President's FY 2027 Budget Request for Environmental Protection Agency

Well, I want to gavel in and I want to say good afternoon to the Administrator, Administrator Zeldin. I would have come down to shake your hand, but we're running a little behind in consideration. I'll just wave to you and and thank you for being here. Uh, I appreciate your time and willingness to appear before the committee as always. Over the last year, w- uh, we have sent, uh, a clear change. We have seen a clear change in the direction of EPA. one that is grounded in EPA's author- authorizing statutes and recognizes the importance of reliable, affordable energy. That change matters no matter where you live, in what state, and certainly no different from my state of West Virginia. In November, thank you very much. During your visit to West Virginia, you heard firsthand about the real economic benefits that are resulting from the regulatory relief efforts in Congress and with the Trump administration. Administrator Zeldin, thank you. Thank you for taking the time to talk to my constituents and understand how the policies and actions that occur here in Washington directly impact the livelihoods of those in the Mountain State. For too long, EPA policies imposed unnecessary and costly burdens on America workers, farmers, manufacturers, energy producers, and communities. We saw rules that drove power plants and coal mines towards closure, raised costs for families, and ignored the plain realities of our electric grid. The EPA buried the economy in red tape and killed economic growth. So that's changing. The EPA is now working hard to undo point by point the Biden administration's war on coal and other matters. The EPA proposal to repeal the Biden administration clean power plan two point O rule, an unworkable and an an unlawful rule that would have forced the shutdown of coal plants and prohibited new gas plants. It would have been a devastated uh devastated our electrical reliability by causing major electricity generation shortages. I encourage the EPA to finalize that rule's repeal. The agency also extended compliance deadlines for the affluent limitations guidelines and repealed the Biden-era Matz rule. These were unnecessary Biden rules with unrealistic timelines that would have forced power plants to shut down rather than continue to operate efficiently, efficiently and in compliance with our environmental laws. This year the EPA rescinded the two thousand nine endangerment finding. That finding was wrongfully used to justify sweeping rules that Congress never authorized, and that imposed hundreds of billions of dollars of costs on our economy. Rescinding it is a momentous milestone in returning the EPA to adhering to its statutory role. The costly regulatory regime of the endangerment finding supported was inconsistent the requirement of clear congressional authority that the Supreme Court found was necessary for such actions in the decision in West Virginia versus the EPA. The EPA's work is not limited just to the power sector. After Administrator Zeldin sent the uh Biden-era California waiver to Congress, we repealed the Democrats' attempt to enact a nationwide electric vehicle mandate without a vote in Congress. With that vote, Congress preserved con- consumer choice, and protected our constituents from government-mandated higher vehicle costs. Finally, Administrator Zeldin is bringing real accountability for how our taxpayers' dollars are being spent. The Inflation Reduction Act created a bunch of wasteful programs at EPA that funded climate spending with little actual environmental benefit, such as for activist pet projects and even funded activists to more easily sue the government to stop permits and projects. Two programs were a particular concern. Thirty billion dollars that went to the so-called Green Bank, and environmental justice block grant programs. Billions of dollars went out the door with limited transparency and questionable oversight. The EPA's action to cancel roughly seventeen billion dollars of those grants was an important first step for Congress to build upon, which we did in the working family tax cut bill. The EPW uh com committee's title of that bill took the final step to repeal the Green Bank and rescind those canceled grant funds, as well as millions of dollars from other IRA programs, clawing them back to the United States Treasury on behalf of the American taxpayers. The EPA, under Administrator Zeldin's leadership, is delivering real results real results to benefit West Virginians and the American people, but there's still much work to be done. We need to assure that the EPA's bipartisan foundational programs like the drinking water and clean water state revolving funds are adequately funded. These programs are how communities, especially small and rural communities, replace aging pipes, update treatment systems, and ensure safe, reliable service. We also need to ensure that programs and processes are well established to strengthen economic depet- competitiveness by approving new, innovative chemicals and cleaning up environmental brownfield sites. Administrator Zeldin, I appreciate the steps your agency has taken so far. I look forward to hearing how you plan to build on that progress, how you're prioritizing EPA's core responsibilities, and how we can continue working together to support American energy and American jobs. So I now recognize Ranking Member Whitehouse for his opening statement.

