Transcripts For CSPAN3 Politics Public Policy Today 20150212

June 19 of 2014 does nothing to save us from Global Warming. Thats a quote that i will use when it is my turn for questions so that people wont question the accuracy of that. No one should be surprised. We have been here before. Nasa dr. James hanson said the protocol will have little effect on temperatures in the 21st century and will take 30 to reduce warming. Even when secretary contradicted lisa jackson in july of 09 of course she was the chairman of the director of the epa at that time, she honestly testified that u. S. Action would not impact world co 2 levels. You dont have to go back to that time because that question i asked at one time sitting right here i said if we were to pass any of these bills at that time would this have the effect of reducing co 2 emissions world wide . She said no it would not. This is not where the problem is. The problem is china and india and so forth. We all know that. I am going to go through here to try to get these points across and then we will hear from senator boxer. By mid december your office plans to complete the Small Business advocacy review issue, a model federal Implementation Plan and evaluate literally five million Public Comments to your proposed rules. The agency missed the deadline to finalize the proposal by january 8 of this year. I am interested in learning how the epa expects to comply with an ex pedited timeline. It should not be a surprise that 31 states have now opposed the Clean Power Plan. Today ms. Mccabe we are inviting the stakeholders, the ones that have to comply will be having a hearing with them. We have a problem with a number of the proposals. I understand the most expensive regulation in history and failed to achieve your own goals according to the Economic Consulting and Analysis Firm the Clean Power Plant alone would cost on existing power plants 73 billion a year and upwards of 469 billion over the next 15 years. It is hard to say on the new source because no one is going to be building a new coal plant, those are the words of the president. He said so if someone wants to build a power plant they can but it will bankrupt it. That is clearly the intent of this. The thing that we are trying to do right now with regulation is what they tried to do since 2002 through legislation. The first one we remember was the rule that was 1997. They came back and vote on the senate floor was 950 not to adopt a kyoto type plan. Then we had the Mccain Lieberman bill in 2002. The Mccain Lieberman bill in 2005 and another bill with lieberman in 2008 and everyone of them went down in defeat in the senate. These were all senate bills. They went down in defeat by a greater margin. So i just think that you are looking at something now that we want to hear how epa is steam rolling ahead requesting billions of dollars and proposals which states reject and ignores the will of congress and relies on unreasonable assumption, costs billions of dollars and will increase our energy bill and not Impact Global warming. Senator boxer . Mr. Chairman, before we start the clock i want to respond to this idea that nobody can make Opening Statements except you or me. I think it is wrong. For 15 years we all listened to each other. I want a large official opposition of democratic minority to limiting Opening Statements. And we can good will let me respond to that before we start the clock rolling. We talked about that in our conference. We are a majority now. I recall you saying elections do have consequences. So some of these things are subject to change. My problem has always been many of the committees such as Senate Armed Services committee only have Ranking Member and chairman making Opening Statements. These are large committees. I can remember sitting as long as two hours listening to each of us talk when we have people coming in from california, from long distances away. And i think with eight minute rounds which is what we are going to have i think each member can take half of that and use that if that member wants to. That is going to be the policy. I know that you dont like it. I dont. You voiced yourself. We dont like it and i dont like gagging members of this committee. Were not gagging, but okay. Its just im sad about it. We have done it for 15 years. And also part of it is you and i get to question first. So now you speak five minutes. I speak five minutes. The witness speaks. By the time we get to members its noon. First of all i will probably not speak first but go ahead. Good. Well lets start the clock can i ask consent that my statement be included in the record . Sure all omitting Opening Statements can be in the record. Mr. Chairman, todays oversight hearing will examine the critically important steps that the Obama Administration is taking to address Climate Change by reducing dangerous Carbon Pollution from the biggest source, power plants. They account for 40 of all Carbon Pollution released into the air and we are seeing the consequences. Lets look at the trends across the country. Its official, 2014 was the hottest year in recorded history. 2014 was earths warmest year on record. How hot was it . 2014 was earths warmest year on record, data shows. Everyone can say whatever they want and say it is cold and snowing. We all know the facts are the facts. And for goodness sakes how out of step can people be with the scientists and people of this country who are so far ahead. Thank you. Nasa and noaa found in the 134 years of Record Keeping no year was hotter around the globe than 2014. The president s proposal will enable america to lead the way to avert the most calamitous impacts of Climate Change such as sea level rise, dangerous heat waves and economic disruption to our farmers, businesses, tourist industry, to our people. I often say if people cant breathe they cant work or go to school. We know that this particular proposal will avoid up to 3,700 cases of bronchitis in children, 150,000 asthma attacks, 3,300 heart attacks, 6,600 premature deaths and 490,000 missed days of school. Who are we working for . The people of this country or the polluters . I think that is the question. The Obama Administration gets it. And so do the American People. Lets look at a new staff poll which found 83 of americans including 61 of republicans say if nothing is done to reduce Carbon Pollution Global Warming will be a serious problem into the future. And 77 of americans of all political stripes say the federal government should be doing a substantial amount to combat Climate Change. Last year this committee for four former epa administrators all republicans who served under president s nixon, george w. Bush agree Climate Change requires action now and shouldnt be a partisan issue. I thought for sure that would change some minds on my republican side. Not one mind was changed. Now, the president s plan relies on the authorities under the Clean Air Act which was created with an overwhelming bipartisan consensus. In 1970 the Clean Air Act passed the senate by a vote of 730, passed the house by 3751, was signed into law by president nixon. The Clean Air Act has a proven track record of success. What president obama is doing is building on that success. I often say in all of the years i have been in office its a long time no one ever complained that the air was too clean. Barbara, the air is just clean enough. Dont do anything more. They want us to keep cleaning the air. My home state has been a leader in proving you can grow this economy. California households pay the ninth lowest electricity bills and the per person carbon foot print is among lowest in the country. We also added 491,000 jobs in the first year of the states cap in trade system, a job growth rate of 3. 3 better than the National Rate of 2. 5 . And over the last four years we have turned a 26 billion budget deficit into a projected 4 billion surplus. Dont tell me that if you move forward on clean air you destroy the economy or destroy your budget. It is quite the opposite. Climate change is happening now. We cant afford to wait. And i commend the president and the epa for taking action to protect our families and our children from the worst impacts. In the time remaining i ask unanimous consent to place into the record the article today in the Washington Post. Without objection. Thank you mr. Chairman. It says studies on modifying climate urge geo engineering would be a risky last resort scientists say. I urge everyone to read this. We dont need this brave new world of geo engineering. We can move forward on the policies that the president has put forward and that republican president s have put forward. Lets move ahead and do the right thing for our children and our families and our nation. Thank you members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. It already threatens health and welfare and economic well being and if left unchecked it will have devastating impacts on the United States and the planet. The science is clear. The risks are clear and the high cost of climate inaction are clear. We must act. That is why president obama laid out a Climate Action plan and why this summer the epa will be taking flexible common sense steps to cut Carbon Pollution from the power sector. These steps will help build a more resilient nation and lead the world in our Global Climate fight. Starting in january 2014 epa issued three proposals. These rules will set standards for co 2 emissions from new, existing and modified and reconstructed fossil fuel powered plants. As we announced the epa intends to finalize these rules by mid summer 2015. Epas stakeholder outreach and Public Engagement in preparation has been unprecedented and resulted in an unprecedented amount of public input. We are reviewing the comments received on the proposal and the more than 3. 