Obama Administration Rules on methane and ozone pollution. In addition, Democratic Committee members pressed mr. Pruitt about his travel expenses and views on Climate Change. This is two hours. I want to thank my colleagues were coming back as quickly as we could and asked the staff to get the center doors closed and other members staff, someone . The subcommittee will come to order. When we recess it was mr. Mckinleys turn to be recognized. With that, i want to recognize the gentleman from West Virginia private. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you administering her for participating in this. Over the years we have asked your predecessor now, mine is up. Come here. We asked your predecessors to come to a particularly as it relates to section 321 a. To see the impact and some of the regulations were having in the coldfield. They declined to do that but i am appreciative of the fact that one week ago or two weeks ago the epa you sent other folks came to West Virginia to get the impact of what these regulations are having because it is pretty clear in the statute that we have to abide by the economic impact. We have to take that into consideration and they didnt do that and i know that you might have had that conversation that you want to follow the law clearly and i know a federal judge is already ruled that the epa in the past considered them discretionary and not mandatory and i think your position ive heard is that you think they are mandatory and you tend to abide by them. Am i correct . Yes, cognizant. We did indicate that he sent representatives to us in virginia as part of the proposed withdrawal and i think it is important that that is rulemaking process. We talked this morning about the withdrawal of the clean powerplant and as i indicated earlier it was jurisdictional as the basis and that was rulemaking process. That rulemaking process means that we go out and solicit and receive comments from across the country. Were not to be just in West Virginia. Will be in wyoming and San Francisco and kansas city and across current of viewpoints and perspective to this issue. Its boring we all are voices in the process is ongoing. I particularly update the fact you sent people to the coldfield to understand the impact of those regulations were doing when 86000 coalminers lost their job during the Obama Administration and no one paid attention and no one came to those communities find out what the impact of another regulation that was going to the modern business and part of the question is have they been able to debrief you . What were some of the issues and what were the points that were raised. Quite a few comments were offered handles multiple hours of information and again across current information we are reviewing and i think congressman you hit it on a report matters with respect to the cost of the clean powerplant and that something that came out in the process of West Virginia. I know you made a commitment and you said youre going back to tackling the fundamentals of rulemaking and is there something that we should be doing in congress to make sure that we dont revert back to that old way of just an ideology rather than science . There are things we done recently that are important to the process that i talked to earlier. For many years the apa the administrative procedures act that governs how we do rulemaking is not been followed as closely as it should. Weve used guidance as forms of rules at times which i think subverts the voices that we heard on substantive action with a gauge of litigation regulation through litigation and we talk about a practice that impact the state Implementation Plan to concentrate with air quality and so there is much we need to do to ensure that we respect the process to make sure that rulemaking is adhered to. Excuse me, the apa is adhered to as engaged in rulemaking. Is there something you would suggest because that has been on the books that they were supposed to do that that we thought eight years were they did not follow that, is there something we should do to tighten up that . I think that anytime an agency and not just the epa but any agency of the executive branch that engages in litigation that changes statutes and timelines a congress that are taking discretionary duties and make it nondiscretionary, as an example, that is something that should be dealt with by congress and i think speaking to that to the application is helpful. Thank you. Are you back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california for five minutes. Thank you for being here. I wanted to ask you about the missing rule. The epa has an effort to control dangerous methane pollution from the oil and gas administrative and a commonsense rule as they put our Natural Gas Resources into rather than wastefully linking them and it should boost and is the Energy Supply including smog and air toxic and Greenhouse Gases in the estimated benefit of capturing [inaudible]s 2 billion annually. Do you support this rule and if not, without it, what would you do to have helped with waste aghast . The way weve dealt with methane is the volatile compounds as we regulated the docs methane has been a part of that bundle. What happened with that particular rule is epa for the first time pulled methane out of the bundle and regulated it separately. We havent taken action on that as you know as far as a substantive rule itself that there are complaint states that are forthcoming that have been extended and thats been the focus up until now but i think theres a meaningful debate, discussion that should occur about whether the rule should be focused on a bundle approach or whether methane should be pulled out. Methane is very valuable and companies dont like to flare methane because it can be captured and used in other ways and its very multiple if you will. I think having a rule in place that incentivizes that in ensures that we approach it in the