The Republican-led House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigation grilled U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson on the agency’s balance between environmental gains and economic outcomes Sept. 22. The subcommittee asserted that EPA’s proposed rules on power plants and other pollution sources cause economic harm. “It’s a 1970s illusion that there’s no economic impact,” Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA) told Jackson. “We’ve been playing this game in California long enough. There’s a cost both ways.” Many committee members swear that agency rules eliminate jobs. A calm Jackson under oath countered that cleaner air has economic and health benefits—prolonging lives and creating jobs. “There’s this dance in Washington” where costs are “overestimated with no concern for people,” she said. Power plants, particularly coal-fired facilities, were a main focus of the subcommittee’s concern because representatives fear plant shutdowns in their districts. Yet, pollution doesn’t respect political boundaries, noted Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA). “How long have we been waiting for old, uncontrolled plants to be cleaned up?” Waxman queried. He jabbed at Republicans, alleging that “the other side of the aisle rejects science” in favor of economic rhetoric. Other Democrats joined in the “science rejection” stance against Republicans. Jackson estimated she’s appeared as a witness in similar committee hearings a dozen times in the last year. The White House backed off tougher ozone standards early this month that would leave many areas in California unable to comply, but the administration still pursues power plant pollution controls.