Recording in progress.

Good afternoon, everybody.

I'm Charles Allen.

I'm the Ward Six Council Member and Chair of the Council's Committee on Transportation and the Environment.

Today is Thursday, June 4th, 2026.

We're meeting in room 120 of the historic John A.

Wilson building as well as over the Zoom virtual platform.

The time is now 105 p.m.

I'm calling to order this public hearing of the committee.

This is the second of two hearings that we are holding today.

During this public hearing, we're going to hear from the public and government witnesses on two bills, Bill 26-565, the Strengthening Air Pollution Permitting Amendment Act of 2026, and Bill 26-571, the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act of 2026.

The Strengthening Air Pollution Permitting Amendment Act of 2026 would close gaps in nuisance air pollution regulations and establish deadlines for responding to complaints.

It would bolster civil penalties for violation of district air pollution permitting laws and regulations.

It permits the air quality construction permits fund to be used for environmental remediations.

It also establishes enhanced permitting requirements and requires timely agency review of air quality permits.

The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act of 2026 would require the Department of Energy and the Environment to solicit proposals and provide a grant of $200,000 in order to conduct a study assessing the total costs of greenhouse gas emissions in the district and to identify high priority infrastructure projects to adapt for intensifying extreme weather.

Quickly on some housekeeping around the format of today's hearing.

We're gonna be using a timer to help keep us all on schedule.

For witnesses that are testifying in person, I'll call your name and you'll come up and grab a seat here at the table.

We have a mix of witnesses that are also joining us virtually, so we'll call their names.

We'll do our best to blend panels as well a little bit between people that are in person and online.

After you're fist finishing your testimony, please remain seated or in the Zoom.

So if we have questions, we can turn to that.

And for anyone who is interested in submitting written testimony for the record, the committee will accept written testimony through the council's hearing management system at Limbs.dccouncil.gov backslash hearings.

Uh and the record closes on June 18th, 2026.

We have got about uh well, we have over 50 public witnesses that are signed up to testify at today's hearing.

Uh love that public participation.

Um we did not anticipate that many people when we schedule this.

We do have a hard stop at around 5 o'clock.

So we're gonna do our very best to make sure that we can hear from everybody during this hearing.

Um and so if we go too late, we may have to recess and pick the hearing back up again, and we'll make sure we have an updated date and time if we get to that point.

Hopefully, we won't, though.

So with that, let me turn and begin.

So I'm gonna start calling our first panel of public witnesses.

I have Daniel F Fren priests, and I may have mispronounced that Daniel.

Cody Austin, public witness.

Carol Spring, public witness.

There's Carol.

And Celeste Uroha, public witness.

Alright, I don't see Celeste here.

Okay.

Daniel, I've got you first, and I am confident I did not pronounce your last name correctly.

So please introduce yourself and let me turn it over to you for your testimony.

Yes, absolutely.

Can you hear me, Chair Allen?

We absolutely can.

Great.

It's pronounced Aaron Price, but thanks for giving it the good try.

That's my life story.

I'm sure.

I apologize, Aaron Price.

Got it.

Absolutely.

No.

Well, good afternoon, Chair Allen and members of the Committee on Transportation and the Environment.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the council today.

My name is Daniel Aaron Price.

I am the chair of ANC 5F's public safety and health committee.

So as a career public health professional and community leader, I'm testifying in adamant support of B 26565 Strengthening Air Pollution Permitting Amendment Act of 2026.

ANC 5F represents the neighborhoods of Eckington and Edgewood, where Fort Myers Construction Company operates an asphalt plant at 2001 5th Street Northeast, producing batch mix asphalt for paving and construction industries directly along the Metropolitan Branch Trail.

So on February 16th, 2024, the Department of Energy and the Environment issued a public notice soliciting comments on a draft version of a synthetic minor air quality permit for the asphalt plant.

And a public hearing was held on March 18th, 2024, at the DOEE offices, where dozens of neighbors relayed their personal experiences dealing with poor air quality due to the emissions of the plant.

I've submitted the links to the permit, the public comment summary, and ANC 5F's resolution against this permit below the testimony.

The initial 30-day comment period was extended and the public comment period closed officially on March 25th, 2024, with dozens of more neighbors submitting comments for the record.

On November 21st, 2025, almost two years following this DOEE public hearing, the permit was issued with only minor adjustments, despite neighbors' distressing experiences detailing the development of chronic asthma, COPD, and nausea exacerbated from inhalation of the asphalt plants' pollution.

The most egregious part of this process was that the plant was allowed to operate as usual throughout the 646 days DOEE took to review the public comment, meaning more pollution into our neighborhood and more neighbors suffering from poor air quality.

No review period should ever take this long.

So I want to sincerely commend Councilmember Parker and his team for listening to his constituents, engaging community leaders, and introducing this bill to push for processes that center community voice and finally start paving a pathway to environmental justice for residents in ANC 5F, Ward 5, and throughout the district.

Now on February 17th, 2026, ANC 5F unanimously passed a resolution endorsing this bill.

I've submitted this resolution for the record.

And then in addition to our community support for B 26565, we want to urge you to further consider the following items when discussing any markups or amendments to this proposed legislation.

So number one is require transparent, timely, and proactive community notification and engagement for all new and renewed air pollution permits, including meaningful outreach to residents in overburdened neighborhoods before permits are issued.

Two is mandate expanded ambient air quality monitoring in neighborhoods with high cumulative pollution burdens, with data made publicly accessible in real time to ensure transparency and evidence-based decision making.

Three is ensure that DOEE is adequately funded and staffed with specific specified minimum staffing levels for air quality permitting, compliance monitoring, and enforcement to address permit backlogs and improve responsiveness.

Four is incorporate environmental justice protections that prioritize reductions in cumulative impacts for communities historically overexposed to air pollutants, including targets for emissions reductions in those areas.

And five, require regular reporting to DC Council and the public on permitting operations, enforcement actions, complaint resolutions, and disparities in pollution exposure across neighborhoods.

Ward 5 neighbors, community and civic organizations, advisory neighborhood commissions, and environmental justice organizations have advocated for cleaner air despite years of community frustrations due to numerous shortcomings with current law and processes and a consistent rejection of community engagement to express long-standing concerns.

B-26565 is a start, and if we don't start now, then when?

So thank you again for um opening up the public for this hearing and for your time and consideration.

Happy to answer any questions you may have.

Excellent.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Aaron Price.

Next, let me turn to Zoe Poindexter, who I think is also joining us online.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Councilmember Allen and members of the committee.

My name is Zoe Poindexter.

I'm a resident of Ward 5 and Brentwood, and I've owned my home here since the end of 2020.

I'm here to testify in strong support of the strengthening air pollution permitting amendment act of 2026.

As a filmmaker documenting the Black experience in DC, my current project, a revolution called Love, focuses on the legacy of Mama Io Handy Kendi, who is the founder of Black Love Day.

She is also a breathologist who teaches that our breath is our primary life force and the very foundation of our existence.

But as I'm here today, I'm forced to confront a painful contradiction.

Breath cannot be a life-giving force if it is poisoning us at the same time.

When I moved to Brentwood, I didn't realize the extent of the pollution until I saw the environmental justice for Brentwood signs in my neighbor's yard.

As a neighborhood that is home to a majority of black residents, I was deeply disappointed to learn about the high density of industrial licensing in our area.

I remember back when the Canadian wildfires polluted our city a few years back.

What is truly alarming is that there have been days since then where the air quality has felt just as dangerous, but without any wildfire as a cause.

It suggests a chronic local issue that isn't making the news.

I live alone with my pet, but I'm also an Airbnb host.

I welcome visitors from all over the world, and it saddens me to know that they are being exposed to these conditions as well.

And whether we are families, pet owners, or single residents, our health matters equally.

For too long, neighborhoods like mine have been treated as sacrifice zones where industrial needs outweigh human health.

So I support this legislation because it finally stops treating neighborhoods like mine as sacrifice zones.

Specifically, the cumulative impact review.

We must stop looking at facilities in isolation.

We need to consider the total weight of noise, traffic, and pollution already concentrated in our community, and the notification and transparency.

I strongly support the requirement for a public dashboard.

Similar to how utility companies notify us of service disruptions, the DOEE should call, email, or post signs to give residents transparency when companies violate these provisions.

We shouldn't have to guess why our life force feels under attack.

So in conclusion, a revolution called love requires us to take accountability for one another.

And passing this bill is a deliberate act of care for the residents of the district.

It is a necessary step forward, a step toward environmental justice and ensuring that every resident has the right to breathe life-giving air.

I urge the committee to pass this legislation this year.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have Alexandra Williamson, who I don't think is here online or in person.

All right.

Anthony David Jr.

Then we'll turn to you next.

All right.

Well, good afternoon, Chair President Allen and staff.

My name is Anthony David Jr.

I'm a community organizers with Empower DC.

The past two decades and Power DC has worked to advance racial, economic, and environmental justice citywide.

Today I would like to address our strong and immediate support for the strengthening air pollution permanently amendment act of 2026.

During my time at a power DC, which is about three years, I've testified at three or so uh air quality hearings, uh air quality permit hearings, and I work with the city to address air quality through the air quality advisory board at DOEE.

And during this time I have seen how difficult it is for our residents to participate in this process at every step.

Starting with the permit application with facilities submits a permit to the District of Columbia, it is not readily available or in a lot of cases publicly accessible.

This is very unique as other states allow this information to be publicly available as soon as it's submitted.

More recently, I found out that facilities can submit classified permits.

No permit should be classified, especially in regard to our public health.

By the time residents hear about permit applications, it has already been approved internally by DLEE.

Residents only have 30 days to convince DOEE why they shouldn't move forward with the permit.

Meanwhile, meanwhile, this is an act of false hope because to this day, DLEE cannot provide a time where they have denied an air quality permit based on community complaints and concerns.

Evidently, even the appeal process doesn't seem that effective or accessible to residents either.

Addressing an air quality permit is already a technical process, but here's another barrier.

DLEEE is not required to host permit meetings in communities, which is challenging for residents to participate.

I'm not saying DLEE should go to into every community for every single permit, but it it has been helpful when they do.

We have requested DOE to host permit meetings at rec centers and local libraries, which has allowed residents to participate.

Even when we get communities to participate, like for the Vulcan Concrete plant permit a couple years ago, and even more recently the Aussie bus uh terminal fueling station in Brentwood, there is still a delay in implementation for these permits, unless it's a district government site.

Even now we have facilities operating on on a five-year expire permit or even facility facilities like the National Engineering Products, who is currently operating over 90 years with no air quality permit.

This is all unacceptable and should not be our standard practice.

I want to say, lastly, that DOEE has spent a lot of time working with facilities and getting them into compliance.

This bill is a prime opportunity to give DLEE some real standards and real mechanisms of enforcement.

Even now, with their loose order regulations, if facilities continue to produce odors, what are the thresholds to either shut them down, uh the facilities or deny a permit renewal?

This bill will allow for real accountability mechanisms by ensuring that impacts on public spaces are considered, including emissions from vehicles and equipment operating at facilities, contact information for permitted facilities, community engagement, hours of operations, and emergency limits on operations during poor air quality days.

With that, I would like to thank you all for holding this meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next, we're gonna go to April Avant, who I think is online.

Yes.

I think you're muted though, so we need you to go off mute.

Good afternoon, Council members.

I have lived and worked in Washington, DC for most of my adult life, and like many who call this city home, I share a deep love of our hiking and biking trails, parks, and green spaces.

I also share, along with about 20% of the DC residents, a mental health depression disorder.

Both my love of nature and my experience with that disorder are what brought me here today to testify in favor of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act.

During my last depressive episode, I could barely get out of bed or take care of myself.

It wasn't a doctor's order that got me outside.

It was instinct.

Something in me knew that moving through the city on foot and on a bike was medicine.

And as NH as NIH research confirms what my body already understood, spending as little as 10 minutes in urban nature can meaningfully improve mental health symptoms in adults living with depression.

Walking through Rock Creek Park and encountering the same man playing RB slow jams while offering bread to the ducks.

The musician on the trail to Dumbarton Park playing jazz standards on his trumpet, delighting everyone who passes by, smelling the roses outside a neighbor's garden, somebody collecting mulberries for their own delicious enjoyment.

These are the unexpected moments that I welcome joyfully and wait for expectantly.

They're not small things for someone living with depression.

They're lifelines.

My very first job in DC was working at a nonprofit on climate change.

I've watched this issue for a long time for a long time.

And when I've lived, and what I believe is that reducing car traffic doesn't just help our air or our emissions numbers.

It changes the character of our streets, makes them inviting.

It gives people the conditions to walk, to bike, to slow down, and find those moments of unexpected connection that sustain us.

A more walkable and bikeable city creates a space for people to connect meaningfully with each other and with the natural world.

For roughly one in five of us, that connection is a mental health intervention.

Climate change threatens that extreme heat, flooded trails, and a city increasingly hostile to being outside, all take that away from people who need it the most.

Washingtonians deserve unexpected delights and not an unexpected bill for polluters who refuse to clean up their mess.

This study is the first step to making polluters who cause this damage pay for it, not DC workers and community members already struggling with the cost of extreme weather and its toll on our health.

Today I'm urging you to pass and fund the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act.

Thank you so much for your time today and the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much.

Uh next, let me turn to Giovanni Jagannath.

Thank you, Chairperson Allen and committee members.

My name is Jan of V Jagannath, and I'm a DC resident and staff attorney at Empower DC, a citywide grassroots organization.

I'm testifying today in support of B 26 565 Strengthening Air Pollution Permitting Amendment Act of 2026.

I will discuss Ward 5's air quality issues, issues with the current air permitting system, the benefits of this proposed bill, a response to DOE's testimony, and recommendations for strengthening the bill.

Ward 5 residents face the brunt of the district's industrial facilities and emissions with over 50% of DC's industrial land concentrated into this ward, reflecting a long history of environmental racism.

Ward 5 residents live along asphalt plants, trash transfer stations, illegal idling, and now a new bus terminal with hundreds of large vehicles driving in and out daily.

PM 2.5 is one of the many pollutants emitted by industrial activity, fine particulate matter that lodges itself in lungs and creates respiratory issues.

Studies have found that PM 2.5 attributable health issues, so asthma, emergency visits, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, lung cancer, stroke, in addition to just general all-cause mortality is found in higher prevalence in DC's low-income neighborhoods of color.

And this is not a coincidence.

IB City and Brentwood experience 89% more pollution than other census tracts in the U.S., according to the CDC's index.

Diesel vehicle emissions, asphalt production, waste transfer, all of this has a direct impact on residents' lives.

And right now, they largely operate unchecked.

As we've heard, facilities continue polluting without adequate permits or mitigation methods.

Permits lack clarity, specificity, or enforcement.

Residents are given very little information about current or proposed air quality measures.

Residents are tasked with submitting citizen complaints without any public dashboard or ability to see current permits, their requirements, or their operating standards.

So this bill is a great start in mitigating this opacity and supporting residents who have been calling for better environmental protection for decades.

When considering a permit, cumulative impacts must be taken into account under this bill.

When a permit is given, on-site managers would need to be trained about permit terms and conditions.

A public dashboard would keep residents up to date on permit for on permit terms and conditions.

And when air quality is bad, a facility would need to comply with limits on non-essential operations.

When a facility violates a permit, residents could now understand this violation because of publicly shared information on the dashboard and use a long-overdue private right of action to hold polluters accountable through the legal system.

When a facility violates a permit twice, they would be temporarily sanctioned in a place that they would actually feel it through their contracts.

And when a permit expires, an applicant would need to review, renew and ensure compliance with modern law.

In addition to the bill's existing standards, Empower DC also recommends an interagency task force to review permits, complaints, and enforcement of air quality permits alongside health data to ensure that the health impacts of air quality can be evaluated in an ongoing way.

And Empower would also recommend a modification requiring that a fence line monitor be placed within 300 feet of any polluting source, with ongoing air quality information being made available on the public site.

I'd also like to take a moment to discuss some of the points that DOEE brings up in their submitted testimony.

DOE expresses concerns that this legislation is overburdensome and would have negative consequences.

We want to emphasize that this bill is particularly important in overburdened neighborhoods and was written to target those neighborhoods.

This bill could be made more specific to clarify that the majority of its mandates would apply to permit applicants whose impacts affect neighborhoods that are overburdened, and we could offer clarity and exceptions for essential entities like hospitals, water facility treatments, water treatment facilities, and Congress.

Most importantly, though, DOEE raises concerns about the bill's important provisions requiring up-to-date quality permits, air quality permits in order to function.

And it might be true that facilities have to comply with underpinning air quality regulations even without a permit, but we have seen a lack of accountability for facilities that don't have permits who continue to break air quality regulations.

These points are specific to pollution in overburdened neighborhoods and, like I said, non-hospital facilities, but the purpose of permitting is to ensure that facilities are in compliance with up-to-date standards.

Residents only have so many places to turn when there's a district facility like National Engineering Products that has been operating without an air quality permit for decades, emitting toxic chemicals into the air on a regular basis with no permit.

Residents have exhausted all of the options and are calling through this bill for the structures in place that purport to create environmental security to actually function.

We all have to take care of expiring administrative deadlines like IDs and parking permits and our our own leases.

So why should polluters that are affecting the health and safety and well-being of people who live around them not be held to the same standard?

It should not be controversial to call for air pollution permits to be up to date and in compliance with modern law.

In conclusion, we strongly support the strengthening air pollution permitting amendment act of 2026 and are happy to offer further recommendations to strengthen the efficacy, clarity, and feasibility of this bill.

I also support the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act of 2026 and would recommend funding be concurrently given to other mechanisms of actually mitigating extreme weather, such as climate resilience hubs as seen in the Ivy City Resilience Hub Eminent Domain Authority Act of 2025.

Thank you for your time and the opportunity to testify.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

Next, let me turn to Cody Austin, who is joining us online.

Are you there, Cody?

Not sure Cody can hear me.

We have him on the panel, but we can't.

We don't seem to have any video or audio yet.

All right, tell you what, we can hold on Cody Austin.

We'll come back if we can figure out our tech issues to make sure that we can add Cody there.

So Carol Spring will turn to you if you're ready.

Good afternoon, Chairman Allen, committee members and staff.

My name is Carol Spring, and I've been a Ward 4 resident for over 20 years.

I urge you to pass and fund the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act through the budget.

I also urge you to pass the strengthening air pollution permitting amendment act.

My daughter was born and raised in DC.

As a mother, I'm deeply concerned about the future of the city for the next generation.

How will the city and all our families pay for rising costs from climate disasters and from pollution?

What does environmental justice look like across all eight wards?

The extreme cold snap with accompanying snow crete that we got in January was caused by the destabilization of the jet stream from climate change.

Yet the fossil fuel companies who bore the bulk of the responsibility for it paid nothing, while the DC Department of Public Works was stuck with a bill of over 50 million dollars, seven times what they had budgeted for the entire season.

We can also expect to see increases in heat waves from climate change and accompanying increases in illnesses and deaths from extreme heat in DC.

Historic red lining in DC has caused an urban heat island effect, leading to black and brown neighborhoods being at much higher risk of heat-related deaths than white neighborhoods, making this an issue of race and of public health.

Who will pay the bills?

Those already struggling at the brink of poverty.

Passing and funding the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act will allow the city to better understand the impacts and costs to our city so that we can plan and pay for the growing costs of climate change to DC residents.

The strengthening air pollution permitting amendment act is also a critical step for righting historic wrongs.

Ward 5 has two asphalt plants, a concrete plant, and a chemical plant, and more, all within a block of residents' homes.

Ivy City and Brentwood residents do not deserve to have their community be a dumping ground for industrial toxins.

DC families are suffering from having pollutants pushed into our neighborhoods daily.

We need this legislation in order to strengthen the city's air quality regulation.

We need climate and environmental justice.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Great, thank you very much.

And I think that we might have Cody back.

Cody Austin, let's see if we can hear you this time.

Yes, we can't see you yet, but we can hear you.

Uh can you see me now?

Oh, there we go.

Now we can.

Yes, there you go.

Sorry about the question.

No, glad we worked it out.

Me too.

Thank you, Councilmember Allen, for the opportunity to testify today.

My name is Cody Austin.

I'm a policy consultant, DC resident, and environmental advocate with the Sierra Club.

I'm here to urge the council today to fund the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act of 2026 using the Budget Support Act as a vehicle for passage.

This funding is necessary to conduct a climate study identifying the top fossil fuel companies responsible for greenhouse gas emissions.

This bill is a critical first step to holding polluters financially responsible for the catastrophic climate change they are causing.

The oil and gas industry is actively and knowingly accelerating climate change.

Just 10 corporations account for 44% of greenhouse gas emissions in the US, with Marathon Petroleum, Phillips 66, ExxonMobil, and Valero Energy being the top four contributors.

We as DC residents experience the physical and economic toll of these climate effects every year.

From 1970 to 2024, DC experienced the 15% increase in rainfall intensity, causing abrupt flash flooding, which is the leading cause of weather-related deaths, killing around 200 people every year.

This flooding makes flood-prone areas uh less safe and more expensive for low-income residents.

Homeowners in wards 7 and 8 are sometimes forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars to install flood prevention measures, yet the median household income in those wards is less than half of the citywide median income.

These areas are experiencing increased flooding thanks to intensifying rainfall and sea level rise driven by fossil fuel companies that profit off of destroying our planet and profit they have.

