Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0107-0114
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2010-10-25T04:00Z

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

In the Matter of:

Public Hearing on the Proposed Action to Ensure Authority to Issue
Permits under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to
Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan 

Pages:	1 through 44

Place:	Washington, DC

Date:	September 14, 2010U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Public Hearing on the Proposed Action to Ensure Authority to Issue
Permits under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to
Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan 

September 14, 2010

EPA Ariel Rios East Building, Room 1153

Washington, D.C.

	P R O C E E D I N G S

	(9:00 a.m.)

		MS. SUTTON:  Good morning.  Thank you for attending this public
hearing, held by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  We're
holding this hearing to take comment on EPA's proposed rulemaking
entitled, Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan, which proposes a federal
implementation plan that would apply as early as January 2, 2011, in any
state that is unable to submit a state implementation plan, or SIP,
revision to ensure that the state has authority to issue permits under
the PSD program for sources of greenhouse gas emissions.  This proposed
rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on September 2, 2010,
at page 53883.

		My name is Lisa Sutton, and I am an environmental engineer in the New
Source Review Group in EPA's Air Quality Policy Division, in the Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, down in North Carolina.  I will
be chairing today's hearing.

		As stated, we're here today to listen to your comments on EPA's
proposed FIP that would apply as early as January 2, 2011, in any state
that is unable to submit a SIP revision to ensure that the state has
authority to issue permits under the PSD program for GHG sources.  This
proposed rule is a companion rule to a second proposed rulemaking,
Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits under the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call, also
published in the Federal Register on September 2, 2010, at page 53892.

		In the second rulemaking, EPA proposed to find that 13 states with
EPA-approved PSD programs are substantially inadequate to meet the Clean
Air Act requirements because they do not appear to apply PSD
requirements to greenhouse gas-emitting sources.  For each of these
states, EPA proposed to require the state, through a SIP call, to revise
its SIP, as necessary, to correct such inadequacies.

		Today's hearing is an opportunity for the public to comment on EPA's
proposed FIP.  I may answer questions that seek to clarify what we have
proposed, but the purpose of this hearing is to listen to your comments,
not to discuss or debate the proposal.  Before we open the floor for
testimony, I would like to briefly describe the circumstances that led
EPA to propose the action that is the subject of today's hearing.

		On April 2nd of 2007, the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases
are pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act.  In December of 2009, the
EPA Aadministrator found that six key greenhouse gases threatened the
public health and welfare of current and future generations, and that
greenhouse gases from

new motor vehicles and engines contribute to greenhouse gas pollution,
which threatens public health and welfare.

		On April 1, 2010, EPA finalized the light-duty vehicle rule
controlling greenhouse gas emissions, where January 2, 2011 is the
earliest date on which a 2012 model year vehicle meeting these rule
requirements may be sold in the U.S.

		Based on EPA's interpretation, under the Johnson Memo Reconsideration,
of when a pollutant is subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act,
and, therefore, subject to PSD requirements, the Clean Air Act
permitting requirements apply to a newly regulated pollutant at the time
a regulatory requirement to control emissions of the pollutant takes
effect.  For greenhouse gases, that would be January 2, 2011.

		In May of 2010, EPA issued the final PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas
Ttailoring Rrule.  The Ttailoring Rrule sets thresholds for greenhouse
gas emissions that define when permits under the PSD and Title V
Operating Permit pPprograms are required for new and existing industrial
facilities.

		The Clean Air Act requires states to develop and follow SIPs that
include requirements for issuing PSD permits.  When federal permitting
requirements change, states may need to revise their plans to address
such changes.  In areas where a state does not have a current
SIP-approved program, sources are issued PSD permits under authority of
federal PSD regulations, either by EPA or under a delegation agreement
by the state.  PSD in all tribal lands is currently implemented under
the federal regulations.

		As I noted previously, EPA has proposed, in an action simultaneous
with but separate from, the action that is the subject of today's
hearing, to find that 13 states with EPA-approved PSD programs are
substantially inadequate to meet Clean Air Act requirements, and
proposed to issue a SIP call because the programs in the states do not
appear to apply PSD requirements to greenhouse gas-emitting sources.

		The states identified in the companion proposal are: Alaska; parts of
Arizona; Arkansas; California's Sacramento Metro AQMD; Connecticut,
Florida; Idaho; Kansas; Kentucky; Nebraska; Nevada; Oregon; and Texas. 
Under the SIP call, these states must submit to EPA a SIP revision that
applies the PSD program to greenhouse gas-emitting sources.  Each of
these states must submit its SIP revision within 12 months of the date
of the final SIP call, but the state may advise EPA that the state would
not object to EPA'sS establishing an earlier date that the state
identifies, which may be as soon as the end of December 2010.

		Also under the proposed companion rule, by October 4, 2010, each
state -permitting agency for which we proposed the SIP call must submit
a letter to EPA that explains its greenhouse gas-permitting authority
status and must provide information that documents why its program
cannot cover greenhouse gas emissions.

		Importantly, each state's letter must identify the date by which the
state intends to submit the SIP revision.  Further, all other states
that implement their own PSD programs must review their greenhouse
gas-permitting authority and inform EPA if their PSD programs do not
apply to greenhouse gas sources.

