Vehicle related questions/responses

 

  1. Clean car standards save consumers money at the pump and help reduce oil imports. Automakers are complying with vehicle standards ahead of schedule. As Administrator, will you commit to support, defend and enforce EPA’s current programs to address emissions from vehicles?

 

SP: Congress has enacted numerous statutes directly or indirectly affecting transportation fuels, transportation fuel infrastructure, and the vehicles that consume those fuels. Congress committed many of those statutes to the EPA Administrator’s responsibility. If confirmed as Administrator, I would administer each of those statutes in accordance with Congress’s statutory objectives, and in light of the administrative record in each given proceeding. And I would work with Congress to ensure that its statutes continue to provide the best possible legal framework for governing American fuels, fuel infrastructure, and vehicles, and for promoting American energy independence, energy security, and environmental protection.

 

  1. As you are well aware, on April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court determined that sufficient information existed then for EPA to make an endangerment finding with respect to the combined emissions of six greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines under CAA section 202(a). On December 7, 2009, the Administrator determined that those gases/sources contribute to greenhouse gas pollution that endangers public health and welfare. How do you plan to execute your legal authority to protect the public health and welfare from greenhouse gas pollution?

 

SP: The Supreme Court held that GHGs are an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. It did not address the question of whether regulation of GHGs under the Clean Air Act is warranted. In the subsequent UARG decision, the Supreme Court cautioned EPA that there are significant limits on EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act. The unprecedented Supreme Court stay of EPA’s so-called “Clean Power Plan” was predicated upon a finding that the plaintiffs in the case were likely to prevail on the merits. In light of these holdings, I will hew closely to the text and intent of the Clean Air Act when considering further regulation of GHGs under that law if confirmed as Administrator.

 

  1. Building off Congress’s work on CAFE, the Obama Administration has updated emission standards for light and heavy-duty vehicles. These rules have had very little effect on the purchase price of new vehicles, but have saved consumers millions of dollars in fuel costs, vastly improved our energy security by slowing petroleum use and reduced a lot of pollution. If confirmed, do you support further strengthening vehicle emission standards? And with your federalism view, how do states address carbon pollution from vehicles themselves?

 

SP: In making each of its decisions regarding light- and heavy-duty vehicle emission standards, the EPA has made decisions based on the administrative record at hand and Congress’s statutory objectives. If confirmed, I would take care to make such decisions regarding vehicle emissions standards in furtherance of Congress’s statutory objectives, based on the evidence in the administrative record. With respect to federalism, the Supreme Court stressed in Massachusetts v. EPA that States play a crucially important role in promulgating vehicle emission standards under the Clean Air Act: each “State has an interest independent of and behind the titles of its citizens, in all the earth and air within its domain.” To that end, “Congress has ordered EPA to protect [the States and their people] by prescribing standards applicable to the ’emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicle engines, which in [the Administrator’s] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.’” Furthermore, the Clean Air Act and other federal administrative laws give each affected State “a concomitant procedural right to challenge the rejection of its rulemaking petition as arbitrary and capricious,” and the Supreme Court affords States “special solicitude” to challenge the resulting standards in court. If confirmed, I would take care to ensure that States continue to play a central role in the administrative process giving rise to the EPA’s vehicle emissions standards.

 

  1. The EPA promulgated phase two of the heavy-duty vehicles greenhouse gas emissions standards in August 2016, which is within the time period for the rule to be subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA). As Administrator, would you support the President signing into law a CRA to reject these new standards? What is your view of whether the EPA would be able to re-issue any heavy-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards given the CRA’s language that would prohibit the agency from issuing regulations that are “substantially similar?”

 

SP:Although I am familiar with the regulations on heavy vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards which were published in August 2016, I have not reviewed any potential legislation which may reject these standards. If I am confirmed, I will thoroughly review any resolution of disapproval which may be filed pursuant to the Congressional Review Act on this issue. In terms of re-issuing other heavy-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards, I would have to be briefed in detail on the regulations which have been published, and the provisions of the Congressional Review Act which prohibit the Agency from issuing any regulations which are substantially similar to the initial rules in order to determine what options the Agency may have in terms of proposing and finalizing additional regulations in this space.

 

  1. Last week, in his nomination hearing, Rex Tillerson dismissed the importance of America being energy independent. If you are confirmed as EPA Administrator, you will oversee tailpipe standards for cars and SUVs and the renewable fuel standard, two important polices that support energy independence by reducing oil consumption in America. In your view, should achieving energy independence be a priority for America?

