Committee Democrats React to EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(Washington, DC) – Today, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held a hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). CSAPR requires eastern and central states to significantly improve air quality by reducing power plant emissions that contribute to ground level ozone and fine particle pollution in "down-wind" states. It replaces the EPA's 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the EPA to revise in 2008.
In her opening statement, Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) said, “This is a very complex and contentious regulatory issue… But the principle is simple, and embodied in the Clean Air Act’s “Good Neighbor” provision. Air pollution doesn’t stop at the state or city line, and when the pollution from one state affects the air quality in another, measures should be taken to mitigate that impact…the hard part is figuring out how. This is why we have an EPA, and why Congress and a Republican President passed the Clean Air Act – to identify threats to the environment and public health, and determine the fairest and most cost-effective ways to remedy them. However, as much as we might wish for a world where big environmental issues are addressed voluntarily by industry or through the workings of the free market, or are best-regulated by the individual states, we all know that it just does not work that way. Now, more than ever, the American people need a strong EPA to protect their rights to clean air and water.”
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (D-MD), Ranking Member of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee, echoed Ms. Johnson’s statement. She said, “While Maryland has some of the toughest power plant emissions rules along the East Coast, one of the challenges that Maryland faces is that we are not a state that is an island on its own. We need the EPA to be able to take a broad look across state boundaries because air and pollution travel across those boundaries. It makes sense that the EPA has taken this on to balance those interests and ensure the public health of all Americans.”
Ms. Johnson expressed some concern with the rulemaking process,“[W]hile I will always be a strong defender of EPA’s charge to protect public health and the environment, I am concerned about their process for the inclusion of Texas in the final transport rule. As indicated in the letter my colleagues from Texas and I sent to OMB, some important affected parties in Texas feel that they did not have sufficient opportunity to comment. These parties will likely have difficulty meeting the timeline of the final rule. I simply feel that stakeholders need more time to work with EPA on an economically responsible solution. A solution I know we can reach.”
Ms. Johnson further clarified her position, “[D]o not mistake my position on this single issue as standing with Texas Governor Perry or others in the Republican party in the misguided and disingenuous war on the dedicated scientists and public servants at the EPA… I stand with the people of Texas who, regardless of where they fall in the partisan divide, universally agree that they have a right to clean air and water, and that respiratory diseases, heart attacks, and premature deaths are not part of the sacrifice we have to make for the sake of the “Texas Miracle”. Air quality-related illnesses have very real and destructive effects on the economy – on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars annually - and the benefits for reducing those effects will be seen throughout the country.
Ms. Johnson closed her opening statement by saying, “[M]y position on the specific issue of Texas’ inclusion in the final transport rule is clear – Texas needs more time to consider the full implications of the rule, to submit comments to EPA, and possibly to prepare for implementation. Too many jobs in my state are at stake in the short-term. However, my position on the protection of public health through higher air and water quality standards, and our ability to meet those standards through home-grown innovation, should be equally clear and never in question. The sooner we learn that we do not have to sacrifice jobs for a cleaner environment, the sooner we will see a more robust economy and a healthier public. Two things we should all look forward to.”
Related Content
Next Article Previous Article