		So, the subject of today's hearing is the proposed FIP that would
apply in any state, for example, the 13 states identified in the
companion proposal, that is unable to submit, by its specified deadline,
a SIP revision to ensure that the state has authority to issue permits
under the PSD program for GHG sources.  Under the proposed FIP, any
source requiring a PSD permit for greenhouse gases that is located in an
area subject to this FIP would be issued a permit by the EPA, and the
FIP would assure that PSD permitting for greenhouse gases can continue
until the state is able to complete its SIP revision and EPA approves
that SIP revision.

		EPA proposes that the FIP would be limited to greenhouse gases, and it
would readily incorporate a phase-in approach for PSD applicability to
greenhouse gas sources that EPA has developed in the tailoring rule and
expects to develop further through additional rulemaking.  We invite
comment on the specific elements of the proposal, as well as any other
issues raised by the proposal.

		Now, let me describe how this hearing will operate and how to comment.

		Today, we will be accepting oral comments on our proposed FIP, and we
will be preparing a written transcript of this hearing.  The transcript
will be available to the public as part of the official record for this
rule, and EPA will consider both oral comments and written comments as
we move forward in the rulemaking process.

		We are accepting written comments on the proposed rule until October
14, 2010.  We have a fact sheet available in the registration area that
summarizes our proposed action, and it includes detailed information for
submitting written comments.  For those who will be providing oral
comments today, I will call each scheduled speaker to the microphone. 
When it is your turn to speak, please state your name and your
affiliation.  It will help the court reporter in preparing our
transcript if you also spell your name.  If you wish to speak but have
not already registered to speak, either through the pre-registration or
today at the registration desk, please check in with our staff at the
registration table located just outside the entrance to this room.

		Due to the small number of registered speakers, we will not restrict
each speaker's testimony to five minutes, as is our normal practice. 
However, we do ask that you limit your testimony to not longer than 10
minutes.  After you finish your testimony, I may ask you clarifying
questions.  If, in addition to the transcript, you would also like us to
put the full text of your written comments into the docket, please be
sure to give a copy of any written comments to our staff at the
registration table.

		We intend to stay until either 6 p.m. this evening or one hour after
the last registered speaker has spoken, whichever is earlier.  A lunch
break is scheduled from 12:30 p.m. until 2:00 p.m.

		I would like to thank you all again for participating today.  Let's
get started.

		MR. HOFFMAN:  Let me introduce myself.  I'm Howard Hoffman, and I'm
with the Office of General Counsel in EPA.

		MS. SUTTON:  Thank you, Howard.

		In fact, Howard's our first registered speaker, Howard J. Feldman.

		MR. FELDMAN:  Good morning.  I'm Howard J. Feldman, director of
Regulatory and Scientific Affairs at API.  API represents over 400
member companies involved in all aspects of the oil and natural gas
industry, an industry that supplies most of America's energy, supports
9.2 million U.S. jobs, and 7.5 percent of the U.S. economy, and has
invested nearly $2  trillion in U.S. capital projects since 2000,
including those spurring advances in nearly every form of alternative
energy.  Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

		In summary, we do not believe the proposed rules under discussion can
adequately address the implementation challenges the states face.  But
more importantly, they cannot remedy the incurable shortcomings of
attempting to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act,
which we believe poses a major threat to the nation's economic recovery
and putting Americans back to work.

		The Aagency's proposed implementation rules are an admission that the
states are unprepared to issue PSD and new facility permits for control
of stationary source emissions.  The state agencies deserve no blame for
this.  With little guidance and little lead time, they have been asked
to define and apply industry-specific, and even equipment-specific, GHG
emission standards for an indefinitely vast segment of the American
economy.  It is unclear what, how many, and what parts of entities would
be covered, how many permits would be involved, what emission control
technologies would be acceptable, and how much putting such a program
into operation would cost the states.

		Many state officials have complained.  It is hard to see how the
proposed rules would provide the support, guidance and time states will
need.  Nor, as I have said, would they lessen the adversity and
sacrifice that EPA's stationary source GHS emission regulation would
impose on American workers, business and industry, and the economy.

		Temporarily changing who is going to do the permitting does not solve
the underlying problems with the regulation itself.  No matter who signs
off on the permits or how government implementation plans are revised,
regulation of these emissions under the Clean Air Act will create vast
uncertainty for U.S. citizens, spur endless litigation, slow or reduce
investment in new enterprises, or possibly send investment out of the
country entirely, and reduce job creation and economic growth.

		EPA's own past evaluations of the impacts of the regulation largely
confirm this.  While the Aagency has carefully avoided putting formal
regulatory impact analysis on the costs of the regulation, I haven't
seen it anywhere.  Even while claiming benefits for entities that might
temporarily escape its requirements, it has acknowledged that regulation
could affect 6.1 million U.S. emission sources, introduce $78 billion in
annual costs from just one element of the permitting requirements, cause
at least a decade or longer of permitting delays, slow construction
nationwide for years, introduce state and tribal burdens that are both
administratively infeasible and overwhelming, and impact sources
otherwise not appropriate at this point to even consider regulating.