 

SP:As Congress indicated in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, domestic production of renewable fuel contributes to our nation’s “greater energy independence and security.” Our energy independence will best be achieved by an “all-of-the-above” strategy without the government picking winners and losers. Setting motor vehicle emissions standards is a complex task that requires careful balancing of several competing factors. Setting such standards also requires coordination with NHTSA, which continues to administer the CAFE program. I will consider the relevant factors carefully and will coordinate closely with NHTSA on any motor vehicle emissions standards that will be addressed during my tenure if I am confirmed as Administrator.

 

  1. According to the Consumer Reports National Research Center survey completed in June 2016, 84 percent of Americans feel that automakers should continue to improve fuel economy for all vehicle types. About three-quarters of survey respondents specifically indicated that the U.S. government should require vehicle manufacturers to improve the fuel economy of their vehicles over time. As you may know, when the government stopped increasing fuel economy standards for two decades in the mid-1980s, vehicle fuel economy stopped improving. Now that we are once again making progress, what will you do to make sure that vehicle fuel economy continues to improve as Americans expect?

 

SP:While the EPA regulates emissions under the Clean Air Act, it is true that Congress vested authority to regulate fuel economy through the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards” framework set forth originally in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Congress vested responsibility for the CAFE program in the Department of Transportation, not the EPA; accordingly, I take no position on Congress’s policy decision on this subject, or on the Department of Transportation’s administration of the CAFE program. If confirmed as EPA Administration, I would administer the Clean Air Act in accordance with the terms of the Act, including Congress’s statutory policy objectives, and would do so on the basis of the factual record in any given proceeding.

 

  1. After conducting its Midterm Evaluation of fuel economy standards for model years 2022 through 2025, the EPA determined that automakers were well-positioned to meet the standards at lower costs than previously estimated. In fact, the EPA chose to retain the current standards to provide regulatory certainty for the auto industry despite a technical record suggesting that standards could be made more stringent. Among the technologies that the EPA considered in reaching its determination that fuel economy standards could be readily achieved were so-called “off-cycle technologies.” Off-cycle technologies are innovations such as more efficient air conditioning through enhanced window glass that reduces solar load, stop-start systems, solar panels, active aerodynamics, and adaptive cruise control.

 

SP:By reducing the energy demands placed on the engine, these technologies serve to improve fuel economy and reduce tailpipe emissions of carbon pollution. Vehicle manufacturers may claim “off-cycle credits” for these carbon pollution-reducing technologies which may have benefits not adequately captured as part the standard fuel economy testing procedures.

 

Americans in Massachusetts, Ohio, Tennessee, North Carolina, Michigan, Indiana and across the country have good-paying jobs that depend on vehicle manufacturers continuing to demand these innovative technologies. In your hearing, you explained how important it is for the EPA to consider jobs and economic impacts as part of its analysis and decision-making. If confirmed, would you support the “off-cycle credit” mechanism included that the EPA included in its fuel economy standards—a mechanism that drives American innovation and job growth? If not, please explain your position.

 

If confirmed, my job as Administrator would be to administer the statutes that Congress has enacted, including the statutory objectives that Congress incorporates into those statutes. If Congress chooses to enact legislation to promote certain technologies, such as “off-cycle” vehicle technologies, then those statutory priorities would fall within the EPA Administrator’s responsibility. If confirmed, I would look forward to working with Congress on any such statutory proposals that it legislates.

 

  1. Is the carbon dioxide that comes out of car tailpipes physically or chemically different from the carbon dioxide that comes out of power plant smokestacks? If so, how?

 

SP: As a matter of law, Congress elected to enact different statutory frameworks for regulating emissions from stationary sources and mobile sources: Title I of the Clean Air Act for the former, Title II for the latter. As the Supreme Court recognized in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2013), these two frameworks have significant differences.

 

  1. Would the impact on the climate system of carbon dioxide from power plants be any different from that of carbon dioxide from tailpipe emissions? If so, in what way?

 

SP: As noted above, Congress elected to enact different statutory frameworks for regulating emissions from stationary sources and mobile sources: Title I of the Clean Air Act for the former, Title II for the latter. As the Supreme Court recognized in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2013), these two frameworks have significant differences.

 

  1. Do you agree that the power sector and the transportation sectors each contribute at least a quarter of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions?

