It didnt gist come out of thin air. Its not just by more efficient ebb e Energy Sources its by conserving energies. Thats correct. As we become more e fishlt consumers save, dont they . Yes they do, senator so i just want to make that point. The cost benefit analysis under the Clean Air Act or clean waterer act, theres direct savings, that senator boxer has talked about the number of premature deaths and workdays which pashlts have to stay home because their child cant breathe. Or the days lost at summer camp. It will also safe us money. Correct. You look at globally, the cost is incredible. In maryland, we have taken steps to deal with our power emissions. Weve done that and weve had a growing economy. Its helpd our economy. You have a dual objective. In maryland were one of nine states part of the regional initiative. Weve taken some pretty extreme measures. Talk a little bit, as part of a reasonable oefrt how have you taken into consideration based on numbers. As we mentioned before very e fisht ways to skom in a regional area, to make row ductions in a wee that is very helpful to the american role in our economy. We give the states flexibility to do a plan on their own or to join regionally. And our costs show our skost Analysis Shows that regional plans ternd to be mr Cost Effective because e because there are more choices. I thrill thats what youre getting at senator. More choices for states to use more choices to have flerksblety to make the most cost e fiktive changes that are available to them. China is reeding the world right now on renewable energy. They do it this is not a country that has the samt values that we do as far as our global responsibleties looking at ourselves in a democratic state. Theyve done it because their people are demanding it. When you go to china, you see pollution. They recognize its in their economic best. We cannot deal with Climate Change unless we have global cop ration and requires u. S. Leadership. Thank you, senator. Put that chart back up, if you would. I just want to make sure everyone understands. That did not row fut the accuracy of this chart. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thanks for your testimony today. All of us think that its very successful. I can talk a little bit about my state. Highest standards on protecting the enviernt. At the state level probably in the world mplt one ft best records in the world of responsibilitily dwoching our resourss and protecting our pristine envooirnt. I also think Affordable Energy is very pornt. In my state, the citizens of alaska pay some of the highest energy costs in the country. And i also very importantly think the rule of law and the constitution is posht, which im assuming you do, as well. I certainly dont think theres been a lot of talk about china. I still dont think the president and chooip that aut rised the epa to do anything. Last time i looked at the constitution, that wasnt where he put his authority. One of the things ive had concern about is the o Obama Administration two step. The president and his staff want to get something done. Thats laudable. A rot of these require a head nod. And then, if that dubt work out he ends uptaking kmektive action anyway. Thiss numerous examples. Stwls no doubt that the 1002 coastal, is theres flo doubt that has to be done by congress. Epa wanted to expand its authority. It didnt go anywhere. I think the chashman has laid out what youre trying to do sdnt work it doesnt work for agencies to then say welt, dont do it. Thats not how the system works. In your agency, in my view, has been one of the biggest abusers of this twostep approach. But its not jus my view. Are you familiar with the recent utility air regulatory group. Let me read a provision of that. Do you thrill this rule brings about an expansion of your regulatory thorty . Correct. Senator, if i could respond no just respond to that sequel. What provix. Sections 111 b and 111 d. The questions crs had with regard to your authority to issue this reg . Have you read that . If the epa can respond to the crs analysis of this regular ration and your authority under the Clean Air Act to issue that. We ed be lap pill to do that. Do you thrill that this regulation dramatically expands your authority . I do not. I believer that we are following what the Clean Air Act requires. This is a statute that congress enacted to protect Public Health department from the air pollution. That determination kwuz upheld and the epa, then, has taken actions bassed on that finding sdsh. I think youre doing exactly what the epa reprimanded you to do. You are tarking cig nef kabltly amousht of power wuz telling. Youve tried to get this aut ri saigsz before and congress has not passed it. Youre not allowed to move forward with the regulation to do Want Congress wont allow. Tlfgs tome e testimony by tony clark who said quote. He later said in spite of epas promise and for exampleblety i states are seeting it mat authority to the epa. J i dont agree with it, senator. Let me go ahead and give you an additional minute of my time because you have taken that. More than half of them believe its not legal under the clear air act. Thank you very much chairman. We always have an interesting diskugsz. For the second con sec tifr year there would be no fishing this year. The lobster has been disappearing. The message here is clear. Clie malt change is taking dollars and jobs away from new englands fishing communities. We certainly see that in rhode island she adds the more dramatics potential in which higher sea levers combine with more sbins wenters. Another voice that has come out recently comes from the economy magazine. The coal,electric power and all the mat e mote it eive industries would have had their way, American Cities would like like chinese cities today. Ae among them were ford climbing to cut off automobile production e production in the next fiver queers. In 1974 