		Climate change is a serious issue, and the oil and gas industry
recognizes that action is needed.  That is one reason why America's oil
and natural gas industry invested more than $58 billion between 2000
and 2008 in climate change mitigation, including efforts to increase the
energy efficiency of its operations, develop lower carbon fuels, reduce
natural gas flaring and fugitive emissions, and capture and sequester
carbon emissions.  It is also one of the reasons why government has
increased fuel efficiency standards for highway vehicles, which promise
to produce major reductions in carbon emissions.

		But the challenge we face cannot justify the Aagency's ill-advised
stationary source greenhouse gas regulation.  The Clean Air Act was not
designed to address GHG emissions, and modifying the existing statutory
thresholds to make them work for greenhouse gases, as the Aagency has
done, amounts to rewriting the Clean Air Act, not applying it. 
Furthermore, forcing the Clean Air Act into service for which it is
ill-suited will unnecessarily increase the costs of emission reductions.
 This doesn't ever make sense, and it beggars belief that the
administration would do this when the nation is mired in one of the
worst economic downturns since the Great Depression, with 15 million
Americans still jobless.

		The answer is clear.  Set the regulation aside.  Let Congress address
climate change with new legislation.  This will take time, but the
result will be a fit-for-purpose law that reflects the will of the
people and reduces the burden on the economy and the American worker. 
Thank you.

		MS. SUTTON:  Mr. Feldman, thank you.

		We are ahead of schedule.  Our next scheduled speaker, Janet Phoenix.

		(No response.)

		MS. SUTTON:  If you are here, you are welcomed to speak at this time. 
Janet Phoenix?

		(No response.)

		MS. SUTTON:  Craig Segall is our next registered speaker.

		This is your option, if you'd like to speak.

		MR. SEGALL:  Sure.

		MS. SUTTON:  Thank you, and then we'll take a break.

		MR. SEGALL:  Good morning.  My name is Craig Segall, and I'm with the
Sierra Club.  On behalf of its more than 1 million members and
supporters, we're very pleased to be here today to give comments.

		The Clean Air Act provides that air pollution control at source is the
primary responsibility of states and local governments, who recognize
that federal financial assistance and leadership is essential to support
the states.  Global warming pollution poses an especially pressing
pollution control responsibility.  The Sierra Club agrees, strongly
agrees in fact, with EPA that the science supporting the
Aadministrator's finding that elevated concentrations of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the
public health and welfare of current and future U.S. generations is
robust, voluminous and compelling, and that action is both needed and
duly mandated in your Aact now.

		Now, the lion's share of stationary source greenhouse gas emissions
comes from just a few thousand very large facilities that ADOT mentions
in the tailoring law.  It is entirely appropriate that EPA's decided to
phase in control requirements, focusing initially only on these dominant
polluters, rather than on the 6 million sources that Mr. Feldman cited,
even though that -- he had no record whatsoever --(unintelligible).

		Now, because greenhouse gases are pollutants due to regulation under
the Clean Air Act, new facilities and facilities conducting major
construction projects are required to use the best available control
technology to limit their emissions and to obtain permits containing
these limitations before they begin construction.

		Many of these facilities deregulated, of course, have long experience
with this preconstruction permitting process and for other pollutants,
and it will readily adapt the additional responsibility.  And we expect
the technologies used to control greenhouse gases, including controlling
leaks, using more efficient boilers, to burning cleaner fuels -- and
I'd like to make that cited in our testimony -- will be familiar to
most emitters and will be relatively inexpensive to include in the
preconstruction planning process.  The states, moreover, have been
handling this process for decades and certainly the experience and
expertise to begin implementing these controls.

		I want to state briefly some of the concerns EPA has raised under a
10-year  old structure. (unintelligible).  I mean, it's absurd.

		Now, as to the counties, we agree with EPA that some state SIPs have
outdated language which may prevent them from including greenhouse gas
controls at that time.  Until these states update their plans, they will
not be able to issue preconstruction permits to polluters emitting
greenhouse gases.  They would have to use Section 7477 --
(unintelligible).  We'd like to be recognized that there is no need for
that and that the states can avoid that.  And you have to make sure the
states continue their primary responsibility to control this emission.

		We have a chance to require EPA (unintelligible).  We also agree that
EPA has the authority to issue the SIP as soon as, in this instance,
(unintelligible).  We agree with EPA that the January 2, 2011 control
deadline is approaching quickly, and it makes sense to issue a SIP call
by December of this year and establish reasonable deadlines per Section
7410 (k)(5) and work with the states.  We also hope that many states
will take EPA's offer to take earlier deadlines.

		(Unintelligible.)

		MS. SUTTON:  Segall testimony.  Thank you.

		Next registered speaker, Janet Phoenix.

		DR. PHOENIX:  Good morning.  My name is Dr. Janet Phoenix.  I'm
executive director for the Coalition for Environmentally Safe
Communities.  CESC is an EPA grantee through the collaborative
problem-solving grant process, and we coordinate a coalition of
organizations here in the District of Columbia called the D.C.
Environmental Health Collaborative.  And I'm here in that capacity,
although I'm also an assistant professor in the Department of Health
Policy at George Washington University in the School of Public Health,
but that's for identification purposes only.  I'm not here speaking on
GW's behalf this morning.