The top 40 U.S.

fossil fuel companies made over 200 billion dollars in 2025.

Of course, flooding is not the only climate issues residents are facing.

This past winter, DC experienced an unprecedented unprecedented deep freeze.

It was unequipped to manage, costing taxpayers at least 67.2 million dollars.

High temperatures have also made summers unbearable as unhoused neighbors and outdoor laborers are subjected to heat waves, making them vulnerable to heat-related illnesses, respiratory issues, and more severely, death.

The council must fund this bill through the Budget Support Act to authorize the expenditure of budgeted funds.

DC residents should not be the ones paying for disastrous climate effects created by these fossil fuel companies.

And this bill helps to identify these polluters and make them pay.

And before I conclude here, I just wanted to note that I did not receive a link for this meeting.

Thank you to Ava with the Sierra Club for giving me the link so I was able to provide my testimony today.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Alright, excellent.

I don't know why the link didn't come through, but I'm glad that you're here, Cody.

So thank you very much.

Thanks everybody for your testimony.

A couple of quick things.

For those of you that testified on the greenhouse gas emissions study, if you're unaware, or you already know, we were able to, in the committee, I was able to identify the dollars to fund that in our committee action.

So our intention with that is to go ahead and identify the dollars necessary for that legislation so we have the fiscal impact covered.

We then can have two options.

You heard Mr.

Austin talk about perhaps we're able to get this through the Budget Support Act.

That would require uh the chairman agreeing to that.

So that's one route.

The other is that we go ahead and pass the law as it is after we hold the hearing and write the committee report, but this way we at least have the funding set aside in advance.

So the committee action was to have this be funded.

So that has been uh we need the full council obviously to approve it, but I believe we'll have that done, and we'll pass the greenhouse gas emissions legislation in one of two routes, but we'll have that pre-funded.

Um so I appreciate your testimony and share the urgency there.

Specifically through um the or on the strengthening air pollution permitting process.

So I might start um Ms.

Jagannath.

Is that correct?

Jagannath, yeah.

Um is it fair to say that this bill is essentially coming directly from the experience of the current uh permitting process and the ways in which it is um let down community and neighbors around it.

In other words, this legislation is a direct response to something that community is saying this has not been adequate for us.

Is that fair?

Absolutely.

And it closes loopholes that have existed in this process for years.

Um, but it does come straight from community members advocating for for this and going through the process.

Got it.

I think it's important, and I'm uh I guess I was gonna ask uh uh Mr.

Aaron Price from I'm gonna wager you're gonna say similarly, but let me ask you.

Um you kind of outlined the inadequacies you saw through the permitting process.

Do you feel like this legislation is again a direct response to what you experienced on behalf of your neighbors and ANC as well?

I would wholeheartedly agree with that statement.

Um we have seen many neighbors that have come to the table to talk about the issues that they had with this permitting process.

Again, it took over 646 days for the permit to be issued.

So we had many frustrations and we were engaged pretty heavily when it came to the creation and inception of this uh piece of legislation.

Yeah.

Okay.

And to make sure it's abundantly clear to the public, that's 646 days.

Did I get that right?

That is correct.

646 days between uh the start of the public um hearing uh comment period and the actual issuance of the permit.

Right.

And they were in operation during those 646 days.

Um, not that they were waiting to open.

Uh they were in operation, and then uh that a permit should never take that long.

I agree with you.

Part of what I would push back on if we're gonna hear from DOEE to say they feel like this legislation is overly burdensome or they're not supportive of the bill.

Uh one I would ask DOE, um, do they think the permitting process is working perfectly as it is right now?

Um, and if not, I'm gonna be much more sympathetic if they come to me with alternatives than just say I don't like this bill.

Um so kind of previewing for our friends at DOEE, um, can't just come in and say, I don't like this, um, or it's gonna be too hard or it's too onerous.

If there's an alternative you want to suggest, I'm all ears and let's let's see what you might come up with.

But I think it sounds pretty clear both from my colleague who helped introduce this bill and the community that helped draft it and work to be responsive to the experience that has been had, um, it's not working the way it's supposed to.

Uh, and so I think that's abundantly clear.

Um, let's see if there were any other questions we're focused on.

Um, Mr.

David, was there anything, any other elements that you feel like need to be added to the bill, um, specifically on the permitting process.

Um, and then I guess do you believe there need to be additional resources added to the air quality team at DOEE to be able to then um implement and execute new expectations?

Yeah, in terms of the bill, I one thing that I really like appreciate about the bill is its kind of holistic viewpoint of what's happening at these facilities because the way that DOE is does their permits, they're not permitting these facilities.

They're permitting the machinery or like the specific the thing that a facility is using.

You know, so say, for example, at the Aussie bus terminal is specifically for the fueling station, but that uh impact isn't taking into account once the fuel is also in the buses, 250 buses that they originally opposed to bring to this community.

So the, you know, to tell us, you know, that you know, they don't expect to see any impacts, you know, from the fueling station, you know, that's not taking into account all the buses driving through the neighborhood as well.

So I think this bill really does a good job at outlining the holistic, you know, operations of these facilities.

And in terms of you know, other resources, you know, like we like John of you was saying that we definitely encourage the interagency collaboration and approach towards this.

You know, air quality is definitely something that impacts a lot of our vulnerable populations, you know, the air quality board could tell you a lot more about that.

And it just does not take into any health accounts.

You know, DOE just did an aquama study.

You know, I would like to see that study also be incorporated into how they're also issuing permits.

You know, you can't tell me that you want to protect public health if you're not denying any permits, that's not how that works.

So, well, and I was gonna get to that interagency task force.

I would argue it needs to be stronger than just a task force.

Um, if I've got an entity that is not in compliance with a permit or has been found in violation of uh air quality permit, I don't want to see a different agency awarding multi-million dollar contracts to the same company.

Um even giving business license as well.

Or they just don't know, right?

So it could be business license, it could be contracting, but the separation and silo effect of the agency and actions, um, I find very disturbing because it's the left and the right hand are talking to one another, and that to me, so I I'd go a little further than uh the task force.

I think the same intent though is there of how do you get everybody talking and working off the same sheet.

Um, but I think you could go even further in that.

No, yes, ma'am.

Yeah, add something to that.

Um I really appreciate that point, and uh just also to add first to your original question to me, which was is this a community-based effort.

I would just reiterate that this has been asked for by community members for decades.

I you asked me that question, which is great, but I personally am not a Ward 5 resident, and I would just encourage you to when other Ward 5 residents do come to testify to give them the the same question and the chance to tell their stories as well.

Um, and then to add on to what you were saying about interagency collaboration.

Um, there is so much scapegoating that happens when we try to point out to let's say Aussie, for example, that their school buses are gonna cause a bunch of pollution.

They say, Well, that's not that's not on us, though.

You know, that's that's someone else's business to worry about.

We can't do these studies, we can't take care of this issue.

Um, so I agree that having stronger interagency uh work and mandates would close those loopholes as well.

Yeah, excellent.

All right, I appreciate it.

Um I know we've got a lot more witnesses to go, so I want to make sure we turn to the next panel, but really appreciate everybody's testimony and advocacy on these two pieces of legislation.

So thank you all very much.

All right, let me move to our second panel, and again, we're gonna have a blending of folks that are here in person and folks that are online.

So let me turn to Isla Frost, DC organizer with CCAN, Claire Mills, DC campaigns manager with CCAN Action Fund, William Washburn, who's the chair of the Environmental and Climate Justice Committee with the NAACP DC branch, who's joining us online, ANC Commissioner Julia Headland from ANC5F.

Talia Parker, public witness, who's joining us online, Eva Sedana, outreach and communications coordinator with Sierra Club, who's here in person.

Eduardo Seraphim, public witness.

I don't believe we've got Eduardo here, Irwin Rose, public witness.

And I think Erwin's here online as well.

All right, Eduardo is here as well.

Okay, excellent.

So we've got a full panel.

Um, Isla, we will kick it off with you.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

My name is Isla Frost, and I'm an organizer with the CCAN Action Fund and award one resident testifying as a public witness today.

I'm here today to voice my strong support for the greenhouse gas emissions study amendment act, which would fund a study to understand just what extreme weather climate impacts are coming for us here in DC, so we can effectively plan to protect what needs to be protected.

Um, summer does not officially begin until June 21st, but we are already seeing the effects of extreme heat caused by climate change in DC.

During the recent heat wave in May, two DC high schools had to close early because their HVAC systems could not keep up with the temperatures.

And that's not an isolated incident.

Heat waves and heat in schools is a real issue.

Back in January, CAN held a listening session at Cardozo High School, one of the schools that had to close due to the heat to hear from students about how they want to see leadership and innovation from our government as climate conditions worsen in DC.

Students talked about struggling in the hot weather, feeling scared during summer storms, and one student I spoke with even told me he sometimes stays home from school because the heat gives him headaches.

This is exactly why we need this study.

We need a plan to adapt government buildings, including schools, libraries, um recreation centers, resilience hubs, even the Wilson building.

Um we need to help them stay cool in hotter conditions.

Adapting to more intense heat means we'll have to spend more both in government utility bills as we power on the AC earlier and for longer, as well as the cost of repairs and major upgrades to cooling systems.

But the reality of our increasingly hot summers is that we're gonna need to make these upgrades and so much more.

There is no way around the fact that DC will need to spend money adapting to climate change.

The question here is whether we'll do it based on good research and planning or after the issues become emergencies.

We need to pass the greenhouse gas emissions study amendment with the budget this year so that we can understand the full scope of climate risk facing our city, not only extreme heat, but also stronger storms, flooding, and other impacts.

And so we can use that to make a good plan to help us adapt to emergencies before they happen.

At the same time, we should continue strengthening air pollution permitting and oversight in the district.

While we must urgently prepare to adapt to the impacts of extreme weather, residents in DC should not also have to bear the burden of preventable industrial pollution.

DC residents living near industrial facilities, many of which are concentrated in Ivy City, Brentwood, and other parts of Ward 5, deserve transparency, accountability, and strong permit requirements that protect human health.

And so I echo the community concerns and support for the strengthening air pollution permitting amendment act, and I urge the council to pass the greenhouse gas emissions study amendment act in this year's budget.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

Claire Mills.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Allen.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for calling this hearing on the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act.

Cant Action Fund has helped lead the charge for this legislation because we believe it's time for a new era in the district's response to climate change.

Over the last 20 years, advocates, DC Council, our administration, and residents have built the Department of Energy and Environment we have today, investing millions in protecting our rivers and nature, greening district buildings, and more.

Much of this work has been funded since at a time through special purpose fees and funds as district residents collectively contribute to a cleaner, healthier city.

But with every passing year, the scale of the problem grows, and the scale of the resources in our communities doesn't.

We're not ready for the climate crisis in the district.

This winter, the district spent eight times what was budgeted for winter weather in response to winter storm fern.

It's been called a once in a generation storm, but does anyone actually believe that that climate change-caused storm is a once-in-a-generation phenomenon?

At the same time, DC saw the worst sewage spill this country has ever seen, costing us at least 20 million.

So in the span of a few months, the district was looking at over 80 million in unexpected costs due to extreme weather and failing infrastructure.

The greenhouse gas emissions study is how we start to ensure that we are not caught by surprise next time.

The study would quantify how the climate crisis is going to show up in the district, allowing us to better budget to address the worst impacts on DC residents and businesses.

With DC's revenue estimates for the coming years predicted to fall behind the current pace of inflation, every dollar the district spends is critical.

The extensive work of the Department of Energy and Environment has already done to develop and update the climate ready DC plan is incredibly useful for planning and prioritizing funding.

But better, more district-specific data sets and analysis would generate even better results.

And most critically, we need a comprehensive count of what all of this work will cost the district and where the emissions causing these costs come from.

Why?

Because big numbers generate big ambition.

This study will help us to build the ambition for action on climate resilience that we actually need in the district.

The states that have already moved forward with creating a climate superfund paid into by fossil fuel companies were largely motivated by devastating climate disasters.

The most intense flooding Vermont has seen since 1927, for example.

I do not want the district to wait until our communities have been destroyed by climate change fueled extreme weather to act.

Residents are already struggling with extreme heat, flooding, unpredictable storms, and more.

We should not wait to build the ambition for a new era of climate response on destruction, damage, and death.

Instead, let us build it on the reality of what we know is coming.

Hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer burden to address worsening weather.

The greenhouse gas emissions study will demonstrate the balance the district is about to come do, and Cant Action Fund is confident that balance will speak for itself.

At least hundreds of millions, the district will need to keep our communities safe and the district livable.

CCAN Action Fund is therefore happy to see the $200,000 dedicated to the study in the current fiscal year 2027 budget.

We feel confident this level of funding will deliver a meaningful study with a comprehensive total of the cost of climate change to the district.

By comparison, Maryland dedicated 500,000 towards their Renew Act study passed and funded last year to complete a similar goal.

But that study must factor in a land area about 143 times bigger than Washington, DC, a population over 5 million people larger.

There is a lot more geographic and ecological diversity to factor in, which means a lot more data to analyze.

And critically, there are many levels of government to interact with.

State government, county governments, city governments.

The Renew Act study seeks to understand how all these level of governments will work together to respond to climate change impacts in Maryland and what costs are specifically borne by the state.

The district is far smaller, has a simpler governance structure, and it makes it easier to complete the study here than it is for our neighboring state of Maryland.

And we can learn from their results.

CAN Action Fund is also spoken with attribution scientists contributing to the Renew Act study who have confirmed that $200,000 of starting funding is enough to get the results we need to move forward.

So, of course, there's there's no limit to how deep good research could go on climate resilience, but we feel confident the district can garner meaningful results by investing $200,000 now, and that this is a reasonable investment given our unfortunately tight budget for the Department of Energy Environment in the coming fiscal year.

The scale of the climate crisis ruining in the district is difficult for many of us to imagine.

I've heard it said that we will experience climate change as watching more and more terrifying clips of extreme weather on our phones until we're the ones filming it in our neighborhoods.

Passing and funding the study through the fiscal year 2027 budget is how we ensure that when it is district residents behind the camera, we're ready and able to help.

So I want to thank Councilmember Lewis George for her leadership in introducing and funding this legislation, and to you, Councilmember Allen, for your leadership in shepherding it through this committee.

I look forward to continue to working with you and the Department of Energy Environment to build the ambition we need for a new era of response to climate change in the district.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next we're to turn to William Washburn who's joining us online.

So Mr.

Washburn, I'll turn it over to you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Allen, members of the Committee on Transportation and the Environment.

Um William Washburn.

I chair the environmental and climate justice uh committee of the NWCP Washington DC branch.

And uh I'm here today on behalf of the uh NAACP branch to um advocate for passage of both the strengthening air pollution permitting amendment act and also the greenhouse gas emissions study.

Um we feel that there is a strong reasons for passing both of these pieces.

First off, with respect to the district's air pollution permitting process.

There are a number of there are a number of shortfalls in the city's current structure that we think this act will help to address.

Uh first off, is that uh this first off the permitting process in the city comes off as kind of a black box?

It is one where the community brings a complaint with regards to a polluting source.

Uh there's you know, there's little feedback from DOE and other district agencies that might be involved as far as, um, as far as how issues are going to be addressed of when permitting or permit might be issued for uh for a put a source of potential pollution, or where a complaint has been bought against the source.

What's the resolution going to be?

When's it going to take place?

And I will say right now that it is negligence that borders on the criminal for Washington DC to have allowed a chemical plant to put toxins and noxious fumes into the air affecting adjacent residential areas for the better part of a century.

This is totally unacceptable, and it is time for the city to get off its duct, and uh we think that this act will help to do that.

And uh so therefore we strongly endorse uh passage of this of this legislation to uh to deal to deal with these issues because, you know, in addition to areas like uh Brentwood Ivy City being impacted by polluting industrial uses, we also of course have the neighborhoods of ward seven and eight being impacted by pollution from adjacent uh from adjacent freeway, Anacostia Freeway, Kenilworth Avenue, and uh and and uh residents in Ward 8 have recently brought attention to their concerns about uh methane emitting uh natural gas fueling station uh installed at the uh Shepherd Parkway metro bus garage.

So uh we definitely await and support passage of this of this legislation to bring the city's permitting process into the 21st century and to make it much more accessible to the community.

With regards to the uh greenhouse gas emissions study, we also support this legislation and uh we especially appreciate the fact that uh and and thanks thanks to you thanks to you uh council member Allen and others other council members who work with you to secure funding for this study.

We feel that uh this study has the potential to help the city address issues not only of climate change related disasters and extreme weather events, but also help the city to improve its overall resiliency.

And uh what we mean by that is a city where uh we are much less vulnerable to the ups and downs of prices in fossil fuels.

It means that uh the city will refrain from such miscarriages of environmental justice as cannibalizing funds that are intended for electrification of residences occupied by low and moderate income homeowners, I mean low and moderate income households, cannibalizing the funds for that program for the city to pay its utility bills or the otherwise beef up its general fund.

One point I might add in that is that if the city were serious about energy conservation and making sure that its facilities are as uh used renewable energy to the extent possible that the city's utility bill, particularly for uh gas and electricity, might be lower than they are now.

Okay.

And it's never too late for the city to start doing this.

When the city is investing hundreds of millions of dollars into renovating and uh helping to construct uh sports facilities like uh Capital One and the uh coming uh commanders football stadium, the city needs to be using those hundreds of millions of dollars as a strategic leverage to ensure that those facilities can meet lead standards with regards to with regards to uh energy conservation.

Mr.

Washington, I apologize for interrupting.

You're on a roll, I love everything you're saying.

So we're about two and a half minutes over, and we got 50 plus witnesses today, so I will wrap up.

I will wrap it right our rapid right now.

Uh, Councilmember Allen, and once again, uh thank you for this opportunity.

Absolutely.

Thank you, sir.

I appreciate it.

Okay.

Uh next let me turn to ANC Commissioner Julia Headland from ANC 5F.

Hello, good afternoon, Councilmember Allen and members of the committee.

Um, thank you for calling this hearing on strengthening the on the strengthening air pollution permitting amendment act of 2026 and for the opportunity to address the council today.

I'm an ANC commissioner for our 5F07, which is an area of Eckington that is close to Fort Myers, uh, one of Fort Myers' two asphalt plants located in Ward 5.

And I'm here to express my strong support for the strengthening air pollution permitting amendment act of 2026.

Uh I first want to express my gratitude to Councilmember Parker for introducing this important bill and for Council members Henderson and Alan's co-sponsorship of it.

The bill addresses critical gaps in the current air pollution permitting system, which leave residents with few protections against heavy industries operating in many cases right next to dense residential areas.

The bill also begins to address a fundamental flaw in the district's Department of Energy and the Environment, DOEE, as it's currently configured.

Based on what I've seen and heard from DOEE and community meetings, and in response to concerns raised by residents, they do not seem to have the mandate to adequately protect DC residents from polluters in our city.

DOEE's primary focus seems to be on working with businesses to facilitate their operations and issue permits rather than protecting residents' health.

They have been unable or unwilling to incorporate communities the community's experience of living near these polluters into their regulatory framework, at least in my neighborhood, what I've seen.

In March 2024, at a DOEE public hearing regarding the draft air quality permit for Fort Myers plant number one, more than 500 community members submitted testimony outlining the harmful impacts of the plant's operation in this residential neighborhood and requesting stricter permitting requirements and more and better community engagement.

After all of this, and about 20 months later, DOEE approved another five-year permit in November of 2025 with minimal community feedback incorporated, and after allowing the plant to continue operating without a valid permit for years while the new application was being reviewed.

What I and other neighbors heard in a community meeting following the permit approval is that there was basically nothing that would have prevented DOEE from renewing that permit.

For example, in response to residents' requests to limit plant operations on poor air quality days, the response was that this type of constraint would be too disruptive to plant operations.

On a recent community outreach walk with DOEE, team members were unable to provide more information on the chemical makeup and potential health risks related to the strong asphalt smell that often blankets our neighborhood, despite that being one of the most common complaints that residents raise about this plant.

Staffing constraints were another common theme.

DOEE staff talked about the time and effort they put into helping companies complete successful permit applications while simultaneously simultaneously letting us know that because of the limited number of staff inspectors, they have limited ability to monitor or regulate industrial polluters.

These interactions have led me to question the purpose of DOEE.

Is there focus on facilitating businesses getting permits, or is it on protecting residents from harmful emissions?

If it's both, the emphasis has felt to me on the side of businesses as their main customer.

A few elements of the bill under consideration that would be most impactful in my community, include the requirements of DOEE limit, include limits on pollutants produced by facilities, including emergency limits on poor air quality days.

Empowering ANCs to negotiate community agreements with permitted facilities regarding mitigation of community impacts, introducing meaningful penalties for repeat violators, and recentering enforcement of odor nuisance laws on the impact to residents and requiring DOEE to consider the impact of nuisances on public spaces and not just life and property.

I'll also add that since 2023, ANC 5F has passed five resolutions regarding the environmental injustices perpetuated by Fort Myers Construction Company Plant No.

These resolutions have called for increased budget for air pollution monitoring, highlighted longstanding environmental injustices that have been perpetuated in historically low income and communities of color.

Called on DOEE to tighten restrictions on Fort Myers permit to address serious health and public nuisance concerns, and specifically endorsed express the Commission's support for B 26 0565 strengthening air pollution permitting amendment act of 2026.

