I am also pleased that there is a fellow Ohioan joining us today on the second panel, Corky Frank, president of Marathon Ashland Petroleum in Findlay, Ohio. Marathon Ashland is the 4th largest U.S. refiner, which operates seven refineries and operates over fifty-four-hundred retail outlets in 20 states.
For a long time I have been concerned that EPA is not adequately taking costs, benefits and sound science into consideration during the rulemaking process - particularly those involving clean air standards.
Indeed, just recently a U.S. appeals court remanded EPA's ozone and PM2.5 standards, ruling that EPA did not justify its decision with sound scientific evidence. Ohio was a party to this lawsuit, which began when I was Governor.
The court didn't say that EPA couldn't regulate at these levels, but that EPA didn't give justification for doing so.
That has been my point all along. For a long time, I have argued that the NAAQS standards and the NOx SIP call were going to be costly and that we didn't even know if making those investments was going to solve the problem.
Well, the chickens have come home to roost. EPA's inflexible and costly approach to the NAAQS and NOx SIP call have created hardship that leaves little flexibility for states and businesses to comply with upcoming new air regulations that are required under the Clean Air Act.
For instance, the proposed new Tier 2 and low sulfur gasoline standards have pitted two industries - industries that depend on each other - against each other. It has put the oil and auto industries at odds with each other.
This deeply concerns me. I want to ensure that EPA is not moving forward with regulations that have not been studied carefully to determine their effects.
I think it is important that we make EPA accountable. Through these hearings we need to let Congress and the American people know what goals are anticipated, the health benefits that are expected and what costs will be imposed on consumers if these proposed standards are implemented. I want to know what health and safety benefits are expected and whether other safety issues have been factored in.
In the end, I want to know whether the proposed goals are reasonable and attainable, whether the proposed standards would achieve those goals and whether there is good science that leads us to believe that those goals will be achieved.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for conducting these hearings. I look forward to today's testimony.