		I'm really here on behalf of the D.C. Environmental Health
Collaborative to encourage the adoption of very strict enforcement
policies and the adoption of this proposed rule.  It's our viewpoint,
speaking on behalf of children here in the District of Columbia, that we
are in favor of the most protective process possible to ensure positive
health outcomes for children.

		It is our concern that exposure to pollutants is a hazard and has
resulted in adverse health effects, particularly childhood asthma, here
in the District.  But this also has an impact on the health of the
elderly as well, people with chronic conditions, co-morbid conditions
such as congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease.  And so we're in favor of the most protected environment
possible to ensure the least exposure for these vulnerable populations.

		As you are probably well aware, African American and Hispanic children
are disproportionately impacted by poor air quality, which has been
associated with asthma, increases in exacerbations, attacks, but also
has been implicated in the development of this disease and may be, in
part, responsible for differences that we see in the incidence of this
disease in African American and Hispanic populations, particularly those
who live in urban areas.

		So, therefore, I would encourage the Aagency to be forthcoming, to
help protect children living in the District of Columbia and the areas
of concern, but also in other areas of the country, other cities, and
other urban areas where vulnerable populations may live.  And so I'm
speaking specifically on behalf of vulnerable populations in the
District of Columbia, but generally on behalf of vulnerable populations
across the country, to take this protective approach and do what's
appropriate.  It's long overdue.  Thank you.

		MS. SUTTON:  Thank you.  Phoenix testimony.

		Our next registered speaker is not scheduled until 10:00.

		If Andy Wilson would like to speak now or wait until 10:00?  Andy
Wilson?

		We'll adjourn the hearing for a break, resuming at 10:00 a.m.  Thank
you.

		(Whereupon, a recess was taken.)

		MS. SUTTON:  Again, good morning.  My name is Lisa Sutton.  I'm with
the New Source Review Group in EPA's Air Quality Policy Division in the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.  Joining me on the panel
is Anna Wood, also from OAQPQS.

		We'll reopen this public hearing.  If you weren't here for the
opening, I'll ask that you please state your name and your affiliation
when you come to the podium to speak to present your testimony.  It
would also help the court reporter in preparing our transcript if you
spell your name.  If you wish to speak but are not already registered to
speak, please check in with our staff at the table located just outside
the entrance to this room.

		Our next registered speaker, Andy Wilson.

		MR. WILSON:  Good morning.  Ms. Sutton and other members of this
distinguished board.  My name is Andy Wilson.  I'm a public citizen,
specifically Public Citizen's Texas office, where I'm a climate change
analyst.

		It's my pleasure to be here today on this great anniversary, the 40th
anniversary of the signing of the Clean Air Act, and give comment on the
creation of the state implementation programs and federal implementation
programs on greenhouse gases.

		Public Citizen is a nationwide, non-profit consumer advocacy group,
founded in 1971, and our office in Texas has been opened since 1985. 
Because energy is oftentimes, depending on where you are in the
socioeconomic ladder, anywhere from the second to your fifth largest
family expense that you pay every month, we view energy as a prime
consumer issue, and climate change, because of its likely impacts on the
energy sector, an equally important consumer issue.

		Public Citizen Texas has been at the forefront of advocating for
renewable energy and the push for renewable portfolio standards and
other alternative energy programs within the state of Texas, which has
led to Texas being the number one builder of green energy in the United
States.  However, Texas presents a challenge for federal greenhouse gas
rules for the following reasons.

		First, we're the number one emitter of greenhouse gases in the
country, so much so that we are double what the next closest state is,
which I believe is Pennsylvania.  This is in large part due to the
presence of the oil and gas industry in our state and the large number
of refinery and petrochemical plants in the state, and also our reliance
upon coal-fired power due to the vagaries of being in our own separate
grid and even tough (unintelligible) market.

		To give you an idea of the scale of our greenhouse gas emissions,
depending on your accounting andin your year, we're between the sixth
and the eighth largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, just
the state of Texas, if you were to think of Texas as our own separate
country, which brings me to the second problem of Texas, and that is
that many people, including some of our highest politicians, view Texas
as its own separate country.

		Texas has, to put it lightly, a troubled history with the Clean Air
Act, and many of these recent issues go back to the previous
administration, the Bush administration, and recently, including
disapproval of our Flex permitting program, and just last week,
disapproving several other portions of our permitting program, including
minor source-backed issues.

		Furthermore, you have the recent communications between officials in
the state of Texas and the EPA, including a letter from the Texas
attorney general, Greg Abbott, and TCEQ commissioner, Bryan Shaw, just
last month stating that they had no intention of implementing any
federal greenhouse gas rules.  Now, we can't discount that this is just
election year bluster; however, it is likely that even if these are just
candidates trying to pick a fight with fFederal gGovernment, that should
they be returned to office, it's probable that they will attempt to
enact the same policies that are, after all, up and running.

		Regardless of whether Texas decides to create a state implementation
plan for greenhouse gases or fails to do so and goes forfeit, we ask for
the same.  We ask that the Clean Air Act be followed.  And we are here
to call for that because in so many cases, Texas has not been asked to
follow the Clean Air Act, or has not been forced to follow the Clean Air
Act, as evidenced by many of our programs, which are now being
disapproved.