Thanks for your consideration of public testimony of and of the bill before you.

I urge you to move this bill to the full council for a vote to pass the bill and then to exercise oversight to ensure that DOEE carries it out within their mandate to protect the environment and the health of district residents.

Thank you very much.

Next, I'm turn to Talia Parker, who's joining us online.

Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for this opportunity to address the council today.

My name is Talia Parker, and I'm a Ward 1 resident living in Adams, Morgan.

I'm speaking today to urge the City Council to pass the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act.

I've lived in DC for 10 years.

I moved here for college and then decided to stay and make it my home because I love this city and the communities who live here.

But I'm increasingly worried about what my future as a DC resident looks like in the face of climate change.

From the recent heat waves to this winter's deep freeze, it is clear that the DC region is feeling the immediate effects of climate change and that our neighborhoods and neighbors are not sufficiently prepared to face them.

We also know that the effects of climate change are experienced unequally in DC.

For example, the last city heat study found that wards five, seven, and eight are the most vulnerable to extreme heat, which disproportionately affects black DC residents.

Our city needs to be prepared to face the challenges that we are experiencing and implement a more equitable climate plan.

This study is a critical first step that will so that we will have the data we need to take serious action.

I also feel very strongly that the actors most responsible for the climate crisis we are in, including billionaire fossil fuel companies, should be footing the bill for the resiliency efforts the city needs, not individual tax payers.

The motto, you break it, you buy it, feels very fitting in this situation.

As a young person who is honestly very scared about climate disaster and who would like to keep DC my home for the next several decades, I need to know DC is committed to acting now to mitigate the effects of climate change in our region.

I urge the City Council to pass the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act in the budget so that our city will have the information we need to hold major polluters accountable and begin to build a more resilient city.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Next, let's turn to Tene Lewis, also joining us online.

Good afternoon.

Excuse me one second while I switch screens to be my testimony.

Good afternoon, Chairman Allen.

I'm sorry, Councilmember Allen.

My name is Tene Lewis.

I am a DC native community advocate, member of the Air Quality Monitoring Advisory Board, um, led by DOEE and a leader in efforts to reduce lead exposure and asthma in our communities.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of funding for the Green Hack Greenhouse gas emission study amendment act and enforcement actions for the air quality monitoring bill, funding for this work, important work.

I support these bills because DC residents are already paying the price for climate change, pollution, and environmental hazards.

While the companies responsible for much of the pollution are not being held accountable.

Everyday residents across the district are exposed to air pollution, toxic ignition, and unhealthy housing conditions that affect their health and quality of life.

Many families do not know what pollutants they are breathing or what toxins may be present in their homes and neighborhoods.

Yet many companies seeking permits to operate in DC are fully aware of the pollution they generate and the potential impacts on public health.

As a community advocate and leader working on air quality quality, lead exposure prevention and asthma reduction, I see firsthand how environmental conditions affect families.

We continue to see high rates of respiratory illnesses, asthma, and other chronic health problems, especially in environmental justice.

Communities like Ward 5 and East of the River, which often face some of the greatest burdens from pollution, extreme heat, aging infrastructure, and poor housing conditions.

These issues extend to housing as well.

Residents should not have to carry the burden of identifying these risks on their own.

The greenhouse gas emissions study is a critical first step towards understanding the true cause of climate change in the district, identifying major polluters, and helping us prepare for future impacts.

The enforcement of the air quality monitoring bill will also restore confidence and confidence that elected officials are prioritizing the residents.

Good policy starts with good data.

These bills and funding will help DC make informed decisions, protect vulnerable residents, and ensure that taxpayers are not left paying the full cost of pollution and climate-related damages.

So I urge the council to pass and fully fund these bills along with others like a lead mandate that strengthen protections for residents affected by pollution and toxins.

Your actions on the council will ensure greater accountability for companies who operations impact the health and well-being of DC residents.

Thank you for your time, your leadership, and your commitment to protecting the health, safety, and future of all DC residents.

Thank you very much, Ms.

Lewis.

Next, let me turn to Eva Sedana.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Dear Councilmember Allen, my name is Ava Sedana.

I'm award-won resident and organizer working with Sierra Club's DC chapter and with Sunrise DC.

Thank you for the opportunity today to testify on the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act.

You'll hear our official Sierra Club testimony from Sammy later, and you've already heard many powerful stories.

I'm here today because I love to spend a lot of time outside.

And it feels like I've witnessed every season possible in DC in the last five months, even sometimes in the span of one week.

I like to run, and I ran a marathon three weeks ago.

That means I've been training since the start of 2026.

I've run what feels like every part of Rock Creek Park.

I run up the Anacostea River Trail, around the Macmillan Reservoir, along the Potomac on the CNO Canal Towpath.

You get it.

My runs have provided me firsthand experience with being outside during extreme weather.

After that crazy storm in January and the deep freeze we experienced well into February, even if the snow and ice was yet to be cleared, I couldn't put off running any longer.

But the sidewalks were icy, the trails were dangerous, and the air was freezing my face off.

So I quit after one mile.

In March, we had a three-day freak heat wave.

It was 92 Fahrenheit, 92 in early March.

I remember this day exactly.

I ran from Navy Yard to Bladensburg Waterfront Park up the Anacosta River, and I was meant to run back for a total of 21 miles.

Every step was a fight in the heat, and I thought I was going to pass out or get heat stroke, so I quit halfway.

Now I realize it seems like I'm a quitter, which I promise I'm not.

I did run the marathon in May.

What I really mean to say is, of course, running is for fun and it's completely optional.

What isn't optional is working in construction for long hours outside.

What isn't optional is commuting to work by transit and winning at the bus stop.

What isn't optional is getting to essential services like the doctor or going grocery shopping or keeping the AC or heat on, even if it's too expensive.

Honestly, I'm really wondering how are we supposed to live, work, or enjoy the city during extreme weather conditions?

That's why I'm here today in support of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act.

Because we need bold action on climate change given the extreme weather we've all been experiencing.

This study is critical to responsible budgeting in DC.

It'll turn costs we can't prepare for for ones we can plan for.

Climate change is known but highly unpredictable.

With every crazy storm or heat wave, we are shown that DC needs more resilience systems.

And you might wonder who is going to pay for it.

Right now, DC residents are the ones paying with high utility bills, flooding damages, and unnecessary car trips to reduce the amount of time outside.

Instead, the biggest pollutant companies who have contributed the most to the cause of climate change by creating the emissions seem like the perfect candidates to me to pay for new resilience systems.

Green jobs, utility bill relief, expanded public transit, and so on.

That makes a lot of sense to me and to everyone I've organized, whether folks that are testifying today at the hearing or people that I've talked to in community listening sessions.

Now we just need to get it done, pass it on the budget so we can all enjoy the DC we love.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next, let me turn to Eduardo Seraphim, who's joining us online.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Allen and members of the Committee on Transportation and the Environment.

My name is Edward Seraphim.

I am a Ward 1 resident, and I have proudly called DC home for nearly a decade.

I'm here to speak on behalf of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act, in support of it and urging council members to take action to prepare our city for the worst of climate change.

I love this city.

Like I've said, I want to live here for the rest of my life, but I am terrified of the effects of climate change unfolding before our very eyes.

And I'm terrified for the future of my neighbors in our city if we don't prepare for the reality that is already here.

The weather this year we've seen has been extremely volatile.

We are spending millions and millions to keep our homes cool, keep our schools safe for our students and our public buildings habitable.

Our schools in particular are facing a huge burden of millions of dollars to upgrade their HVAC systems and install ACs, and this will continue to get worse as we see the heat come earlier in the year and stay longer as a result of climate change.

This is causing us to effectively be paying a climate tax on our own survival, and I believe that that climate tax should be paid by the parties responsible, which are the polluting companies.

And this isn't just my view.

I know that many of my neighbors across the district have the same belief that the polluting companies should be paying for the costs of the climate change that they're worsening.

We can't afford to keep paying for the damage that the climate will cause to us as these companies profit from their actions.

I really think that this study will be important to prepare ourselves as we move forward in this new reality that the climate will continue to be extreme, and we need to know just exactly how to budget for these emergencies and how much funding we can get from these polluted companies to prepare for ourselves to stay safe and secure in the city.

I think this act will really help us secure a future for the city, and it's something that I'm really passionate about as a young person living with climate anxiety like many of my peers.

I want to make sure that our leaders are listening to us and are acting with urgency that this moment requires and passes this study in the bill in the budget of 2027, so that we can prepare to um advance our mitigation um choices to prevent climate change and also to clean up the disasters as we know that they will continue to come.

So thank you for taking this matter seriously, and I appreciate the time.

Thank you for your time as well.

Uh let me turn now to Erwin Rose, who's joining us online.

Mr.

Rose, I think you're muted.

If you could unmute, then we can hear you.

Can you hear me now?

Yep, there we go.

Okay.

Thank you.

I am Irwin Rose, a vice chair of the Ward 3 Democratic Committee.

The Ward 3 Democrats endorsed passage of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act of 2026 in February.

A copy of our resolution is available on our website, and I am submitting it with my written testimony.

The investment of 200,000 to conduct the study outlined in this bill would pay for itself many times over by providing a stronger factual foundation for how DC should allocate resources to address the many significant impacts that the climate crisis is having on our city.

As described in the bill and our resolution, climate change is causing immense harm and imposing significant costs in the district.

Climate change is going to have an increasingly significant effect upon infrastructure, such as the effects of street extreme heat upon roads and the metro system.

The cost of climate change fall most heavily upon the most vulnerable.

For example, the health effects associated with increasingly extreme heat impact those who have inadequate air conditioning, workers and commuters who spend the most time outdoors, and those who have existing health conditions.

The city has initiated several significant programs to respond to the climate crisis.

Mayor Bowser's Keep Cool DC initiative recognizes that dehydration, heat exhaustion, and heat stroke are direct health impacts of extreme heat.

Heat also causes indirect health complications such as birth defects and mental health stress and can aggravate respiratory illnesses like asthma by trapping pollutants and impairing air quality.

Many residents are exposed to heat on their commutes, including walking or biking in the heat and waiting at bus stops or poorly ventilated metro stations.

Unquote.

The success of Keep Cool DC and other climate initiatives is at risk due to inadequate funding.

By documenting the cost of climate impacts in the district and identifying priority adaptation projects, this study will help provide an enhanced factual basis to inform investment to combat the climate crisis.

The study is also an important part of the effort to hold corporate polluters accountable for their greenhouse gas emissions.

The Ward 3 Democratic Committee supports the passage of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act of 2026 and urges the council to pass the act and take decisive action to respond to the impact of the climate crisis upon the district.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Rose.

Thanks everybody on this panel.

Let me start with the Greenhouse Gas study.

And I might kind of start with a question for Ms.

Frost and Ms.

Mills.

As we noted here, working with Councillor Lewis George, she was able to transfer the dollars in to our committee.

Then I was able to make sure it got funded through the committee action.

So we've kind of our words, we've pre-funded the bill, meaning that we've got the dollars identified.

Now the next question is really going to be kind of which of the two vehicles we can get it through.

I'm 100% confident it's going to be one of these two.

It's either going to be in the Budget Support Act or it's just gonna be the standalone bill that we're able to move.

Either way, we've got the funding, we're gonna make sure it gets done.

One of the things that I think the one of the goals of the study is certainly going to be helping us figure out the largest polluters and how they can pay their fair share for the harms have been caused.

But the study is more than that, and want to just give you a chance to kind of talk about why you think it's gonna be very valuable, because I think it can also look at the additional strains on our energy grid, look at government infrastructure.

I think it can help us be better at thinking through just our resilience planning for the city.

Can you just expand a little bit more on what you think this study, why is it important, why is it important to get funded?

Fair point.

Uh, we are a little smaller than Maryland, um, so they're a little bigger, but I think the funding's adequate for what it is that we need to get done, but what do you think it also helps us do from a planning process uh laying out the next couple of years?

Yeah, I think um, you know, as we start to see climate impacts continue to worsen, it's gonna become more and more obvious that we need a strategic plan in our response so that we can best spend our resources to address those impacts.

And that's really what this study is going to help us do.

It's going to help us update some of the work that's already been done by DOEE in previous reports, look at this data in a more comprehensive way to understand like where are the communities that are going to be impacted first, and most critically, where can we spend district dollars to have the most impact fastest?

So we have a lot of information already available that we can compile about sort of what climate change is going to look like, but the sort of added value of this study in particular is that it's not just looking at what's going to happen, it's looking at what can we do about it.

So it helps us actually identify all of the steps we need to take to address flooding in Ward 7 or extreme heat in Ward 5, put a dollar amount on that, and then that's actually going to allow our Department of Energy Environment and this committee and the council as a whole, you know, to prioritize where dollars need to go first.

And that's really the sort of missing piece of addressing climate resilience that I think is uh added by this study and uh going to help us to sort of bring in a new era of responding to climate resilience.

Okay, excellent, thank you.

Um to Commissioner Headland, um, wanted to ask a little bit about the bill.

Do you feel like the the bill when it comes to our air quality permitting, is it going to be responsive to the issues you outlined and what you and your fellow commissioners have faced?

Are there things that it's it's uh for places you believe it needs to go further of where it could be even more responsive to the issues that you've seen?

Yeah, thanks for the opportunity to address that.

Um, I think it it really is um a reaction or um a response to community outpouring.

Um and as you know, I tried to capture my testimony.

Um we've had, you know, from neighbors submitting through one-one tickets and individual testimony at hearings to civic organizations like the Eckington Civic Association and the ANC passing resolutions, writing to council members and trying to engage with DOEE.

We've had so much um civic engagement around this issue of air quality and air pollution in Eckington with the Fort Myer as well plant, and I'm sure in other parts of the city.

And what we continue to hear from DOEE was it's not in our mandate to do X, it's not in our mandate to do Y.

And also that we don't have the staffing and resources.

So I think the legislation really just begins to address the issue of uh re-centering district residents and their health in the conversation and in DOEE's mandate, I would hope.

Um, and you know, I'm sure they need resources and staff to um then carry it out once it's passed.

Um, but I do think it's a it's responsive and it's a good start.

Okay.

Um completely concur with you about resources.

Uh as we've seen the last couple of years, they keep having resources taken away from them in the proposed budget.

I think uh Mr.

Washburn was doing a fantastic job, even though he was over time.

He had was laying out the right argument um of cannibalizing a large amount of the DOE budget just to cross-subsidize the rest of the city.

Um so I think that we continue to, I feel like have our work cut out for us to help try to restore uh as much as we can.

Um happy to kind of after the hearing work with you and others too to think about like if if there is other vagueness within a mandate for an agency to make sure it's clear what expectations are.

Um, but I don't want to just I don't want to put an expectation on an agency that they don't also have the authority to do the thing that we're asking them to do.

So um happy to work with you and others and kind of look at that and work with the agency too to think that through.

Um I wanted to, I mean, I think we've kind of hit up a lot of the same issues here.

Um, Mr.

Washburn, again, I really appreciate your testimony.

I hated to cut you off uh as you were over, but you were hitting all the right points.

Uh, and so I really appreciate it, and you have been just also just an incredibly consistent voice and leader uh coming into this space over and over again, and so really grateful uh for yourself and the NAACP DC branch for making sure you're lifting up that voice every single time.

So thank you.

Um I don't think I have any other questions at this time, just because I know we've got a lot more witnesses.

10K is kind of where I max out.

So 26.2 miles is not on my agenda.

But congratulations.

Thanks.

Alright, let's move to panel number three.

Dr.

Justin Lopez Medina, who is with Empower DC?

Shizuka, hi.

Public witness.

Might be online, I think.

Zee Osman.

Dr.

Liz McLaughlin.

I think is joining us online.

Renee Bowser.

And don't see her there.

London Jones, public witness is here.

Luis Hanzu.

Macy Bringham Hill, public witness.

All right, we've got Macy here.

Adam Cron, senior attorney with Earth Justice.

Marha Hilfe.

Hilfiker.

You'll come on up.

All right.

I think that's everybody we've got here for this panel.

I do have one extra chair.

So is Mark Galvan here?

Is Megan alone here?

I'm going to find somebody.

Melody Marsh.

Melody Marsh, will you come on up?

Thank you so much.

Gonna fill every chair.

All right, so let's turn online.

I believe we have our first witness, Dr.

Justin Lopez Medina, and we'll let you kick us off.

Dr.

Lopez Medina, are you there?

Alright, how about um?

Shizuka, hi.

Hello.

Hello.

All right, we're gonna turn to you first.

Great.

Um hello, I'm Shizuka Shea.

I teach chemistry at Trinity Washington University, and I have been uh participating in conjunction with residents on community air quality monitoring.

And what I've noticed over the years, some folks have already spoken to this, permitting processes that take years, and it seems like those delays just allow for uh facilities to continue.

This legislation that's up today, and I want to speak to both acts, are so important because they're going to actually protect um residents who are facing cumulative impacts for multiple industries in their neighborhoods.

And then the question is why are those industries in their neighborhoods in the first place?

And that is simply because of environmental racism and the fact that folks were not protected.

So what that means is that the laws that currently exist, they are not protecting the residents, and that's exactly why new legislation needs to be in place to protect um residents and protect them today.

Something I want to point out is something that I've learned from years of working with folks in these communities, is that it's not just about making the industry go somewhere else.

You you have a situation where buses, for example, might be moved from Ivy City um to Brentwood.

And so the question is then, if it's not about just moving things elsewhere, although cumulative impact legislation will make sure that the density of um industries uh will not be too high and have too much of an impact.

But the question is then we need to change things.

How do we actually change things?

So, for an example, electric buses would decrease the footprint of environmental impacts at a busty.

But for example, in this day and age, for us to be um putting in new gasoline infrastructure, right?

Those things are only exacerbating uh climate change, and you've heard lots of people speak to the impact that that has in DC and the disproportionate impact it has on areas with fewer trees and a larger urban heat island effect.

And so I want to encourage thinking about both of these in tandem, and that making things better uh for communities in ward five and industrialized areas means making things better uh really for everybody.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Miss Shea, and apologize for mispronouncing there.

Um now let's see if Dr.

Lopez Medina is back.

I think we may have lost Dr.

Lopez Medina for a moment, but we will work to get him back.

All right, Z Osman.

I don't believe we see.

Dr.

Liz McLaughlin, though, I think I see you online.

So how about we turn to you next?

Hello, yes, thank you.

So my name is Liz McLaughlin, and I live in Ward 1.

Uh, first of all, thank you for considering the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act today, and thank you for your words of support about it and actions.

Um, so I want to talk just about a couple reasons I'm in support of this bill.

First of all, this bill is to me an example of good governance.

So it's important to quantify the many, what are going to be the many costs of climate change, and then take action.

Um, so I say let's find out what burdens DC taxpayers are shouldering.

Um, what's currently being spent?

It's we suspect it's a lot.

Let's find out.

Um, and then find out where it would be more fair for corporations to chip in.

Uh, second, I happen to be a psychologist, so I wanted to say that when I think about the costs of climate change, one of the big ways I think about it is the health costs, the human health costs.

Um, so folks on the call have alluded to it.

Climate change causes or exacerbates health problems.

Just a couple examples of climate change related hazards that do affect health are extreme heat, as we know, and related to the other bill under discussion today, air quality issues.

So these climate-related hazards prompt people to have health problems and then seek health care, and that's where it can get very costly.

I wanted to note that public health researchers have already been studying how to quantify the health costs of climate change.

I wanted to underscore that there is information about how to quantify these particular costs.

One example, and others have cited similar examples.

One example is that a group of researchers calculated that the state of California, admittedly a different state than ours, but the state of California incurred a cost of 5.4 billion dollars just in health care spending um after a heat wave.

And this was back in 2006.

So this is a different state.

What I wanted to underscore is there is a way to get these numbers, and I think it's a good idea to get these numbers.

So I want to acknowledge, I think DC policymakers are on to this.

I think you have an understanding of these issues.

I think you have, and I appreciate that you have an understanding of the unequal impacts, the unequal distribution of these issues, and it's the most economically disadvantaged parts of the city are at the most risk for health issues and climate hazards, and it's not a coincidence.

People have mentioned the justice angle.

So I'm expressing my appreciation for this being under consideration.

Um other DC residents probably will speak on other hazards and other costs that they're concerned about.

I appreciate the chance to speak about health and generally show my support for this bill.

Thank you.

Excellent, thank you.

Alright, I think we have Dr.

Lopez Medina back, so let's try again.

Oh, we're gonna keep trying.

Alright, Dr.

Lopez Medina, are you there?

What?

There we go.

Sorry about that.

No problem, no problem.

Yes, we can.

Good to have you here.

Okay.

Yeah, I uh was in in there and then it kicked me out so I apologize.

Uh but thanks for making the time it's an honor to speak before the council members.

Thank you for having me.

My name is Justin Lopez Medina.

I'm a social scientist by training.

I'm a criminologist as well.

What I want to do is just give you kind of a very micro um point of view.

So I live in Ward 5.

I live on W Street near Brentwood Avenue in between Brentwood Avenue and Montana Avenue.

And what I'd like to do is just describe my morning commute to you all so you get a sense of what it's like to live in Ward 5 on any typical day.

So when I leave my house uh I'm immediately um greeted by I would say five or six uh company vehicles from different location uh different companies that are located on W Street.