Thank you, Chairman. The point of science isn't to have an opinion. It's to make a prediction. Science is society's headlights, predicting what's ahead. What science has unequivocally shown for decades, EPA's recent efforts to dismantle and distort science notwithstanding, is that fossil fuel emissions are disrupting Earth's basic operating systems in increasingly dangerous ways. As ocean and weather systems go haywire, all the fossil fuel funded faux science will count for naught. Indeed, it will inevitably be exposed as fraud. Climate change is moving from the science department to the economics department. So the first hits coming are economic hits, from industries that must truthfully predict how climate change will affect their businesses. One industry that has to predict well is the insurance industry for both fiduciary and business reasons. Climate risk is blasting insurance markets and melting down homeowners' insurance. Florida is first and worst. Sixty-four percent of voters in Florida understand their home insurance crisis relates to climate change. Even forty-four percent of Trump voters in Florida understand that. Home insurance costs are exploding. Insurers are leaving customers. In some cases, they're leaving whole states and regions. And predictions are that the cascade goes from climate risk to insurance collapse, to mortgage collapse, to property values collapsing, to full-on recession. Already Florida leads the nation in property value decline. Every increased premium, every notice of non-renewal, every customer dumped into a state plan ties back to the fossil fuel industry's twinned operations of climate denial fraud and dark money corruption. Operating through dozens of front groups which have blockaded efforts, to reduce the underlying climate risk that is driving that whole cascade. Even though they knew they deployed fraud and corruption to blockade. Another cost going up for consumers is electricity bills. This is driven in part by the fossil fuel industry's plot to subvert the powers of government to keep inexpensive clean energy off The grid. Ask any grid operator. Inexpensive clean energy runs first on the grid because it's inexpensive. As demand climbs, the grid then goes to more and more expensive fossil fuel plants, which raise and raise the grid price and consumer costs go up and up. The point of the industry plan is to raise consumer costs by reducing clean energy, sending those extra billions consumers must spend to fossil fuel plants and fossil fuel producers. It's a money pump, deliberately extracting money from consumers and sending it to Trump's big, corrupt fossil fuel donors. The Trump administration persistently lies about the added cost. That's part of what the fossil fuel industry paid for. Administrator Zeldin himself has said, for example, that the wind and solar industries would not exist without government subsidies. But that's simply not true. Coal and gas are more expensive per megawatt hour than wind and solar, even with their seven hundred plus billion dollars of free-to-pollute subsidy that fossil fuel gets from the US government. seven hundred billion dollars of subsidy every year. Well, grid operators don't lie. They run grids. Based on cost, you can see who's less expensive. Or, you can take a look at the contracts. Offshore wind will cost nine cents per kilowatt hour in our eighteen cent per kilowatt hour average cost grid. Do the math. Nine is less than eighteen. Four year olds know that. And yet the administration lies. Administrator Zeldin has played a huge part in delivering this payback to Trump's fossil fuel donors. Payback in the form of policies driving dirtier air and water, worsening climate change and extreme weather, and driving higher costs for consumers in the form of ever higher property insurance premiums and electricity bills. From attempting to kill clean energy programs, to handing out pollute-for-free passes to fossil fuel power plants, to saddling Americans with increasingly unaffordable gas guzzlers, Zeldin has executed the fossil fuel industry's agenda. A massive reckoning is coming. Those who sold out for position and power, and presumably to be taken care of afterwards by the big polluters, those who lied to the public, those who chose to support the industry's interest over the public interest, those who drove consumer costs up on purpose to reward big political Trump donors, all that will be exposed. It is inevitable. It is nature's way. Indeed, it's already begun. all the climate denial fraud that you helped propagate, all the corrupt dark money your polluter bosses sluiced through this building, none of that will stand against nature's reckoning, a reckoning that is inevitable, as inevitable as a sunrise. We ignore at our own peril the fact that these natural systems, nature's own economy, provide the foundation for our prosperity and our national security. Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Uh, this afternoon we are joined by the Honorable Lietz-Zeldin, who is the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. I look forward to hearing from Administrator Zeldin about the agency's proposed multi-billion dollar budget for the fiscal year twenty twenty-seven and how he plans to build upon the programs and policies that ensure the core mission of the EPA is executed. So, Mister Administrator, thank you for being here, but before we move to your testimony, I'll administer the oath to receive your sworn testimony. If you would rise, please. And, uh, raise your right hand and answer the following question. Do you swear the testimony you're about to give to this committee is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? So hope you got.