		Since it is likely that Texas will be one of the only -- although I
am told now that Wyoming has said they will also not create a state
program.  But we are one of the only that will refuse to create a state
implementation program.  We ask you to examine Texas's specific place in
the greenhouse gas, green world.  And our greenhouse gas
emissions -- create rules that are tailored to those specific issues,
specifically relating to refineries, petrochemical facilities,
coal-fired power.  And in any proposed FIP, that you would do the same
with the state implementation program.  We asked that you would do this
not only because of the different types of emissions that we have, but
because of our primvacy in the world of greenhouse gas emissions.

		We would ask that with any federal implementation program, that there
will be no grandfathering of any facilities.  In many cases, we have
fought grandfathering from other rules and we want to keep that from
happening, with many of our oldest and biggest pollutant plants.

		There's also the question of attainment versus non-attainment.  Since
it is increasingly obvious from the scientific evidence that we've
already passed what is considered by many scientists to be the safe
level of greenhouse gas emissions, it's obvious that we will have to
create just one standard for non-attainment, and be prepared, to some
extent, for perpetual non-attainment because of the long-lived nature of
carbon dioxide because of greenhouse gas.  And so we ask for very
stringent standards so that we can not only curb the growth of our
emissions, but eventually get to a place where we can begin to cut down,
and where we return to a safer level below 370 or 350 parts per million
in the atmosphere.

		It's probable that in order to do this rule, we have to employ other
measures beyond just new source review.  If you have any leeway as for
further arrows in your quiver, we believe that it might be smart to
create a kind of cash for clunkers program for coal-fired power because
it is likely that in many cases that will mean fuel switching to natural
gas or to wood pellets, or some other form of fuel, and that's going to
require a retrofit.  And if there were a pool of money set aside to be
able to help plants cut their emissions in the best way possible and
modernize a very old fleet of coal-fired power plants, that would be
something we would support.

		That's my testimony for today, and I thank you for your time.

		MS. SUTTON:  Thank you very much.

		This is your opportunity to register to speak at this time.  If we
have no additional registered speakers, we have a long lull this morning
until our lunch break.  If you don't sign up now, we'll close the
hearing at this point.  We open at 2 p.m.

		(Pause.)

		MS. SUTTON:  For now, the hearing is closed.		(Whereupon, a recess was
taken.)

		MS. SUTTON:  Our next speaker will be Antigone Ambrose.

		MS. AMBROSE:  Good morning.  My name is Antigone Ambrose.

		[30- second audio gap: Ms. Ambrose identified herself and her
affiliation with the Sierra Club and its support for the proposed
rulemaking.]

		(Whereupon, at 10:32 a.m., a lunch recess was taken.)

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

A F T E R N O O N  S E S S I O N

(2:00 p.m.)

		MS. SUTTON:  I'll run through the introduction more briefly than this
morning.

		Thank you all for attending this public hearing held by the U.S. EPA. 
We're holding this hearing to take comment on EPA's proposed rulemaking
entitled, Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits uUnder the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan.  This proposes a federal
implementation plan that would apply as early as January 2, 2011 in any
state that is unable to submit a state implementation plan, or SIP,
revision, to ensure that the state has authority to issue permits under
the PSD program for sources of greenhouse gas emissions.  This proposed
rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on September 2, 2010,
at page 53883.

		My name is Lisa Sutton.  I'm an environmental engineer in the New
Source Review Group in EPA's Air Quality Policy Division of the Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, and I'm chairing today's hearing.

		To recap my formal introduction of this morning, at today's hearing,
we're accepting oral comments on our proposed FIP, and we'll be
preparing a written transcript of this hearing.  The transcript will be
available to the public as part of the official record of this rule, and
EPA will consider both oral comments and written comments as we move
forward in the rulemaking process.

		We're accepting written comments on the proposed rule until
October 14, 2010, and we have a fact sheet available in the
registration area that summarizes our proposed action, and it includes
detailed information for submitting written comments.

		If you wish to speak but have not already registered to do so, please
check in with our staff at the registration table -- we can
accommodate you -- located just outside the entrance to this room.  We
intend to stay until either 6 p.m. this evening or one hour after the
last registered speaker has spoken, whichever is earlier.

		Again, thank you for participating in our public hearing today.  I'll
reopen the floor for oral testimony.

		Our first speaker scheduled, Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel.  If you'd come to
the podium, we'd ask that you state your name and affiliation.  And it
will help our court reporter if you could spell your name as well.

		DR. EKWURZEL:  Good afternoon.  I'm Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel.  I'm a
climate scientist and assistant director of Climate Research and
Analysis at the Union of Concerned Scientists.  Thank you for hearing my
testimony today.

		On behalf of our members, the Union of Concerned Scientists supports
EPA efforts to ensure state permitting programs comply with the
administration's regulations on industrial sources of greenhouse gas
emissions.  Such programs would be in line with the best available
science, which indicates the need for urgent actions to reduce global
warming emissions.  Unabated, overloading our atmosphere with
heat-trapping gases poses significant risks to human life, health and
well-being.