5 million comments on the proposal for existing and modified and reconstructive sources. As we work our way through the comments what is completely apparent is not only the time and effort that states and many stakeholders have put into developing their input but the importance that we as a Country Place on moving forward to address Climate Change. This input is especially important given the Important Role the states will play in this program. We have received comment on a range of crucial issues from the investments these rules might require to maintain reliability which is a consideration we view with the utmost importance in implementing all clean air protections to costs to right levels of stringency and establishing a workable path to bring about success in moving to a less carbon intensive Energy Production while safe guarding a reliable and affordable supply of electricity. Businesses and consumers, many comments identify opportunities to drive investment in innovative Clean Technologies as well as reiterating the importance of emissions reduction in addressing Climate Change. We are addressing and accounting for all of the information and ideas received on the three separate proposals and we are confident that the final rules will be improved as a result of this input. While epa is firmly focused on the work needed to finalize rules that take into account the input we receive we remain committed to continuing engagement with states, tribes, other federal agencies, Resource Planning organizations and others. As part of this process we know that states are beginning to think about the very real task of drafting and developing state plans used to implement the plan when it is issued. We are preparing to provide states the assistance they need as they begin to develop their state plans. That is why we are also starting a rule making process to develop a rule that both would set forth a proposed federal plan and by providing a model could help states thinking about their own plans. I want to be clear that epas strong preference is that states submit their plans tailored to their specific needs and priorities and we believe states will want to do that here. We also know that setting out a federal plan is an important step to assure clean air obligations are fulfilled. We believe many states find it helpful to find a federal plan proposal as they begin to develop compliance plans. That is why we are aiming to issue the federal plan proposal in mid summer, as well. When fully implemented the plan is expected to help deliver 730 million tons of reduction in co 2 emissions, a substantial reduction of the harmful pollution and lead to thousands fewer heart attacks and other Health Benefits. These reductions deliver tens of billions of dollars in Public Health and climate benefits that outweigh the costs of the plan. The reductions achieved with the reductions in Carbon Pollution alone will yield 7 in Health Benefits for every dollar we invest in meeting the standards. Because Energy Efficiency is a smart Cost Effective strategy we predict average bills will be 8 cheaper than projected to be without the Clean Power Plan. When he unveiled his Climate Action plan in june of 2013 president obama made clear among his goals was not only achieving meaningful reductions in domestic but asserting leadership in the International Effort to combat Climate Change. We believe the Clean Power Plan will fulfill obligations under the Clean Air Act to protect communities from dangerous air pollution. It is a significant component of the administrations broad based set of actions that have achieved and will continue to achieve significant reductions in Greenhouse Gas emissions. There is evidence that the Clean Power Plant has spurred progress and commitment from other countries and advanced the International Discussion as a whole. We are confident that all of this can be achieved in a way that strengthens the economy and creates new jobs at home. I look forward to your questions, senator, thank you very much. Thank you very much ms. Mccabe. We are using the early bird rule. It is my understanding that senator marquee is under a time constrain and i think the Ranking Member is going to let you have her time. It is my understanding also that senator fisher has time constraints and i will be very happy to yield my time to her for questions. We are going to have eight minute rounds, senator fisher. Thank you mr. Chairman for your courtesy and thank you Ranking Member. Thank you for being here today. I am glad to have the opportunity to talk with you about the impacts of your power plant rules on my home state of nebraska. As you know nebraska is the only state in the nation with the wholly publically owned utility sector. Public power utilities are costbased entities with no profit motivation or obligation to provide stakeholder dividends. That is vitally important i believe to keep in mind as epa considers these proposed rules. The compliance cost will be directly borne by nebraska residents through their electric rates. Today i would like to touch on some of the concerns raised in the Public Comment period by my states public power utilities and by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality regarding mandates from existing power plants. Our state has written that the Building Blocks contain quote inaccurate assumptions and Unrealistic Expectations that will result in goals that may be unattainable regardless of the Emission Reduction strategies employed, unquote. Lets start with Building Block one. The nebraska deq states quote heart rate improvements of 4 to 6 are not achievable at nebraska coal fired plants. Nebraska utilities are required by law to deliver least cost, reliable electricity as such they have implemented most if not all achievable heat rate improvements at existing facilities. I think i said heart rate before. It is heat rate. As you know as a basis for setting the Building Block one level epa relied on a 2009 study by sergeant lundy. It is widely known that epa misconstrued this study hypothesizing heat rate improvements discussed on the study on a cumulative basis. He has explicitly stated that the ranges presented in the report, quote, do not support the conclusion that any individual coal fired egu or any aggregation of coal fired egus can achieve 6 heat rate, improvement through implementation of best practices and equipment upgrades as estimated by the epa, unquote. So our state deqs say that Building Block number one is unachievable. Is this an area that epa plans to correct before finalizing the rule . How can epa justify Emission Reduction targets based on Building Blocks if the Building Blocks themselves are so very flawed . Thank you for your question, senator. This gives me an opportunity to start saying something i think i will be saying a lot today which is that we have received many, many comments on the proposed rules and are looking very closely at all of them. This is just one area where we have received significant comment. We expected to. That is what the public process is about. Let me also mention that in designing the proposal and in setting up the Building Blocks what epa did was look across the range of activities that are currently in use by the power sector that have the result of reducing Carbon Emissions. There are numerous. They go way beyond the four that we identified and included in our Building Blocks and our assumption in going into the proposal was not that every Single Source would be able to achieve exactly the amount of reductions that we identify in each Building Block. In fact, we believe that some can do more in one area and some choose to do less in other areas. The kinds of comments that we are getting that suggest that in some states in particular one approach is more suitable than another is exactly the kind of comment that we expected to get. That being said, of course, we are looking closely at any comments that suggest that our factual conclusions need to be rethought and we will be looking at that very closely and making adjustments as appropriate as we always do after reviewing comments on a rule. I appreciate hearing that because sometimes the statements that i hear from epa and my constituents and our public power in nebraska, the deq in nebraska, what we hear from epa is that things are pretty well set and that while there is a Public Comment period we havent felt that there will be much accommodation to the concerns that we have in our state with these specific concerns. So you give me some hope here. And i hope you will follow through with that, as well. Another question. According to sergeant even with the best maintenance practices in place performance of many of the heat rate improvement methods included in the 2009 report will degrade over time. Epa did not take into consideration the normal heat rate degradation when it applied the heat rate improvement ranges across the coal fired fleet nor did it consider that units are the most efficient at full load and their efficiencies decrease with decreasing loads and with frequent load changes. Dont you think those are significant oversights by the epa and an overestimation of the real heat rate improvements that can be achieved and sustained across a coal fired fleet . These are important issues that people have raised that we are looking at very closely, senator. Do you feel that you can work with states in trying to really address that overestimation . Well, we spent a lot of time talking with states and with the utilities, as well, who have raised these kinds of issues with us. And we have oneonone conversations with states. We are meeting with groups of states to talk about a whole range of issues. So in particular states have been very forth coming with us about particular concerns in their states as have utilities. So as i say, when there are oneonone conversations that we need to have we have them and then we are looking at these issues as they apply across the whole spectrum of the rule. I do want to emphasize that in the final rule we very much want to maintain the flexibility of the states to have choices as to how they comply. Would you commit to me that when youre contacted by our Public Utilities in nebraska or State Government in nebraska that you will respond to their concerns and let me know that you have done so . I can certainly commit that we will converse with anybody who calls us from nebraska and will certainly keep you up to date on those conversations to the extent that we have already had those we will be sure to give you information about that. I think you will be getting a lot of calls. We are happy to get them. Thank you very much. Senator boxer, did you want to yield your time . I do i yield to [inaudible]. I thank the senator from california. I apologize. The police men and fire men who captured the bombing suspect after the marathon bombing in massachusetts in 2013 are about to be honored down at the white house and they were in my congressional district, as well. And through your graciousness i am going to be able to make that ceremony and i thank you so much. I might also make this point that i think from my perspective if each member was given at least one minute to make an Opening Statement because of the busy schedules of senators and then have the remainder for questions that at least each senator would be allowed in the opening to make their main point if only for one minute. I just make that suggestion, mr. Chairman. In the house if you wanted to you could waive your Opening Statement and then just add it to the question period that you have. Only each member at the beginning of the hearing if they are there to make their point if only for one minute. I think it might be helpful given the busy schedule. Mr. Chairman, it is fitting that we are holding this hearing today. 