Yes, I do.

Thank you. Let the record show that the witness answered in the affirmative, so we will now proceed. Administrator Zeldin, you are now recognized for your opening statement. Thank you.

Well, thank you, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse, and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the President's fiscal year twenty twenty-seven budget request for the US Environmental Protection Agency. I would like to take a moment to thank many of you for supporting the confirmation of EPA's leadership team team who have wasted no time enacting President Trump's agenda and helping to power the great American comeback. Marking one year of President Trump being back in office, EPA announced over five hundred environmental winds in that first year. We've made enormous strides to tackle the decades-long Tijuana River sewage crisis that's affected San Diego area communities. We're getting lead out of drinking water across the country. And we're proving you don't have to choose between a strong economy and a clean environment. This great work is just a fraction of what EPA accomplishes on a daily basis as we continue to f- fulfill our core mission of protecting human health and the environment. There are Democrats on this dais who want the EPA to govern in left-wing fantasy, pursuing their agenda to destroy entire sectors of our economy. At the Trump EPA, we govern in reality. We are committed to supporting more baseload power sources in this country. To meet this moment, and unleash energy dominance. I fulfilled a commitment I made during my confirmation to visit all fifty states as EPA administrator. And I completed that effort in just nine and a half months. During those visits I learned how EPA's policies, rules and regulations impacted farmers, small business owners and our energy providers. It was exciting to often witness in my travels groundbreaking after groundbreaking Seeing firsthand the projects that are underway to unleash energy dominance, grow our economy, and power the artificial intelligence revolution. During my visits, I asked how can we help and where do we need to get out of the way? Everywhere I heard we need certainty and consistency. The Trump EPA is committed to bringing down costs for American families by ending the whiplash of the radical climate agenda. The Supreme Court's overturning of the Chevron Doctrine made it clear that agencies like EPA no longer have the freedom to creatively bend the law to fulfill the demands of unelected bureaucrats. This paved the way to our greatest deregulatory achievement yet, the rescission of the two thousand nine endangerment finding. For sixteen years, the endangerment finding has been the source of consumer choice restrictions and trillions of dollars of hidden costs piled onto Americans. This single decision lessens the federal gov- government's harmful grip over our economy, saving over one trillion dollars and bringing down the cost of new vehicles. November, EPA rolled out a proposed rule that would establish a clear, durable, common sense definition of waters of the United States, faithfully abiding by the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett. Democrat administrations have weaponized the definition of navigable waters, to seize more power from american farmers landowners entrepreneurs and families we heard from americans across the country who want clean water and a clear rule no longer should america's landowners be forced to spend precious money hiring an attorney or consultant just to tell them whether a water of the united states is on their property as we work to protect human health and the environment grow our economy and restore america's energy dominance EPA has taken several actions to bolster domestic energy production. In February, we took steps to end Democrats' war on coal by repealing the Biden administration's overly burdensome twenty twenty-four mercury and air toxic standards. The rule imposed massive costs in red tape on coal and oil-fired plants, driving up the cost of living for American families, jeopardizing our grid reliability and national security, and limiting American energy and manufacturing dominance. Having reliable energy production not only provides lower costs for American families, but ensures national security. The President's FY twenty-seven budget will continue to make EPA efficient and effective stewards of Americans' hard-earned tax dollars and fulfill our statutory obligations and our core mission. This budget proposal captures significant efficiencies and a return focus on what Congress has directed us to do. Demonstrating our commitment to a leaner, more efficient, and accountable EPA. Focused on environmental work that directly benefits the American people. The budget supports and aligns with President Trump's goal of right-sizing the federal workforce, with a staff, not one more or less than what is necessary. We will continue working each and every day to deliver an EPA that works to empower the American people while protecting our nation's air, land, and water. I look forward to answering all of your questions. Thank you.