		Today is the 40th anniversary of the Clean Air Act, and over the last
40 years, this law has saved hundreds of thousands of American lives and
has allowed the government to keep up with the best available science on
air pollution.  In your report series, the Benefits and Costs of the
Clean Air Act, it projects that in 2010 alone, the Clean Air Act is
likely to save, on average, 23,000 lives and prevent nearly a million to
over 2 million asthma attacks, and, on average, 4 million lost work
days, and between 23,000 and 144,000 hospitalizations and/or emergency
room visits.  In its first two decades alone, it created benefits valued
at over $22  trillion.  That's 42 times greater than the estimated cost
of its regulations.

		Climate change has the potential to risk countless lives in the U.S. 
According to the National Weather Service, between 2000 and 2009,
fatalities from heat, hurricanes and floods were the top three dangerous
natural hazards for the U.S. citizens.  Excessive heat can kill us.  We
can overheat if our steady, core body temperature of 98.6 degrees
Fahrenheit rises with sustained skin temperatures above 95 degrees
Fahrenheit.  If our skin is not sufficiently colder than our core, the
body cannot cool itself by conducting metabolic heat to the skin.  Once
the heat is transferred to the skin, then a breeze or low humidity are
critical for sweat to evaporate and help us cool down.

		Despite modern technology and emergency response measures, heatwaves
in Chicago and Europe in 1995 and 2003 still took an excessive toll,
with over 35,000 deaths.  Researchers estimated it is very likely, with
greater than 90 percent confidence level, that the role of
human-induced climate change doubled the risk of exceeding the average
2003 summer temperature in Europe.

		Shifts in precipitation also threaten human health.  On average, in
the United States, the amount of rain or snow falling in the heaviest
1 percent of storms has increased nearly 20 percent, almost three times
the rate of increase in total precipitation since 1958.  For some
regions of the United States, these percentages can go up as high as
67 percent increase in the amount of rain or snow falling in the
heaviest precipitation events.  This is a well-known consequence of a
warming planet that has both increased the evaporation rates, delivering
more water to a warmer atmosphere that can hold higher relative
humidity.

		In places where rain or snow occur, light precipitation events are
dropping less rain or snow on average, and heavier precipitation events
are dropping more rain or snow on average.  Ironically, this trend
creates conditions that are more likely to produce both intense drought
periods punctuated by floods, often in the same region.

		A study by Ashley & Ashley in 2008 analyzed flood fatalities between
1959 and 2005 in the contiguous United States, excluding those from
Hurricane Katrina.  Texas had the largest total number of fatalities
from flash floods and river floods over the study period.  When
standardized for population, South Dakota, Mississippi, West Virginia
and Montana have the largest fatalities per 100,000 people from
flooding.

		Those between the ages of 10 and 29 and over 60 years old were
disproportionately at risk.  Although human behavior contributed to
these flood statistics, there is strong evidence that conditions that
put people most at risk in the first place, flash floods, are due, in
part, to the shift in the baseline to more extreme precipitation events
in a warming world.

		This makes me wonder if it is entirely honest to call these natural
hazards.  This gives a false impression, as it does not acknowledge the
growing role of climate change and shifting the baseline conditions
within which weather events spawn.  There can be no doubt that when a
storm forms over an ocean, or over a valley, the initial conditions of
local sea surface temperature and atmospheric humidity are intimately
linked to a warmer planet compared to a hundred years ago.

		We must improve our weather warning systems, emergency response plans,
public health, education, and so on.  It is entirely prudent for the
Environmental Protection Agency to address the root cause, greenhouse
gas emissions, that are causing the climate to change even further. 
Extreme weather events are increased in severity, and this is only the
very beginning of what we risk if we allow heat-trapping gases to
accumulate in the atmosphere.

		According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program Report in 2009,
the 1- in- 20-year heavy downpour is expected to be between 10 and 25
percent heavier by the end of the century than it is now.  According to
studies published in the Journal of Science and Nature, if heat-trapping
emissions continue to [] unabated, a heatwave similar to the 2003 event
could occur every other year in Europe by the end of this century and be
considered quite an ordinary summer, which is considered quite
extraordinary in today's climate.  And remember, this heatwave took
between 35,000 and 50,000 lives.

		It is extremely important that the EPA comply with the requirements
under the Clean Air Act to take over permitting programs for states that
can't or won't comply with greenhouse gas rules.  The Clean Air Act has
been so successful because, on its heart, it is driven by the best
available science.  Historically, the Clean Air Act has been used to
respond to scientific findings about the dangers of exposure to smog,
lead, particulate matter, and acid rain.  Now, we know that overloading
our atmosphere with carbon dioxide is dangerously altering our climate
and threatening public health, including more extreme weather events and
as a catalyst for the creation of more ground-level ozone or smog, a
conventional pollutant when fossil fuel emissions are present at similar
levels.

		Nearly all the studies to date find that more heat-trapping gases in
the atmosphere mean more likely risks of severe events that are most
threatening to human life.  Knowing that future studies will only refine
this general trend implies that, as a society, we would be wise to
improve plans to adapt to what historic heat-trapping emissions have
already locked in for the next couple decades, and at the same time,
reduce global warming emissions so that the following decades do not put
even more lives at risk.

		We hope that the states will meet their deadlines in preparing their
plans for upcoming greenhouse gas regulations, and that the EPA will
move forward on their own if the states cannot meet their deadline.  By
holding up the requirements of the Clean Air Act, the Environmental
Protection Agency can live up to its name and protect the citizens of
the United States, and perhaps many people around the world, by
implementing sound regulations to swiftly and deeply reduce national
global warming emissions.  Thank you.