50 years ago sunday Lyndon Johnson became the first president to warn about the increase in Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. A special message to congress on that day in 1965 he included the emissions of Carbon Dioxide the main cause of Global Warming in his warning on impacts of air pollution. 50 years later Global Temperatures are increasing. Glaciers are melting. Sea level is rising. Heat waves are hotter. Rainfall and snowfall are more extreme. As daunting as the challenges seem we have Solutions Available that can reduce pollution, create jobs and aspire new technology. Just months before his death president kennedy proposed the Clean Air Act in february of 1963. In december of that year it became the second law president johnson signed as president. The original Clean Air Act created a program in the Public Health service to address air pollution establishing a Public Health foundation that has supported the strengthening of the law over the years. The Clean Air Act has succeeded smog, soot, other pollutants have dropped an average of more than 70 since 1970 even as americas gdp grew by 219 . Now president obama is using the Clean Air Act to reduce Carbon Pollution from power plants and the same Kennedy Johnson vision that inspired an era of Space Exploration can spark a new clean energy revolution. Since the inception of americas Space Program solar panels have been a Critical Power source for missions throughout the solar system. That same technology is now landing on roof tops and fields across the country, the Solar Industry now employs more than 170,000 people across our country and it is adding workers nearly 20 times faster than the general economy. So this connection that exists between lowering pollution while increasing employment is pretty steady. Let me now turn to massachusetts and the regional Greenhouse Gas initiative states. Those are massachusetts, maine, new york, maryland, connecticut, delaware, new hampshire, rhode island and vermont. Since 2005 those states have reduced their Greenhouse Gas emissions by 40 while continuing to see Gross Domestic Product growth in their economy. Do you believe that is a model which is going to be used by other states under the proposed regulations which the Obama Administration is considering right now . Senator, as you just described, the approach has been quite successful both in terms of environmental improvements and economically and a good investment for those states. And we certainly think it is one model that states might want to look at. I cant speak to whether other states would go down the same path but i think the approach has laid groundwork and shown other states how this can be done in a way that is successful locally. I think it is obvious that the model is there and im sure many states are going to use it. Let me move on to the question of reliability. There is criticism that the proposed rules of the administration are going to cause a reduction in reliability of the system. We already know that extreme weather, Climate Change, is in fact impacting the reliability of our own electricity grid in our country. Could you deal with that issue of these proposed rules and the reliability of the electrical grid system in the United States. We agree the worst thing to do for reliability is do nothing. Keeping reliability very much in mind as the president directed us to and as the administrator always reminds us, we looked at how to design the proposed plan in a way to make sure that reliability would not be put at risk and in fact be enhanced. And there are a number of things that are built into the proposal in order to make sure that that will happen. One is the length of time that we put into the proposal for the reductions to be achieved. So there is a 15year trajectory before the final compliance date. That was intended to be quite consistent with the requests that we have always received from utilities and reliability agencies and others that utilities need a long planning horizon in order to do you think that the proposed rules will actually drive the electricity system to become more resilient . Stronger . We think the planning activities that will be going on and are going on now are intended to assure a reliability electricity system. The American Gas Association comments on the proposal were complimentary of the epas outreach efforts. They asked whether or not there could be more flexibility in terms of the planning at the state level in order to comply with the carbon reduction goals set for state after state. Flexibility beyond the four Building Blocks that the states might be able to rely upon . I will emphasize again that the Building Blocks were intended to be a starting point. States have ultimate flexibility to decide on what approach they want to take. If they want to rely more than what our proposal might suggest they have every opportunity to do so. It is clear it is possible to reduce carbon, to increase the gdp, to enhance the reliability of the system while engaging in significant job growth in our country. So i thank you so much. I thank you senator boxer for your courtesy. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you senator. I want to use about half of my time and then save some to accommodate some of my members. First of all, well hear over and over again what science says. We will have a hearing with scientists at a hearing. I think when you dont have science on your side if you science is settled there is this assumption that that is this case. That is not the case. When you stop and realize what we are doing today we are talking about doing through regulation what we have not been able to do through legislation. In other words, those of us who are accountable to the people, members of the house and senate, we have resoundly rejected the very thing we are talking about today on co 2 on five different occasions in the last 13 years. Now, each time there has been a vote it has been even more strongly rejected. What they are trying to do right now is do through regulation what they have not been able to do through legislation. So im just going to mention a couple of things here today. The recent Analysis Finds china emits 800 million tons of co 2 in one month and according to epas proposal the maximum amount of co 2 reduction under the Clean Power Plan is around 550 million tons in one year. Question i would have for you, ms. Mccabe is how will it impact when china is producing more co 2 in one month than the Clean Power Plan could potentially reduce in one year even when if it is implemented . The Clean Power Plan will certainly result in less co 2 emissions as our clean car rules and other measures that we are looking at. So there will be less domestic co 2 from the u. S. As a result of the Clean Power Plan. This is why it is important for the United States not only to be working domestically but working internationally. We recognize that this is a global problem and that is why we have been very aggressive and involved with china. You dont disagree with this chart . This chart is an ipcc chart, a United Nations chart. Right . I dont know. It talks about what we have here in the global Greenhouse Gases. That is a total figure. China and india have the total and then the green over here is what youre proposing and this is the reductions that we have had. I want everyone to use a Little Common sense. If your projections are correct then they are going to continue to have these emissions and we would only be able to reduce the emissions by two tons after what period of time is that . Emissions in one year. So at least i appreciate your honesty in looking at that and saying there is the problem. Now, are you operating on some kind of a delusion that somehow china is going to change their behavior . Is this what it is predicated on . We have been working with china and recently an announcement was made on certain actions that china has committed to take that will lead to steps to curb their let me go ahead and tell you what those are and im going from memory so you can correct me if im wrong. They had the meeting. They decided china said if you want to do this and have reductions you can have them but we are going to increase our emissions of co 2 until 2030. They admitted that downward to 2020. If you believe china is going to do something then that wouldnt happen. They are still going to increase as they are doing right now into 2020. In the event that you can believe them i have talked to the people from china, do you think they sit back and they smile. The thing they would love to have us do in this country is to make our reductions so that we will be chasing our Manufacturing Base over there. I would like to confine it to this. If you dont disagree with this, where is the logic here . What do you think is going to happen to change that green two tons a year . For the first time china has agreed to curb its growth in co 2. That is a significant. Is there a document they have signed saying they are committed to do that . I dont know if there is a document, senator, but they have made that announcement and made that commitment in conjunction with the United States. And the commitment is they start reducing it by 2020 . That they will peak emissions and invest in significant, 20 of nonfossil fuel generation in the coming years which is a very significant commitment, as well. I retain my three minutes. Senator boxer . Okay. Ill retain my 3 minutes. And senator boxer. Thank you very much madame chair and thank you ms. Mccabe. Pleasure to have you here addressing such an important issue. Part of the conversation that we are having as initiated by the chair was how the u. S. Changes operate in context of a Global Challenge. This really is a global tragedy of the commons. We are all sharing the atmosphere on this planet. The gases we put in the atmosphere travel everywhere. It is only in the sense that there is an International Strategy that we have some sense, some opportunity to take on this issue. But what happens if each nation among the nations of the world, india, china and u. S. Are major Carbon Dioxide polluters if each nation says lets not act until the other two nations act and then we will come along later . What happens to the planet in that situation . This is the dilemma, the tragedy of the commons. We all have to act. If everybody says we are not going to act because we dont think anybody else will act then co 2 emissions will continue to increase. Temperatures will continue to rise. Oceans will get more acidic. We will have more drought and heat waves. We will have more suffering around the globe and in this country as a result of the impacts on the climate. Is there some possibility that by the u. S. Taking