior staff that were here to speak on the issue was the human resources we needed to help do the job and one of the reasons we are providing is in part to do the work congress said needs

to be done. we charged with this responsibility so the epa has the appropriate resources to implement as intended. what impact this would the 2024 funding levels have on the program? and would you please give a sense of what they could accomplish us should the agency receive the full budget request as well as the maximized revenue collections in the recently updated rule. >> thank you, chairman. this is one of the ones i scratch my head on. we receive small increases to focus in 2022 and 2023.

we were really trying to honor the essence of what congress asks us to do. i think with this cut we are going to see a slower approval of new chemistries especially the companies that want to prepare the semi conductor automotive battery sectors it's going to gum up the system. before this revisit epa was looking at a 20% rate. they now require that we do 100% so to keep pace with the economy and moving forward, we need to review these each and every month and it doesn't make sense to cut that funding now. >> another question or two but i'm going to yield to senator cap tovar any questions that she has.

>> asking about the greenbank oversight accountability can you give specific details of accountability mechanisms the agency is developing for these final agreements? >> there's a number first and foremost with the greenbank there's a transparency aspect that focuses on basic transactions underwriting aligned with most banking protocols but these investments must go to recipients that can demonstrate not only a leverage of capital but must get specific reductions from carbon or claimant pollutants so when we think about a level of transparency and the process, it's very clear and concise that they are held accountable to use the resources that they are given to get certain reductions

according to traditional banking approaches. >> so i think you have 20 people overseeing this? >> so they are looking specifically at how people are enumerating and whether they can leverage by banking standards. >> some are term limited and they were responsible for creating the program. we now have to do the maintenance and implementation. it's beyond a design phase it's to be sure during the implementation we are very transparent so we've asked for resources for that and the inspector general's office. >> that was put in the department of energy but not for the epa. we want to be transparent and

responsible. >> let me ask about a specific west virginia. the agency was entering into a decree with the sierra club to impose and west virginia. here is what the west virginia dep said as a primary regulator of water quality and west virginia, the department of environmental protection, i love to use the word flummoxed, i don't know why it's humorous but as to why it's been kept in the dark regarding a proposed settlement that had been months in the making. it's even more astounded that they've decided in contrast to the prior litigation without advance notice and without any kind of defense to the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint. do you agree that decision to keep them in the dark is

troubling? >> i absolutely. courts stipulated and the results of the case we contested. we have had collectively to resolve this problem. we are up against a timeline so whatever agency did is entered into the settlement that we are legally obligated to do and we got a letter about extending the comment period. >> i a former state regulator. we wouldn't do anything where we just ice out the state. >> let me go back to the state regulator we were talking about earlier where the 23 states

developed and you know more about the technicalities of the implementation plan to are rejected outright and on the same day or time it came forward. with this kind of scenario have happen as a state regulator when you are not regulating and had an implementation plan rejected is in the usual way to do it to work with the state to say they are falling short here and there let's make adjustments instead of outright rejection. >> i've never been surprised a state implementation plan was either at a crossroads or not meeting the expectations. >> i'm asking were you as a state regulator ever a party to having a blanket rejection like

this? >> yes. the last administration on a host of issues i attempted to work with the trump administration and we worked through it. >> you're not giving the option to work through it. it's getting challenging. >> the federal plan is in place until he state plan is agreed-upon. >> but you rejected all the state plans. i didn't get the sense that there was any kind of a discussion going on here. the state regulator recognized my limitations in negotiating in the federal government. i didn't resubmit the same homework. >> but you got a chance to resubmit to have something before a federal plan would come in on top of you. that's the point i'm trying to make. >> it depends on the timeframe. to send litigation from other

states have been asking for this relief for multiple years we have to use the tools we have ,the state implementation plan has been available. now there's a federal plan in place until they can negotiate those. it's not a closed door. it won't to be because the courts are going to come in and to tell you you've overextended your authorities didn't have to give the states the ability to do exactly what you're saying. you may want to continue this conversation beyond the walls of israel. >> joined by senator ricketts. >> thank you for allowing us. when we talked about when i was

doing the questioning earlier when it comes to 85 grams per mile we are going to follow up on the current vehicles. i presume you do expect a greater mask of plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles. has your agency done any work to the power generation that will be needed? what do you project will be required to meet the demand or meet the needs of how many more electric vehicles were plug-in

hybrids? >> what about the transmission lines have you done that as well? >> we worked in close concert with those the thorough analysis of the demand, meeting the demand, reliability, we've done and an analysis of how the rules impact the grid and we would be happy to provide those to you and your staff. >> we don't know how much. >> that's a number i don't retain daily. >> the power generation you're talking about takes into consideration that you've got the clean power plant, 2.0 which the power generation plants are going to take into consideration all of that. the power plant a strategy i want to be very clear it's not a

clean power plant 2.0. it takes into account the generation and the demand to the reliability and cost. how do you get to that 85 grams. it's 100% renewable energy is that correct? >> if we found it do you know what state has the highest percentage. >> i don't. >> it's iowa. i don't think it's predicated on only state. >> it sort of fell out.