These are usually their utility vehicles heavy machinery heavy trucks uh they leave these trucks idling um and they are you know there throughout most of the morning uh as I walk to the Rhode Island Brentwood metro station along W Street uh I see many of these trucks as I'm passing by pretty much ignoring the idling laws that exist already um many of them owned by the companies that people have brought up already um many of them also DC district owned vehicles as well uh and the drivers ignoring those um idling laws so a part of this are kind of the and I don't want to dismiss kind of like larger issues of the pollutants that are coming from the non-movable machinery inside of the properties themselves but also from the people coming and going in and out of these places.

So Brentwood is a small community um but we have hundreds of people who commute into this neighborhood every single morning day in day out uh there's none of the companies provide parking that I'm aware of at least so many of these people who commute in have to drive around and look for parking on their own uh usually within the neighborhood itself the trucks that are usually parked uh as part of the business of these companies are parked on the street again they're left idling so as I'm walking down the street going to work on any given day it's no uh surprise to pass seven eight sometimes up to ten different trucks on my way uh who are just idling that's not to mention the transfer station uh that is on W Street not one but two uh so there is one right at 13th and then there's another one that's closer to Brentwood the one that's closer to Brentwood is also across the street from the asphalt uh factory the Fort Myers construction plant uh so these are heavy smells that are pretty much constants in the neighborhood and as a social scientist um I like to just think about what makes a neighborhood a neighborhood right and this type of air pollution that comes into a neighborhood that is a near constant is something that doesn't allow a neighborhood to really form or organize its own kind of like organic uh cohesion, right?

So who wants to be outside?

Who wants to hang out in a park?

Who wants to go running down the street um or for a casual walk with neighbors or hang out on the porch?

These are the building blocks of what social cohesion brings to a neighborhood, which then have all kinds of social effects from crime to many of the other topics that people have already brought up as well.

Um, so we got all kinds of issues that come about when companies are not being thoughtful about how they um are present in the neighborhood.

They get to pack up and leave in the evening, and the rest of the neighborhood is living with the smells, the pollution, the garbage, the traffic, the noise that they bring.

I would definitely support uh this, both of these bills.

Uh the study as well as the permitting amendment of 2026.

Uh, and I thank you for your time.

Absolutely.

Thank you very much.

Next, let me turn now to London Jones.

Good afternoon.

If you'll push the buttons, the red lights on, and you're good to go.

Hello, my name is London Jones, and I've been a DC resident my entire life.

I currently live in Ward 4, but my roots extend throughout the district.

My grandparents live off Georgia Avenue, and many of the people I consider my family live in Northeast DC.

DC is my home, and I can't imagine living anywhere else.

That connection to my community is one reason I chose to stay close to home for college and attend the University of Maryland.

As an environmental science and policy major, I have learned about the impacts of climate change and the role large oil and gas companies pay in driving greenhouse gas emissions.

At the same time, I have seen these impacts firsthand throughout my life in DC.

Even though I'm young, I have experienced the increasingly extreme weather our city faces.

During the summer, temperatures can become so intense that it is unsafe for me to walk my dog because the pavement becomes hot enough to burn her paws.

Fortunately, she can usually find relief inside our air-conditioned home.

However, that's not that has not always been the case for my family.

In the summer of 2021, our air conditioning system broke down.

The temperature inside our home became almost unbearable, and we spent days waiting for repairs while trying to stay cool.

Unfortunately, this was not a one-time issue.

Since 2021, our heating and cooling system has continued to deteriorate, causing repeated breakdowns in both summer and winter, forcing us to rely on temporary solutions while paying for costly repairs.

Even today, in 2026, we are still dealing with these issues and often have little choice but to hope the system holds up.

I am grateful that my family has the resources to manage these challenges, but many DC residents do not.

What is an inconvenience for my family can become a serious health and safety issue for others.

Passing and funding this legislation could help offset some of these costs, such as paying for air conditioning repairs.

Climate change is affecting more than just temperatures.

Throughout my life, my family has repeatedly dealt with basement flooding after heavy rainstorms.

The problem became so common that my dad bought a wet bought a wet vacuum to remove water when it floods.

These experiences have shown me how our infrastructure is struggling to keep up with the increasingly severe weather.

As a DC resident and environmental science and policy student, I understand that greenhouse gas emissions drive climate change and that oil and gas companies are among the largest contributors.

I urge you to pass and fund the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act through the budget so that DC residents no longer have to bear the cost and consequences of climate change alone.

Thank you, Councilmember Allen, for your time.

Thank you very much.

Next, let me turn to Lewis Panzu.

I don't know if they're here.

I don't think we actually have Louis Panzu, so Macy Brigham Hill will turn to you next.

Good afternoon, Councilmember.

My name is Macy Brigham Hill.

I was born in D.C.

and have lived here my entire life.

I'm here today to urge you to pass and fully fund the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act through the budget.

As a DC native and intern with Chesapeake Climate Action Network, I care deeply about this legislation because climate change is heavily affecting my city and its people, and the impacts will only continue to worsen in coming years.

Growing up here, I've personally felt extreme heat worsen year after year.

Summers are becoming hotter, longer, and more dangerous, especially for my younger sister, my parents, grandparents, and other vulnerable residents.

I've also experienced the direct impacts of damaging climate-related disasters in the form of more frequent, frequent and severe storms.

In the last seven years, several large trees have either died or been blown over in my backyard, damaging my house, risking the lives of family members, and causing thousands of dollars in repairs and removal.

This is an increasingly common issue for all DC residents due to climate change, and the aftermath of these storms exposes the lack of funding and preparedness in preventing damage, protecting residents, and adapting our city to better endure the effects of these storms.

This past year alone has shown us the costs of under and underinvestments in preparing and planning for climate change and exposed the aging and vulnerable infrastructure in the district.

From the winter deep freeze that forced the city to spend tens of millions of dollars on snow response to the record-breaking heat that forced schools to shut down due to weak infrastructure, climate impacts are already costing DC taxpayers significant money.

That is why the study is so important.

The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act will enable DC to calculate exactly how climate change will impact our city, identify where investments are needed most, and estimate the cost of adapting before disasters occur.

This study is also the first step toward ensuring that big polluters and false fuel companies that are responsible for this crisis pay for the damages rather than placing the burden on DC residents and taxpayers alone.

We know climate impacts are here to stay, and we either prepare now or face the consequences later.

Passing and funding this legislation is a smart and necessary investment in protecting DC's future.

Thank you, Councilmember Allen, for your time and consideration today.

Thank you very much.

Next, let me turn to Adam Cron, who I think is joining us online.

Yes, uh good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Um, excuse me.

Uh my name's Adam Crone, and I'm a resident of War 4.

I'm also an attorney with the Environmental Organization Earth Justice.

In that capacity, I work with communities and organizations to address the health impacts of industrial air pollution.

Here in the district, I work with Empower DC to address sources of the air pollution in Ivy Cities and Brentwood.

In my work, I've observed that DC's air permitting status quo is not working for communities.

Strengthening Air Pollution Permitting Amendment Act is a huge step forward for improving air permitting in the district, including the requirements to look at facilities' applications comprehensively and to consider the cumulative health effects communities facing.

The bill provisions to address DC's air current backlog are also critical, including the recognition that DOEE needs adequate funding to do its job well.

I'd like to speak in detail to three specific provisions in the bill.

First, the public transparency improvements are vital and long needed.

There's no reason it should be so difficult for the public to address to access information on facilities permitting violations and emissions.

In my work in the other states, I've observed that many agencies make all permit permitting documents accessible on public searchable databases.

For example, Louisiana's online database contains all official records that have been created or received by the Department of Environmental Quality.

Within days of a facility submitting an application, it's available to the public.

West Virginia is similar.

By contrast, DOEE doesn't even post applications online during public comment periods.

Members of the public must put in a special request to view the applications in the air quality division's office.

In one recent instance, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for an air permit application.

DOE denied the request, claiming that the application contained confidential business information that could not be redacted, and that therefore no part of the application could be released.

I've never seen an air permitting agency take this position before.

I also encourage DC Council as part of this to amend Section 2-536 of DC's FOIA law to add air permit applications to the list of information which must be made public, as the council previously did for building permit applications.

Second, I support the bill's revisions to the administrative appeals provisions.

Current limit is far too short, so 30 days is a good improvement.

I've encouraged some additional precision in the language, making clear that the timing runs from DC register publication or receipt of actual notice.

And finally, DC needs more and better air quality monitoring, particularly where facilities are located.

Coincidentally, DOE just released its draft ambient air monitoring network plan.

And there's a clear gap for Ivy City, Brentwood, or anywhere in Ward 5.

Ward 5 has more than half of the district's industrial zoned land, yet no ambient air monitoring station.

The OEE must monitor the air quality in a way that reflects what DC residents are actually breathing, including more monitoring for hazardous air cool needs.

Thank you for considering this testimony and for your work in advancing these important improvements for DC's air permitting and environmental justice.

Thank you very much.

Uh next let me turn to the Marcia Hilfe.

Did I pronounce that correct?

If you can push the buttons, the red light comes on.

Oh, I had to.

I didn't know I had to do something.

My name is Maria Hilfe, and I'm in favor of the greenhouse gas emissions study.

I have lived in Ward 1 for 43 years.

It is said that my birth country, Finland, is the happiest country in the world.

But I have been happier living here in Washington, DC.

The human diversity, the beauty, and the cultural sites of the city have inspired our family here.

With age, I have also appreciated the generally mild weather.

However, this past winter, climate change really uh caught my attention in here in DC.

Waking up on January 27th was memorable.

Eight inches of snow, 15 hours of sleep, and then by morning it all froze solid.

The sidewalks were covered by ice, six inches thick.

I was amused by neighborly comments like you lived in Finland, so you must have seen seen it all.

I had to laugh.

No, no, I have never seen anything like this.

Our one-lane street was practically impassable.

Some trucks could make it through.

And people are looking for hired help in the backbreaking work of hacking the ice off the sidewalk.

Many parked cars remained frozen to the curb for two weeks.

For the rest of the winter, the DC weather was the meteorologist's nightmare with sudden temperature switches from 30s to 80s, topped off by a tornado warning.

Of course, all that was a mere inconvenience compared to the major storms and fires that raged in other parts of the United States.

The climate change is so very real.

We are still dependent on fossil fuels, but we know that it's necessary to wean ourselves off them.

Electrification using sun and wind energy will be the answer, but getting from here to there will take time.

It will be very necessary for the companies that have benefited and that continue to benefit from our use of fossil fuels to bear their fair share of the cost.

Thank you, Council Member Allen, for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much.

And then Melody Marsh.

Let me turn you now.

Good afternoon.

My name is Melody Marsh.

I'm a recent graduate of Howard University, a public health research and alum of the National Civil Rights and Environmental Justice Organization, Young Gifted and Greens, Environmental Justice Council.

I urge you to pass the fully pass and fully fund the Green House Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act through this year's budget.

As a future public and clinical health professional, I am trained to think in terms of prevention.

We can pay now to understand our risk, or we can pay more later to recover from them.

And DC is already paying the latter.

I would make recommend the US Environmental Protection Agency's Cobra Co-Benefice Risk Assessment, which is a free screening level modeling tool that estimates how changes in air pollution emissions affect ambient air quality, public health outcomes, and the associated economic value of those health impacts at the national, state, and county level.

We have the resources, let's build from them and save people and the planet.

This past January, three city agencies spent 67.2 million digging out from the single snowstorm and to kind of go off strift.

I had to travel to school, like and the roads were horrible.

I had to walk on the roads because the snow was so high up.

And I'm from Michigan, so I'm used to the snow.

So I was like, oh, this is gonna be nothing.

But I got outside and it was really bad and it was hard to commute.

So for all our commuters out there, I know that this is important to them as well.

But back on script.

The Department of Public Works alone spent 50.4 million, seven times its entire winter budget.

In May, record heat forced two DC schools to close when their Havac systems failed and classrooms full of children.

And when the Ponic, when the Potomac, sorry, Inseper collapsed, hundreds of millions of gallons of untreated sewage spilled into our river, with cleanup now exceeding 20 million dollars.

All of these issues are interconnected, reflective of both cumulative impacts and clumotive body burden, the human cost of exposure to toxin and pollution over time.

These are not freak events nor isolated occurrences.

They are predictable, they are the predictable costs of a warming climate and aging infrastructure.

This study turns the unexpected disasters into line items we can plan and budget for, shifting the culture from being reactive to being proactive and an economically responsible.

The African proverb, tomorrow belongs to those who plan for it today, is perfectly suited for what this body should do.

Remember that we are all borrowing this environment from our children.

Do you want to be a good or bad ancestor based on what you can do today?

This council already knows the price of delay.

At least three lead service line replacement bills have failed in this chamber, leaving residents in wards five, seven, and eight most exposed to a neurotoxin with no safe level of exposure.

Please do not repeat the pattern of abuse.

And nationally, three-quarters of voters support recurring oil requiring oil and gas companies to cover their share of climate costs.

Study the risks, fund the future.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

So my takeaway from the snow is that whether you're from Michigan or Finland, not something you know we're used to seeing.

That much ice.

Thank you very much for your testimony.

Um Mr.

Crone, I was gonna check with you on this.

I mean, rarely do we ever point to Louisiana and West Virginia and say, they got it right.

Um, so Louisiana and West Virginia already require more in terms of just disclosure and transparency than we do, right?

That's correct.

Yes, they um Louisiana has uh what it calls an electronic document management system where uh any any member member of the public can go online, search for basically anything that a facility has submitted, or that the um state agency there has created like a formal letter or permit or anything related.

So, you can look up emissions data, applications, violations, uh basically anything.

And uh West Virginia has a similar system, it's a little bit different, but it basically gets you the same thing, just uh any information submitted by the um the facility or anything the agencies produce regarding that facility.

Got it.

Um in general, I mean, I guess if you worked in those jurisdictions in a way that you feel like you've seen either from the legal community or middle community, like that type of transparency has just led to better outcomes, greater accountability.

It's uh I mean it's complicated.

Like uh as you say, it's uh, you know, these are states that um aren't necessarily known for um being you know progressive on uh all environmental issues.

But uh I would say that um you know, as a member of the public commenting on permits or trying to access data, it is you know those states are head and shoulders above DC.

It's uh it's it was to my surprise just how difficult it is um to obtain data from DOE.

It's uh I mean there are a lot of um different parts of the website, um, but as far as it goes in trying to find information on individual facilities, uh if you want, say, to know whether uh facilities apply for a new permit or anything like that.

Uh that uh really seems like it takes the FOIA request.

And as I mentioned, uh I um submitted a uh you know Freedom of Information Act request for a specific facility's application, and was also surprised how difficult um it was to get that from DOE and you know, just the pat I I never actually got it because DOE opposed it and then uh you know when I appealed it, they uh advanced a new uh justification.

So I can't imagine what it's like just uh as you know.

Uh I'm a I'm a lawyer, but uh as uh any member of trying to get that sort of data.

I seems like uh, yeah, they're they'd be better off uh dealing with Louisiana or West Virginia, other state.

Yeah, well, while we're sitting here, we just pulled up the Louisiana system to take a look at it.

Yeah, it's a pretty easy system to navigate and just download the documents and the permits.

Uh a lot of documents that in that would otherwise feel like the type of things you would have to go through the legal process to FOIA, and then again, you could deny FOIA requests.

So thank you for pointing that out.

And I I don't ever like to see DC being outpaced by Louisiana or West Virginia.

Yeah, no, of course.

And uh and just uh um as um just uh as I mentioned in my testimony, there there is that um provision of PC's FOIA law that uh I believe council amended this back in 20 years ago or so, like 2004.

But uh there is a specific requirement for building permit applications that says, you know, you can't those cannot be uh withheld, those are public data.

So that it does seem like there have been instances where council has addressed uh issues of uh trying to ensure that certain types of information are made uh publicly uh, you know, or much more easier for the public to obtain here.

Okay, thank you.

Um and very much appreciate everyone's testimony.

Um, you know, Melody, Macy, Lyndon kind of talking about just what you see and experienced as the individual impacts, but also I think you kind of get to what um what Michael kind of broadened it out to also like systemic change um and being able to think about um you know the example uh Michelle that you talked about of the electric versus standard buses and kind of what type of steps and what those impacts cumulatively can be and how we help lead to change those systemics, uh change those systemic approaches to our city.

Uh and then to Dr.

Lopez Medina, I mean, just you're you're spot on as you talked about the ways in which community and neighborhoods work uh for people who either just are coming in and coming out or the people who actually live there.

And uh I appreciate you highlighting that and a system that requires on just we're gonna have to depend on neighbors picking up the phone or calling through on one for everything is just not the right way to solve a problem when we want our agencies and government to be more proactive to understand that mandate and their expectation of protecting our residents, not just require it to be a complaint-based system on who has the most agency and capacity and time to just be dialing through on one all day long versus who does not have the same level of agency and capacity.

That's a very inequitable way to try to solve problems to rely on that.

Um we've been joined by counselor Parker, and so I've tried to talk for a second just to give you a chance to catch a breath as you sat down.

I know you're you're good on the fly.

You can do it.

I can also uh pull up our our next panel.

I'm ready.

Alright, Councilor Parker.

Uh who's uh been a good friend and a member of this committee and and helped lead and author some of these uh bills that we've been discussing today.

So, Councilor Parker, let me turn to you if you have an opening statement or any round of questions.

We finished up this panel and we're about to transition to the next one, but let me turn it over to you.

Awesome.

Thank you, Chairperson Allen, for holding uh today's hearing.

And this is the second hearing today, so uh you're you're on it today.

Uh I was proud to introduce the strengthening air pollution permitting amendment act of 2026 earlier this year, along with you, uh Chairperson Allen and Councilmember Henderson.

This legislation seeks to address critical flaws in the district's air polluting permitting regime, including weak protections against nuisances that impact longtime residents, unacceptable multi-year delays.

I'm gonna repeat that multi-year delays and permitting, poor community engagement, and ineffective enforcement.

Years of community frustration with existing processes and standards informed the reforms contemplated in this bill.

I also want to acknowledge that there are partners here like Empower DC, our commissioners in our communities across War 5 and others that also informed uh this work.

War 5 communities bear the brunt of the district's exposure to fixed sources of air pollution because of decades of decisions to concentration production, distribution, and repair uses along the Wamata Rit line and the New York Avenue corridors.

Ward 5 is home to two of the districts' three asphalt plants and one of the district's three permanent concrete plants, and all of these facilities are located within a block of residential properties in Ivy City, a community surrounded by a myriad of sources of air pollution.

Ward 5 neighbors are living directly beside a manufacturing facility that uses carcinogens, including uh for Mao Dai to produce salience.

Uh when there are only a few hundred feet or even a wall between resident homes and the facility itself that is permitted to emit toxins into the air residents inhabit.

Regulatory delays and gaps significantly impact the community's quality of life.

As introduced, this bill would close critical gaps in our permitting, odor control, and enforcement processes.

I'm not gonna run through them because I presume you've already done that.

Chairperson Allen, uh I'm sure you have.

I'll just name a couple.

It requires the timely submission and processing of air quality permits, odor control plans, and air quality complaints.

It bolsters our permit requirements to close gaps in existing authority, and it establishes new options for enforcement of permit violations and more.

I want to thank, as I mentioned earlier, the many folk uh that played a part in getting us to this place.

Our ANC commissioners, our environmental advocates, uh our Ward 5 neighbors, our organizations and advocates who have already or will soon be testifying today.

I'm gonna stop there for the sake of time, but I'm looking forward to jumping in.

Unfortunately, I don't have questions for this panel as I missed your testimony, but I am told it is uh insightful and Connor behind me has been taking notes, so I look forward to engaging moving forward.

But thank you.

Excellent, thank you very much.

Thanks everybody on this panel for your testimony.

All right, let me call our next panel.

I've got Mark Galvan with ANC5F, who I see here, Megan Alone, public witness.

I don't know if we have Megan here.

Rhonda Hamilton, public witness.

Rith Wilesgoss.

I apologize in advance if I mispronounced that.

Rob Hoffman, public witness.

Sammy Wines with Sierra Club.

Sabrina Rhodes, who is joining us online.

All right, I'm gonna start calling out some more names because I have empty chairs in front of me.

Cara Fulton.

Is Sharon Edwards here?

All right, I see.

Coming on up.

Dr.

Steven Peterson.

I think this gentleman here is Dr.

Peterson.

All right, excellent.

There we go.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

I think we're all set here.

So uh Mark Galvon, great to see you, and let me turn it over to you to kick us off.

Great, thank you so much.

Hi, everyone.

My name is Mark Alvon.

I'm an ANC commissioner for 5F04.

I've been serving the northern part of Eckington and Southwestern Edgewood for the past three and a half years.

First of all, I want to thank Councilmember Parker, Chair Allen, Councilmember Henderson for their leadership, support, and markup in this committee for this important bill.

In the 10 years I've lived in Ectington, I and many neighbors have been subjected to degradation of a quality of life associated with air pollution, foul acrid and noxious odors, construction vehicle traffic noise, grinding noises at seemingly all hours emanating from the eastern part of Eckington along the Metropolitan Branch Trail, specifically at the Fort Myers Asphalt Plant 1 and associated vehicle material storage areas.

First and foremost, I'm a strong supporter of the Strengthening Air Pollution Permitting Amendment Act of 2026 as drafted.

