manufacturing and construction industries about the harm that two federal regulatory agencies in particular are doing to their businesses together the epa and the occupational safety and health administration with their joint army of more than twenty thousand regulators receive a combined eleven dollars billion in taxpayer dollars to fulfill their stat responsibility but it has never been the goal of federal regulation to stifle economic growth at least it is not supposed to be as was detailed in a report to released by chairman issa in february hundreds of job creators have identified scores of regulations from these two agencies that hinder their ability to expand and offer good paying jobs millions of out of work americans today we will focus our oversight on the environmental protection agency and specifically development implementation and the effect of epa's greenhouse gas regulations on small businesses under the current regime the epa has emerged as the chief enforcer of the epa has nurtured the distinct impression among american job creators that this administration is out of touch with the real world harm that the agenda causes even worse the committee has reason to believe that in addition to its bureaucratic disregard for struggling industries that were hardest hit b downturn the epa appears to have broken the law in a rush to issue sweeping new rules for greenhouse gas emissions regulated industries understandably feel left out of the process and confined to an environment of job killing uncertainty while epa crafts a whole new regulatory superstructure that touches every area of our national life all of this despite the presence of numerous promises before and after his election that regulations in this administration would be crafted with careful consideration of their cumulative effect on small business the growth and sustainability of small business are critical to the success of the american economy which is why this committee will continue to be in place a place where men and women entrepreneurs and investors can come for a fair hearing about their concerns the american people deserve a responsive government that listens to and works for them small business specifically warrant out attentive ear as they employ more than half of all private sector workers and represent more than ninety nine percent of all employer firms in the united states yet these businesses carry an increasingly disproportionate share of the american regulatory burden one recent study revealed that the annual regulatory cost to small business is nearly three thousand dollars more per employee than the cost to larger firms the same study found that compliance with environmental regulations in particular cost small business and small business owners four times more than firms with more than five hundred employees it is disconcerting therefore to learn how far the epa has fallen short of the present stated goals by adding to this already intense regulatory burden the administration has executed a strategy that destroys jobs rather than creates them with prolonged  at for a meeting that i had scheduled before this committee hearing was scheduled but i am pleased to be here with you and with our chairman and the other members of the committee thank you for holding this important hearing today we are here to discuss the impact of greenhouse gas regulations on small businesses america's small businesses are the lifeblood of this country's economy competition innovation and the entrepreneurial spirit have driven americans to prosperity and it is our job in congress to ensure that we facilitate and promote an environment of economic opportunity it is also our job to protect the well being of american citizens with the bottom line of providing the highest quality of life reach in every person based on actual results and future projections it is clear that the clean air act strikes a balance between economic growth and keeping each and every one of us healthy by two thousand and twenty for every taxpayer dollar invested in the clean air act there will be an estimated thirty dollars in return in benefits in the year two thousand and ten alone the clean air act prevented over one hundred and sixty thousand deaths over three million lost school days and thirteen million days of lost work these numbers are illustrative of the benefits to both businesses and public health facilitated by the clean air act the regulation of greenhouse gases under the clean air act is imperative to protecting public health and welfare the threat posed by climate change is based on peer reviewed accurate and concrete science the threat is real and preventative steps are necessary the epa's regulation of greenhouse gases under the clean air act is a measured common sense approach to mitigating climate change that protects not only public health and welfare but protects businesses as well opponents of greenhouse gas regulation claim that small entities will be overly burdened by costly and unattainable emission standards however the epa's implementation of the tailoring rule is a small business conscious method of protecting public health and this country's employers and employees the tailoring rule by setting a greenhouse gas emission threshold exempts ninety five percent of all stationary source of greenhouse gas emissions essentially the tailoring rule lifts a regulatory burden off of small businesses in written testimony provided for today's hearing the small business majority a representative of u s businesses states that some will claim that a variety of small businesses everything from bookstores to diners would be impacted by greenhouse gas standards this simply isn't the case further as described in the small business majority's testimony a significant number of small business owners welcome measures to reduce environmental pollution now this sentiment simply cannot be ignored as i have said at this subcommittee's past two meetings we can't have a productive discussion about the impact of regulations without considering both cost and benefits for example when we talk about the new tailpipe emission standards we cannot simply discuss a potential increase in the sticker price of a vehicle the proposed standards for heavy and medium duty trucks despite a marginal increase in sticker price are projected to save over seventy four thousand dollars over the life of the truck and save over five hundred million barrels of oil you want to talk economic impact multiply that roughly with the price of oil bouncing back and forth over one hundred dollars and you could have savings that you could measure do the math fifty  look forward to having a well rounded discussion about greenhouse gas emission standards their costs and their benefits with today's witnesses i yield back mister jordan i thank the gentleman members have seven days  evaluated but as we will hear today and this committee has found in its studies cost and benefit are not part of the epa's mandate or consideration if they were many of the regulations that they have created would not have been created ultimately they simply say we are only looking at the environment