Thank you, and I will start the questioning. Uh, thank you for being here. And uh, you know, all the comments thus far has talked about the urgent need to generate more electricity. Uh, the past administration's power sector strategy was to shut down base load energy uh availabilities, and our nation is facing an energy scarcity. People talk about it all the time and know that it is a reality. Um, this strategy consisted of a half dozen rules at EPA, including clean power plan two point O that went beyond the gover- the agency's regulatory authority, which you've addressed. Um, will you discuss your efforts to repeal the Biden, uh, EPA power sector strategy and how that will lead to more affordable, reliable electricity while continuing to protect public health and welfare?

Well, thank you, Chairman. What we saw tor- especially towards the end of the Biden administration was an attack with uh many rules seeking to strangulate coal out of existence, telling your uh coal miners that they should just learn to code. Uh we understand how important coal is to your state and many other states up here on this dais. Uh the twenty twenty four mercury and air toxic standards have been repealed. We still have the strict twenty twelve standards that we're working and have significantly reduced mercury and other emissions. Uh we are working to repeal clean power plan two point O. efforts with regards to steam electric, ELG, coal combustion residuals, giving primacy, uh, to states on the handling of CCR, as I mentioned with our new Waters of the United States rule, uh, with our new water reuse action plan two point O, and more, we are rolling back that attack that we saw on coal and other sources of power. Uh, we

And, and, and if I could hear, uh, I, I think it's important to emphasize at this point that this, the the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act written by Congress, all of what you're doing here falls within the boundaries of what we have directed you to do. Is that correct?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you. Um, in the working family's tax cut we signed into law, we repealed section one thirty-four of the cl- uh, of the Clean Air Act to eliminate the greenhouse gas reduction fund. Uh, I think it was seventeen billion dollars. Uh, it is in litigation right now. And uh I was curious to know uh in in uh we uh we supported the uh grant cancellations through the pa- through the passage of the working family's tax cut. Total waste of money. These are unobligated. Uh well I understand there's legislation pending. If the courts affirm that Congress has rescinded the seventeen billion dollars, do you commit to quickly returning these funds to the United States Treasury?

Enthusiastically.

Thank you. Um I want to talk about PFAS. You and I have talked about this before. Uh, you know it's a concern I have. Uh, it's a concern around the country. Uh, and we haven't been able to really reach a congressional, um, uh, a point at which we can, we can agree here as to how we might be helpful. Um, under CERCLA, as, uh, uh, strict, uh, guidance, uh, retroa- in their retroactive liability structure, uh, we're not sure that the passive receivers, that would be small water companies, um, Could be ag people, it could be uh a- anybody else who's uh sharing water resources. There's a concern that they may be on the hook to pay for any kind of cleanup. Uh while we work for a solution, can you tell me what EPA has done? I know you have several authorities uh and execs and existing settlement and allocation tools under circle. Are you using those authorities? How are you using them and how successful have they been?

Uh we believe strongly that the polluters should pay. and that the ratepayers shouldn't be on the hook for cleaning up PFAS contamination of their own water supply. Uh, we had a choice as to whether or not to pursue, uh, CERCLA or RICCLA. Neither of these two laws, uh, were written with PFAS in mind. And unfortunately, the cost of cleanup, uh, is passed down from that water system. There are thousands across this country, uh, who would be giving it to their ratepayers. Uh, so we look forward to being able to work with Congress, uh, to be able to address this issue with regards to CERCLA. Uh, we have been in contact with stakeholders. There is an, a liability settlement that I'm here to report on. Uh, and congre- a congressional solution would, uh, certainly be ideal to address the passive receiver status.

The other thing we're working on is the, uh, Um, uh, safe drinking water, uh, which involves the state revolving funds. uh all of our states particularly and particularly those that of us that have still small and remaining rural communities that don't have satisfactory service uh they're limited in their financing options it's very difficult this is a critical program for them uh will you commit to working with states to implement all uh funding that congress provides from the s. r. f.'s in future authorizations and appropriations

yes chairman

thank you uh senator whitehouse

i'm gonna let uh senator sanders proceed first because he has a scheduling issue, so I'll swap with him.