		MS. SUTTON:  Thank you.  That was Ekwurzel's testimony.

		We have only one other registered speaker this afternoon.  That's
William Snape.

		MR. SNAPE:  Good afternoon, Ms. Sutton, EPA, members in the audience. 
I am senior counsel with the Center for Biological Diversity.  We're
based in Tucson, Arizona.  We have a climate law institute in San
Francisco, California.  We'll be submitting written comments that will
be much more detailed than the overview I will give this afternoon.  To
the extent there is any contradiction between the two, and I don't
imagine there would be, I think our written comments will be the
comments that we will eventually adhere to.

		I should note that I'm also a practitioner in residence at the
American University Law School, the Washington College of Law.  I have
looked at the Clean Air Act, both as a practitioner and as a professor. 
I have studied it for over 20 years.  And like my preceding speaker, I
do want to talk about the factual context in which we are having this
discussion.  This is ultimately a very legalistic set of questions
you're presenting, and I appreciate that, and I will attempt to answer
those questions.  But I think why it matters and what the point is for
this effort is highly relevant.

		Building upon the Union of Concerned Scientists' spokesperson's
testimony, we are seeing example after example,; just even within the
last year, and certainly within the last decade, of the deleterious
impact global warming and associated climate change are having upon not
only the natural world but also human beings specifically.

		We are seeing sea level rise.  We are seeing and predicting sea level
rise will continue to accelerate.  We are seeing floods in Pakistan;
heatwaves in Russia; storms such as Hurricane Katrina, certainly not
limited to,; a prolonged drought in the Colorado River Basin, for which
much of the West depends upon their livelihood; predictions that a third
of Florida may be under water by the year 2100; a melting arctic that is
warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet; chunks of Ggreenland
and Antarctica breaking away from their continental base.  The examples
go on and on.

		From the Ccenter's point of view, we have traditionally focused on
plants and animals and their natural habitats.  That was how the
organization was founded.  There's no doubt that biological diversity as
we know it is absolutely being negatively impacted by global warming and
climate change and that this climate change, as I said, is having a
negative impact upon humans, and will only get worse.  So that is the
factual context, and that's why we're here.

		What's interesting about the proposal -- and by the way, I should
just note, quite straightforwardly and for the record, that we strongly
support EPA's move to fully implement the Clean Air Act to address
climate change.  We think the plain language of the statute in the
legislative history makes it clear that the Aagency has full authority
to do so.  The Supreme Court has already affirmed that authority, and I
think public opinion is on your side as well.

		It's ironic that as I stand here today, there are efforts in
Congress -- which I know are not relevant to this hearing today, but
actually in some ways still are relevant to this, at least
potentially -- to somehow abridge the authority of the Environmental
Protection Agency.  And we can't predict right now what will happen with
that, and it's outside the purview of this particular hearing.  But the
reason I raise it is that it's indicative of the backlash that industry
is engineering.  And by industry, I mean the coal industry, the oil
industry, the American Petroleum Institute, the Chamber of Commerce, who
look at things oin a quarterly, for-profit basis and are not looking at
the annual decade- and century-long impacts that this will have upon the
United States and the rest of the world.

		So that's the context in which EPA is proposing these actions and
hasve finalized some of the actions they've already finalized, such as
the tailoring rule, which I'm going to talk about in a little bit. 
EPA's absolutely under incredible pressure from these industrial
interests, but I would opine, and I think the public opinion polls back
me up, that the public, when presented with the facts in a clear way, is
behind EPA, and is behind the Clean Air Act, which has not only
science-based standards but flexibility as well.  The best available
control technology standard as an example for stationary sources is
ultimately a very flexible standard for which the Aagency is given
deference, in general, and for which it can take into account
socioeconomic issues, to the extent that they are relevant.  So I think
the Clean Air Act is perfectly situated to address greenhouse gases and
greenhouse pollutants, such as black carbon.

		One last threshold matter -- actually, two more -- before I get
into the question that was actually presented.  The first is that the
Ccenter has an outstanding petition before the Aagency, where we would
like to see the Aagency enunciate a global greenhouse pollution cap
under the NAAQS program.  We think the NAAQS program and the statute has
language whereby the Aagency could apportion various levels of
greenhouse pollutants from each of the states and for the country as a
whole, so that, for instance, we were not "carrying China's load" but
taking the proportion of pollution that we emit.  We think as a general
matter, the United States needs a national greenhouse pollution cap, and
we believe EPA already has the authority to establish one.

		The next statement that I make actually demonstrates another point
that will be relevant as I now head into the legal part of my
presentation, which is that you have to look at the Clean Air Act in its
entirety, all of its provisions.  Whether it be mobile sources,
stationary sources, new source review, new source performance standards,
NAAQS, hazardous pollutants, et cetera, they each are in different
sections of the Act and have different regulations that adhere to them,
but they are interrelated.  They work together.  And so, many of the
things I will talk about legally today are related to NAAQS and are
related to themselves in many ways.