this issue seriously and being engaged in dialogue with really all of the nations of the world but with india and china that we can accelerate action among all three nations . We absolutely believe so and we believe it is essential for the United States to be asserting and showing leadership. We look at total Carbon Dioxide production and most looks at it in the context of individual foot print. Is it the chinese, indians or americans who have the largest per capita foot print . I believe it is the United States. Do you have a sense of the proportion with other nations . I dont off the top of my head. If i was to tell you that the foot print here in america is more than three times larger than that of china would that sound like that is in the ballpark . I think that could be in the ballpark. Most recent statistics show the foot print is 12 times per capita that of india is that about right . It is right. Thank you for confirming that. Certainly we have or benefitted from utilizing fossil fuels on a scale much larger than individual citizens in china or india. In some sense that gives us the obligation in helping leaders in the world in taking this on. China has obligated itself to proceed to by 2030 produce Renewable Energy, nonfossil fuel energy that is equal to the amount of electric Energy Produced in the United States from all sources as of this moment. Were you aware of that commitment . Yes. It is pretty phenomenal. All of our fossil fuel energy from coal, from natural gas, from solar, from wind, all of this combine together china is going to match that amount with Renewable Energy in the next 15 years. Thats a pretty extraordinary commitment that we didnt have a year previous. Thats correct. That commitment came out of a dialogue with china about the need for all of the nations of the world to proceed to take on this issue. Thats correct. We are all going to suffer in the planet continues on its warming pace. Currently we are on a path in which our Carbon Pollution has gone up from 400 parts per million. And the pace has doubled in the last few decades. We were going up about one part per million and now we are at two parts per million which means within the time many members on the panel are going to serve in the u. S. Senate we are going to see carbon levels that go up from 400 where we are now quite possibly through 450 and higher. And with that comes a Global Challenge in which we will surpass the point where we have a 50 possibility of keeping temperature rise from under 2 degrees. Is that something we should be concerned about . We absolutely should be concerned about it . Does that help drive the current policy saying this is why we need to look at the most efficient ways. You laid out a plan saying find most efficient ways to tackle Carbon Pollution. That makes a lot of sense economically. Im seeing that Carbon Pollution is having a huge impact in oregon. We are seeing our oyster production is faced by a challenge because oysters are having trouble forming shells because ocean is 30 more acidic. If the ocean is 30 more acidic now than before Industrial Revolution what else is going wrong in the ocean food chain . Could be a lot more, i imagine. And we are having a fire season that is several weeks longer now than 20 years ago which is doing devastating impact not to mention the pine beadles. That is a huge economic issue for our state. We are having substantial droughts, three worst ever droughts in the basin in just the last decade and a half. Huge impact on our agricultural base. That is an economic issue. It isnt just a matter of some theory about some computer model in the future. This is having a huge impact on our economy, on our real way of life, fishing, farming and on our forests right now. Thank you for bringing a plan forward that encourages each state to find the most Cost Effective flexible way of taking on Carbon Dioxide that makes a tremendous amount of sense. Each state will find a different path and maybe learn from each other. Your plan allows partnerships to occur between states as another form of flexibility. Correct. Which also makes a lot of sense. Huge flexibility. If you laid out the four Building Blocks these are basically one set of ways to get to these numbers. Find the best way possible for your state. Thats correct. Sdpl i thank you for a plan that helps put the United States in the leadership role of working with the nations of the world to take on this devastating challenge, a challenge that is having huge Economic Impact on my state right now, huge impact on Rural America right now and a responsibility of our generation to take it on and of each president who serves in the oval office to take it on. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you for being with us today. I do believe this regulation we are discussing today is epas most blatant overreach thus far and there have been a number of them. But first let me just observe from the poster that the Ranking Member displayed earlier listing three head lines from National Newspapers and saying it is official. I was reminded of a scene from the movie, the kings speech in which hes talking to king george and one of the things he says is you need to quit smoking. And my doctors tell me smoke relaxes the throat. And lionel says well they are all a bunch of idiots. And the king replies they have all been knighted. And lionel replay, then its official. To say that weve got some head lines from the Washington Post and other newspapers and that makes it official i would just observe. These were the smartest people in britain of the time and they were giving the king of england exactly the wrong advice about what he should be doing with regard to smoking. It is possibly conceivable that the smartest people of our time might be wrong and that some of the very learned and educated contrarians on the issue of Climate Change will turn out to be vindicated in the end. Let me also i think you will agree ms. Mccabe that when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about Carbon Pollution a new term coined they are not talking about smog or carbon particles in the air. They are talking about co2, Carbon Dioxide. So it sounds so sinister and polluting and dirty and slimy, Carbon Pollution. But actually they are talking about Carbon Dioxide. Carbon dioxide doesnt cause lung disease in children. It doesnt cause at asthma. Carbon dioxide hasnt been shown to cause children to miss school. And so i just want the public and the people listening to this both in the hearing room and perhaps on television to understand when were using this term dirty sounding term Carbon Pollution, were talking about nothing other than Carbon Dioxide. Now let me ask you madam administrator about minimum Incremental Capital costs and the remaining useful life of coal fired facilities. The Clean Air Act says that the agency is supposed to consider the remaining useful life of existingsources. That they are proposing to regulate. The Mississippi Development authority says that the minimum incremental cost, this rule as it is implemented now will be 14. 2 billion. And it will be generating facilities that we dont need right now under the current law and the current regulations. Your own Impact Analysis says that over 50,000 megawatts will have to be retired because of the rule. Many of the plants in mississippi have spent billions of dollars to come into compliance to meet the rules and now theyre in compliance. Because of the new rules they will have to retire, anyway irrespective of the fact that they have years of remaining useful life. So tell me how your proposal considers the remaining useful lives of these coal plants if the rule will force them to retire prematurely. Thank you, senator, the rule does not allow any particular plant to take any particular action. We looked across the country at the age of plants, the average age of coal fired plants is over 40 years. There are a lot of plants that have certainly lived out or are close to living out their remaining useful life and Business Decisions are being made by utilities about how to proceed with those plants. Remaining life is absolutely something that we are to take into account. We will do so in the proposal and we will do so in the final input that we have gotten. We were not in the position of stranding assets. In particular, the plants that you mention, that have recently invested in pollution control equipment and are expected to produce electricity into the future. One of the reasons that we have, again, a long trajectory is to take into account those sorts of considerations. Another reason the plan is so flexible how long is that tra jekjectory . The final trajectory is 2030. But the plants are able to make their own choices about what to do. They have been recently upgraded. They have the ability to continue operating that plant. Our projections are that in 2030, still 30 of the power in this country will be produced by coal plants. We expect them to continue after these plans are fully in place. If the only way that my state of mississippi can achieve the co it emission targets is to close these coal plants. Are you saying to keep the coal plants in use in their remaining useful life. We would be certainly happen to have that conversation with the environment regulators in your state and we may have already done so. To understand why that is their conclusion. See what our reaction to that is and see whether the flexibilities we have built into the proposal can provide a path for them. Its my understanding that among the numerous items of input that you have received during the time of this is some 3 million comments from around the country. Among those are comments from people in mississippi who would have to comply with this. Theyre saying that flexibility sounds great. If the only way that we can achieve this goal is to shut down our power plants, then we have no flexibility at all. And i have to go back to what the people on the ground in mississippi are telling me. That is that were going to have to, in short order, close down the entire current coal fired production in mississippi. So i hope what youre saying is true but it seems that this is absolutely going to be a regulatory nightmare for electric providers users and working families in the state of mississippi. And i hope we can avoid this with something more reasonable. If i may, senator. One of the issues that we have heard from many people in this area is the interim goal. And a lot of the anxiety is about meeting that interim goal in that time period. Thank you senator boxer . