STATEMENT
OF
U.S.
SENATOR JAMES JEFFORDS, I-VT
SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
AND
PUBLIC WORKS
Joint Hearing on New
Source Review Policy,
Regulations and Enforcement Activities
I am pleased to be here with my colleague and co-chair from
Vermont. I believe this is the first
joint Judiciary-EPW hearing ever held.
But, the gravity of the Administration’s actions on New Source Review,
or NSR, requires scrutiny on both legal and environmental grounds.
I am also glad to see one of my successors, Vermont Attorney
General William Sorrell, is here today.
I appreciate his willingness to testify along with the other
distinguished witnesses.
I wish we were meeting jointly on a happier occasion. But these changes in NSR regulations appear
to be the biggest regulatory rollback in the history of the Clean Air Act. They
seem designed to subvert the Federal government’s own enforcement actions that
would otherwise remove millions of tons of pollutants from the public’s air
space.
They also seem intended to give away the billions of dollars worth
of health benefits that NSR provides every year. Under these proposals, far fewer plants, maybe 50% or less, would
have to apply pollution controls.
In exchange for these giveaways, what would the public get? More premature deaths, more lung disease,
and more polluted landscapes. That
doesn’t seem like a fair trade to me.
I’d like to place in the Record a letter from Ben Rose of the Green
Mountain Club and the Hikers for Clean Air.
Their letter clarifies that such NSR changes will foul the air,
"shroud our state and national parks in haze," and acidify our lakes
and streams.
The basic concept of NSR is one of constant improvement. That means industry should emit less and
less pollution as time passes, as investments occur and as technology
develops. The Clean Air Act doesn’t
provide loopholes for non-routine maintenance or picking decades-old baselines
or any of the other loopholes that this Administration is trying to
finalize.
When "any physical change in a stationary source increases
the amount of any air pollutant by that source" then pollution controls
must be applied. That’s simple and
straightforward. And, it’s the law.
Unfortunately, aside from the dubious legality and the public
health costs of these proposed NSR changes, the Administration’s poor handling
of this matter has created an atmosphere of distrust.
Even if these proposals were legal or justified, I would be
suspicious.
To my knowledge, no attempt was made to reach consensus among the various stakeholders or consult with the Committees of jurisdiction before issuing this reform package. Overall, this has been a much different, much less open rulemaking process than the one used by the Clinton Administration.
This Administration seems to have largely ignored comments from
public health advocates and the states, while listening mainly to industry. The Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee’s legitimate requests for information on this matter and others have
been treated disrespectfully and disdainfully by this White House.
While the EPA has recently begun to provide information in
response to our December request, 90% of which is already in the public docket,
the Department of Energy has been very unresponsive.
We will be reviewing the additional material that EPA has promised
to deliver by the end of this week.
Then we will decide on whether a subpoena is necessary. I hope it doesn’t come to that, but this
White House may give the Committee and Congress little choice.
I will note, however, that I do not recognize any validity in the
Agency’s claim, made largely at the White House’s insistence, that the
documents we are requesting cannot be shared before the rules become
final. There is no precedent or
protection provided by statute or case law to defend that position.
I am saddened at what the White House is doing to the
Environmental Protection Agency. It
seems intent on gagging and binding this "independent" agency. This
prevents us from working together in any kind of productive and cooperative
manner. Even communication at the staff
level has been intentionally stifled.
More than a year ago, the President directed the Agency to prepare
a 3-pollutant legislative proposal. The
Agency developed and analyzed a proposal that it thought was defensible from an
air quality and public health perspective.
That "straw proposal" from August 2001 disappeared almost as
soon as it was floated.
Then, in February of this year, a new version of targets and
timetables was announced, one that looked quite different and substantially
less protective. But no environmental
or economic justification for those numbers had been done for the Congress or
the public to see. We still don’t have legislative language or any
comprehensive analysis or documentation on it.
NSR fits into a similar pattern.
The Clinton Administration did a draft regulatory impact analysis in
1996 with its proposed regulations.
Many years of stakeholder discussions took place where lots of
commentary and analysis was shared.
That Administration ended without a final rulemaking because of many
concerns, including environmental and legal questions.
In June of this year, this Administration announced its NSR reform
package. It did not conduct stakeholder
meetings on this rulemaking package. It
provided no final regulatory impact analysis or any environmental or public
health assessment. Worse yet, the
Agency’s staff indicated that no quantitative analysis had been done or would
be forthcoming. That doesn’t seem to
comport very well with the requirements of the Executive Order on regulatory
review, or with the EPA’s own internal documents.
This NSR reform package is a recipe for litigation. If these changes become final, they will be
overturned by the courts or perhaps by Congress. The Agency will not be due any deference in court on its expert
opinion, because it has not justified how these changes can improve and protect
public health.
Except for a brief period, Congress has counted on EPA to be the
"green" eye-shades people for thirty years. The Agency’s job is to make sure that pollution is
accounted for and reduced. The EPA is
supposed to keep corporate polluters honest and look out for the public good.
But
given these NSR changes and the White House’s anti-disclosure policy on
information, it is hard not to think that the executives are overruling the
"green" eye-shades people and trying to cook the books.
Instead
of greenbacks, we’re talking about millions of tons of pollution that severely
damages the health and welfare of the public.
Thank you.