we are not looking at the cost if cost effectiveness least cost to the system greatest pollution reduction at the least price were part of the mandate we would all applaud it in addition the epa has no limits this committee has discovered that in fact a natural occurring gas that will continue to be produced in huge amounts in other countries is in fact being regulated any coal not consumed in this country will be shipped to another country the most high polluting coal in the world is burned in china these and other realities cause us to a have more of this gas than we would otherwise have if our goal really was to reduce the gas on a global basis but b and most importantly when you look at farmers in iowa who find themselves being fined because dust from corn husks get in the air on their farm and other kinds of nonsensical things not intended in the epa's original mandate regulations continue to be produced you have to wonder why didn't congress set limits last but not least this committee has repeatedly seen and now becomes convinced that the epa and other environmental organizations are in fact inviting litigation settling and using that litigation in order to justify new regulations this practice of being sued settling and then in fact producing new rules is an area that clearly has to stop congress exempts itself from civil lawsuits over its policies for a reason the epa on the other hand and other organizations seem to welcome those because they lead to the same end that they want but make it faster  mister chairman this committee is more and more through that americanjobcreators com awareness program we are finding that rules that have not been made but used under the form of guidance and guidelines and so are basically threatened as rules so eventually they become rules after in fact compliance is reached by a long threat these and other impediments to job creation are something this committee is dedicated to of course on both sides of the aisle we want clean air and clean water but we also want the funds created by a successful economy that pay for that clean air and clean water last weekend i was on a bipartisan codel to egypt the nile is very pretty but there is not enough money to deliver the kind of health standards in egypt that we have here today that is a goal that america has to be cognizant of if we do not have a successful economy there will not be money for the regulators to have the dream they foundation in his position he researches how energy and climate change legislation will affect economic activity in the national local and at the industry level we have mister joe rajkovacz the director of regulatory affairs at the owner operator independent chairman jordan ranking member kucinich good afternoon and thank you for allowing me to testify on behalf of small business truckers concerning epa's efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions ooida represents the interest of small business trucking and professional drivers we currently have more than one hundred and fifty three thousand members collectively who own and operate approximately two hundred zero heavy duty trucks nationwide any regulation adopted affecting the trucking industry has a dramatic effect on small business truckers the main issue as we see it is all about process how regulations are adopted whether the process is open transparent includes all of the stakeholders and if the justifications have properly taken into account all the variables necessary to avoid a one size fits all regulatory system that may disproportionately benefit some stakeholders at the expense of others in this context epa's proposed ghg regulations for new heavy duty trucks can be viewed as having thrown small business concerns under the bus small business truckers cannot be portrayed as unconcerned about air quality and fuel on top of that epa mandates truckers must use ultra low sulfur diesel and in california specialty diesel blends all of this has come with a significant price increase on new trucks and at the fuel pump additionally since small business truckers operate in a hyper competitive marketplace managing their number one expense fuel is imperative for their survival those who don't are quickly culled from the market as evident by the recent record bankruptcies in the trucking industry in spite of all the success in reducing emissions government agencies still want to regulate further at a time when small business truckers are still trying to collect their breath after the worst economic contraction since the great depression when epa embarked on this regulatory process the white house instructed the agency to work with all stakeholders with specific direction to partner with the california air resources board in crafting ghg rules i suppose this was because many think carb is an environmental trailblazer however many of us in the small business community recognize carb's record as one that does not account for the concerns of engagement with small business can be viewed as nothing more than checking off the box their supposed leadership on regulating trucking ghg emissions has not been without significant controversy within the trucking community because they have resulted in high cost limited benefits to all but the largest trucking fleets yet they are driving epa's regulatory process on ghg emissions regulation of trucks from the hien tran affair to doctor dismissal at ucla for questioning carb's pm mortality studies carb cutting by half the original diesel emissions mortality estimates to the admission i recently received from carb which shows air regulating transportation refrigeration units on trailers without any studies or scientific foundation their actions are leaving the small business community breathlessly questioning the agency's commitment to accuracy and wondering about their disproportionate influence on epa's rulemaking especially when epa is ignoring our small business concerns based on the attention small businesses have received as job creators the small business trucking community had hoped for more from epa however we have only seen more of the same shut out ignored and likely forced to live with bad public policy owner operators and small business truckers operate widely diverse trucking goals of regulating ghg owner operators and small business truckers should not have rules crafted that needlessly drive up their operational costs simply because their business model has been ignored by regulatory agencies heritage foundation the views i express in this testimony are my own and should not be construed as representing any official position of the heritage foundation chairman jordan and ranking member kucinich and distinguished members of the subcommittee thank you for giving me this opportunity to address the question of the economic impact of carbon dioxide regulation i would like to make several points regarding this impact first forcing cuts in co emissions reduces access to affordable energy the united states gets eighty five percent of its energy from fossil fuels and co is an unavoidable byproduct of using fossil fuels though substitutes exist they are more