to convince that installing scrubbers on coalfired power plants would be a disaster. Needless to say, this was all nonsense mplts aadulthood mortality would have increased by 167. Thats dead people. Over the course of 40 years the author goes onto describe it as a fairly reliable pat earn. In retrospect the Industry Response to the envierntal regulation can best with described as mendacious, homicidal, kbreed day u kwin rjing. The fact that the carbon is gradually cooking the climate. In the struggle for clean air, they made fooms of themselves at the right tile chl it is infur rating to see them cough up the same tired, halfbake bake edd j. And i take that statement from, again, a conserveative bub lip kagsz this is the economist magazine showing that there is room for a principle, conserve stif position. I cannot have a simpluation in which the other side refuses to knock the reality of what is happening in rhode island. Of what is happening in maine in oregon, and around the world and the country. This stuff is not complicated. You measure it. You see it real if you never want to eat anything from the ocean and you dont think it provides anything useful, that may be of no swres e interest to you. Those are not the high points for has beenty. So i support this rule wholeheartedly wholeheartedly. I urjts my colleagues to look at both sides ofrt ledger. Not just the sosz fill fuel industry side. Are you aware as a result of the 2010 epa sue and settlemented. Gina mccarthy says this success is yours as much as mine. That was on the day that the set ltmented was made public. Yet e yet, it doesnt apoor that the rum was a success to any of the real e real affected parties like the states or the American People who are facing high e tlek tristy bill tsz and job loss. Would you say that wyoming and West Virginia have the same input. I speak with states all the time. They have very good access to discuss all of these issues with us. They certainly know how to rooech us. And do. When the majority of states rook to a rule, you have done something wrong. There are actually significant associate benefits. Those are all raid out in our ira. It dusz seem that most of the benefits comes from reduceing the originals. I wonder if the dmk is double counting and its taking credit for another rumtle. In adigsz, it is a standard ands the result of a rule. It would not make sense to 5 00 non. I mean, that was the reason given. The rule in no way requires anybody to build in addition in particular. It should not be required under the new sourss sourszs. Ill note, since last fall, theres been a plan using it. And that is moving awlong. Tech nolgs is out there and used. This else es certainly not the only kmachl. So we have to do all of these things. And to make the best efforts and increase the share of nonfossil fuels and primary energy con sungs. They will achieve the reductions of 2628 . What role did the ep action play in setting these big targets in the u. S. China agreechlt for the u. S. So if question is what rote did the epa play . So its if administrations responsibility . I would defer that to others to speak about. Im focused on the Clean Air Act and our authorities under that. With regarding to this specific deal, the economists said that the cost to the United States are mump more real than thoer to china. It means china wont have anything to do for 16 years. Thats mostly fashion. I want to thank you for your very calm preb e presentation. This is a situation where the Clean Air Act requires you to act. It doesnt require us to act. It rooirs you to implement the act unless we repeal the Clean Air Act. Is thiss about my understanding. Senator sullivan, and i think in a very aggressive way. Now, i think maybe im wrong. I have not nikons 346 executive orders, reagans 381. Well, im sorry. The record just disproves your point. I believe this is not an administration gone rogue. The figs case was massachusetts versus epa. And the third was utility air resources group, the epa. Dont you have to follow the law. We do. Weve got the largest number of people. Were up to 38 million people. Im going to put in the record the actual votes. Six people were absent. They asked that their sfwengss be entered into the record. We actually had 54 votes at that time. We didnt have the 0. But we had a majority. In this recent debate, with the support of the chairman. And 5940, the hovan amendment that says Climate Change is caused by human 5 00 tifrty. It was fit bustered. I have 40. Let me tell you whos included who aid the same thing. Reufers, ap. Plit cole. U. S. A today. There was no question that all of these out lets rorted this. Not because they were reported fur any other plan e particular reason other that be this is the truth. This is a fact. You cant make this stuffer up. We know that Climate Change increases ozone in some cases. So when youre scleebing uch the carbon, youre really helping the help e health of the people, is that not strew. Thaekt. My understanding is that was put forward in the d. C. And coalition for responseble regulation. Versus the epa. Thats the endangermented finding . Yes, correct. So in the endangermented finding, you found that extreme weather e veblts and we know that happens. We ne that happened in a lake in ohio. Which is dech stating. Isnt it clear that those of us who believe that Carbon Pollution does, in fact increase the likelihood that people will have breathing difficulties,hearted attacks. Isnt is that, in your mind, a proven fact . Mpblt in the year 2012 74 renew ebb owner jill. We have one krirks oal fire pewered fire plabt that holdsle 30e 820 people. And thats the deer creek station. In your calculation, you calculated at 1 pnt. Had the epa considered deer creek under construction, you received a plant. The results of this coal plant running less than half of the time it runs now doesnt work. Wed simple lip have to know whether