Before we go to Senator Sanders, really quick, sorry, Senator, I'd like U C request for submission for the record,

Before.

uh, an article, uh, written by the, uh, Washington Post, EPA is right to reverse Obama overreach. Uh, another UC request for submission of the record, Wall Street Journal, article, climate regulation liberation day, the Trump EPA moves to appeal Obama-Biden endangerment finding. And lastly, unanimous consent to enter in the record an article, Real Clear Energy, America's power needs coal and common sense.

good afternoon

thank you

sort of sad sorry

thank you madam chair this is zeldin thanks very much for being with us um i wanna focus on one issue uh i'm glad that you mentioned your desire to bring down costs in america unfortunately you have not been succeeding costs are going up in many aspects of our economy especially in terms of electricity rates as you know all over the country uh people are paying higher and higher electric bills now there are lot of reasons for that but one of the possible solutions is for us to make certain that low income and working class people have solar panels on their rooftops as you well know when one has solar panels on a rooftop we can reduce electric rates by seventy eighty ninety percent it is a big deal, not to mention that it takes carbon emissions out of the atmosphere and helps us address climate change. Alright, as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, I got a provision in there called Solar For All. I suspect you're familiar with that. It's a seven billion dollar program which would reduce electric rates over a period of years for millions of low-income and working class people rather substantially. Unfortunately, and I think illegally, The Trump administration rescinded that legislation. So what I'm asking you right now, you talk about lowering costs, we need to put solar panels on rooftops. If you're concerned about climate change, we gotta cut carbon emissions. Will you work with me to make sure that that seven billion dollars for solar for all, and by the way, the grants that have come into the EPA, as you probably know, are from dozens and dozens of states, Republican states, Democratic states. all over this country people want lower electric rates they wanna protect the environment that's what that bill does will you work with me to make sure that that seven billion dollars actually is funded and gets out to the states

uh senator the issue is that congress has rescinded the entirety of that program as well as rescinding the money for epa to be able to oversee the program now if congress was to pass this again in the future we will then do our job to get the money out now we'll respect the decision that congress made last summer in repealing it.

You're suggesting that the big, so-called big, beautiful bill repealed it. Is that what you're suggesting?

Uh, not only did it rescind the account, it also rescinded the account for us to oversee this event.

OK. First of all, it did not rescind uh, solar for all. And if you're sitting here telling us that when we have a program that can lower electric rates for millions of people, help clean up the environment, that you can't find a small amount of money to provide oversight to this program, I think that's not quite credible, to be honest with him.

Yeah, Senator, I I maybe you we don't share this concern, but what I was really concerned about when I came in was I found that the way that the Solar for All program was gonna be implemented, was that they were gonna have the money go through up to four different pass-throughs, where each of the pass-through entity was gonna collect at least fifteen percent. So the dollar that you think was appropriated to be spent on the back-end, had to go through up to four pastors where they're each diluting it just so from a standpoint of being fiscally good stewards if we ignored the fact that congress rescinded the program if we ignored the the fact that they rescinded the money to oversee the program i would hope that we would be equally offended by the fact that the money

good and then the answer would be that you would come in and chat with me as the author

was getting weighted

of the bill say bernie how do we make it more efficient we don't wanna waste money on administration i hate bureaucracy as a matter of fact that's not what you did you took away the opportunity of millions of people to see lower electric rates. I hope that we can work together to bring that back. You wanna make the program more efficient? Come on in. Let's chat about it. Is that something you could do?

Senator, I would be happy to sit down and talk to you about the program and what we found with the inefficiency of see inefficiencies of it but what we also can't ignore is the fact that as part of the one big beautiful bill, the working family's tax cut, they rescinded the seven billion dollars.

They did not. That, uh, that's just absolutely inaccurate. And um, alright. Thank you very much.