 

SP: According to the EPA (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions), in 2014 electricity generation accounted for 30% of total greenhouse gas emissions (quantified in terms of metric tons of CO2 equivalent), and transportation accounted for 26%.

  1. Do you agree that there should be national fuel economy standards to reduce tailpipe pollution from cars and make vehicles more fuel efficient? Please explain.

 

SP: While the EPA regulates emissions under the Clean Air Act, it is true that Congress vested authority to regulate fuel economy through the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards” framework set forth originally in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Congress vested responsibility for the CAFE program in the Department of Transportation, not the EPA; accordingly, I take no position on Congress’s policy decision on this subject.

 

  1. Do you support California’s authority under the Clean Air Act to receive a waiver from the EPA to set emissions standards for vehicles that are stronger than EPA standards?

 

SP: In the Clean Air Act, Congress provided that the EPA Administrator may waive the Clean Air Act’s preemptive effect over some of California’s state air quality standards for mobile sources, when certain specific statutory criteria are met. If confirmed as EPA Administrator, I will administer this program in accordance with Congress’s objectives, on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the law and with the administrative record in any given case, upon proper petition by California.

 

  1. Mr. Pruitt, my State of Delaware is already seeing the adverse effects of climate change with sea level rise, ocean acidification, and stronger storms. While all states will be harmed by climate change, the adverse effects will vary by state and region. Can you comment on why it is imperative that we have national standards for the reduction in carbon pollution?

 

SP: If confirmed, I will fulfill the duties of the Administrator consistent with Massachusetts v. EPA and the agency’s Endangerment Finding on Greenhouse Gases respective of the relative statutory framework established by Congress.

 

  1. Clean car standards save consumers money at the pump and help reduce oil imports. Automakers are complying with vehicle standards ahead of schedule. As Administrator, will you commit to support, defend and enforce EPA’s current programs to address emissions from vehicles?

 

SP: Congress has enacted numerous statutes directly or indirectly affecting transportation fuels, transportation fuel infrastructure, and the vehicles that consume those fuels. Congress committed many of those statutes to the EPA Administrator’s responsibility. If confirmed as Administrator, I would administer each of those statutes in accordance with Congress’s statutory objectives, and in light of the administrative record in each given proceeding. And I would work with Congress to ensure that its statutes continue to provide the best possible legal framework for governing American fuels, fuel infrastructure, and vehicles, and for promoting American energy independence, energy security, and environmental protection.

 

 

Ozone

 

  1. In the April 22, 2016 State Petitioners’ Opening Brief that you signed seeking to vacate EPA’s primary NAAQS of 70 ppm, you wrote that “that EPA must consider the burden of a NAAQS.” What did you mean by the burden of a NAAQS?

 

SP: The Clean Air Act requires the Administrator to establish NAAQS that protect public health and welfare from adverse effects, allowing an adequate margin of safety, and to revise those standards as appropriate. This includes establishing NAAQS at a level that is “requisite,” which the Supreme Court has interpreted as being neither more nor less stringent than necessary to protect public health. The State Petitioners’ Opening Brief, particularly in Section II of the Argument portion, the part of the brief to which the quotation in your question is relevant, argues that the ozone NAAQS is arbitrary and capricious because it fails to interpret the Act in a manner that ensures the standard is “requisite.” As I have explained elsewhere in my testimony to the Committee and in response to the Committee’s written questions, all legal positions that I took in my capacity as Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma were in an advocacy capacity. If confirmed as Administrator, I will consider all matters presented to me with an open mind and will work to reach conclusions that are reflected in the administrative record of each matter and that comport with Congress’s intent in enacting the Act.

 

  1. EPA’s independent science advisers, leading medical groups like the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Thoracic Society, American Lung Association, American Heart Association, and leading public-interest groups such as the NAACP called for a 60 ppb standard instead of the 70 ppb standard EPA finalized last year. What was your scientific basis for concluding that the old standard, 75 ppb, was sufficient to protect public health? Can you explain what sources you consulted? What groups you discussed this with?

 

SP: Due to a number of factors and steps taken by the previous Administration, implementation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS did not begin until years later. States had only recently begun to implement the 75ppb standard for ground-level ozone when EPA changed it; considering that approximately 40 percent of the country was in nonattainment for the 2008 standard, I believe EPA should focus on helping those areas meet that standard. Oklahoma’s challenge to the most recent ozone NAAQS was based, in part, on concerns that EPA has not adequately assessed the available science. It is EPA’s obligation to properly justify any change to an existing NAAQS.