And on 217, 2026, February 17th, ANC 5Fs unanimously passed a resolution supporting this bill and further advocating for protections and also supporting updated policy changes to D DOE regulations.

And I have submitted that ANC resolution for the record.

To paint a picture, there are many mornings I wish to wake up, open the window, enjoy the birds, the city sounds, the trains going past, and the smell, and instead I find myself looking out the window at a smokestack, hearing grinding of rocks and asphalt, and the smell of acrid asphalt coming from the Fort Myers plant early in the morning.

It's not just me that smells this, but so many neighbors do as well.

To give you some context on how much of a hotbed issue this is.

Um to help reduce some of this as part of Fort Myers asphalt's plant air quality permit at 2001 Fifth Street Northeast when it went up for public comment.

In a matter of three and a half days, because we got into petition just in time, we received over 500 community members to sign that petition from residents in Eckington and Edgewood and adjacent neighborhoods.

More than 350, there was an extension on that particular comment period.

More than 350 people submitted their personal comments on this issue and their experiences.

It should just not be at the expense of the residents that live nearby.

The reality is if this doesn't change, those with the means will take their tax dollars elsewhere.

Well, an argument could be made that I should have known not to buy a house in this area and raise a family in this neighborhood due to this air quality pollution and odor health issues.

I'm here to represent the thousands of people who work a job where they cannot afford to take off to testify today.

And for those who just can't simply move because they may not have the means to do so.

I want to thank you for your time and support for this legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, sir.

Next, let me turn to Sammy Wines with CR Club DC chapter.

Great.

Councilmember Allen and Councilmember Parker, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this legislative hearing.

My name is Sammy Wines, and I'm representing the Sierra Club District of Columbia chapter.

The Sierra Club is America's largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization with millions of members and supporters, including 7,000 DC residents.

It is time for the major fossil fuel companies to take responsibility for the problems they have created.

They knew about the relationship between fossil fuels and climate change, but to keep reaping billions in profit, they spread disinformation to feed climate change denial.

Now it's time for them to pay.

They knew the fossil fuel industry has known that burning fossil fuels warms the planet since 1978, when a senior Exxon scientist warned the company that doubling carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase global temperatures two or three degrees, and that the window for hard decisions on changing energy policy would close by 1990.

Then they lied.

Fossil fuel companies subsequently launched a well-funded disinformation campaign to hide this knowledge.

The chilling details of these ultimately successful efforts were documented in the Union of Concerned Scientists' climate deception dossiers.

They put profit before the welfare of their customers and country.

Obviously, their motive was to preserve profit by avoiding restrictions on the use of fossil fuels and deterring competition from green energy sources.

And boy, did they profit.

Data from companies market cap shows that in 2025, the top 40 U.S.

oil and gas companies earned over 200 billion dollars, more than the annual government spending for all but 15 countries in the world.

Now it's time for them to pay.

Enacting the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act would be the first step in holding fossil fuel companies accountable for the harms of their products.

The movement to make polluters pay is nationwide.

Climate super funds are already established in Vermont and New York.

Now 11 more states, including our neighbors in Maryland and Virginia, are considering similar legislation.

In future years, especially if there's enough pressure created by state programs, federal legislation is a possibility.

But we can't wait for federal action.

DC residents are already paying for the cost of climate change.

A few examples are the deep freeze and snow creep phenomenon this past January that may be linked to climate change, cleanup cost uh taxpayers at least 67.2 million dollars, the Department of Public Works spending 50.4 million dollars, which is seven times the amount budgeted for the entire winter season.

DC historically averaged about nine days a year above 95 degrees Fahrenheit between 1991 and 2010.

Under current trajectories, that's projected to more than double to 22 to 24 days by the 2030s.

The increase in the number of untenably hot days means more resources will be poured into activating cooling centers, which are activated when temperatures exceed 95 degrees.

DC is being forced to fund flood resilience that was previously unnecessary.

The Southwest and Buzzer Point flood resilience strategy, which is paid for through local appropriations under the district's resilient DC plan, is engineering an entire network of blue-green infrastructure to absorb storm events far beyond historical norms.

These are not luxuries, they're the rising costs of adapting to a climate that fossil fuel companies knowingly destabilized.

Costs now borne by district residents.

Moreover, residents are incurring personal costs from climate change.

Insurance rates in flood plone areas are skyrocketing, health care costs for asthma and allergies caused by forest fire smoke and longer pollen seasons are increasing, and electric bills are skyrocketing as residents need to heat their homes during deep freezes and cool them during heat waves.

When council while Council Member Denise Lewis George secured funding for the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act, the bill itself still needs to pass.

We urge the council to pass the bill before us through the Budget Support Act in order to authorize expenditure of the budgeted funds.

It is simply good governance to ensure we can use these budgeted funds.

Furthermore, anti-climate members of Congress are less likely to oppose this bill language if it is passed as part of the BSA rather than a standalone legislation.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

Next, let me turn to Sabrina Rhodes, who's joining us online.

Ms.

Rhodes, let me turn to you.

Yes.

Good afternoon.

Council Member Allen, witnesses and staff.

I want to.

Well, my name is Sabrina Rhodes.

I'm the community organizer with Empower DC, and I'm also the ANC commissioner here in Ivy City.

I am here on behalf of Empower DC and my community.

I want to express my appreciation to you, Councilmember Allen, to you, Councilmember Parker, and Councilmember Henderson and Lewis George for showing how the city must protect us as residents and protect our communities with both of these bills because our community of Ivy City, along with Brentwood and many of the residents of Ward 5, need stronger protections from environmental harms.

Actually, we have not been protected.

The effects of climate change climate change, which is real, the urban heat island effect, which we deal with here in Ivy City, and historic flooding, will get worse.

And the passage of this bill will provide greater opportunities for us to participate in decisions.

Something we have been wanting to do for a very long time that affect our health and quality of life.

Actually, again, we have not been protected.

While DOEE has stated that it already engages the public effectively and does not require additional authority.

Many of us have had very different experiences.

Too often communities learn about major environmental decisions only after key actions have already been taken.

This is on many levels with many agencies.

Public notices can be difficult to access.

I've tried.

And instead of helping the owner come into compliance and helping them with the permitting process, they should have gone through decades ago.

They should be shut down and not only to continue to and not only to continue to use the cocktail of chemicals they use to manufacture their products.

This causes a mixture of negative negative health effects, negative living environment, indoors and outdoors with no protection.

How much time do I have?

Because I can't see the clock.

You got a minute and a half.

Okay.

DOE's mission is to improve quality of life by protecting the environment, mitigating pollution, conserving resources, and educating the public.

But here in our community, we continue to experience significant gaps between that mission and our lived reality.

Residents across the district, particularly in environmental justice communities such as Ivy City and Brentwood, often feel excluded from many government processes and inadequately informed about environmental risk in our neighborhoods.

And not just want to end there and just let you all know that we this bill needs to be funded.

Both bills need to be funded, but there should be adequate training and also community engagement.

So this bill recognizes that communities facing the greatest environmental burdens deserve stronger protection, greater transparency, and a more meaningful voice in decisions that affect our health and well-being.

We urge the council to pass this bill and also have it funded and provide the district and DOEE with authority necessary to better protect, protect us, protect our residencies, residents, and also shut down legacy polluters instead of getting them in compliance and strengthen public participation and environmental governance with collaborations and partnerships.

Thank you so much for allowing me to testify.

Thank you very much, Commissioner Rhodes.

Next, let me turn to Sharon Edwards.

Good afternoon, Council Member Zachary Parker.

Mr.

Chairman, you pull the mic just a little closer to you.

I want to make sure folks are able to hear you.

Okay.

You might have to angle it down a little bit so it's pointed.

There we go.

That'll work.

Okay.

Good afternoon.

Council member Zachary Parker, Chairman Allen.

My name is Sharon Edwards, and I'm a longtime resident of Brentwood Community in Ward 5.

I'm also uh Empowered DC member.

I recently was on the air quality quality advisory board for DOEE.

Spent several spent a year talking about it.

Um talking talking about it.

Um, the air quality in Brentwood, how it impacts the residents, can learn more about the story on DC, new new new bench monitor, way up to.

As someone who's experienced firsthand in effective living in the industrial area, I am here to hear to express my strong support of the strengthening of the air quality permit amendment act of 2026.

The Brentwood neighborhood has has been overburned with industrial pollution, and it's no secret uh our community faces high risk impacts of respiratory conditions.

Personally, I have had seen, I have seen how it has affected my health and my neighbors.

Constant flow of impact and impacted industrial trucks island on our community streets, somehow, sometimes all hours of the night has created unbearable conditions for those who who live with in the community day and night, has created unbearable conditions for those who live here.

Often I wake up with headaches, chest tightening from when the air is thick and exhausted.

I fear for long-time health issues as well with my children in the neighborhood.

In Brentwood, we are experiencing for Myers plant with occasionally older, has been operating with expired permits.

More recently, DOEE has granted a permit to Aussie bus terminal.

Both projects are has been left in the dark with the community for as what's going on with updated information and impact on the community.

Even though residents have lived, have asked again and again for meetings to clear information, we have been ignored and brushed off.

Decisions were made without us and has been we've been left in the dark.

And our concern is we need to know what's going on.

Our concerns are we're meaningly meaningfully and not made with decisions.

The bus, the bus, the bill has allowed more communities to engage and process with acts with actual looks at the impact of the surroundings.

But last but not least, for the last six years at 13th and Downing at Brentwood, it's a circle there.

And for the last six to seven years has nothing been done.

Accidents have happened, and it's no way to cross the street without signals.

So it I don't cross that street without you know, without assistance, because it's not safe.

And I know this don't have anything to do with it, but for the last six to seven years has nothing been done, little nothing.

So thank you for your time.

I'm finished.

Thank you very much.

Um, Dr.

Steven Peterson, uh, our last witness on this panel.

Okay, thank you very much.

Um, Peterson, if you can pull the microphone down just a little bit so it'll point there.

You go perfect.

Thank you.

Uh good afternoon.

Um, I'm here to speak for my patients.

I'm a psychiatrist practicing in a hospital and a clinic in Washington, DC, and for them and for all of us, I'm supporting the greenhouse gas emissions study.

Back in the 1970s, um, I moved here to do an internship in residency.

Since then, our temperature has gone um up by two degrees Fahrenheit, and the humidity has gone up by five to ten percent.

Considering both factoring together, the temperature is effectively five degrees Fahrenheit warmer.

Now, some of these uh some of the people I work with in the clinic and the hospital are the seriously mentally ill.

They have uh special problems with temperature regulation, and uh they're on medications that prevent them from really cooling, especially in heat waves.

Um that's why they're at greater risk in um in heat.

Indeed, the older seriously mentally ill are the persons who who die first in heat waves, and uh they um they're the most frequent persons who who pass away.

Um, on the fourth day uh of a heat wave, by the way.

No, on the third day, the uh heat the uh deaths start to mount because of the uh physiological resilience wanes.

Now heat waves have gone up.

In the 1960s, there were two heat waves per year, serious heat waves in America, uh in most places, and now there are three times as many six heat waves per year.

Go figure where's that coming from?

Um, in heat waves, um, those with cardiorespiratory illness come to our emergency rooms a lot and they need admissions more often.

The incidence of uh cardiac uh arrests in the outside the hospital in the community go up.

And if you're outside of the hospital and your your heart stops, there's little likelihood of survival, maybe 10% survive.

Um think of the children with asthma.

The higher pollen and the growing season, the heat increases, uh, more serious asthma attacks.

Sometimes they don't make it, and and there's also more hospitalizations, expectant mothers go into premature labor and uh have smaller babies.

There's higher risk of maternal uh hemorrhage, which can be fatal, and um there's also um more miscarriages.

Um living in this massive heat island we call uh Washington DC, small children, the elderly, those who are redlined to the hotter areas of DC, due to racial inequities and socioeconomic challenges that are all the more at risk, and we've heard about that today.

Living where the canopy uh tree canopy is low means large differences in temperature.

On one hot uh summer day, the difference uh was 27 degrees between Rock Creek versus downtown DC.

That's a huge difference.

In summers, there are more admissions to psychiatric units, more suicide attempts.

Substance abuse.

Um there's more frankly, there's actually more shootings, more firearm injuries, um higher rates of crime, and visits to the hospital for these things.

Uh do that and that's on high high heat days.

This is uh a well done study right up the road in Baltimore that uh shows that uh these rates are increased.

So we have more shootings and and uh firearm injuries in the summer, and I think um this is true in other large cities like Dallas and Chicago as well.

And I I think it's true in our fair city.

So those who are responsible for these fossils uh are the people from the fossil fuel admissions uh um group, and they should be held accountable.

If that's most certainly thank you.

Thank you very much, and thanks to everybody on this panel.

Um to uh uh Sammy Wines, appreciate your testimony.

Um, and I don't know if you were here earlier.

I want to make sure the folks that are tuning in and watching know.

So working with Councilmer Lewis George, we were able to get the funding in to the budget through our committee to make sure that the greenhouse gas study has the funding it needs.

That's important because obviously, uh in our language we call it pre-funding a bill, so making sure we have the dollars and the budget to go with that.

We don't we have not figured out yet which of two routes we'll take, either through the budget support act, like you were advocating, to see if we can't have that be a part of that.

That's gonna certainly require working with the chairman to see if we can get that into the budget.

If not, it we will move it as a standalone bill, but making sure we have the funding identified is an important step so that it can be implemented uh because I hate passing a legislation that's subject to funding, and then we you think that we passed a bill, but in fact it can't take effect because we haven't actually funded it.

Um that gets me to the second one, which is we actually have not yet gotten a full fiscal impact for the air permit legislation.

Um that's something that we're trying to get because that'll help us know then what are we trying to solve for in the budget.

I know that's a priority for Councillor Parker, it will be for me as well, so that we can then find what type of resources we're gonna have to have.

Because while we put the legislation smartly, puts more requirements, uh mandates, timelines, et cetera, on DOEE.

I'm not gonna be surprised when DOE comes back and tells me it's gonna cost us X, Y, and Z to be able to implement that.

Um I do not begrudge that.

If we're asking them to do something, want to make sure they have the resources to do it.

Uh I just don't know what that is yet, and so we'll continue to work on that.

But um, want to make sure that you had heard as we look at um the greenhouse gas study bill, we've got that funded, and uh my commitment is it's it's gonna move forward one of two ways, standalone or through the BSA.

Um, to uh uh all of our panelists, you know.

I think you've you've been very consistent with a lot of our witnesses that we've heard uh before.

Um I've yet to hear anybody come out and say that they're opposed to these, so that's good.

Um and so we want to make sure we get this done.

And I think you know, and I'll let Counselor Parker talk more about this, or he may have some questions specifically with the ANC and neighbors around this, but I'm viewing this legislation as being fairly responsive to the um inability to have timely and effective permitting process um in your community neighborhood.

And so if the process that we have is letting you down, letting the city down, it's not getting the job done, then that tells me we've got to make changes, we've got to make reforms to it.

Um if our agency is telling us, we don't know if the mandate's clear enough for us to take action A or action B, then we can help make sure that within law we can make sure that we have the mandates that are necessary.

Um so I'm gonna go into this believing that uh everyone's working in good faith uh to try to figure out how to make this work better for our communities.

Um and then you know, my commitments to work with Counselor Parker and and all of you to make sure we actually get something meaningful across the finish line uh so that we see the change that we're all wanting to see.

Um I'm not I can't speak for Councillor Parker, I'm but uh I'm I'm not elected to represent the Fort Myers of the world.

Uh, I'm elected to represent you.

And so uh it may mean that we are asking and requiring more of the companies and corporations that lead to the pollution that lead to the harm, uh that's just fine by me.

Uh that's part of the job.

So, Counselor Parker, let me turn to you if you had any questions.

Thank you.

Before I jump into questions, I want to echo everything my colleague just said.

I would also say to neighbors and advocates, stick with us.

We're dealing with the consequences of the overburdening of industrial land space in Ward 5.

And as the Office of Planning is entertaining as draft flum and as we're moving and working towards the comp plan, there is a demand that we should be placing on the city to say deal with the over concentration of industrial land use.

This is one step, that is another.

And so I invite you all to stay with us.

And there may even be news next week through the budget process.

I digress.

Commissioner Galvin, I wanted to come to you.

I know my team has heard repeatedly about the um odor emitting from the asphalt plant or Fort Myers in Eckington.

There has since been a recent synthetic minor permit that has gone in effect.

Have things gotten better?

Is it about the same?

Is it worse?

And what would you say is the consequence of the odor?

You spoke to that in your opening statement, but if you could just elaborate a little bit.

Sure thing.

Thank you for the question, Councilmember Parker.

So have things got better.

I would say marginally.

And what I mean by that is I we used to hear the asphalt at you know four or five in the morning.

It's not quite that early, but it's not much farther after that time period.

So there were some some slight changes.

And I don't know if that was just for production time periods or emergencies that Fort Meyer had to do on behalf of D dot.

But it it hasn't gotten really any better.

And the smells, I think the biggest consequence of the smells is the uncertainty of what it is, right?

That they have an odor uh control plan that is um supposed to be in place for those, but every time you submit a 311 ticket, you know, D D D O E uh to their credit does go out and check and investigate it.

The challenges they have a olfactory, you know, tool that they use, um, and they can't smell it through a couple of um uh filters basically, and that doesn't really show that that affects us or it it's it's not a good objective means for us to be able to say it's not affecting us because it still is.

Absolutely.

Um and I think the other part of that is if you don't if if folks are smelling this and it smells like asphalt, it smells like chemicals, it probably is, but what exactly is it, right?

Is it something where I should be making sure that my child and children in the neighborhood should be inside?

You know, I I recently am fortunate that I have means to renovate the house a little bit recently, and we tried to seal up everything so that we could add.

We bought filters throughout the house and whatnot.

And I know that there's a lot of people who can't do that.

Um, and so I've heard from neighbors who have been here a lot longer than I have that folks have grown up with asthma, you know, in in the area.

And I of course we don't have a study to tell us whether or not that's directly related to that, but I think the consequence is that it is affecting people's lives.

There's a neighborhood WhatsApp chat with 300 plus people, and every time that asphalt plant is rolling and the wind is right, it's blowing up and people are upset.

And I think it's underreported, not to mention the 311 app is was currently down or is or was still still down, that it's it's heavily underreported.

Um that this is what's happening.

You know, people have lives and sure three minutes to put in a 311 app.

My guess is that there is one per every 50 people that actually puts that in.

Um and so that data is not getting captured.

And so every time it happens and nothing changes, the frustration builds within the community that folks aren't being um uh attentive to needs and engaged.

So thank you.

No, thank you.

And I just want to note we heard from DOEE earlier that they lacked the authority to hold a company like Fort Meyer accountable.

Now I note also in today's testimony, they're objecting to the bill saying no, don't give us the authority to do more, which again I just think is unacceptable.

Ms.

Edwards, it's great to see you again.

I wanted to come to you.

I want you to know I sent a team's message to my team, 13th and Downing Circle traffic concerns.

Brentwood, Brentwood.

And so my team is looking into it.

But I wanted to just uh underscore that we're talking about the Fort Meyer plant in Eckington, but there is a second plant in Brinkwood, the community that you are living in, and that facility, as I understand it, is operating on a five-year permit that was issued.

Let me make sure I get this right, uh, in 2015.

That facility's permit expired on record September 15th of 2020, which means 2,089 days and counting have passed since that permit was um uh legal or lawful, and it's uh a glaring example of the oversight, the neglect and disregard for residents, and and the consequences that we're highlighting today.

But I wanted to also, uh Ms.

Evers just ask you to just expound on some of the challenges residents are experiencing in Brentwood as you highlighted the bus terminal, uh the trash transfer plant, the asphalt plant, and many other uh industrial uses.

What are some of the uh challenges that residents are experiencing in the Brentwood community?

Well, um, in our neighborhood, we used to have people come out all the time, so it's a lot of stay in the house type of going on.

As in residents would go out, but now they are staying staying more in the house.

Yes.

And why is that?

And because of the smell, the rats, um, the trash.

Yes, the you know, the um, the I recall the neighbor that said, Well, um I don't even raise my windows because the odor is so strong that I don't know.

And you don't have to raise your windows, it comes under the door crease.

This is you know, air is air is air, and when the smell gets in air, there's no way to keep the air out and the smell out, so you don't have to open your windows, it comes through the vents, you know.

So, yes.

Um, and we don't have um in the park right behind my house.

We used to cook out there in the evenings, but people don't come because this food the food is out exposed and the smell is up.

Absolutely.

And again, I just want to highlight the consequence that these are families living in our Brentwood community being subject to the toxins and the air.

The same is true for Ivy City, where I know Commissioner Rhodes, I'm not sure if you're still there.

Uh, while it may not be to the same intensity as Brentwood, there are also challenges there.

There she is.

Uh Commissioner, I just wanted to get in a question here for you and thank you for your many years underscore many years of advocacy on behalf of Ivy City.

If I could also just give a quick plug that the Cremell School is under construction, um, and that is in large part to your advocacy commissioner and the work of Empower DC.

So while I know that's not the focus of today's hearing, uh, Ward 5 is on the move, and I want to thank you.

Uh, just one last question, Commissioner.

Um, you said you often hear about key decision points after they have happened.

Uh could you say more about this?

Perhaps uh as it relates to some of the fights that you are encountering in Ivy City or through your work with Empower DC.