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator workman and i usually agree on many issues. This is not one of them we agree on the kings speech being a great movie. Im afraid he got his information from tobacco producers and not science at the time. It seems if you look at the sign scientific information today, it is clear that carbon is a problem. It is official. Thank you. Were in agreement then but carr bon, combined in our environment, causing Climate Change, is real. And it is causing serious risk, not only to the people in our country, but globally. And we have a responsibility to act. I would also like to point out that the Clean Air Act has been widely hailed as being very successful. And many of us remember all of the red alert days that have been declining dramatically in los angeles and baltimore. We have seen incredible improvements to our younger people that suffer from respiratory problems are much safer today, and the cost benefit ratios are very clear. So were building on that. And i thank you very much. Power plants are the largest Single Source of carbon, 40 of all carbon. So epa not only has the legal authority, you have the responsibility to act. To deal with that single largest source of Carbon Emissions. Subject to comment of 30 reduction by 2030 of the 2005 limits, that was based upon your best judgment on science so it didnt just come out of think air, it was scientifically based analysis of where we could achieve in regards to carbon reductions . Correct. The cost benefit we talked about before. It is not by more Efficient Energy sources, but by conserving energy. I heard about the cost to consumers, but as we become more efficient, consumers save, dont they . Yes, senator, if you useless electricity overtime your bills go down and that is what we predicted. The cost benefit analysis looking at the epa rules there is direct savings that senator boxer talked about the number of premature deaths saved, and the number of workdays which parents have to stay home because theyre child cant breathe. Or the days lost at summer camp because children cant go to camp. That is direct savings that we have as a result of implementing these laws. We also get more efficient use of energy that will save us money. Correct. And then of course we had not even talked about it to the extend that we do reverse some of the trends that we have today on Climate Change and have less of these extreme weather conditions. The cost of these extreme weather conditions, we can tell you the billions of dollars it is costing the United States. And you look at globally those becoming climate refugees being displaced. The costs there is incredible. That builds into the fact that in maryland we have taken steps to deal with our power emissions through our power plant. We have done that and we have had a growing economy. It helped our economy. The Clean Air Act since its enactment in the 1970s, we have seen tremendous growth in our country. So we believe that a healthy environment and a robust economy go side by side. As i understand it that is the philosophy of the rule that you brought forward and the comments youre receiving because you have a dual objective. Now i want to talk about local flexibility. In maryland were one of nine states part of an initiative that are part of the reggie proposal. We have taken so the pretty ekts treatment measures to reduce Carbon Emissions. Were downwind. We want other regions to do their share because it is not only important for our global responsibilities, but important that we have clean air. We can only do so much in our own state. Talk about the flexibility that we have in our state as part of a regional effort. Well reggie, as we mentioned before, is a great impact of states coming together to find efficient ways to regional area to make reductions in a way that it is very helpful to the environmental goal and the economy. In our rule, we give the states flexibility to do a plan on their own or to join regionally, and our cost Analysis Shows that regional plans are more Cost Effective. Youre getting nor choices for states to use different strategies, more choices for utilities, many of whom operate across state lines and have the ability to make changes that are available to them and have a broader pool to choose from. That is an effective way to achieve the lower Greenhouse Gas emission goal. Mr. Chairman, let me comment on china. It has been a lot of responsibility, and i am the ranking democratic on east asia and the pacific sub committee. I have been to china. Theyre leading the word right now in renewable energies. They have 50 billion invested. This is not a country that has the same values as we do for the values. They do it because their people are demanding it. When you go to china you see po pollution pollution. I was in beijing for about four days and i never saw the sun. So they recognize that cleaner Energy Sources is in their economic interest to invest in sources and to do this. I applaud the efforts of the administration to bring china into specific achievable goals as we all work towards our universal responsibilities to deal with Climate Change. Where as maryland cannot deal with the unhealthy air, we cannot deal with Climate Change unless we have global cooperation, it requires u. S. Leadership, and i applaud the Obama Administration for their leadership. Thank you senator. For clarification butt that chart back up could you . The senator was talking about Greenhouse Gases per capita which, obviously, is not centralized in india and china as it is here and they have millions and millions and millions more people. I want to make sure that everyone understands that did not refute the accuracy. Thank you mr. Chair. Thank you for your testimony today. I just want to make a few statements. There has been a lot of talk about the Clean Air Act, the clean water act, and i think all of us think it has been very successful. I think we all love clean air and clean water. People are bragging about their states and i can talk about my state, cleanest and air water in the world, probably. Highest standards for protecting the environment at the state level probably in the world. One of the best records in the world for responsibly developing our resources and protecting our pristine environment. These are all very important. We all recognize that. But i also think that jobs are important. Affordable energy is very important. In my state the citizens of alaska pay some of the highest energy costs in the country. In alaska. And i assume you do as well. And i certainly dont think there has been a lot of talk about china this agreement, i dont think that relatively flimsy agreements between the president and china authorize the epa to do anything that congress has not authorized. Do you think agreements with china can authorize in addition that congress has not . It seems to be youre almost taking action based on an agreement we have with china. Last time i looked at the constitution that is not when the epa derives its authority. Absolutely not were taking action under the Clean Air Act. Let me get to another concern of mine. I just wanted to get that agreement one of the things i had a concern about i think one of the things america has had a concern about is what i call the Obama Administration two stepping. It goes Something Like this. The president his Administration Want to get something done. The elected president can certainly lay out a vision. A lot of these require actions by congress under the constitution. The president will do a head nod to the constitution, to the statutes, with regard to what he wants to get done. If that doesnt workout, he end out, he takes executive action anyways. There is numerous examples. Immigration is one. Thats the way the system works. 22 times he says he cant take certain action and then he re reverses and says i can take that action. There is no doubt that the 1002 coastal area youre probably familiar with, to designate it wilderness, no doubt that has to be done by congress. The president supposedly is going to put forward a bill to do that. Yet he said but im going to move forward and designate through executive order. The waters of the United States. Again, epa wanted to expand its authority over the waters of the United States. Put forward legislation in 2009. It did not go anywhere because congress and the people did not want you to expand that authority. So through regulatory action you expanded authority. And now youre doing this. And the chairman laid out that youre trying to move through congress, didnt pass okay . That is the way our constitutional system works. But it doesnt work for agencies to say it didnt pass through congress, so im going to do it anyway. Your agency in my view has been one of the biggest abusers. Are you familiar with the Regulatory Group versus epa decision . Yes i am. Did you read that decision . Yes, i did. It was a decision where the Supreme Court was chastising the epa for taking actions and authority that it clearly said it didnt have. Let me read a provision of that recent Supreme Court decision. Epas interpretation is unreasonable because it would bring about an expansion of the epas regulatory authority. Do you think this rule brings about an expansion of your regulatory the rule that were talking about here today . Correct. Senator, if i can respond just respond to that question. I believe the rule we proposed and that were going through comment on today is squarely based on our authority in the Clean Air Act. What provision of the Clean Air Act . Sections 111 b and 111 d. Have you read the analysis of your authority . Im not sure the Congressional Research service, they did an analysis of your authority on this regulation and the questions that crs had with your authority, have you read that . I dont believe it suggests that we dont have the authority. It did. It looked at a number of areas. If the epa office can we response to this analysis of the regulation, and your sport under the clean area act to do that. We would be happy to do that. Now let me get back to what the Supreme Court mentioned. It mentioned when the epa under takes a regulation that has that is an enormous and transformative expansion in its regulatory authority, theyre very skeptical of their power. Do you think this regulation dramatically expands your authority . I do not. You dont . I dont. I think were following what the Clean Air Act requires. This is a statute that congress enacted to protect Public Health from air pollution. On a very sound scientific record they made a determination that co 2 endangers health and welfare. That was upheld, and the epa has taken actions based on that finding of endangerment. I think youre doing exactly what you were reprimanded from doing in the recent Supreme Court case. Youre taking significant power, dramatically expanding it, without clear congressional authorization. Congress is you tried to get this authorization before and congress has not passed it. Youre not allowed to move forward with the regulation of what congress will not allow. You talked a lot about the states flexibility. 