E. Scott Pruitt, Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the EPA, began the afternoon session of his hearing before the Senate and Environment and Public Works Committee by noting three additional legal actions he has initiated against oil companies in Oklahoma.
 |
Many concerns were raised and questions asked, mostly by Democrats at the hearing, about whether Pruitt can impartially administer federal environmental laws given his past interactions with the oil and gas (O&G) sector. For example, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) asked Pruitt to discuss any contributions he requested from O&G companies for two conservative organizations: the Rule of Law Defense Fund and the Republican Attorney General Association. Pruitt said he would provide answers to such questions in the future if requested as part of a formal review. Whitehouse said Pruitt’s unwillingness to provide more information indicated that the nominee was involved in the movement of “dark money.”
Regulations and Programs
Pruitt explained his position on specific EPA rules and policies.
- Continuing on his recurring theme of a strong state role in implementing federal environmental laws, Pruitt discussed Oklahoma’s efforts to comply with the Clean Air Act’s (CAA) regional haze regulations. The state, he said, put together a state implementation plan (SIP) to meet the requirement to return Oklahoma’s air to natural conditions decades before it was required to do so by the statute. But the EPA said the state failed to properly calculate its reasonable progress goals, rejected that part of the plan, and put a federal implementation plan (FIP) in its place. The action by the Agency was another example of the Obama EPA nullifying the authority Congress granted to the states in the CAA, said Pruitt. He noted that under the three previous presidents, the EPA had issued 5 FIPs when states did not provide SIPs or when SIPs were disapproved. Under President Obama, 56 FIPs have been issued. Pruitt said this is “counterproductive” to the role of the states envisioned in the CAA.
- Pruitt was asked to provide a definition of waters of the United States (WOTUS) that would differ from the Agency’s current and highly controversial definition. He declined to do so even in general terms. A definition that improves upon the current Clean Water Act (CWA) language must either be written into law by Congress or developed by rulemaking that considers all comments from all stakeholders, said Pruitt.
- Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD) said the EPA has populated its Science Advisory Board (SAB) mostly with individuals from the East and West coasts. He asked if Pruitt would change this approach and ensure that the SAB was staffed by scientists who represented all parts of the country, both at the state and local levels. Pruitt acknowledged that “all voices must be heard” as that applies to both the SAB and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC).
- When asked about what he would do as EPA administrator regarding earthquakes caused by hydraulic fracturing in Oklahoma, Pruitt noted first that increased seismic activity in the state was related mainly to the underground injection of produced water from O&G activity, not fracking. He added that the Oklahoma Corporation Commission was addressing the situation by declaring certain areas off limits to wastewater injection.
- Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) noted that California is entitled under the CAA to request a waiver from federal motor vehicle emissions standards so that it can set and implement its own, more stringent standards. The EPA must approve or disapprove the request. Once the EPA approves the waiver, any other state may adopt California’s motor vehicle emissions standards. The Agency has repeatedly approved California’s waiver requests, and Markey asked if Pruitt would continue such approvals given his belief that states must be on the front line of environmental protection. Pruitt would not commit to approving the waiver, saying that the state’s requests would be reviewed when they are received.
Pruitt’s testimony is available here.