expensive and cannot be turned on and off as needed in my written testimony there is a chart that compares that cost of coal fired electricity to wind and solar power after these renewable costs have been adjusted for necessary backup power and for the long transmission distances we see that wind and solar power are eighty percent to two hundred and eighty percent more costly than coal these higher costs will not help consumers and they will not help businesses of any size it should be noted that if recent low prices of natural gas continue gas fired electricity should have costs comparable to that of coal the second point is co restrictions will have a costly impact on the economy regardless of the mechanism used to force the cuts there are no free lunches imagine a misguided policy to dramatically restrict the consumption of dairy products by way of a three dollars million per gallon tax on milk perhaps one very rich milk lover will buy one gallon of dairy products per year this will raise three dollars million a minor amount by washington standards however it will devastate the dairy industry imposing much higher costs than the tax revenue and it is that higher cost that is the focus of the economic impact the loss of jobs and income at the farm at the processing plants and at the retailers that is the economic impact of such a policy a cap and trade program that issues an allowance for a single gallon of milk per year would have the same devastating impacts on the economy and the dairy industry as the three dollars million per gallon tax so they are two equivalent ways of doing the same damage in a similar vein regulations that cut milk consumption to a single gallon however they devised would also have the same devastating impact on the dairy industry and the overall economy so it is with co whatever policy is used to cut co also cuts access to affordable fossil fuels and imposes similar regulatory regime that targets similar co cuts will have a similarly large economic impact my third point is that regulatory mandates do not create free efficiency markets provide efficiency when and where it makes sense car advertisements tout their miles per gallon because consumers care about saving money appliance manufacturers pay to meet energy star standards because consumers care about saving money but forcing consumers to buy products they wouldn't choose under the guise of saving them money either will not save them money overall or will force them to make costly and inconvenient lifestyle changes let me give a personal example to illustrate how mandated energy efficiency standards may not only be counterproductive but also very annoying my old one thousand nine hundred and ninety three maytag dishwasher used to use nine gallons of hot water and take about an hour and fifteen minutes to clean the dishes since then efficiency mandates forced a reduction in hot water use so the newer model uses seven gallons of hot water but takes at least an hour and fifty minutes to clean the dishes the combined cost of the two gallons of water saved in both the purchase plus the heating it up is less than a dime and that is in arlington where we have pretty high water rates perhaps for some the tradeoff of thirty five minutes for ten cents is worth it if so they can buy the dishwasher that takes two hours or they could have used the seven gallon cycle that was already available on my one thousand nine hundred and ninety three model dishwasher for my wife and me the ten cents isn't worth it but it is no longer a choice we get to make businesses large and small are constantly making choices over the products and processes that give them the best results for the money they spend these firms were hoveled when regulations however well intentioned forced unwanted choices on them when these engines of economic growth are h the other witnesses that you are hearing today are pursuing i think a false story line that demonizes the environmental protection agency and the amount of steps it is taking to reduce carbon pollution the epa is doing just what congress told the agency to do when it wrote the clean air act congress gave epa the duty to keep abreast of science and to act when that science shows pollution is endangering our health and welfare the endangerment finding is backed by solid authority america's own most authoritative scientific body the national academy of sciences said this in two thousand and ten some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly settled facts this is the case for the conclusion that the earth system is warming and that much of the warming is likely due to human activities congress has never done what you are about to do on the floor today which is to repeal an expert agency's formal scientific finding of the threat to health and welfare and politicians don't prosper long when they put themselves in the position of denying modern science repealing the scientific endangerment finding would be like repealing the surgeon general's finding that tobacco smoke causes cancer h r nine hundred and ten will harm the health and the pocketbook of millions of americans it is bad policy and it is deeply unpopular the clean air act's critics get the economics of environmental safeguards completely backwards over the past forty years the american economy has tripled in size while have cut some forms of pollution by more than sixty percent the clean air act doesn't demand the impossible it requires only pollution controls that are achievable and affordable epa has taken great small businesses buy and diesel and saved billions of dollars for american families and small businesses by cutting their gasoline and diesel fuel bills three thousand dollars a vehicle seven thousand four hundred dollars a lobbyists for some of america's biggest polluters are falsely claiming that the clean air act's carbon requirements will fall on millions of apartments office buildings farms churches the truth is otherwise  exempted all small sources of carbon pollution from permit requirements instead directly in line with congressional intent epa has focused the permit requirements on the largest new and expanded sources of carbon pollution such as power plants oil refineries and other big polluters epa has been sued by dozens of trade associations companies and right leaning advocacy groups but when put to the test of proving their claims they fail the courts have found no merit in their claims of harm this is no surprise because the court challenges like lobbyists who come up here on the hill are seeking not relief for the small fries but special favors for big polluters power plants oil refineries and the like these pollution giants can't complain to the courts about being harmed by  exemption of all the small sources their attempt to hide behind the skirts of small businesses should fare no better here on the hill congressmen deny science at their peril likewise they buy into phony story lines about burdens on small businesses at their peril as i have mentioned large majorities of the american people support the clean air act and want epa to do its job to control air pollution they specifically