32 states have raised legal concerns with this. 12 have sued you. There was testimony by tony clark that stated the proposed rule on existing plants has the potential to comprehensively reorder the relationship between the federal government and the states dramatically altering the traditional lines of authority. States are seating ultimate authority to the epa. Do you think that shows flexibility toward the states . If. I dont agree with the way commissioner clark has characterized it chairman. They have clear plans under the proposed rule. Chairman my time has expired and i have sever further questions that i will submit particularly regarding alaska, and will be severely and negatively impacted by this rule if it goes through. I would like the epa to specifically answer questions as it relates to communities in alaska. Thank you senator sullivan. Let me give you an additional minute of my time and it is because youre bringing up something they was going to bring up. The fact that 31 states oppose this power plan and more than half bereave it is not legal under the Clean Air Act. I would be asking her in my remaining time. How are you going to coerce these people to doing something they dont want to do. Think about that, senator boxer . Thank you, chairman. We always have an interesting discussion in which one side of the committee only looks at one side of the ledger, and that is the coal economy and the fossil fuel economy many of us have economies paying the price for pollution. Apply colleagues have heard plenty from me about this over the months and years. In late 2014, there would be no shrimp fishing because of global Climate Change. The lobster has also disappears from their regular habitat. It caused a subsequent price collapse. The message here is clear, Climate Change is taking collars and jobs from new englands fishes communities. Generally she says, fish species off the coast of the United States are moving to higher latitudes and deeper water looking for the temperatures they require to survive. We certainly see that in rhode island. She adds that potential for dramatic storm surge events were higher sea levels and more intense activity for flooding and storm damage and we experienced that with sandy. The author says what is needed is honest fact based discussion and a genuine bipartisan commitment to solutions. And the author of that article is our former republican colleague in the senate olympia snow. Another voice that came out recently comes from the economist magazine. It is very conservative. And here is a article they posted recently ill be quoting from it, the coal, electric power and Automotive Industries if they had their way in the early 1970s, American Cities would like like chinese cities today. The Clean Air Act triggered same kind of denunciations were seeing today to force the industry to reduce greenhouse emissions emissions. They claimed in the 1970 act it could lead to Production Cut off in five years, and do irreparable damage to the american economy. When they were asks to adopt cadalitic converters. In 1974 when we were acting on sulfer emissions American Electric power spent 3 Million Dollars to put scrubbers on coal plants. Americas gdp has grown and emissions fell by 68 . Adult mortality would have increased by 160,000 in 2011, dead people. In 2011 alone. In the force of 20 years, the Clean Air Act has saved millions of lives. The author goes on to talk about a fairly reliable pattern. Manufacturing Emergency Companies and Industry Associations put out studies that crossably overgrossly overestimate the costs. It can be homicide, greedy and pointing. He concludes here that the fact that the carbon which youutility Companies Churn out, that is gradly cook gradually cooking the climate, one should chemoin perspective that in the past they have been laughably wrong. The positions they advocated would have lead to the deaths of millions. In the struggle for clean air, executives and the power mining and Automotive Industries made fools of themselves at the time by cooking up regulations that turned out to be utterly wrong. It is infuriating to see them now cough up the same tired, half baked arguments that they have been making wrongly for four decades against the environmental and safety regulations. The very regulations that made america the cleaner, safer country we know it to be. And i take that statement from a conservative publication. This is the economist magazine. Showing there is room for a principaled, conservative position that acknowledges the reality of Climate Change, that acknowledges the reality of whats happening in my state. Im keenly aware of what economic damage could be if we get this wrong, and im willing to work with my colleagues to see what we can do to get that right. I cannot have a situation in which the other side refuses to acknowledge the reality of what is happening in rhode island of what is happening in maine. Of what is happening in oregon, of what is happening around the world and around the country because Carbon Pollution is cooking our environment. That doesnt even get you into what it is in our oceans. You can measure sealevel rise. You can do it with a yardstick. You do that with a thermometer. You can measure the acidify indication. This is not complicated. You issue it and you see it happening. It is real were having the ocean acidify at a faster rate than hats ever occurred in the history of our species. If you never want to go to the ocean or eat anything from the ocean, and if you dont think it provides anything useful for oxygen and cooling for the planet, that may be a matter of no interest to you, but it is pretty significant. When you go back to look for previous i support this rule whole heartedly. I ask my colleagues to look at both sides of the ledger. With any luck, well be able to do the job in congress that, if we had done it in the first place, you might not be here having to answer these questions. Because of our failure, you had to proceed and i dont think it is fair to blame you for having to proceed when were the ones who have failed. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Youre aware the new source performance standard and the existing source performance standard rules for coal fired power plants as a result of the 2010 epa settle agreement with the defense counsel and others. Documents say this agreement was reached in close coordination above all other partitioners. One document in particular suggest these rules were crafted to please the rndc. They went so far to say that David Doninger saying this success is yours as much as mine. That was on the day the Settlement Agreement was made public. It doesnt appear it is a success to any real effected parties. So do you believe these rules are a success of the nrdc . No, senator, these rules have come about because the epa made an endangerment finding that we were damaging Public Health and welfare and we have responsibility to move forward to set standards for new sources of Carbon Dioxide and as appropriate for existing sources of Carbon Dioxide and we have methodically looked at the most important sectors starting with transportation and fossil fired utilities. Would you say that wyoming, west virginia, any other states in this committee had the same input and axccess to the officials . I speak with states all of the time. They have very good access to discussion all of these issues with us, they certainly know how to reach us and do. 32 states did sup mitt legal objections to the rule. And when a majority of states object to a rule i think you have done something wrong. I want to move on to the way you evaluate benefits. Most claimed by the epa, in the 111 d, come from conventional pollutants like pm 25. Where is the epa justifying a carbon rule there are significant benefits associated with the climate effects of reducing carbon and those are all laid out in our ria. Is seems once again most of the benefits claimed comes from reducing conventional pollutants and not from carbon. I wonder if the epa is double counting benefits here and also taking credit for in other rules. I ask how you justify counting the health credits that misleds the American People to the real benefits of the rule. Were certainly not double counts. Were very careful to make sure we dont do that. In addition it is a standard and accepted approach to acknowledge when there are cowith benefits with the reductions happening as the result of a rule. It would not make sense to not acknowledge those benefits and they have value to the American People. Are you counting them both here and there . No, okay. The doa said after ten years of work they were cancelling the future ccs project to best protect taxpayer interests. Howe can the federal government require the private sector to build plants under the proposed rule when it cant build a ccs plant on its own. It does not require anyone to build anything in particular. D. O. E. Advisors requested a study that concluded that ccs is not adequately demonstrated and should not be required under 111 b of the new sources. Theyre says that it is not adequately demonstrated and im asking is the epa really listening . Were paying attention to all of the input we have gotten. I will note that since last fall, there has been a plant operating using ccs at 90 capture. It is moving along like everybody expected. That is certainly not the only example, but we are, as i said we will of course Pay Attention to all of the input we get on this issue. On november 12th the u. S. Announced a u. S. China joint Climate Change agreement. They stated their 2020 actions. The agreement states that the United States will achieve a economywide target of reducing emissions by 26 to 28 blow. And the same agreement says that china will achieve the peaking of Climate Emissions around 2030. And to make the, quote, best efforts. So they have stated that the epa actions, like your proposed rule, will achieve the reductions of 26 to 28 . What role did the epa play in setting the targets for the u. S. And china and what role do you see dock playing in setting this policy, where the Economic Impact is sweeping . I may have misheard you, senator. To the extent that you suggested the Clean Power Plan was intended to achieve the 26 to 28 by itself is not correct. Its a big part of it. But a significant part. Significant reductions as are the clean card rules and the other things in the economy. So the question is what role did the epa play is setting these targets in the u. S. And china agreement . We have as many agencies participated in conversations and discussions about what types of approaches would be feasible within our authorities to reduce Carbon Dioxide. What role do you see congress playing in setting this policy . This is a matter for the president , as he is discussing in the International Community these targets, and im sure he is paying attention. So congress has no role responsibility obligation, or opportunity in these things . Senator, i dont want to speak to that today. That is not really my responsibility, so i would defer that to others to speak about, i am focused on the Clean Air Act and our authorities under that. Senator at the white house who left is quoting the economist on issues, and with a specific deal between the United States and china they said the cost to the United States are much more real and many of us oppose and will continue to try to dismantle. