I would like to extend a warm welcome to Mayor Homrighausen of Dover, Ohio. Mayor Homrighausen testified before this subcommittee several years ago regarding his concerns with U.S. EPAs new ozone and particulate matter standards. He and I were concerned that the new National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter far outweighed the benefits to public health and the environment. Hopefully, Mayor Homrighausen, the Supreme Court will agree with us.
When we talk about the Clean Air Act or electricity generation, there is a tendency to think about large, billion dollar companies. People forget about municipalities like Dover, Ohio, which owns and operates its own utility plant and provides low-cost energy to its consumers.
Dover has done its share to help reduce air pollution in Ohio by installing effective environmental controls. In fact, it was the first electric utility in the U.S. to install natural gas co-firing burners to reduce particulate matter emissions. I welcome you back, Mayor Homrighausen.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the series of Clean Air Act Reauthorization hearings that you have conducted. I believe that we need to take proactive steps to provide clean air now and in the future. Throughout my 33 years of public service, I believe I have demonstrated a commitment to preserving our environment and the health and well-being of all Ohioans. When I first entered office as Governor in 1991, most of Ohios urban areas were not attaining the 1-hour ozone standard. By the time I left office in 1998, all cities had attained the 1-hour ozone standard, except one. However, I am proud to say that now all of Ohio is in attainment of the 1-hour standard.
Overall, the ozone level in Ohio has gone down by 25 percent and in many urban areas, it has gone down by more than 50 percent in the past 20 years. I am very proud that Ohios urban areas and our citizens worked together to improve the quality of our air.
When I was Governor of Ohio, the State Legislature made a decision to require vehicle emission testing. When it became politically unpopular, they tried to undo it. In fact, I even vetoed a bill in 1997 that would have weakened our emission program, E-Check. This was a strong action in favor of public health and the environment and I was surprised that it did not receive strong support from Ohios environmental advocates.
In addition, while I was Governor I supported a 65 percent reduction of nitrogen oxide (NOx ) emissions from stationary sources, with a plan for additional reductions if they were necessary to meet air quality standards. Ironically, U.S. EPAs final NOx rule would require attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard a year later (2010) than the Midwest and Southern Governors alternative to achieve the standard in 2009.
When we look to reauthorize the Clean Air Act, we need to make sure that state and local governments have the flexibility they need to implement the laws requirements. While national standards are necessary, there should be adequate flexibility for state and local governments to meet those standards. EPA should not be in a position to mandate cookie-cutter approaches to meeting air quality. You dont always need a hammer. There are a lot of innovative programs out there and we need to promote and encourage these types of programs.
For instance, in Ohio, Columbus just implemented a new program called Project CLEAR, which will involve citizens, businesses, local governments and other organizations in evaluating and choosing strategies to improve air quality. The Columbus Health Deapartment, Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission and the Office of Research at the Ohio State University are involved in this initiative.
In addition, last year Cincinnati was awarded an annual Governors Award for Outstanding Achievement in Pollution Prevention for its gas cap replacement program. Through this program, motorists had the opportunity to voluntarily have their vehicles gas cap tested and replaced, if necessary, for free. Approximately 23,000 gas caps were given to vehicle owners in metro area in 1998. This eliminated an estimated 3.5 tons of hydrocarbon emissions daily, and almost 1,300 tons annually.
And these cities have voluntarily implemented these programs in order to meet national air quality standards.
These are the types of innovations that we need to continue to encourage as we reauthorize the Clean Air Act.
However, we also need to do a much better job of ensuring that regulations are based on sound science and that their costs bear a reasonable relationship with their benefits. And we need to do a better job of setting priorities and spending our resources wisely. We need to ask the question of whether a less costly approach would achieve the same benefits.
And this is going to be a main topic of discussion as this subcommittee considers reauthorization of this law.
We need to ensure that Federal agencies, such as U.S. EPA, are accountable for the decisions they make in promulgating regulations under the Clean Air Act. They should be required to answer several simple, but vital questions:
1. What science is needed to help make good decisions?
2. What is the nature of the risk being considered?
3. What are the benefits of the proposed regulation?
4. How much will it cost?
5. And, are there better less burdensome ways to achieve the same goals?
That is why earlier this year Senator John Breaux and I introduced the Air Quality Standard Improvement Act, S. 2362, a bill that will provide a commonsense approach to promulgating regulations under the Clean Air Act and will increase public health safety and environmental protection.
I thank the chairman for becoming an original cosponsor of that bipartisan bill and for agreeing to consider this legislation during the reauthorization debate. I look forward to todays testimony.