Sarah Kramer.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Administrator, for being here. I I just, I have to go back to um some of the comments that Senator Whitehouse made, it while I think true, I think a little incomplete, so I wanna ask you a couple of questions about the the uh preference of renewables on the grid because of their low marginal, net net, nearly net zero marginal costs um per kilowatt hour i think he even used the number nine cents out of the average eighteen cents um do do the do those and i know this is you are not the rate maker and you're you're but i think you understand this stuff and and that and and i'm wondering if his nine cents do you think that includes the two point three cents per kilowatt hour subsidy that the tax payers pay for production tax credit or does it include do you think the thirty percent investment tax credit that the utility or the the you know producer had to invest before they could even generate this zero cost energy do you think those prices include that

uh respectfully senator whitehouse's math is extremely wrong

what it may be right in terms of what he you know and what he is including but doesn't uh i don't believe it includes all these other high cost by by taxpayers who by the way are also rate payers see we spend a lot of time talking about rates but not real time talking about costs. Um, because, near as I can tell, taxpayers are rate payers as well. Okay. Um, how about this? Do you think that it also includes, or does it leave out the additional investment that a utility has to in invest to back up the wind when it doesn't blow the other seventy percent of the time? In other words, you, you have to have a back-up that's more reliable. Do you think it includes, does this math include those costs? The rate payers pay.

There, there, there's no way to explain his math.

Okay, well let's stick in with this preference on the grid thing. Um, again, net zero, marginal costs, you'd be crazy if you didn't put it on the grid first, if you've already, if you're already stuck with all the investment costs and the taxpayer costs and all of those things. Uh, and, and so that, that I understand. And, and, that's part of the rate structure. Um, but there, but, Isn't it true that there are regions and states that add regulatory or legal um mandates that require the less reliable uh energy to be on the grid first before they then go to the much more reliable uh extra cost uh electricity that goes on the grid.

Senator, it is not a coincidence that the ten states that have the cheapest rates across the country voted for President Trump and nine of the ten with the highest rates voted for Kamala Harris. That's not a coincidence.

Yeah. Um, well, as a former rate maker, let me tell you, I I I know this topic pretty well and I I think to, if we're gonna have an honest discussion, we have to put all the costs on the table. All right, that said, let's get back to Ortiz for just a minute. First of all, thank you and and to the to to your team for having the first listening session on waters of the United States, out in the Prairie Pothole region of North Dakota, and I think there was a lot of great feedback. One of the things that um was interesting to me that i did not expect frankly at that listening session was when one of the well the the president of the the home builders association testified after a question that the the surveying and and studies that they've done show that the cost of a lot due to the waters of the united states in in certain areas um increased twenty five thousand dollars per lot for a home before a shovel went into it. Now, does that not seem like a a a cost issue or a uh uh an inflationary issue that could certainly have been relieved by a better rule?

Absolutely. There are landowners, farmers, ranchers, there are entire states who have come to us, they've done the math, and the impact of the way the waters of the United States was defined previously, uh, results in a heavy cost. uh to be able to hire an attorney or a consultant to tell them why there is a water of the united states uh and that great uncertainty has caused a lot of issues across the country and that's what we're working to fix

so while you're working to fix it in the remaining seconds maybe give us a an update on that exactly i know that one one of the things i hear couple of things i hear a lot about from people about the proposed rule is terms like significant nexus um a wet season are little bit vague and probably probably similar to you know, uh federal nexus. Um, can you give me an update on on definitions and the process, and is there a way we can sort of tighten some of that language up?

Uh, we have been going through all of the public comments, grateful for everyone across the country who participated in the process. We encourage, uh, the public to participate when we go out to the, the, the, the public comment, that included waters of the United States. Uh, and we've heard this feedback and much more, and we are incorporating it.

white house

mr. zeldin my colleagues around this table are closing in on election in which the trump administration's household cost catastrophe will be central and you have been on a polluter funded rampage to increase americans costs stuff should cost less you are making lots of stuff cost lots more you've raised costs for americans you've done so to steer their money to your big polluters. Your attack on clean energy raises costs for consumers, but it sends billions to your fossil fuel polluters, Trump's big donors. Trump's attack on offshore wind stalled nine cent per kilo o- k- kilowatt hour power. Contract number, no math. Uh, getting to my constituents who work in an eighteen cent average kilowatt hour grid. Every single day that that nine cent power was delayed, Steered money from consumers' pockets into the pockets of expensive natural gas units, units that the clean offshore wind energy would have displaced. You will at least concede that nine cents is less than eighteen cents, will you not?

Uh, well, nine cents is less than eighteen cents,

There you go.

however,

Thank you.

in this context context,

Your rampant climate denial and refusal to address climate risk

your math is inaccurate. Your math is inaccurate.

is driving home insurance rates skyward.