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator. Senator boxer . First, i want to put in the record that when Mitch Mcconnell says u. S. China climate deal means china will not have anything to do for 16 years p politifact found that mostly false. This is important. Were hearing from my republican friends, some of them, a series of scare tactics about the results of continuing to implement the Clean Air Act. And i want to thank you you for your very calm presentation. The Clean Air Act requires you to act. It requires you to implement the act unless we repeal the Clean Air Act. I have not heard anyone say they want to repeal the Clean Air Act. It is true that since Richard Nixon signed the modern Clean Air Act in 1970, i want to make sure this jives with your understanding, the u. S. Gdp has gone by 219 . Private sector jobs by 101 , and common air pollutants have dropped by 72 , is that about what you that is my understanding, senator. Senator sullivan, enand i think in a very aggressive way, good for him he says that obama is abusing his authority. The last three president s, and how much executive actions they took. Clinton, 364. George 294. I have never heard anyone complain about bushs 291, any objections 366 executive orders, reg reagans reagans 381. I believe this is not an administration gone rogue. This is an administration following the Clean Air Act . Dont you agree that is what youre doing . That is what were doing . And there have been three Supreme Courts that told you you need to protect. Massachusetts versus the epa. The American Electric power v. Connecticut. Is that correct . Is that your understanding . Correct. Dont you have to follow the law . We do. Dont you have to follow the Supreme Court . We do. The Supreme Court in the last case that senator sullivan quoted is that it includes carbon. If you didnt do your work you would be sued for not doing it, right . Probably. I know folks that would do it including me. We have the largest number of people, were up to 38 million people, and cleaning up the air is a primary focus. So i also, with due respect and admiration and we just get along so well. I have to say my chairman misconstrues the votes in the senate, and im going to put the actual votes. In october 30th 2003, Mccain Lieberman went down. That was mccains bill the climate stewardship act of 2003. He was right. It went down. Only four republicans. Collins, greg, mccain, and snow. On june 22nd 2005, the mccain amendment, 826 went down in a worse way. 38 to 60 okay . Then we had collins, greg, snow, june 6th 2008. This is the one i remember. The liebermanwarner climate security act of 2008 lost because there was a filibuster. Six peer were absent and they asked that their votes yes be added. We had 54 votes not 60, but we had a majority. In the recent debate on keystone, 99 to 1, the white house amendment saying the Climate Change is not a hoax, passed with the support of the chairman, and Climate Change is caused by human activity won the day 5940 but it was filibustered, and the shots amendment that says Climate Change significantly is caused by human activity passed 5049. Let get those in the record. Now my colleague from mississippi went into a whole thing about that great movie the kings speech. I didnt quite get the connection, but it was cleverly put forward. The bottom line is he is saying these two newspapers are confusing the matter. Im going to into the record all of the news outlets who did the story. The Christian Science monitor. Chicago sun times, reuters, ap Politico National journal virginia pilot time magazine, newsweek kansas first News National geographic, Bloomberg Smith smithsonian. There is was question that all of these outlets reported it. Not for any particular reason other than this is the truth. Unless my colleague from miss mississippi has a right to say he doesnt believe in noaa, and he doesnt believe in nasa, this is a fact. You cant make this stuff up, would you agree this is accurate reporting . That is certainly what i understood from the agencies that you mentioned. Okay, thank you very much. Joe, youre okay. Now, Climate Change is projected to harm human health. My colleague from mississippi, i wish he was here because i would love to get into a debate with him because he is not here because we all have so many obligations, and i understand. We know that Climate Change increases ground level ozone and particlate matter in some areas. So when you clean up this carbon youre really helping the health of the people is that not true . That is correct. Relying again on significant evidence, the epa determined that man made Climate Change threatens Public Health and public welfare. Is that correct . That is my understanding that was put forward for the responsible colation versus the epa. The endangerment finding . Correct. So in the endangerment finding you found that extreme weather events, increases in food born pathogens we know that happens. It happened in that lake in ohio, these increases in temperature are likely to have adverse effects, is that correct . Correct. So isnt it wrong i wont put it that way. Isnt it clear that those of us who believe that Carbon Pollution does in fact increase the likelihood that people will have breathing difficults andyies and heart attacks, isnt that in your opinion a proven fact . Yes. Thank you, chairman. Senate eror browns. Thank you for your time this morning. I would like to read a summary of what happened in my state of south dakota and the challenges we face. In the area 2012 the base year south dakotas native electricity production about 74 renewable and 26 from fossil fuels. We have one coal fired power plant that employs 80 people and we have deer creek station. In your plan, you calculated deer creek stations actual 2012 capacity factor at 1 despite the fact that the deer creek station was not commercially operational until august of that year. Add the epa considered deer creek under construction in 2012, the plan would have assigned deer creek an assumed capacity factor of 55 in the year 2012. Because of these calculations in your plan, it would require to the coal fired plant, that now operates approximately 8,000 hours a year to operate it between 2,000 and 2,500 hours per year in order to comply with your targets for the state of south dakota. This coal plant running half of the time it does now would not work. It employs about 80 people and under your plan, we have to wonder whether or not those jobs would remain in the state or if the plant would couldnt to operate. Operating a base load coal unit 2,000 hours per year, is literally uneconomical, and it basically is infeasible to do. Big stone power plant and the deer creek station operate in separate rtos. They cannot be transferred. Adding additional complexity to this, the big stone plant is in the middle of a 400 million upgrade to comply with the epa regional haze rule. This project is not even completed yet, and after a 400 million investment, the largest single private investment our state has seen, youre telling this plant they may not be able to operate at all to comply with your latest regulations. We have a limited number of electric generating resources in south dakota. Each facility is vital to meeting the needs of my state and our surrounding states. In light of this what, if any, flexibility is built in, and what about the facilities in the midst of a big upgrade, and are now being told they need to do even more to meet these addition signal al regulations you plan on regulating. Thank you senator, were welcoming conversations at this level of detail from states and were having many of them. I trust and hope your state provided that input to us in your comments and that were having those conversations. I want to put out again that it is not perscriptive. We are looking very closely at all of the issues that youre raising with us. In particular if states think we got something factually wrong we urge them to tell us and many of them have. So, again, i presume that your state is having that conversation with us. And if we have something factually wrong we will address that. E want to make sure that the final rule is appropriate and correct and still maintains flexibility. There are opportunities across the states to have investment in Clean Technologies and Energy Efficiency and renewables in your state has been a leader in some of those technologies and we applaud that. That is why we think this can work. We also appreciate there are complexities, especially in the west. There are large states who are devised in terms of their energy markets. Were having conversations about those issues to make sure the fulltime plan can accommodate those issues. To my knowledge we have received no suggestions on how to fix the problem that we have shared with you today. This is a major proposal. We have no feed back to suggest there is an alternative at this stage of the game. Are you suggesting a final rule would be significantly different than what the proposes rule is based on the information we provided to you already . I am suggesting that as usually is the case, the comments we received may wale lead to adjustments in the final rule. I dont have any experience where that has not happened. That is why the Public Comment process is so important. I would emphasize that the tremendous relationship and discussions we have had with stakeholders makes sure that we get this right. So yes, to the extent that adjustments are appropriate in our authority, and needed to make sure that the rule can work right, well be looking at those thinding. Things. We all want clear air, how can we, in the future peckick up the costs for making it better. The United States congress in a report suggested that the cost to the average American Family would be proximately 1400 a year to comply with this rule. Are you aware of what the estimated costs were of what the anticipated costs for a family would be to comply with this rule . Would you share with us . Sure senator. For every rule for every significant