statute is something we should look at. You said and i thank you and secretary perry have both made appearances on cnbc and he said Carbon Dioxide is not a primary driver intruding to change. It said differently that co2 is not the only contributor to Climate Change and you agree that methane and nitrous oxide and other Greenhouse Gases are air pollutants . Absolutely. Absolutely. They are more prone than co2. Methane is more potent than co2 in that regard. So it appears to me and emphasize the importance of the process but the object is reduced methane and nitrous oxide and other Greenhouse Gases what is the strategy where a part of a bundle or not a part in how should we go about controlling and reducing. That distinction matters. I think that as we look at the statutory framework and how methane should be regulated the question whether it should be part of the bundle is a significant question and thats what we are evaluating. Again, the focus of the first ten months has been on those compliant states and, as you know, the rule effect is presently and thats been the primary focus. As we go forward the discussion and the focus will be on what needs to be a part of the bundle or not. I understand the point you make about whether its part of the bundle but whichever avenue we take, whether part of the bundle or not, how would we go about reducing methane . If you look at the wellhead and you speed the companys in the flaring practices that have gone on historically and best Management Practices that can be deployed by companies to ensure and there is not in incentive for companies to waste methane. It something that can be used in very valuable and we need to recognize that and encourage in incentivizes. Right, one of the things we noticed has many benefits and the price of natural gas has gone down so perhaps the incentive to lose that cheap gas isnt as great as it might have been to force the control that you mention a couple things like looking at the wellhead in support, substantively what is the method rule is the right kind of approach to do that . I think it is best that in the rule making process of support that i dont prejudge outcomes i think it will be important to take common on those issues Going Forward. Do intend to start from zero or you intend to put out the methane rule for additional comments . How do you intend. It means you have to be determined. Well, i would say weve made progress on it and theres understanding within the industry that natural gas can be better burning fuel than some fuels we use we had to control methane to get the benefit out of it, Climate Change standpoint and thats what we should be. Thank you, congressman. Gentleman yelled back the tide. The gentleman from texas is not organized five minutes. I think the chair and welcome in ministry to pruitt. My Congressional District texas 22 may be the biggest one in america. Right now we have 850,000 people and growing quickly. The majority of these people wanted me to tell you thank you, thank you, thank you for making epa what should have been an agency in dc that works with local governments, private sectors with cleaner air and clean water. Thanks for that. They are pressured him by the last eight years and administration has become a combatant and kept us from getting cleaner air and clean the water. Were thrilled to have you here. Theyve gotten tired things we can achieve as human beings. Technology is unavailable yet demanded. We have lawsuits to sue and settle and thats gone. Thank you for that. There many frustrations back home and for one example the rss as you know i had long and serious concerns with the rss. I hope this action will make this matter to take care of this matter quickly but in the meantime until we act, guess what . You are on point. You a lot of leeway Going Forward. My question is how the concerns about the [inaudible] or even prices make your decisions about the 2018 targets. Well, a couple of things. Number one i was very appreciative to the agency of the work that was done to meet the deadline. Historically, as you know, the november 30th deadline to publish those obligations has been missed and it creates uncertainty. People do not know what is expected and affects Capital Outlay et cetera and so it was important to me that november 30th deadline and we did in fact do that. As we look at the volume obligations [inaudible] and the advance categories the focus is we try to focus our efforts on objective criteria whether the production levels and or demand. As an example, the most ever produced was [inaudible] about 180, 190 million gallons domestically but the volume had been set around. A million or so. When you said the levels artificially high it creates other problems elsewhere. I think in the Administration Statute its important on our agency to be as objective as possible and setting the volume obligations reflect true production levels. Bio based diesel is about 2. 6 billion, ive heard but the production levels are not eclipsed 2. 1 billion. There are a lot of questions and obviously around the administration and please know that i and we are committed to pursuant to that statutory framework that you have established but at the same time that statutory framework is challenging because the levels that have been set by statutes has never met and weve got a lot of challenge their. As senator barrasso asked the epa to complete a long overdue study on the impact of the rfs that is something required for the Clean Air Act in any update on the progress of the study . I have been briefed on that in the last couple of weeks weve begun the process to provide that study to congress. That is something that is statutory and needs to be done. Thank you. Also talk about hurricane harvey. It hit my district hard and it has twice basically. Talking with doctor brian shaw of the Environmental Quality he is quite pleased with the epa during the storm. He got deployed