Yeah, um, a lot of times actually the agencies are not proactive, the agencies are not coming to the to the community and being transparent.

I just had to relay that to another agency earlier today about Kremel.

Like, we shouldn't have to find out after the fact, after there's an extension on a permit, or a permit given to someone that's going to be polluting our community.

We need to know this upfront, and we need to be the ones sitting at the table talking to these entities who want to come into our community and do certain type of businesses, and we should be the ones that determine whether that's okay or not.

It shouldn't be the agency because the agency is an identical.

Sorry for cutting you off, sorry about that.

You mentioned that it's hard to locate permit documents and other resources from DOEE.

When you reach out, do you find them to be responsive?

Well, it depends.

We here lately they have been responsive, so I'm not going to take that away from them.

But when all of this was going on about NEP, and we were trying to find permits, were hidden in the um the DC rags.

So it was really hard.

Understood.

I'm gonna leave it there.

I'm over time and you're freezing a little bit.

Uh, but I'm glad to hear our friends at DOEE are seemingly uh being a bit more responsive.

So thank you.

Thank you all for your testimony and your work in helping inform this legislation.

And thank you for others who testify who I didn't ask questions for, but thank you.

Thanks, Councillor Farker.

Thanks, everybody, for your testimony.

All right, let's move to our last panel of public witnesses, and we're gonna move to our agencies.

I've got Kara Fulton.

Oh, excellent, all right.

Come on up, Derek Hill.

Destiny Swanigan.

If I pronounced that correctly.

Dorothy Ann Stanley here, Kate Bachover.

Oh, she's not coming.

Okay, thank you for letting me know.

Out of town.

Liana Steinberg Casper.

Excellent, all right.

All right.

I only have four chairs.

Let me just ask real fast: is Lucy Arthur Peratelli here?

Vondre Walston.

Or Michelle Mabson.

All right.

Anybody else online?

Oh, we got Mabson.

Oh, we do.

We have Michelle Mabson online.

So let's bring Mabson on.

Also, we have Destiny Swanigan.

Okay.

Just confirming.

Yes.

Alright, so between folks that are here in person and online, I believe we've got our last panel of public witnesses.

So let me go back up here.

Um, all right, Miss Fulton, we'll have you kick us off.

It's counterintuitive.

Red means on.

Yep, there you go.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Kara Fulton, a ward one resident and daily bike commuter who breathes this city's dirty air up close, whether I want to or not.

I'm urging you to dedicate at least 200,000 to the fiscal year 27 budget for the greenhouse gas emissions study amendment act.

Every day on my bike, I'm hit with the reality of fossil fuel pollution.

The exhaust I inhale at red lights, the smog that settles on hot days, the way outdoor recreation is becoming something you have to brace yourself for instead of enjoying this pollution isn't theoretical.

It's in our lungs, it's in our neighborhoods, it's in the extreme heat and flooding that are already reshaping DC.

This study is the first real step toward making the companies responsible for this crisis finally pay their share.

It will show the true cost of climate change in DC.

The flooded basements, the heat-related illnesses, the failing infrastructure like the Potomac Interceptor.

And with federal disaster funding, increasingly unreliable, we cannot keep pretending we'll be rescued later.

Other states have created climate superfunds that have raised billions from fossil fuel companies.

Meanwhile, DC is stuck cutting climate and infrastructure programs year after year.

We deserve better than an endless cycle of underfunding while polluters walk away untouched.

Funding this study is how we break that cycle.

It's how we protect residents, especially those of us who move through the city outdoors every day, breathing the consequences of inaction.

So please fund this study at no less than 200,000 dollars.

It's time to stop letting polluters off the hook and start building the resilient, healthy DVD we all deserve.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Derek Hill, we'll turn next to turn to you next.

Good afternoon, Chairman Allen.

My name is Derek Hill, and I've been a resident of Ward 5 for a year.

I'm also a volunteer with the Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

Today I'm testifying to urge that the DC City Council pass and fully fund the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act.

This bill requires the DC Department of Energy and Environment to issue a contract for a study of the impacts and costs of climate change in DC.

The study will first analyze exactly how and where climate change will impact DC, develop an estimate of the overall financial cost of adapting to these impacts, and third, most importantly, it will identify the major greenhouse gas polluters in DC and quantify the damage they have imposed to DC in climate change.

This legislation is an important step to building the case for making multi-billion dollar fossil fuel companies pay into a climate superfund.

Climate change fuel disasters, sea level rise in flooding, extreme heat, diseases, and more are already impacting DC and are expected to intensify.

This climate superfund is critical to preparing our city and funding the cost of extreme weather.

DC taxpayers are already footing the bill for extreme weather.

Everybody uh went through the snow creed and deep freeze uh this winter.

DC residents were heavily impacted by the deep freeze and snow creek, which can be linked to climate change.

Three DC agencies spent more than $60 million to plow and haul hundreds of tons of snow in the wake of the storm.

The city was shut down for days.

Second, the May 2026 heat wave, record-breaking temperatures this May, made the city feel like July.

Two DC schools had to close down during this recent heat wave.

And the DC Department of General Services had to respond with immediate system upgrades.

As summer temperatures continue to arrive earlier in the year and stick around longer, DC schools will need to spend millions of dollars to upgrade HVAC systems and install AC.

And the Potomac River sewage spill is another incident that's that is certainly consistent and connected to climate change.

When a section of the sewage pipe collapsed in January 2026, millions of gallons of untreated sewage spilled into the Potomac River and nearby areas, making it one of the largest wastewater releases in the U.S.'s history.

Cleanup costs will total at least 20 million.

The make polluter pay study is critical to responsible budgeting in DC.

This study will turn unexpected costs into ones we can plan for and identify the financial damage by major fossil fuel producers.

The study will prior towards prioritize identification of infrastructure to invest and upgrade to prepare for and to minimize climate damage and disasters.

National polling consistently shows voters believe they will be directly impacted by climate change or in favor of making polluters pay.

A majority of U.S.

voters believe both climate change and fossil fuel pollution will directly affect their household finances.

More than 80% of voters say they are concerned about rising uh home and property insurance rates in the coming years.

Furthermore, three quarters of voters support requiring oil and gas companies to pay a share of climate-related costs due to the damages their products cause.

Washington DC is a beautiful, unique, and remarkable city that is facing the dawning challenges of climate change.

The make polluter pay study is a crucial first step in helping the city to prepare for and make the city resilient to the impact of increasingly costly climate change impacts, including flooding, high heat, and drought.

I urge that the DC City Council approve and fully fund this important and vital legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Uh, next let me turn to Destiny Swanigan, who's online.

Hello, good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chairman and committee.

My name is Destiny Swanigan.

I've been a resident of Ivy City for a year and a half.

I'm in water five.

I also work as a nurse, but I support this uh support district of air pollution for many amendment of act of two 2026.

A bill like this resonates with me because I support this bill because it's easier for residents to know what's happening in their neighborhoods.

And I uh the concerns will be heard.

I'm here today because I want my voice to be heard on the issue of facts of the air.

It could um it affects health and the quality of life of people in my community, and it's something very residents deserve.

Many families in district five live, work, and raise children in areas impacted by pollution, and their concerns deserve to be part of this conversation.

Currently, according to this bill information, the air quality permits to posted on the DOEE website and the public research.

But it is hard to find it, so I wish it was just like more easier, you know, for me to accommodate.

But most residents do not regularly check those places, and I'm not sure how to check them like myself sometimes, like it's so difficult.

I wish it was more easy for us to like simplify that that way.

Um, unless empowered DC, like I'm with the Empower DC, but they unless they don't discuss it of how to find it regularly, or I wouldn't know how what to do.

Um, better but um the better notice to ANC's nearby property owners so people can learn about about proposed permits and participate in the process, understanding the process.

Um, better notice to give the community members to learn about the proposed projects, ask questions, and review potential projects.

So I wish you had the website make make it more easy for people to understand the bill and how it projects and how um helping protect the community as well.

Um the bill will also improve how air quality complaints are handled.

Like, for instance, like this air pollution is like it affects I got asthma.

So sometimes when I go outside the older stuff, I can't not tolerate that.

So I have to go inside.

I bought a humidifier, dehumidifier, because I got asthma, and it affects me so bad.

Um, but I like it out here.

I do, I do like DCs, welcome diversity, but the the industry like it's too many industrial plants, like I I guess you can try to see if they can use like safe oils or safe chemicals or safe filters in their industry plants and stop um building multiple energy plants around people, you know, people community where people live.

Because it's it's not even yeah, it's not good for us.

Especially to maintain the odor control.

It has a very odor, but the emissions and the industry plants, because when I live is like an energy plant that costs the DPW, if that energy plant, and then a lot of emissions and traffic come through, and it makes it so difficult.

Like the noise, the emissions of smell, the odor, and I wish we could like down that down a little bit.

Um, how many minutes I have left?

We're actually a little bit over time.

Oh, sorry.

But you've done a great job.

You've done a great job.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, thank you very much for your testimony.

We appreciate it.

You too.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, let me turn to Dorothy Ann Scanley.

Hi, um Chairman Allen.

Uh, thank you for taking up the uh greenhouse gas emissions uh study bill.

Um my name's uh Ann Scanley, and I'm a long-term resident of Ward II.

Um, even though I'm here to address the greenhouse gas emissions study, I also want to say that I support the bill to strengthen the air pollution uh permitting act.

And um I really thank you for getting behind this bill and pushing it forward, and um you've heard a lot from a lot of witnesses, so I know in the spirit of giving even more material that you can use as you push this forward.

Um, we all know that climate change caused by fossil fuels is already here.

Um the sea level in DC has increased by over a foot in the past 100 years, and the rate of increase has accelerated in recent decades.

Since pre-industrial times, the annual number of days over 90 degrees has risen from an average of two to an average of 44.

Um, and when we all know that the consequences are already severe.

Last summer, and here I should just defer to um Dr.

Patterson, who just did an amazing job of explaining the impacts.

But um, DC emergency medical services made 450 heat-related calls uh last year.

A really disproportionate number of those were for blacks and African Americans, and then beyond the heat, as uh Dr.

Patterson indicated.

I mean, heat does increase violence.

There are studies on that, and it inhibits learning, and it isn't just when the schools close, when the schools are just hot, the kids um the heat affects their ability to pay attention and it affects their comprehension.

Um, to its credit, DC already has a lot of plans for mitigating climate change impacts.

The uh strategic roadmap uh climate ready DC.

Um, unfortunately, the money just isn't there to implement most of those plans.

Um, to date, only one of the community resilience centers has been built, the Fonterary Center, and that's a far cry from providing them within walking distance of all uh at-risk communities.

The plan calls for pursuing deep energy and water efficiency in buildings, but budgets are precluding the activities needed to reach those goals.

Um DC Water is struggling to find funding for the second phase of construction for the Blue Plains water treatment plant flood wall.

They had planned to use a FEMA brick grant for 70 percent of the costs, meaning national tax dollars would cover it, and the other 30 percent was going to be covered through rape paters being anyone who has a water bill, but the Trump administration abolished BRIC, and now the federal funding is uncertain.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate if we had uh a superfund for climate that would pay for that?

So um climate super funds would work better at the national level than the local level, and it's a shame that that hasn't happened, but I don't think that should preclude local action.

Um, Senator Van Holland in a webinar on uh climate super funds, used green banks as an example of how a policy concept can start at the federal level, fail, be picked up by the states, have programs prove their efficacy, and then finally get picked back up again at the federal level.

Um, so let's get this bill passed.

Thank you very much.

Next, let me turn to Liana Steinberg Casper.

Hi, my name is Liana.

I'm a Ward 1 resident and a volunteer with Sunrise DC.

I'm here today to urge you to pass and fund the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Act through the budget, as well as strengthening air, as well as the strengthening air pollution permitting amendment act.

Having only lived here for a few years, I have already seen the impacts of the climate crisis on DC.

We suffer from major floods and storms, unbearable heat waves in the summer, and snowstorms in the winter.

Since I've lived here, I've almost passed out because of extreme heat.

I've had to hide out in my bathroom from tornado warnings, and I've watched my utility costs skyrocket just so I can stay safe from the escalating temperatures.

And other communities members have it much worse than I do.

Our unhoused neighbors without protection from the elements, those who live in prominent flooding zones, those with jobs requiring them to work outside.

And if being burdened with the impacts weren't enough, we as DC taxpayers are also the ones footing the bill for this extreme weather caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

Just this winter, clearing snow from a greenhouse gas induced deep freeze cost DC over seven times what the Department of Public Works had budgeted to spend for the entire winter season.

It is plain that we are not prepared for what is coming.

What will continue to occur and intensify as long as we let big oil companies pollute and industry pollute without consequence for immediate protection of our communities against the against dangerous polluters?

We need to pass the strengthening air pollution permitting amendment act, which will hold that bad actors accountable, put people's safety over polluter profits, and protect our most vulnerable residents.

Long term we need a mechanism to measure the damage oil companies are doing, not only so we can orient our policies and budgets accordingly, turning unexpected costs into those we can predict and plan for, but also so we can hold the correct entities responsible for these costs.

DC communities should not be required to subsidize their own suffering.

As the ones causing the harm, oil and gas companies should be required to pay.

This concept is popular across the nation, the political spectrum, and DC.

It has been implemented in other states and can be done here.

The first step to removing this unjust burden from DC residents is to measure it.

Therefore, I urge you to pass and fully fund the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Act to build a cleaner, safer, more just and more prepared DC.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And then we're gonna turn online for Michelle Mabson.

Michelle, are you there?

I am here, just getting here.

There we go, getting off mute.

Thank you.

I'm ready when you're all.

We're ready when you are.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

So good afternoon, Council members.

My name is Michelle Mobson, and I'm a senior South Scientist at Earth Justice, a nonprofit environmental law organization, and a decades-long resident of DC.

The Strengthening Air Pollution Permitting Amendment Act of 2026 is necessary to improve the district's air pollution permitting system and is an important step toward ensuring that all DC residents can live in safe and healthy communities with clean air.

The conditions it addresses would have the potential, if fully actualized, and with the incorporation of the important community input provided today to alleviate pollution burden that residents of Ivy City have long faced.

National Engineering Products or NEP has operated in Ivy City without an air permit for decades.

Rile residents have reported detectable odors, which is a serious concern.

Odors detected beyond the facility spin sline often signal harmful levels of toxic emissions.

NEP uses and stores formaldehyde, a group one human carcinogen linked to cancer and neurodevelopmental harm, methylene chloride, a probable carcinogen that EPA recently banned in consumer products due to acute fatalities and cancer risks, and cretal and phenols that cause severe respiratory harm.

According to the CDC Environmental Justice Index, Ivy City residents already experience more than um or should say more air pollution burden than 89% of all U.S.

census tracts, and Ward 5 houses half of the district's entire industrial development while representing just 20% of DC households.

The bill's provisions requiring timely review and renewal of permits addresses some of the enforcement gaps that made the existing issues with NEP possible, yet it is unclear whether the bill goes far enough to actually include a required air permit for this facility.

No facility storing and emitting toxic chemicals should be allowed to continue operations without a permit while communities wait years for agency action.

Separately but relatedly I'd like to echo my support for the concern raised by my colleague Adam Crone calling for ambient air monitoring in neighborhoods like Ivy City to address the severe gap in data on hyperlocalized air pollution.

The bill should also be recognized for strengthening DOEE standards for evaluating nuisance complaints and for creating accountability mechanisms communities can actually use the requirement to consider cumulative impacts proximity to neighborhoods and schools and parks and the health disparities already present in affected neighborhoods reflex and accounts for the disproportionate burden some neighborhoods bear that the current law allows for Ward 5 has the highest infant mortality rate in the district at 11.9 per 1000 live births which is nearly double the district average this bill would mandate that DOEE weigh these existing health disparities and that is exactly the kind of data it should be required to factor in.

I'll conclude by reiterating the need for the council to incorporate the powerful and insightful input provided today by community members, experts and advocates to further improve the bill and to move forward with passage of the bill as soon as possible.

Thank you for your time today in consideration of these comments.

Thank you very much.

All right I think that is all of our public witnesses so thank you very much to Ms.

Fulton I you called on us to make sure we're funding greenhouse gas emissions study.

So good news hopefully you heard we've got that funded in the budget.

So counselor Lewis George moved money to our committee through the budget process we then made sure we put that towards this so that helps pre- what we call prefund essentially so that we've got the funding set aside and then we now have to have the legislation it'll either go through the budget support act or standalone legislation will make sure those two things get one of those two routes will be what takes place but um just want to make sure that you knew that that is that is on the way.

You did a great job with your testimony we anticipated you so well that we made sure that was happening.

But it everybody's testimony was was excellent and really again just kind of kept keeps hitting the themes around why both these measures are important why we're working hard on those for the um air pollution permitting amendment act we don't yet know exactly what the fiscal impact is on that bill and so we're we're not in a position where we're able to prefund in the same way we're doing the greenhouse gas emission but continue to look uh look forward to working with counselor parker to help figure out how we get this how we get it funded so it can be implemented make sure the DOE has the resources it would need to be able to execute that and then be able to move that bill forward.

So I don't have any specific questions everyone did a great job of helping advocate for why we need both these bills to be able to move forward and I appreciate it all.

Thank you all very much.

Did you want to testify real fast, sir?

Alright come on up real fast.

Alright I know the government witnesses were itching they were ready to go not quite yet just introduce yourself for the record and then when you're ready.

Sure my name is Devin Simon, public witness.

Council members and staff, I guess I'm starting to get comfortable testifying with how many fires we've had to try to put out in the last year and a half but we have a really amazing opportunity today to look proactively rather than reactively and you know look ahead to make things better for the district in the future.

So I'm here today to voice my strong support for the greenhouse gas emissions study.

Like I said my name is Devin I've been a ward two resident since early 2024.

Prior to that, I was getting a graduate degree in at Columbia University learning data science mixed with climate science.

I was working directly with reading climatologists, oceanographers, and the like to publish papers in that space.

And I'll admit I'd never been so depressed and shocked with the potential outcomes I was studying in the coming decades.

But like a salve, I decided to move to DC to work on addressing the climate crisis.

And I wholeheartedly believe we all have to do our part individually, professionally, and in our communities.

But there are some things that take significant buy-in from local government, too.

This legislation will allow us to study the impacts of a changing climate and become more resilient as a city.

Given my time, I'll make three quick points why I support it.

One, we're teetering on the edge of existential disaster, with pillars of stability being knocked out by the federal government, like our ability to forecast storms, FEMA funding, and social support structures on the spritz.

We are just one like rare event away from a massive crisis.

We can look at the Potomac Interceptor spill to see how close we could have been to not having drinking water.

Our infrastructure is old, from pipes to wires to internal systems, and it's not just in DC, which adds like a covariance risk.

We need to know what our severe risks are and how best to address them, and the study will yield insight.

Two, large projects to become more resilient costs money, and money that we don't have and are unlikely to get via other methods given budget issues we've had, you know, with the city's been confronted with.

This bill provides an opportunity for a massive influx of funds that will not only help address climate costs but also provide an economic boost to the city.

It's a win-win all around, which brings me to my third point, and that's the opposition.

I've yet to talk to a person in DC that is against making large multi-billion dollar multinational corporations pay up for decades of misinformation and untold ecological and human harm.

The people are on your side here, and we must hold those accountable for the damage that was done and the compounding effect of prior emissions that continue to harm our health and wallet.

This isn't something for future generations, though that is important, but it's for my generation here and now.

I have more to say another time about macro events, like a new report about how we're heading towards a global financial crash from a from an accelerating climate crisis and how that might affect us.

This concept uh from the UN about water bankruptcy and the fact that DC is experiencing drought in one of the driest months we've had in 130 years, how other governments are preparing for almost three degrees of warming and so forth.

But once again, I thank you for your support in this monumental and impactful bill and really really look forward to seeing it being implemented.

So thank you again for letting me sneak in and talk.

Absolutely.

Glad you were able to sneak in.

Um appreciate it.

We'll make sure we add that to the record, so thank you.

All right, so now let's move to our government witnesses.

We're gonna hear both from the Department of Energy and Environment and representation from D.C.

Water.

So we have Mike Somersall, who's the deputy director with DOEE, and we have Nicholas Passerelli, who's the Vice President Wastewater Operations at DC Water and Sewer Authority.

Uh now we swear in our government witnesses.

Now, DC Water, you're not actually government.

I'm gonna go ahead and assume you're gonna sit tell me the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

But Mr.

Somersall, I do have to swear you in.

So if you please raise your right hand.

If you want to see water.

Oh, yeah.

I do have some staff with me here as well, so do we can just sort them in as well.

Absolutely, we'll swear them in as well.

Um, and don't be shy, DC Water.

If you want to get sworn in, you're more than welcome to.

Uh but if you raise your right hand, uh, do you swear affirmative penalty of perjury?

The testimony about to give to the committee on transportation and the environment is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I do.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

Um, all right, I don't know if you guys flipped a coin as to who wants to go first, but I probably will turn to you, Mr.

Summersall for DUEEE to testify first.

Then Mr.

Pasarelli will turn to you after that, and then we'll move into questions.

Alrighty.

Um, a little bit all script.

I do want to acknowledge that I've been sitting in a room since uh one o'clock today, and it's always good to be here to hear um the testimony from the concerned citizens.

Um we're here to serve, and our job is to listen and take that back to the drawing board and try to work to resolve some of the issues that we have here occurring in the District of Columbia.