		We supported the Aagency's endangerment finding.  Congratulations on
that.  That was long overdue by the previous administration, which
dragged its heels.

		In terms of the specific question that has been presented on the
Federal Implementation Plan, go forth.  Implement fully.  Use all your
authorities.  I think there are some states, such as Connecticut and
California, that are making good-faith attempts right now to deal with
how their state implementation will deal with the federal Aact. 
Certainly, I think the Aagency ought to work with those states.

		I think there are other states, such as Alaska and Texas, that are
being quite recalcitrant, and I think the EPA ought to use its powers to
the fullest extent, particularly in Texas, where I think the governor's
comments have been unconstructive, and ultimately illegal, to
demonstrate under the supremacy clause of the Constitution that it is
the fFederal gGovernment, under the laws that Congress passed, that
implements this statute and will dictate the terms if the state will not
or cannot.  Those are just two examples.

		In terms of the tailoring rule, which is in litigation right now, the
beginning of litigation, as I think some of you know, the Ccenter, and
myself personally, I agree with the philosophy of the tailoring rule. 
And by the philosophy, I mean that I believe the Aagency has the
authority, and that it logistically makes no sense for EPA to begin
regulating households, small businesses, schools and the like.  And I
think the tailoring rule, as an overview, attempts to effectuate that
goal.

		However, when you read the final tailoring rule, which I believe is
weaker than the proposed rule -- but when you read the final tailoring
rule in conjunction with the Johnson memo and the Jackson memo, which
has now postdated the Johnson memo -- some of this stuff gets pretty
wonky and acronymed fast.  So I'm calling it the Jackson memo, the most
recent iteration of the Johnson memo.

		Unfortunately, I think because of the aforementioned industry pressure
I discussed, there has been a backtrack at some of the thresholds.  And
so now, for instance, entities such as coal-burning power plants, such
as industrial boilers, such as oil refineries, that are between 25,000
tons of carbon dioxide and 75,000 tons -- or 74,999 tons per year of
carbon dioxide -- get a free pass until at least 2016 under the
tailoring rule and the Jackson memo, read in combination.  And, in fact,
under the Jackson memo, it appears, through our reading, that EPA could
punt indefinitely on those sources.  And just to put it in the context,
even 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide is a lot of pollution.  We think the
threshold could be perhaps lower.

		So we're not talking about mMom- and-p Pop shops emitting 50,000 tons
of carbon dioxide a year.  None of us in this room, cumulatively, in our
individual lives, come anywhere close to that, despite the rhetoric we
hear and the fear-mongering by some of those industrial lobbyists.

		One of the things that EPA could also do most immediately, in addition
to regulating some of these not mega polluters but still the very big
polluters that this 25- to 75,000-ton threshold shows, as I was just
discussing, is to be more aggressive on fast-acting greenhouse
pollutants, such as black carbon and methane.  I'm not totally pleased
with how the Aagency dealt with black carbon in the endangerment
finding.  We'll see how that plays itself out.  Other rules that EPA is
promulgating seems to be addressing black carbon, and that is good.

		I've told the Aagency and the State Department, and anyone else who
will listen, that black carbon reductions around other parts of the
world -- China, Indian, Pakistan, to name three -- reducing their
black carbon would have tremendous public health benefits, tremendous
global warming abatement benefits, American economic opportunities, and
I think if you think about those three countries, and there are others,
some diplomatic benefits as well.  Those are three of the highest black
carbon-emitting countries in the world.

		Methane.  We could be regulating methane today if we wanted to be, and
I think we should be more aggressive.  Methane does not stay in the
atmosphere as long as carbon dioxide, so reducing it would actually have
a positive impact in the short term and would give us some time to deal
with carbon dioxide.  And it also is 22 times more powerful than carbon
dioxide.  So methane from landfills, from agricultural operations and
the like should be addressed right away.

		So, in conclusion, interpret the Act and implement the Act to its
fullest, EPA.  I know it's hard.  I know it's not always easy
politically.  But it's the right thing to do, and you have the legal
authority to do so.  The Clean Air Act has the flexibility and the
scientific standards.  The rule of law and the weight of history is on
your side.  Thank you.

		MS. SUTTON:  Thank you.  That was Mr. Snape's testimony.

		I don't believe we have any other registered speakers.  For this
reason, I will close the floor to public testimony, adjourn, until 3:30
at the latest, at which point we will conclude today's public hearing. 
So, thank you.

		(Whereupon, a recess is taken.)

		MS. SUTTON:  This is Lisa Sutton.  The time is approximately 3:40 p.m.
 We will now conclude this public hearing.  Thank you.

		(Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the hearing was concluded.)

//

//

//

//

//

//

//	CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

	I, JANET EVANS-WATKINS, do hereby certify that the foregoing
proceedings were taken by me and thereafter reduced under my direction
to typewritten form; that this transcript is a true record of the
proceedings; that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by
any of the parties to this action; and, further, that I am not a
relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties
hereto, nor financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of this
action.

	                  JANET EVANS-WATKINS

                         Digital Reporter

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

___________________________________________________________________

HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION

Official Reporters

1220 L Street, NW  Suite 600

Washington, DC  20005

contracts@hrccourtreporters.com

  PAGE  1 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

	  PAGE \*Arabic  45 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888