Would you like to talk about it?

Setting new records in states like Iowa, Florida, and Texas. Those costs are cascading from a home insurance crisis into a mortgage crisis, into a property values crisis. But the big winners, getting to pollute for free, are your fossil fuel polluters, Trump's big donors. Is EPA looking at all at Florida's climate climate driven insurance crisis?

So to be clear, the, everything about the nine cents, all you wanna ask

i have a new question now go to the next question

no i just that i'm understanding this is right for issue here

ok you don't wanna ask my question i move on to the next one your attack on fuel efficiency standards

if i'm tracking right all you wanna know that nine cents is less than eighteen cents you don't actually talk about the issue

already answered that you already answered that now you're just wasting my time

uh now everything other than nine is less than eighteen you're wasting your time

your attack on fuel efficiency standards will drive up the cost of americans gasoline budgets your own regulatory impact analysis put the net loss to consumers at one hundred and eighty billion dollars, but with a minimum, minimum five hundred and eighty billion bonus for big oil at the pump. All those billions go to your fossil fuel polluters, Trump's big donors. Those are your numbers, Mister Zeldin. You also made it easier to pollute with soot. Soot. Which will cost Americans tens of billions in added healthcare costs, all to save about six hundred million dollars in compliance costs for your fossil fuel polluters, Trump's big donors. You stopped EPA even counting health harms in your cost-benefit analysis, didn't you?

I'm still stuck on the fact that y- all you're asking me so far about,

All right, you're not gonna ask that question,

any of your numbers is that nine is less than eighteen.

you're not gonna answer that question either. You attacked the greenhouse gas reduction fight.

You wanna talk about what an LCOE is?

I get the time here, I get to ask the questions.

Do you know?

you attack the greenhouse gas reduction fund, potentially costing consumers fifty two billion dollars in lost energy savings, let alone the health benefits of cleaner air. But that fifty two billion, consumers lose, will flow where? To your fossil fuel polluters, Trump's big donors. Ditto the solar for all funding that you attack, trying to strip Americans of three hundred fifty million dollars per year in expected energy savings. Billions over time. Those lost savings go where? to your fossil fuel polluters, Trump's big donors. You even set up a special polluter email address that gave polluters a drive-up window for exemptions from the Clean Air Act, helping them keep seventy polluting coal plants online. One estimate is that just six of those plants have already cost ratepayers an extra two hundred and thirty million dollars in costs in less than one year. And indeed, one plant in Michigan has already six hundred million dollars in excess health costs. That is money out of consumers' pockets and into the pockets of your fossil fuel polluters, Trump's big donors.

Can we talk about your math yet?

Are you even tracking the consumer cost of those coal plants?

We're we're gonna get to talk about math?

Are you even tracking the consumer costs of those coal plants?

Oh no, oh this is great. So, I I don't even know where to start with all the the mess of math.

Answer that question. Are you even tracking the consumer costs of those coal plants?

Of course. Yeah, yeah, and costs are going down across the country, when you look at EPA's impacts.

Where, where are you tracking the consumer costs of those coal plants?

When you look at the re- are you kidding me?

They're in EPA's tracking that.

The coal plants even staying open? You think that the math is it's better for West Virginia if you coal- if you close down their coal plants and put these people out of work and tell them to learn a code. According to you,

I think that when you put in a coal plant on,

in your mind, that's saving West Virginia?

that is raising costs,

Is it saving them on energy access?

we know

Is it saving them on jobs?

You can talk across me all you like. You are raising costs.

Raising costs.

You're raising costs on purpose because the money that you get when you

If we.

raise costs from consumers goes to Trump's big fossil fuel donors.

If we don't close down coal.

My time is up.

Not sure we're gonna get anywhere with that. Uh, we'll go to Mister Curtis.

I would desperately like to change the subject, but I'm I uh, Mister Zeldin, let me just ask you uh, and a very quick answer, if we had a magic wand and we waved it and we unplugged every single fossil fuel source across our planet now, g- give me thirty seconds to what the world would look like.