all over the gulf coast and the coast and inland and got acting pretty quickly and one concern is Going Forward its maybe the state revolving funds so how does that compare to texas and will you do that . Srs as you know is been used in a good way and connors ought to consider in hurricane rv and working, and whats going on in puerto rico. We petted officials from the epa across texas and florida as the storms approach to have realtime decisions made on the threat opposed to Drinking Water and superfund sites and chemical facilities and rest and it was an example of federalism and action between the state, local towns and cities of the Us Government working to address those issues. Im very thankful for the region six and region for which in relation to florida and it was good work by their folks and employees and the state level. Thank you. I think doctor shah was a great to mark the epa. One final thank you. [inaudible] you stepped up and said we will stop this so thank you. Yeah, i think its important mr. German that this is an example where we talked about superfund initiative and this is a site that is off of houston, texas off by ten and its in place there and its near a harbor goes through and the agency has been working with the state level and responsible parties for number of years and the solution has been to take a covering and put it over the side and pile rocks on the site and its been away for ten years so in houston in the september its totally unacceptable to have that temporary situation because potential hurricanes coming through and displacing those rocks. We provided a permanent solution there about 150 million of cost for the responsibilities would provide a permanent solution for the citizens and they have been pleased with the outcome. Gentleman times has expired. Let me go to the other member from texas for five minutes. Thank you for being here today. I have the district and i used to have in texas to keep changing our lines. I think it wasnt the olsons for a while and now its in [inaudible] we changed our lines in texas so i want to thank you for visiting right after harvey and seeing what was there and i appreciate the epa continuing to make sure we have a permanent fix there because the area is like you said large traffic and people crab and fish in that area and the city in the county and the state have spanish and english and the enemies and expectant mothers or small children should not eat the crabs of fish but i dont know if that they were there but every time i go everyone is fishing so thank you and hopefully we can move that as quickly as possible because its an Industrial Area but its also a Recreational Area because i have water skied in that area back when i was young and is there a contradiction and priorities of epa between the cleanup the superfund sites and the agencys commitment to the drastic cuts in the Superfund Program. I know the epas budget request was 30 cut in the Superfund Program and i know that may not affect [inaudible] because we have a responsible party but there a lot of superfund the dont have a responsible party. With the concern in fact, during the appropriations process i can date to our committee that if monies were necessary to address the orphaned sites we have orphan sites that make up the superfund portfolio that i would come and advise congress to advise and its very important as we go forward on superfund claimant that money not be the problem and how we get those cleanups. I will tell you that in my time evaluating the superfund portfolio is very few orphaned sites and most of it is just a lack of direction on how we should clean up. Several examples in chicago and i think one of the members earlier mentioned portland and where there is simply not just a direction on how to get accountability and cleanup with the responsible parties. Were trying to do both but i commit to you that if there are issues of sufficiency on funding with respect to that superfund priority we will ask you for help as we worked with the provisions process. Thank you. I know back in september the epa expected the general issue about the distribution about superfund fulltime. No one as result, some regions have to prioritize work or slow down, as you mentioned or discontinued. Are you aware of that oigs report . Directly talk to the Inspector General about this fund Going Forward and we have looked at some Management Issues that we did projects and sometimes we are not competitively bid and we sometimes are getting bids to take routinely i hear someone will take 15 or 20 years and i pushed back saying that perhaps that is not how long you to take and maybe the bid is just trying to prolong things as far as receiving funding for 15 or 20 years so were trying to get reform both and how we process and in how we bid out and do remediation but also making decisions early in the process make sure we get that accountability on outcomes. Since i come from the houston area where we have five refineries next question is the epa reduced [inaudible] i know many of my refiners in my district and along the gulf coast were disappointed and with the spinal number which you commit to lowering future rss and i know. Moment you understand. I cannot commit to certain outcomes to that process because of the rulemaking process but what i can tell you is what i shared earlier with the question, we will objectively determine each year with production levels look like and what theyre going to be over tracking those numbers now. Biofuel will take a challenge as a conventional and we were to meet said that at 2. 1 or higher and as i indicated we imported 700 million gallons from bio based from argentina so we ought not to be dependent on the people of argentina to meet a volume obligation that were setting domestically. That was something we will continue to look at but we cant prejudge those outcomes at this point. Every time i talked with my refiners the