I appreciate you acknowledging that.

We certainly sometimes see uh agencies that breeze in 30 seconds before the government witnesses uh begin.

I think it's uh DOE is always really great at being here um to hear that testimony.

I have so uh not just you, but I know members of your team were here the entire time as well, so thank you very much.

Absolutely.

And there were members of DC Water that were here.

I didn't I did not mean that, Mr.

Pasarelli, as uh a little swipe of you.

There were members of DC Water who were here for the entire hearing as well.

I was actually talking about DC government agencies, not uh not taking a swipe there for you.

Um, Mr.

Sumersall, let's go ahead and get started with you.

Yes.

Uh good afternoon, uh, Chairman Allen, members of the committee and staff.

I'm Michael Somersoul, Senior Deputy Director of the Department of Energy and Environment, commonly commonly referred to as DOEE.

I'm here today to present testimony on behalf of Mayor Muriel Bowser on two bills.

Bill 26571, the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act of 2026, and Bill 260565 to strengthening an air pollution, strengthening air pollution permanent amendment act of 2026.

First, I'd like to acknowledge my staff who is here with me and also those that are watching online for their hard work and dedication and the thoughtful research they contributed to drafting the testimony.

I do want to now acknowledge their commitment to excellence, where evident throughout this process and the efforts that have not gone on notice.

Joining me today are Dr.

Maribeth DiLorenzo from the Urban Sustainability Administration, Miss Jen Hatch from the Clean Buildings and Climate Branch within the Urban Sustainability Administration, and Mr.

Joseph Jakuda from our air quality division.

I will begin by discussing the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act of 2026.

This legislation would require DOEE to award a competitive grant for $200,000 to conduct a study on the total costs of greenhouse gas emissions in the district between 1995 and 2024.

The scope of the study includes a calculation of the past and future costs of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions and the associated adaptation adaptation efforts.

It also involves an analysis of whether costs would be passed on to taxpayers if certain companies were required to compensate the district for necessary adaptation to and disaster recovery from extreme weather.

The impacts of global greenhouse gas emissions are already being felt in the district.

In recent years, the district has experienced record breaking extreme weather from intense heat waves to unusual snowstorms, higher tides causing by rising sea level, heavy rains and flooding, warmer average temperatures, and two to three times as many dangerously hot days.

These events are expected to grow even more frequent and severe in the coming decades.

Extreme weather in turn endangers public health, especially for vulnerable residents, and threatens the stability of critical infrastructure.

Extreme heat is the leading cause of climate-related deaths nationwide.

Extreme heat can deteriorate infrastructure like railway lines and may trigger power outages due to increased energy demand from air conditioning.

Recognizing these risks, the district is working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt a chain changing climate, adapt to a changing climate.

Guided by DOEE's climate-ready DC and Keep Cool DC plans, the district government is preparing people, homes, communities, businesses, and infrastructure for the potential climate impacts, including extreme heat.

One of many efforts that has grown out of Keep Cool DC is the Heat Ambassador pilot program, where volunteers check on seniors, residents, and disabilities during extreme heat in FY25.

On flood risk, DOE is implementing its recently updated floodplain regulations requiring construction in certain flood prone areas to protect buildings and their occupants from flooding.

Bless you.

DOE's integrated flood model created maps to show flooding in future rainfall conditions.

DOE is using this mapping to work with other agencies to analyze areas of flood risk in the district and identify solutions.

The proposed study would add another dimension to the district's existing work by quantifying the total cost incurred due to greenhouse gas emissions, including costs already incurred from the direct effects of a changing climate and a cost of infrastructure that would reduce those effects in the future.

This analysis prove useful.

This analysis could prove useful if it leads to a prioritized list of adaptation projects with completed benefit cost analyses.

However, DOEE sees some challenges with this study.

First, 200,000 may not be sufficient to conduct this study for the district.

Vermont and Maine funded a similar study through though it though but one fewer deliverable at $300,000 and $600,000, respectively.

The DC legislation requires the study to include four specific deliverables.

It may not be possible to conduct a study with a $200,000 budget to capture all four deliverables.

Second, the deadlines to complete the study as currently established in the legislation may not be feasible.

Assuming the $200,000 funding proposed by council is included in the final FY27 budget effective October 1st, 2026, the study would be due on November 30, 2027.

Proposal solicitation and selection may take up to six months, leaving only eight months for the required analyses to be completed and the report to be fully drafted, reviewed, and submitted to the mayor and council.

Based on these experiences and other jurisdictions, conducting comprehensive analyses of historic greenhouse gas emissions, their associated impacts, and credible future and credible future projections will require substantial time.

Compiling and validating the necessary data sets, modeling outcomes across multiple scenarios, and integrated integrating findings into a cohesive and all resource-intensive tasks.

We acknowledge that there may be some savings in costs and time if it is possible to build upon work completed in other jurisdictions.

This bill shares significant similarities with Maryland's legislation on the same topic.

But the statutory deadline for completion of the Maryland study is December 1st, 2026.

It may be difficult to learn from the Maryland study if DOE needs to begin soliciting grant applications before that study is completed.

We urge Council to ensure that the scope of this legislation and its deadlines are realistic and feasible for the proposed funding of the $200,000.

I will now turn my attention to the strengthening air pollution permitting amendment act of 2026.

DOEE takes our mission to protect the environment and mitigate pollution seriously, and most germane to this bill our obligation to understand and regulate air pollution under our local laws and authority delegated under the Federal Clean Air Act CAA.

As part of our obligation, DOEE has focused its efforts to reduce ambient air pollution in certain neighborhoods that are likely to have been disproportionately impacted by air pollution.

Over the past two years, DOEE has worked hard to improve our permitting process in many of the same ways discussed in this legislation.

DOEE has adopted by regulation some of the nation's strictest standards for oxides of nitrogen for boilers, combustion turbines, and generators at main at major sources.

Eliminate affirmative defense provisions applicable to CAA, major sources, and adopted stricter visible emissions limits during startup and shutdown operations among other regulatory improvements.

DOE consistently seeks to improve and where appropriate, tighten permit requirements and update the regulations underpinning permit requirements.

Where appropriate, DOEE establishes stricter emission limits and requires installation of additional emission controls and improved operational practices at regulated facilities.

Examples of recent improvements include the inclusion of improved emergency reporting requirements and requiring electronic reporting of compliance.

DOE consistently updates regulatory citations in permits and therefore permit renewals reflect the most recent regulatory requirements.

DOEE's air quality division understands the importance of public engagement, and we have worked to increase public engagement by holding clearing the air webinars for the public to explain the permitting process.

Training air ambassadors to educate neighbors on understanding air quality, including permitting, and increasing our communications to ANCs and other effective parties when permits are put out for public comment.

DOEE holds also holds a quarterly stakeholders meeting to the to meeting available to the public with air quality permitting being a regular topic.

While DOE understands the intent of the legislation to increase public engagement surrounding air quality permitting, many of the proposed provisions would be overburdensome on the district government and may not yield the intended effect in light of the large number of sources we permit.

DOEE has taken great efforts to ensure proper community engagement on permits.

The level of outreach and engagement efforts required by this bill on all of the approximately 190 permits issued year issued per year would not be an effective use of DOEE's resources, nor would it be financially feasible given current staffing resources.

Based on community input and DOE's understanding of disproportionately impacted areas of pollution, DOEE strives to include public hearings in all permit proposals where we expect there may be community concern.

However, the community is always welcome to request a public hearing when one is not scheduled.

We would be would be remiss if we did not note that EPA under the previous administration praised public outreach efforts in their most recent evaluation of the Title V permitting program.

While they've while they often go unseen by the general public, there are hundreds of permits issued for quite small sources, such as backup generators at apartment complexes or similarly or other similar minor sources throughout the district, enforcing provisions requiring permit holders to email civic associations and providing written notice for property owners within 500 feet for every permit is beyond the resources of the five-person branch that handles permits to monitor and verify and will likely overburden ANCs and the public with routine matters.

Beyond the onerous public engagement requirements of all sources, including backup generators, the addition of requirements necessitating estimate estimates of traffic will also be problematic, especially in the cases of permit renewals.

While there may be some specific occasions when including vehicle emissions would be appropriate as part of a facility permit requiring an analysis of traffic emissions for the installation of every backup generator or boiler is over-burning overly burdensome.

For larger sources, this would be duplicative to the to review completed during the DC Environmental Policy Act process where DDOT may also weigh in.

A tailored approach to have what is called an indirect source analysis may be reasonable in certain circumstances.

Though DOE does not currently have the staffing need to implement such an analysis program, which would necessitate additional funding, requirements to evaluate indirect sources should be limited to only expected should be limited to only sources expected to result in a certain level of vehicle traffic or a change in vehicle traffic and should not be required for every permit application.

While DOE strives to get permits completed in a timely fashion, there are many factors that result in permit issuance delays.

These include delays in receiving materials from sources that are needed to prepare permitting actions, delays in application fee payments, changes to project scope during the permitting process, and challenges with resources, obtaining challenges with sources, obtaining their certificate of clean hands from the Office of Tax and Revenue.

Desirable increases in public input and input from the facilities, while often resulting in in improved permits, would not be feasible with current staffing levels and lead to increased delays in permit issuance.

Due to these factors, as well as limitations on internal staff resources, DOs DOEE simply cannot get all permits without delays.

There are also concerns that the time frames specified in B 26-0565 would interfere with federal regulations for major sources under Title IV on the Title V of the Clean Air Act.

These permits often take years to complete due to the extensive number of pieces of regulated equipment at a source.

For instance, one university has nearly 300 regulated units incorporated in its Title IV permits, and each of those units must be evaluated.

While DOE strives to complete Title V permits expeditiously, we are not alone in having a backlog.

With one state having a backlog of Title IV, sorry, keep saying four, Title V permits that is three times larger than our total number of major sources.

Relatedly, there are also concerns about shutting down a source if a permit expires while an application is pending.

Firstly, while a permit may expire, facilities must continue to comply with the underpinning air regulations, which are still in effect regardless of permit status.

In this sense, operating under expired permit does not inherently cause environmental harm.

Secondly, many permitted facilities provide vital services to the district, and it would not be in the public interest to shut down, for instance, a hospital, water treatment facility, military facility, university, or even Congress because DOE's staff is working on drafting an air quality permit.

In fact, we have at least seven hospitals that are currently on extended or expired permits while we draft their renewal permits.

We do not believe that the authors of this bill intended for us to shut down these hospitals if this position if this provision is adopted, but that would be logical, that will be the logical consequence of the bill as currently drafted.

In a similar vein, the provision eliminating the ability for an organization to receive receive a contract with the district government after two violations of air quality regulations is overly stringent.

This provision does not distinguish between substantive violations and minor paperwork errors, which make up the majority of violations.

It is particularly concerning for complex permits where administrative requirements are extensive, and the second violation may consist solely of failing to report the first.

DOE further observes that the amendments to the citizen suits provision are unclear as whether the citizen suits would be directed against DOEE or against the regulated facility.

Additionally, final legislation should specify that citizen suits are preempted when DOE is already pursuing enforcement consistent with Section 304 of the Clean Air Act.

The provision requiring DOE to enforce compliance with ANC initiated requirements is not feasible under current governmental structure.

This provision appears to delegate regulatory authority to an ANC, which raises significant legal concerns since that would allow an ANC to essentially override the will of the mayor and council.

ANCs are advisory bodies and cannot be vested with binding regulatory power.

It should also be noted that the fees and fines that are collected from sources are needed to maintain the functionality of the program as it currently exists.

Taking away fees and fine revenue from the air pollution permitting and compliance program for purposes such as environmental remediation and additional monitoring will lead to less of an ability for DOEE to carry out the current level of service with regards to permitting and compliance.

Also, the fees collected for major sources are protected under the Clean Air Act and can be used for certain purposes directly tied to the functioning of major source permitting and compliance program.

Any legislative provisions directing funds should acknowledge DOE's constraints and obligations on the Title V of the Clean Air Act.

We have mostly raised concerns with B 26-0565, and we do have additional technical concerns with the bill that we will provide to the committee.

I do want to turn to some areas where the bill does suggest some helpful improvements to existing statutory requirements.

Firstly, the provisions around the timeline of the appeals process are currently too limited.

The permit appeals process as it currently stands matches the process for appealing and enforcement action.

DOE does not believe DO does believe that 15 days is a reasonable time to allow for appeals of enforcement notices, since we want enforcement to be quick and certain.

But bifurcating the appeals window so that the public or a regulated entity can have more time to appeal a final permit would be reasonable.

We are supportive of lengthening the appeals process solely for this type of action taken by the agency.

Secondly, requiring annual training of on-site managers at sources about environmental rules would not be overly burdensome and help increase compliance, so DOEE is in agreement.

Thirdly, DOE already sets deadlines for permit renewals with sources as part of their existing permits.

If legislation were to affirm this, as long as it is flexible enough so that timelines could be set differently for different types of sources versus a one-size-fits-all approach.

DOEE would find this favorable.

Finally, DOE believes in the importance of developing a public permitting dashboard, but has been constrained by resources in accomplishing this task.

We are already working towards developing such a dashboard and would welcome support in accomplishing this goal.

DOEE also relies on 311 for tracking air quality complaints and is supportive of efforts to increase resources for the agency to assist with the development and maintenance of compliant tracking systems.

We will also note that DOE has taken extensive air quality monitoring in communities such as Ivy City, Brentwood, Buzzard Point, Mayfair, and Eckington first through the use of mobile air quality monitoring for several weeks in 2023-2024, where block by block air quality quality pollution tests were measured and more recently through the installation of nearly 70 low-cost sensors throughout the district with a focus on these communities.

Using this data with other source data, we have found that mobile sources are the main driver of air pollution in the district, especially diesel vehicle emissions.

Enforcement of the district's anti-engine island regulation is one part of the equation to reducing mobile source emissions.

The second part is continued investment into projects aimed at electrifying fleets and cleaning up diesel vehicles.

DOE is investing what funds it can to these projects, but more work is needed to accomplish this goal.

The third part is collaboration with federal and other state agencies since EPA sets emission standards for new vehicles and neighboring states produce much of the air pollution, including from vehicles that impacts us.

DOEE appreciates this opportunity to testify on Bill 26-565, and we will be submitting more detailed technical comments and analysis.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

My team and I look forward to answering any questions that you may have.

Thank you very much.

That wasn't detailed.

You got more details?

All right.

Um I'm not sure everyone agree with you about uh you have no interest in shutting down that it wouldn't be in public interest to shut down Congress.

Um we can reasonable minds can disagree on that.

Um, Mr.

Passerelli, let me turn to you.

Thank you.

Um Good afternoon, Chairman Allen.

Yeah, turn the mic on if you would push the button, red light.

There you go.

Good afternoon, Chairman Allen, members of the committee and staff.

My name is Nicholas Passarelli, and I currently serve as the Vice President of Wastewater Operations at DC Water.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding Bill 26-0565, the strengthening air pollution Permitting amendment act of 2026.

We also want to uh thank at the onset uh council member Parker and his office for meeting with DC Water staff to discuss the measures' impact on DC's critical wastewater treatment systems and collection system.

DC Water appreciates the Council's commitment to improving air quality, increasing transparency, strengthening environmental protection, and addressing concerns of the communities impacted by industrial activity and air pollution.

The goal of improving air quality is one that DC Water takes seriously and can certainly support as the primary goal of our work every day is to protect the public health and the environment.

We recognize significant concerns that have been raised by constituents in Ward 5 and other communities regarding environmental impacts from industrial operations located near residential neighborhoods.

DC Water supports responsible environmental regulation and meaningful community engagement.

As the operator of critical wastewater infrastructure for the district and the surrounding region, protecting public health and the environmental is central to our mission every day.

However, this bill will have a far-reaching impacts on D.C.

Water's critical wastewater treatment systems, which is why I'm testifying on behalf of DC Water today.

Several provisions within this legislation present substantial operational, regulatory, and legal concerns for essential public utility infrastructure, including the Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant and the entire wastewater treatment system throughout the District of Columbia.

Blue Plains is one of the largest advanced wastewater treatment facilities in the world.

The facility operates continuously 24 hours a day, seven days a week, processing hundreds of millions of gallons of wastewater daily for more than 2.5 million residents, workers, and visitors throughout the metropolitan region.

In addition to the Blue Plains, DC Water also operates district-wide infrastructure for the conveyance of wastewater.

The infrastructure must operate continuously and cannot be interrupted or shut down in the ways that this bill contemplates.

Therefore, DC Water requests a specific exemption for the wastewater treatment system, including Blue Plains and the rest of D.C.

Water's citywide wastewater infrastructure from all provisions of this bill.

There are several reasons why DC Water requests this exemption.

First, DC Water is deeply concerned with the provision in proposed section 8-101.05 K that will prohibit wastewater treatment facilities from operating after the expiration of any air permit or odor permit.

DC Water strongly supports timely permit renewals and timely agency review.

However, the proposed language would create unacceptable operational risks where a permit renewal remains pending despite facilities submitting a complete and timely application.

DC Water has applied for air permits for equipment that supports the non-Blue Plains citywide wastewater infrastructure.

DC Water also has pending with the OEE 11 expired chapter 2 permits for Blue Plains, which it has submitted timely renewal applications.

DC Water routinely seeks extension of these expired two permits every month, and we are currently rolling all these permits into our draft Title 5 permit with the DOEE.

Under the bill as drafted, a wastewater treatment facility could be prohibited from operating solely because DOAE has not been able to complete action on a pending permit renewal application.

For a continuously operating wastewater treatment system like that at DC Water, that outcome is simply not feasible and poses greater risk to DC residents and visitors.

Blue Plains and the rest of DC Water's district wide wastewater treatment facility, including the pump stations, cannot shut down operations.

Any interruption or curtailment of wastewater treatment operations could create immediate and significant risks to sanitation, receiving waters, clean water act compliance obligations, and public health throughout the district and surrounding jurisdictions.

If I could explain, if any of DC water's infrastructure were required to curtail operations and be shut down.

If blue planes were forced to shut down, there would be no place for untreated wastewater goods to go, potentially leading to approximately 275 million gallons per day of sewage overflows throughout the district into the Potomac and Anacostia rivers.

Such overflows would pose immediate public health risks, contaminating streets, storm drains, and waterways.

In addition, halting up the operations of the facilities' odor systems would produce significant odors and undermine the very purpose of the bill to reduce odors.

Wastewater flows continuously to the plant and must be treated without interruption to protect both public health and the environment.

If the pumping stations or other non-blue plain citywide infrastructure were required to contail our cease operations, the untreated wastewater would necessarily be directed into the Potomac or Anacosia Rivers.

Due to these catastrophic implications, we respectfully urge the committee to exempt DC water entirely from the legislation and specifically from this provision in the legislation.

Second, DC Water is concerned with the operational reduction requirements tied to the air quality index condition under the proposed section 8-101.05 J.

The bill would require permit holders to reduce operations during orange AQI conditions and potentially reduce or cease operations altogether during red, purple, or maroon conditions.

While we recognize the policy goals behind these provisions, wastewater treatment facilities are fundamentally different from discretionary industrial operations.

Accordingly, DC Water respectfully recommends that legislation expressly exempting all critical public wastewater infrastructure from mandatory operational reduction or shutdown provisions tied to AQI levels.

Our goal is to ensure that the legislation can accomplish those objectives, while we also recognize the unique operational realities associated with these essential public wastewater infrastructure.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I would be happy to answer any questions the committee may have.

Alright, thank you both very much.

Alright, let me just jump straight in.

All right, Mr.

Passerelli.

So uh we got your testimony this morning, so we're digesting it.

There may be some specifics we want to follow up with you and the DC water team after the hearing once we kind of dig in a little more.

Big takeaway, you want to be exempt, wastewater uh treatment facility.

Do other jurisdictions have exemptions for wastewater treatment?

I mean, I take your point completely.

I do not want to see our wastewater uh facility shut down.

Uh we need it, it's essential, it has to happen.

Um, we're not going to be putting raw sewage into the river.

It's a critical and crucial function.

Um, do other jurisdictions just exempt wastewater facilities from this type of requirement?

So we started looking into that the other day, and I do believe there are some, like uh I believe it was New Jersey, we started to find where they do exempt then from this type of legislation.

Now, not air permitting legislation per se itself, but uh they do exempt from um this some this legislation similar to this.

But we can certainly look into that more, and we will.

Um, but that being said, we do right as as I stated in my um testimony, we do fall under uh DOEE's enhanced odor uh framework and our title, our draft title five.

So all the levers with which all the regulatory levers that DOE, the district and EPA have to address any air permitting concerns or issues with our facilities are available to to them.

So it's not that we're asking for air permitting exemptions, it's just uh the the really the we're looking at the um the uh penalties with regards to curtailing operations.

Yeah, I mean, and listen, I'm I'm not gonna have an expectation that a wastewater treatment facility is gonna smell like roses.

So I do understand the very nature of wastewater management is just a is inherently you are going to have odors.

Um that said, when it comes to air quality permits and operations, uh mechanics, machinery, like there's a lot of different ways that we need to have air quality permits, and where we can do odor controls, we want to be working in that.

So um would like to be able to work with you and the team.

I also want to look at other jurisdictions to understand what they do or don't, or how they treat that.