I I would tell you for us, domestically it would be absolutely devastating. Uh, and unfortunately we don't have to be naive to, uh, to the math that Senator Whitehouse is using. Uh, he's, he, he likes to look at a levelized cost of entry. He's not factoring in firming. He's not looking at the ISO's net cost of new energy. And when you factor in firming and all the additional costs, they start skyrocketing. And you realize that all sorts of access to fossil fuels that they rail against are actually cheaper. Whether it's the gas combined cycle, whether you're talking about the, the, the, the gas that's already on-line, the nuclear that is already on-line. He wants to use a very small number to say that wind is the cheapest and solar is the cheapest. He wants to ignore all of the firming costs. His math is screwed up. For the rest of this country, as we saw through many, many weeks of very cold temperatures, thank God that people, when the, uh, the sun stops shining, when the wind stops blowing, and when it's freezing over the course of that winter, that they had access to reliable, durable baseload power.

All right.

And thank you to the Republicans on this dais for your advocacy and your application of reality to make sure that all of these Americans are able to stay warm. Because they would have been in a really screwed up position, if they were following Senator Whitehouse's approach towards forcing, jamming everyone with wind and solar, and putting away all their access to reliable baseload power.

Okay. I would take an hour of this, but I get five minutes. So I'm gonna shift your gears just a little bit. Uh, first of all, when you mentioned you'd been to fifty states, I was surprised because I know you came to Utah. If you spend as much time in all fifty states, and got us into issues as much as you did in utah that is uh uh outstanding thank you for your visit thank you for meeting with my legislators and for the good work you have done there as you know part of our challenge in utah is is this atmospheric conditions that we have that just make us unique and different we we have made i would suggest more changes to prove air quality in other any other state but just the the the game the the rules of the game have been problematic for us so thank you for your involvement in that now if i could just switch issues just real quickly um your the twenty twenty seven budget justification prioritizes the review of of new chemicals uh p m n s i appreciate your goal literally a goal of of conducting risk assessments and making affirmative determinations on more than five hundred new chemicals i think that would be about four hundred and ninety nine more uh than than the last administration maybe even five hundred so thank you for that Can you walk us through the steps the EP is taking to meet that goal? Uh, it's an aggressive goal, uh, including, uh, case discussion meetings within thirty days of receiving the request and how investments in AI and other innovation have have been helping you.

Well, on that front, I wanna thank Congress appropriated seventeen million dollars in March of twenty twenty five to upgrade IT inside of that office. When the systems go down for weeks at a time, everything is stopping, and then you have a backlog. uh that starts increasing. We inherited a new chemicals backlog of about five hundred or so. Uh we ha- uh did fifty-eight new PMNs just in the first three months of this year. On top of that, when we did our agency reorganization last year, we increased the amount of FTEs, the amount of scientists inside of the Office of Chemical Safety. Uh that reorganization and the streamlining of the process, the efficiencies that have been added, uh have allowed us to for example, get those fifty-eight new PMNs done. Uh, we project that we'll do more PMNs in twenty twenty six than each of the last five years prior.

Yeah, thank you. And I, I wanna point out that, uh, the impact this, that that program has on innovation, uh, pushing jobs, uh, if we don't do it, push those jobs offshore, plus the fact that many of these chemicals are actually far better for the environment. When we don't get them approved, we're forcing companies to use these chemicals that we know are, are are worse for the environment. Can you also elaborate on I know part of this is communicating with the submitters. So, talk to me about the process that we're improving of communicating with the submitters to make it smoother for them more predictable in their review process.

Well, sure, one of the things I was adding a lot of time was the the hundred steps that have to get done sequentially. Uh, it's just a no-brainer to start to move this stuff efficiently at the same time at once as much as possible. And Congress is gonna have an opportunity as the TASCA fee uh expiration approaching towards the end of September. Uh, we would look forward to being able to share our feedback and work with you, Senator, uh, on that.

Yeah, I'm I'm just gonna take a couple more seconds to pick uh pick that line up. What what I'd like to know, and we, if we don't have time, what priorities should Congress be focusing on so we can improve the program to to make sure when we're approving the new TASCA that it's more efficient?

sure i will definitely uh i'm happy whether it's in qfr s or separately with your office like to talk about section twenty one uh petitions like to talk to you about uh the section six prioritization process uh there are a lot of details that could be incorporated in the development of new legislation