or not the plant would continue to operation mplt. Operating a base load coal unit 2,000 hours per year is unek father or mother kal. The big stone plan is in the middle of a 400 400 million dlart e plan. You are now telling if plant that they may not be able to operate at all. And are now being told that they need to do even more to make these additional plans implement e lefted. Thank you, sfat xx, for your question. And we certain lyly are welcoming. Gh. In plar if states think weve got something factually wrong, we urge them to tell us, and many of them have. So, again, i presume that dwrour state your state is having that kvrgs with us. And if we got something fact chummily wrong, then we will address that. We want to make sure that the rule is appropriate and correct. We think this can woork. There are large states that are divided in terms ofs energy markts. To the best of my knowledge, weve receive ds no suggests on how to fixz the problem that we share with you today. This is a major proposal. Weve got no feed baek. Im just cure yousz. Are we cig e sug jeszing that the fieblg rile im suggesting as is ushltly the case with epa regulations that the comment e kmentss that we receive may well leads to agistmented ins the final rule. I sdoent have any experience with an epa rule ef role where that has not hatched. Thats kwhie the process is so important. So yes to the extent that adjustments are aprep rat, within our authority and needed to make sure that the rule can work right. All of us want clean air. Im going to par sfraz a little bit, but that the cost to the aver rajs American Family would be approximately 1400 dlarsz a year to comply with this particular rule mplt. Did you have or are you aware of what the estimated cost or what the an tis pated cost for a family would be to skplie with this rule . We did that here. Its all available for herb to take look at. Im nt sure about the spoefk study that you cited, but we did do a formal look we need to make sure that Everybody Knows because states will you want you will mat li decide what to do lie ep here, we are confident that states will make the best choices for the families within their borders and that will take into consideration cost. The rule is all built on the things that are happening now in this industry. Things that are happening now is that utilities are using less carbon intensive more economical fuels. They are investing in Energy Efficiency. Those things together reduce Carbon Emissions but overall because of the tremendous impact the Energy Efficiency could have we expect bills to go down. My time is up. May i read one sentence into the record. Some will see their electricity rates almost double as a result of cpp impacting the midwest. Thank you. Thank you. Thauj thank you for testifying. Its an immediate threat to families and communities in every corner of this country and in the world. Our country has been a leader in creating the problem. Now thanks to the hard work of this administration were on track to solving this problem. The administrations proposed rules are strongly supported by health professionals. Im sure youre aware the academy of pediatrics Public Health association, several other associations sent a letter to the epa which stated the changing climate threat is the health of americans alive now and future generations. The nation as a short window to act to reduce the threats. Given that statement from some of these leading and well respected Public Health organizations, can you elaborate on the Public Health risks American Families will face if we fail to reduce Carbon Emissions from power plants. There are some pretty immediate impacts as we see temperatures go up. Those kinds of conditions are more conducive to ozone formation. Ozone has well demonstrated impacts on families including exacerbating asthma and bringing on asthma attacks leading to all kinds of medical expenses as well as missed school, missed work and that sort of thing. Increases in drought which is severe drought which is occurring that has significant impacts on Public Health. The changes in temperatures are changing the seasons of various allergens. They are changing the patterns of various vectors that can lead to disease. These are the kinds of things that scientists are seeing as a result of Climate Change impacks that are occurring. Sea leave rise along the coast has exceeded 18 since 1850. The northeast has experienced extreme weather events that are more intense and more frequent than what we have seen before. Theres more talk of the potential talks of reducing emissions there are significants costs to the economy if we decide to do nothing. Has the epa looked at other costs of failing to enact strong Emission Reductions. Would you agree the cost providing billions of dollars every year from extreme weather far out weigh the costs . I certainly would. The greatest cost is to do nothing here and the kind of impacts that youre citing are ones that scientists are saying are happying and will happen during the future. Those are very, very costly events. Implementing the rule that provides flexibility in communities to bring jobs and invest in Energy Efficiency to reduce the need for electricity that those are very positive economic benefits. Thank you. Senator bitter. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to thank my colleagues for letting me jump ahead because i have another commitment in a few minutes. Ill br brief. As you know i submitted requests for documents on these rules and development of these rules last congress. Now, epa is Still Producing some of those documents but from what has been produced there is a really dramatic pattern of very frequent decal meetings of phone calls and emails between epa and nrdc leading outside environmental group. Again, the number of these communications is pretty staggering and unprecedented as far as i can see. In addition t