I can at least in my head recognize that a wastewater treatment facility um might have some unique characteristics to it, and also again, you have essential functions of just our water management.

We're not gonna sacrifice uh clean drinking water.

Uh so I I understand that.

Happy to work with you and the team to kind of make sure we dig in a little bit more.

Let's take and compare against other jurisdictions so that we kind of see see what that looks like.

Um, all right.

On the greenhouse gas emissions study act, I'll start with that one.

So when we look at uh Maryland, and you mentioned that.

Do we have a sense or do you have a sense?

How much time after Maryland's similar study, like how long the legislation would say that you have until the end of calendar year 2027 to complete this study?

If the funding in the budget goes through, the dollars become available October 1, 2026.

So you would have a year and three months.

Does that seem like an unreasonable time frame?

You mentioned in your testimony you want to work with the committee to make sure there's reasonable time frames to complete a study.

Um that feels like a reasonable amount of time, but I welcome your feedback if you feel like that's not gonna line up correctly time-wise, or you feel like that's a stress of some kind.

I would want to call one of my subject matter experts up, who is closer to that project with Jen or Dr.

DiLorenzo.

I don't want to.

I know you were introduced earlier, Dr.

D Lorenzo, but if you want to introduce yourself for the record.

Good afternoon, Marabeth DiLorenzo, and I'm the deputy director for the Urban Sustainability Administration.

So as we understand it, Maryland was able to start work on this uh before the requirement came in for them.

So their timeline on paper looks like a year, but it's actually been quite a bit longer.

So for us, you know, the timing is something that we are concerned about because we want to make sure that we can meet the deliverables that are required and that we're optimized for success to do it.

So 15 months is tricky because as you know, um, unless we have funding and we in we invite creativity, which we know that uh this committee is very adept at the funding would be for one year, right?

Because it's gonna be local funding.

So uh we thought about these would be capital eligible expenses.

Could it be capital funding that could be available for more than one year?

Um we're concerned about the amount of time that the study would take and um balancing properly the the known need to do this quickly with the known imperative to do it well.

Okay, um is there a different timeline like you 15 months your concern might be too tight?

Is it a 24 months?

Like is it a full two years?

Like what do you have a timeline in mind that you think is is uh a better or more optimal timeline?

And I I know you share and feel there's urgency, but I also want you to be able to complete a product that is meaningful.

Yeah, I would say that one of the things we're thinking about there is that we'd like the opportunity to see some of the work coming out of some of the other states, including Maryland, so that we can see, you know, we need to learn, as you know.

Um it's New York and Vermont that are doing this work now.

There's a whole uh passel of states behind them that are thinking about this.

So I would say that two years would certainly, 24 months would certainly be adequate because it would allow us to learn from you know the the Maryland study coming out December of this year, and to um, but again, it would be that we would need more than one year to we cannot assume that we could have this competed and produced within a 12-month time frame.

That's also something, as you know, our um this would require competitive procurement, and that is um something that is challenging.

It's nimble.

It's very well um there are many words we could use, many adjectives that are possible in this context, and um we work very closely with Office of Contracting and Procurement, and we work um as this would be actually not with OCP, this would be a grant in the way that it's it's noted now, and we have amazing grant capacity at DOEE.

As you know, we've done a lot of things nimbly, but it's just deeply challenging to compete this in the amount of time we see that quite a lot with grants, and this is a fairly large um study, and we want to make sure we can get it right.

Yeah.

Um I definitely obviously want to get it right.

Um I would say my because this is legislation, legislation can always be changed.

My concern is if we start with a 24-month timeline, we're gonna have something in 24 months.

If we start with a 15-month timeline, and then as we get into it, we find out the solicitation process is taking longer than we want, or uh there are unexpected delays in selecting folks.

DOEE has the ability to come back and say, hey council, we're not gonna be able to hit that deadline, and here are the reasons why.

Can we amend it to add six additional months to be able to complete the work or something like that?

I'd probably prefer to go that route, recognizing I want you to be successful.

Um, but my hazard is if we start at 24 months, I think it's gonna take a full 24 months.

What if we made a um counteroffer of 18 months, right?

And and the reason would be because it would get us to December 1st when we could see some of the results from Maryland.

So trying to think really um, you know, strategically in terms of what we need and what we're looking for, and get it done quickly.

Because um, we heard everyone here today, and we don't want to wait forever either.

We're as you know, we're in the process of updating climate ready DC.

We know this work is really timely, we want to get that plan out.

Um it's important, and we need to begin, we need this local data that will allow us to appropriately assess our risks and respond in the way the city needs to.

So we we want it quickly as well, but we would like to make sure that what we're getting is what we need to um we heard a little bit about BRIC from some of the people who testified today.

You know, we know that that program's been all over the place to apply effectively for that, which the district um forgive me, the building resist resilient infrastructure and communities, which is FEMA funding that um federal funding, we want to make sure that we have the ability to do benefit cost analyses that would put us in good stead for that competitive federal funding.

So we know that this is timely, uh, but again, we just want to have a high quality product.

Yeah, I'm willing to play ball with you on on the timing.

Um, you look at the Maryland report or other jurisdictions, is there anything about that that you think helps inform the product or work product that we want to create in a way that actually helps reduce our overall costs or the complications of actually pulling our own report together?

In other words, if somebody else has gone first, does that help give you a body of work to draw from to help make our own report be more effective and meaningful?

Potentially, and we won't know until we see that, which is why you know I'm being entirely genuine to say that the additional three months really would make quite a difference.

Um we do know that the analysis, you know, although we're smaller, we're certainly no less complex than say Vermont or even I would hazard as far as Maryland, right?

Like we're an extraordinarily complex jurisdiction, as we all understand, and that uh the need for analysis and data scaling doesn't um necessarily become less because we're a smaller jurisdiction.

So absolutely we want to learn from surrounding jurisdictions and intend to do that.

And in fact, we have already been proactive and have been in conversations with uh Maryland, with Vermont, with New York, with a number of states doing this work.

Got it.

Okay.

Happy to have conversations with you about timeline, what makes the most sense, what works.

Um I think you hear my hesitation about going full delay for 24 months.

I shouldn't say delay, but extension extended for 24 months.

Um, but we can follow up after the hearing too to kind of be in conversation with you about that.

I think the urgency around it as well for me is not only do we want to see a report and and help lay out the framework and guidance, but the sooner that we have this report, I think that it starts to help inform other policy and budget decisions that we make as a city.

And so the sooner that we have it built in, the more informed decision, and then frankly, it helps build the political will to make the right decisions uh when we have something like that completed.

So I want to main maintain urgency around it, uh, happy to follow up and work with the agency on it.

Thank you.

Yeah, um, all right.

Let's turn to the Air Pollution Permitting Amendment Act.

Kind of talked just a little bit about that with Mr.

Pasarelli.

Um, so the bill would require DOE to complete reviews within six months.

Um that's uh six months of submission.

On one hand, we're gonna say, yeah, we want it we want the agency to move as quickly as possible.

You're gonna come say we're gonna aim to go as fast as we can, but there may be circumstances in which we can't hit six months.

Help me understand what are some of the reasons that would create uh uh an inability to review and approve a permit within six months.

So I'll I'll start from from a bird's eye view, but then I'll also bring in my expert and you can delve a little bit further.

So I think it's not a linear approach because there are so many different sources, and we have to identify those sources, so it takes time.

Um we gave one instance where there was one university with about 300 sources of pollution.

Um, so that's effectively takes a whole lot of time with the staff that we have to go investigate those sources.

Um there's issues with documentation, paperwork.

Um, there's an issues with them paying on time to have that permit delivered.

Um but that's as far as that I can go from a bird's eye view.

But I would like to bring Mr.

Joseph Jacuta and he can delve a little bit for the information.

Absolutely.

Okay.

And if you would just for the record help introduce yourself and then take it away.

Thank you.

Joseph Jacuta, associate director for the air quality division at DOEE.

Um, so there, I mean, each permit is like its own butterfly, I suppose.

But you know, one particular instance we are dealing with right now is we're trying to get auto-body shops that are mostly located in Ward 5, in compliance with permitting.

And we're facing lots of language barriers.

Like these folks, you know, English isn't their first language, and try trying to understand our complex permitting process with someone who has any background at you know, speaking English is tough on its own.

But these people are from, you know, all around.

We we do obviously offer a language access, but this is this results in, you know, for instance, people not understanding what kind of calculations are needed to explain how much emissions they're going to produce.

These and these are small shops.

Now, when we're talking about larger facilities that maybe hire contractors, uh, some of the contractors are excellent.

But other contractors, they're the there's some improvements that could be in there in their ability to provide actionable permits.

So that's a lot of the delay.

It's just back and forth.

I mean, um, between the sources, we have a question.

They take them, you know, 30 days to get back to us, 15 days to get back to us.

And then, of course, during that time period, it's not like our permanent engineers are sitting there waiting to work on that permit.

They move on to other things.

They get you know in into a different permit, and so this the timelines do just extend.

I I wish it wasn't that way, but that's that is how it happens.

So, if I can figure back, Joseph.

So we have um had several discussions and how we can leverage technology, especially for the smaller permits.

Um I know that some of our neighbors, especially Virginia, have used AI technology to to some of to issue some of the permits that are review and issue some of the permits that are kind of um a little bit more straightforward and not as complicated, sort of smaller permits.

That will probably free up that backlog, but that's something that we have to kind of um commit to a study to kind of work out and iron out what what those intricacies are.

Okay.

Um is there if we look at what the root cause of delays are, do you believe this bill helps address some of the root causes?

Or is it it's a resource issue?

You need more people.

I mean, so we did look at we did look at um some comparison to some other Title V programs um of similar size.

In particular, we looked at Louisville Metro Control District, uh, obviously Louisville, Kentucky.

And um for their facility, you know, EPA when they reviewed their their program, they found that they were doing some good stuff with environmental justice.

Their permits were easy to follow, but they still had a Title V permit backlog.

They had about 30 Title V sources compared to us being more in the 40 range.

Um and their staff, they had a total of 22 staff to vote at the permitting and compliance, and on the permitting side, 10 permanent engineers, two permit supervisors, one permit manager, and a shared executive admin.

And this is compared to our three permitting engineers, one intake specialist and a supervisor.

We looked at some other districts too.

We looked at Allegheny County and Pittsburgh, it was a similar story.

Uh we looked at the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

They have about double the number of Title V sources.

Um, and in that case, they had uh 19 permit engineers and an additional six vacancies.

So if you you know divide that in half, that would be about nine permitting engineers and three vacancies, which is again a bit more than we have.

So I I I could could could we make some improvements, you know, especially with the database aspect.

I think that you know that's something that we put in our testimonies being something that I think would be really helpful for us and for the community.

Um, but you know, you can you can see how we compare it to some of the other locations.

And that's helpful, right?

Because I I do want to think through what's process, what's personnel?

And the answer is gonna be both probably.

There's ways we can improve the process, but if I only have a handful of folks to do the job, I'll I'm never I can have the best process in the world, I'm not gonna get there.

So I do believe we've got to address this on both fronts.

Um, and I mean I I I think you're stretched too thin to be able to effectively deliver what our expectations are.

But I also believe there's process changes that we can make that would make this work a lot better for our residents for our community, and frankly, internally for you as well.

Okay.

Um are there recommendations you would have that are kind of outside the four corners of this bill?

Are there process changes?

We'll kind of we'll park the personnel side over here because at least in this hearing you can't and I can't fix that.

But in terms of the process, are there parts outside the four corners of this bill that you would say if this bill's moving, because it's some version of it's moving, um, we'd really love to see this in here and went in there.

You know, honestly, as you can see, we did a lot of preparation.

That was not one of the questions that I uh believe I we really thought too much about, so I certainly would want to do that.

So you're able to follow up with us after the hearing, too.

Yeah, I I'd say I would love to provide that to you and and when you know when we would write our additional technical comments because I think there are some there are some areas where we do we I mean uh we obviously cited to some that were in the bill, for instance, we do think that the um 15-day appeals period is too short.

Um so that you know there were some areas like that.

Um, and I and as uh uh uh as uh Director Summer also said um senior deputy Director Summers Hall said that um uh the areas with technology, it's something that we can look at, you know um because that I mean that's probably not so much of a mandating but uh uh an ability to uh pursue that as ways because we have seen some success in other jurisdictions with trying to speed up processes to that.

Okay.

And what about when we do find violations?

So when you're finding violations, the way the bill's written, um, if a permit holder accrues two or more permit violations, it could result in a six-month ban under this proposed legislation.

Um the idea behind that, I think, is we need to put some teeth into when we see a violation of our permits rather than just kind of shrugging and saying, Well, it's a violation.

Um, do you feel like that's too onerous?

Would you recommend changes to that?

I mean, if they're in violation of your permit, I feel like we want to take that seriously.

So we do we do take violations seriously.

Um the uh I think of one particular example that we uh there was a source that was running some generators that they weren't supposed to.

This was actually, you know, this had real environmental health impacts um for the for those living near that facility.

We we pursued that and were able to get a fairly large uh SEP out of it, uh, supplemental environmental programs that they were able to put in place to benefit the community, as well as a a fairly uh substantial monetary find.

We also do have, you know, I I looked at uh there's uh the EPA database, ECHO, is where we uh can look at uh Title V permit violations, and someone did a study of them, and they had like you know, here here this state, here's the state, and then the DC charts were just so much larger than even some of the larger states, and it's not because our sources are violating um a lot compared to Louisiana or somewhere, for instance.

Um, because it's that our our compliance folks are going out and holding folks holding the sources accountable.

But I will say a lot of them are a lot of the violations we do get are while they're important to address paperwork violations, um, you know, because we need to know that the content of the fuel oil that someone's burning matches what they're legally required to, because if it's not, then that's more emissions and that affects the residents' health.

Um, but a good number of them are the paperwork violations that we see, not submitting an emissions inventory report, uh, not um having some paper that their permit requires on file.

Um, and you know, I it's I know it's I don't know if that's the solution or not, but that is what we mostly see.

We don't see that like we saw with that particular source of a few years ago with uh uh a real environmental harm from their violations.

Okay.

What one of the things we heard was a lot of recommendations around we need to have more just ambient air quality monitoring, uh, not relying on a three-on-one request, but ensuring that we have more ambient air quality monitoring going taking place.

What are your thoughts around increasing our capacity there?

I I honestly think we have a very strong capacity.

We have one of the denser federal network monitoring, federal station monitoring networks in the country.

Uh you know, if you look up it, you know, it this just geographically, some of the other metropolitan areas, while they may have more monitors, are also much larger than the district is.

Um we also did just install these four park bench monitors, including in by Kremel School, though that one's not accessible to the public yet.

But uh they also monitor some more types of pollutants that we're concerned about, like black carbon.

We also, if you ever go on purple air website, these are those little small sensors that look like uh um I I say they look like oil filters that you uh you know, but they measure okay, do an okay job measuring particulate manner.

We have the densest network of those around in the country too, or at least on the east coast.

Uh and we're now also putting these clarity nodes out.

A lot of the same communities that we heard from earlier to try and understand, and those are multi-plutents, so we can start to look at is this is this mobile sources, is this from a particular source um that we should be concerned about?

So I I I mean we and we obvious and we're also testing out some new sensors right now.

They're called Apex.

They look like, they look like stormtrooper helmets.

Um but they they do uh they do gaseous pollutants.

So we're all you know, we're continuing to also expand what we can look at, and because we know that you know there's there's more pollutants out there than just the basic uh six that EPA sets federal standards for.

Okay, um we look at our air quality fine regime, so the fines for permit violations.

Should we be looking at updating those?

When was the last time we updated fines to assess if they're adequate or not?

Um it's it's been a while.

Um we we have how long's a while?

I saw some smiles.

How long is that been?

I'd have to I want to say 2012, somewhere in that general time range.

Um but uh my staff has been working on trying to uh draft that up.

Um so it's it's something that uh the air quality divisions uh wants to fix.

Um it's it's it's uh, but it has been a complicated regulation to to write up just because it's been so long, we've had so many regulations come into place that just trying to get that all right.

But that's something we're working on internally.

Do we feel that the fine amount is sufficient to be a motivator to not violate, or is it just the cost of doing business and it's just baked in?

What is my fine amount for that violation?

I mostly just know the idling ones since those are the ones we get the most often.

Um, and I do think that those have uh been successful in reducing the.

And that one's about five hundred dollars, is that right?

Yeah, 500 for the first one and then a thousand for subsequent.

Um, I don't think that's in substance in substantial.

Like I do think that one is effective.

I, my experience as a Ward 6 counselor, where I got a bunch of areas where buses love to sit and idle, uh, we're just we just don't do enough enforcement of it, so they just don't think they're gonna actually get caught uh from the idling.

Um we have seen a decrease, especially in the hot spots that we can get to because it's always the balance of do we go a far afield where there might be one possibly, or do we go where we know they are, you know, looking under the street light.

Um, I think you should deputize the chair of the committee to have a badge and issue permits, and then I'll I'll help out there too.

Oh we we we can get get you in the training.

Um you can't you can't person you can um uh participate in our citizen enforcement, any any person um can do that with just a couple of pictures and through five minutes of your time to you know wait it wait out the idling.

Um, but uh um yeah, so we we we have seen a decrease in the number, at least in the spots that we're going to, the number of um actionable idling enforcement we can take.

So I think it has been successful, and we have been trying to get further afield, especially I've been trying to make sure the staff focuses on construction sites that may be uh outside of the radar, and they've been they have been finding stuff, but it's I think it has been at least successful in the hot spots.

Yeah, and then um, and I know we've I said we were gonna be having a hard stop at five, so we're a little over, but uh so I want to wrap up here.

But um, what about I mean, one of the things I think we are concerned about is when we have DOE do enforcement, and you find a violation, um, but the other parts of government just kind of carry on.

And I think for a community that's really frustrating to see someone who is violating air quality permits essentially, violating the law, creating a hazard for a community in business as usual goes on with other agencies and other parts of government, but DOE is kind of left on an island trying to say, well, you violated a permit, and we're trying to hold you accountable for that.

Um should we be looking at tightening that up so that if if someone's out of violation with government, they're out of, they're they violated and they're out of compliance with government.

So all of government treats it the same rather than just kind of leaving you guys out on an island where DOEE might have a violation, but OCP is still granting massive contracts.

Uh other agencies are giving out huge awards to the same person that was just found in violation.

Oh, we would have to think about how we will.

We certainly have to consider how we would address that situation.

I mean, we do have enforcement authority against sister agencies, but in that particular situation that you described, I think we will probably have to go back to the drawing board to figure out how to effectively approach that situation.

I'd like to see DOEE violations get treated the same way that if someone is out of compliance and can't get clean hands, for example, uh it impacts the rest of the way government acts.

And it is a very strong and compelling reason for someone to go get into compliance so they can get their clean hand certificate.

If they if someone is out of compliance with an air quality permit or some other mechanism of DOBE, it feels like right now they can just kind of keep doing business as usual everywhere else.

And I'd love to see you not on an island and you'd be treated more the same way that if you can't get that clean hand certificate, you're gonna have a hard time doing business in our city.

And so I I'd like to see us put put ourselves back into that position.

I know you can't speak to the other agencies.

Just gonna try to pull you off the island.

All right.

Um any last thoughts on our friends at DC Water?

Uh should our wastewater treatment facilities be exempted.

I I certainly would say that I don't think it would be wise for us to shut down DC water if their permits out of date.

Because I'm I I we saw what happened.

We're gonna make sure DC Water never gets to the point their permits out of date, right?

Right, DC Water?

We take our air permitting very seriously.

Yes, we'll never let them uh get to that spot.

And we are working on their comments.

Uh, that they submit it to us in the draft program.

Okay.

Um one of our follow-ups from this hearing is we're gonna follow up with DC Water on uh what they outlined is the potential.

I'm gonna my words here, but I think the concern around potential unintended consequences for just the waste, the necessary wastewater management facility operations they need to have.

I would appreciate DOE also taking a look at what DC Water is recommending and thinking about to see if that is in alignment with what you're thinking from an air quality permit perspective.

Just be good to get feedback from both of you around that so that uh we can take a good look at it.

Because again, I don't think anyone has any intention or desire to see our wastewater management uh stop.

That is not something anybody wants.

Um, but so being thoughtful about it, I think could be helpful.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um all right, we'll have some follow-up questions for the agencies.

Sure.

Uh, on this bill.

And I know you said you're gonna be putting forward some additional technical uh feedback.

Correct.

I thought your testimony was fairly technical, but all right.

There can be even more technicality.

So I look forward to getting that and we'll work with you uh in the agency to follow up too.

So appreciate it.

Thank you all very much.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh that means that we are going to conclude now the committee's public hearing on Bill 26-565, the strengthening air pollution permitting amendment act of 2026 and Bill 26-571, the Greenhouse Gas Emission Study Amendment Act of 2026.

Again, I want to thank all of our witnesses for their testimony today, including DOEE and DC Water.

The record for today's hearing will close on Thursday, June 18th, 2026.

So anyone can please continue to submit written testimony through the council's hearing management system at LIMS.dc council.gov backslash hearings until then.

The next scheduled meeting of the committee will be on June 25th, when the committee will hold a round table on transit planning for the RFK redevelopment.

Not entirely sure if that dates the final date because we had a Wamata conflict, but we'll work that out.

But the time is now 5 16 p.m.

and the committee on transportation and the environment is uh this hearing is now adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.