iowa is the leading state for generating no electricity from renewable energy. nebraska is the states of maryland, new jersey, delaware, connecticut and pennsylvania are offering 5% of electricity coming from renewable energy. new york, they are doing better, 7.2%. if it is relying, if you're telling the american public you're charging that's not true because most are not generating that much from renewable energy so if you are thinking you are saving carbon were for having ev

assuming. to tell the truth about how these models work. >> if you look at the power plant strategy is not 100%. i'm not talking about the power plant strategy. i'm talking about charging ev's. >> how to provide power to those ev's. >> if you are assuming that they are charged by a energy. >> i am modeling. when you look at the power generation and power sector and what that means in terms of affordability and reliability, you overlay that with the cars

and trucks rule. i am not aware that any of our modeling says ignore to create electrons that tackle the grid and we will just use renewable ones. that's not the purpose of epa and allows for companies to choose a combination of technologies to provide cleaner power. i would ask you to respond back but the other cost considerations the electric vehicles and guardrail thank you

for the second round of questions. >> a bunch of younger people today. >> we didn't give much of a thought to the energy needs on solar and more about wind. i think we've been more. the advance act that is a

nuclear reactors there's a lot going on. i replaced a minivan that have 600,000 miles. we haven't talked a lot about market forces but one of the reasons i like driving an electric vehicle, it is just a hoot to drivers. it's so much fun.

we ought to keep in mind market forces. last question. senator cabot to at least one of our colleagues and we have a couple major recycling bills going through the senate and house and i appreciate very much there are significant issues plagued between the solid waste management system and i was proud to help lead to the inclusion. 275 in a bipartisan infrastructure law. the solid waste infrastructure for recycling the grant program at epa. i believe it was 55 million through fiscal year 2026 to

support the establishment and expansion. i understand it is helping to implement. in addition to the subsequent strategies would you please describe for us the strategy and why continued funding from congress is necessary to accomplish the epa's goal of achieving 50%. this topic is one of those topics young people gravitate to so much so quickly so we were

excited. the recycling grant program, which we had, and today we've selected about 164, 65 applicants and we are providing $199 million through that. we are just seeing a lot of demand for in place around recycling whether it be plastic and the like. this is a great way to look at the closed loop cycle system that would benefit the economy and the environment. >> before we adjourn, any other questions? >> i have great respect for your work and i will say in your characterization of the clean power plant you've emphasized

stakeholders, power generators so the cooperatives very much a vehemently opposed this plan. they provide power to 42 million people and he characterizes the plan. it's unrealistic, unachievable and unlawful. >> thank you, senator o-uppercase-letter. a pleasure to be with you. thank you and your staff. i've been given a unanimous consent request and i'm not going to read the whole thing again but i want to modify to submit for the record materials

with a correction including a statement according to the data that's more than a population with states with today's unemployment rate, the u.s. ties the record for the longest consecutive months set in the 60s it's been under 4% for 27 months and i think that might be a record. it's bound since it peaked in 22. less than 4% in 2023 a closing statement if i could. thank you for showing up to have

informative and collegial and productive exchange of ideas and hopefully set the stage for the comments and you certainly helped as well with your thoughtful remarks but all of us realize there's more than a few challenges and i think you're providing strong leadership we need to deliver on the priorities and promises made to the american people. we've heard robust funding experience staff to successfully protect human health and the environment and provide greater certainty and predictability to stakeholders including businesses. and with that in mind i hope you would join me in supporting the

president's budget request for the epa. a little bit of housekeeping if i could. senators will be allowed to submit written requests, written questions for the record to the close of business on wednesday, may 202nd. we will compile those questions and send them to your team and i would ask that you reply wednesday, june 5th. before i adjourn us, i just want to say that. i spent many years after and i've known a lot of the servicemembers men and women who have spouses who also served and i've said too many spouses as

recently as last weekend that often times it's not just of the person wearing the uniform of the person alongside the servicemembers. just a thank you to them for their service and willingness to serve. i especially am pleased with how many states. you have a few you haven't been able to make it but who knows after