1. 4 trillion. Today its 480 billion. Its dropped by a trillion dollars per year. Now, do we want it to be zero . Yes. Do we want to have a surplus so we can start paying off the debt . Slowl. But you actually have to get Recovery First get some treatment. Thats what we have been doing. And then reinvest into the future. And that means infrastructure, education, the things that matter to Everyday Americans and everyday alaskans. But i sit here and i listen to these comments, and today i it happened a little bit before 12 30 before we took our caucus break but we break at 12 30. I was going to go home. And then i turned my mistake. I turned on the station and i heard the commentary. I thought jacob is going to have to wait a little bit for dinner and im going to have to come down here. It amazed me. Exports, business we create in this country and we ship out up 37 over the last several years. Now, ill give you an example of a company in alaska when i was campaigning. I ran into this com
As a result, many states including West Virginia and oklahoma whose attorneys general we will be hearing from today, have raised grave concerns about the legality of the rule and implications for their citizens and ratepayers. In addition to constitutional and legal questions states have expressed concerns about the feasibility of the proposed requirements and the likely impacts on electricity cost and reliability. At risk is the belief that states have always had to make the decisions about their electricity generation. West virginia chose to rely on coal to provide affordable and reliable electricity for our consumers and businesses. Other states have made different choices that best serve their citizens. But under the Clean Power Plan each states electricity plan will have to meet epas criteria producing Carbon Dioxide emissions. Other regulations like the utility mact rule is computing to rising electricity rates and growing concerns about reliability. Weve had testimony and other
Under the Clean Air Act. The decisions were made before the state of texas even had an opportunity to comment that they had a memo or a checklist almost after the fact. Are you aware of that . I am not sure what you are referring to, congressman. We had many conversations with states, both individually and in groups. Of course, this is a proposal. We are still taking comment. I have had a least multiple hours of conversation with states since june 2nd. So there have been lots of upper today to talk. Just as an example, are you aware of the fact that if texas coast down every existing fossil fuel generation plant in the state, every one, coalfired, natural gas in the state of texas that it would still not meet the new proposed espns. Are you aware . The plan relies on states implementing im not asking i am asking if you are aware of that in the state of texas. If we shut down every coldfired and natural gas plant in the state , everyone, we cannot meet these suggested goals. I have not
When you all set the reduction target for wisconsin it did so based on electricity production in 2012 year in which they were still operating. You are calculating your reductions the year and you had the operating with no Carbon Emissions. That facility closed and now that state and many states that have Nuclear Power i have one of the largest generating states in the country. Its now is disproportionately harmed by the rules. Extremely harmed. So the result is that wisconsin would be forced to compensate for the loss of the plan. Is that alice is all correct . This rule addresses the fossil fuel sector. It ithat is our responsibly undr 111 d. Thats where we started our job is to identify the best system of Emission Reduction for the fossil fired plants that doesnt include nuclear. Nuclear. Succumbinsuccumbing to 2012, wet the emissions in each state from their fossil generations. And we looked up with that system of Emission Reduction was from the National Basis that would result in 2