rule like this, we do a regulatory Impact Analysis along with the proposed rule. We did that here. It is available for everybody to look at. Im not sure about the specific study in a you cited. We did a forward look. I need to make sure that Everybody Knows that because states will decide what to do here, our projections can only be that the state will make the best choices for the families within their borders and that will take into consideration cost. This rule is all built on things happening now in this industry. And the things happening now that utilities are using less carbon intensive fuels, and they are investing in Energy Efficiency. And nose things reduce Carbon Emissions, and overall because of the impact, we expect bills to go down. I just read one sentence into the record. The south dakota Public Utilities commission in july of this year, residents may see their rates double. Thank you. Thank you mr. Chairman. Senator jillibrand . Mr. Chairman, for this very important important, thank you for testifying here about bless me, about reducing Carbon Emissions. Climate change is rule the burning of fossil fuels contributes to it significantly and is a threat to a families in the world. Industrial activity has been a major contributor to Carbon Pollution. But now, thanks to the hard work of this administration were on track to solving this problem. Something that i think is often overlooked by the opponents of rules is the benefit that families will see in terms of Public Health. The administrations proposed rules are supported by health officials. Im sure that youre aware the academy of pediatrics, Public Health association, and others sent a letter to the epa that stated that the changing climate threatens the health of americans alive now and in future generations. The nation has a short window to act. Can you elaborate on the Public Health risks that American Families will continue to face if we fail to act to reduce Carbon Emissions from power plants . Sure senator. There are pretty immediate impacts. Temperatures go up those kind of conditions are more conducive so o to leading to all kinds of medical expenses as well as missed school, missed work, and that sort of thing. Increases in theres drought severe drought which is occurring that has significant impacts on Public Health. Changes in temperature are changing the seasons of various allergens. Theyre changing the patterns of various verticals that can lead to disease. So these are the kinds of thangz scientists are seeing as a result of Climate Change impacts that are occurring. [ inaudible ]. Than any other region in the area. And recently the northeast has experienced extreme weather events that are more intense and more frequent than what weve seen before. While there is much talk of the potential costs of reducing emissions there are significant costs to the economy if we decide to do nothing. Has the epa looked to the costs to the economy of failing tone act strong Carbon Emissions reductions . Would you agree that the cost of rebuilding our infrastructure and shorelines providing billions of dollars in Disaster Assistance every year from extreme weather and disrupted agriculture and fish reproduction among other economic effects far outweigh the cost of comply with the rules . I certainly would, senator. The greatest cost is to do nothing here and the kinds of impacts youre citing are ones that scientists are saying are happening and will happen more in the future and those are very costly events. Particularly implementing the rule as we have proposed it here that provides flexibility for states to invest in their local communities, bring jobs, invest in Energy Efficiency which will reduce the need for electricity. Those are very positive economic benefits. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. Senator vitter. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thanks, miss mccabe for being here. I want to thank my colleagues for letting me jump ahead because i have another commitment in a few minutes. And ill be brief. Miss mccabe, as you know i submit requests for documents on these rules last congress. Epa is Still Producing some of those documents but from what has been produce edd there is a dramatic pattern of very frequent detailed meetings and calls and emails between epa and nrdc a leading outside environmental group. The number of these communicationsize pretty staggering and unprecedented as far as i can see. But in addition theres . Correspondence between epa and nrdc that has not been produced or posted to the docket. Why is that . And will that excluded correspondence and documentation be submitted . Senator, im not exactly sure of the answer to that question. Ill be glad to get back to you on that. If you could get back to us, and hopefully thats going to be correct ed corrected in terms of the docket by including that additional correspondence and documentation. Now, again, some things have been produced by epa already. And again, it shows a level of communication and detail and consultation that i think is pretty staggering. Let me put up one email. June 2013. Before the rule was proposed. And in this nrdc attorney dave hawkins advised senior epa air official joe goffman, as long as the compliance date for the fip 111 d emission limits is a few years after the sip Submission Deadline it appears that epa can promulgate backstop fip limits even in advance of the june 2016 sip submission date. Close quote. This is very detailed advice direction i would say before the rule was even proposed. Do you think that sort of thing is appropriate . Senator, we get a lot of detailed advice from a lot of people and have many meetings with a lot of different stakeholders who weigh in with us. We take all of that input and we put it in a proposed rule, which is fully open for everybody to look at. And if the rule is not grounded in science and the law then people tell us that. And thats how we proceed. Prior to this email had epa even considered issuing a model fip . I cant speak to exactly when we would have had those conversations but i can assure you that the notion of a federal Implementation Plan is fully laid out in the Clean Air Act and that is what is motivating us to think about the need for a backstop federal plan. If you could follow up and answer that question directly whether epa considered issuing a model fip prior to the email that would be useful. Did nrdcs advice have significant bearing on the model fip epa is now developing . We have not yet proposed a model fip. Were going through that process right now. We have gotten a number of comments in the Public Comment period from a variety of stakeholders urging us to consider do a model fip, and we will be working our way through the process to figure out what the appropriate proposal is. And is epa planning to issue its model fip before the sip deadline . What we announced in january was that we intended to proepd a fip in summer this summer around the same time that we finalized the 111b and 111d rules. So that would be before the deadline . The other deadline . It would be a proposal. Im not sure which deadline youre talking about, senator. If youre talking about the deadline for states to submit plans. Correct. So that deadline has not yet been finalized. That will be finalized in the final rule. It will be what we proposed was it would be 13 months after 111d rule is finalized. We have a proposed fip out in the summer. And i would expect we have that finalized within a year. I wauft want to point out its perfectly consistent with this direction and advice. Final question, miss mccabe. I continue to be very concerned with these very secretive the secretive work on social cost of carbon estimates. Id asked you previously for the names and titles of those folks under your supervision in the office of air radiation that have participated in the interagency working group. We havent gotten that. Can you provide that to us . Well senator it has not been a secretive process at all. The gao has confirmed that it was not an inappropriate process and that agencies across the government participated in it. Its not a process that the epa was in charge of. So i feel weve been responsive. Can you provide me the names and titles of those folks under your supervision in the office of radiation that participated in the working group . Sir i will take that question back and we will get a response to that. So its not a secretive process but you wont commit to that . Its not a secretive process. If its not will you commit to that . I will commit to get back to you on that question. So you wont commit to that. Thank you. Thank you, senator vitter. Let me thank both senator boozman and senator capitto who have been very accommodating to their time to accommodate the others. Thank you very much. Senator carper. Thanks, mr. Chairman. Miss mccabe welcome. Its very nice to see you and thanks for joining us today. Thanks for your service. You have a tough job. We appreciate your willingness to do it. For those of us who live in states, and theres actually millions of people in states that are already seeing the impacts of Climate Change. Epas proposal to regulate our nations largest sources of Carbon Pollution has been frankly a long time coming. However, with any substantial regulatory action theres always room for improvement. And while we strive for perfection, we know its hard to achieve. I look forward to working with our colleagues on this committee in the senate and the house and working with the administration and other stakeholders trying to make sure that this regulation as good as it is becomes even better before its finalized. One such issue i hope to address is inequities in the state targets. Had some discussion of this before. But its my understanding that different states will have different targets based on feasibility, electrical systems, and other variables under the clean power act. However, as written ive heard from stakeholders that the proposal requires more of states that have already made substantial carbon reductions. Believe it or not, one of them is my state, delaware. But require more of states that have not yet acted. Delawares already made substantial investments in Energy Efficiency and cleaning up coal plant emissions compared to a lot of other states. These stakeholders have expressed that if this issue is not addressed early action states may be at a competitive disadvantage. Have you heard similar concerns from other stakeholders . If the answer is yes is the epa considering adjusting the state targets to address these inequities . If so, what are those possible actions . Thank you, senator. This certainly is an issue that has been raised in comments from all Different Directions and from a number of different stakeholders, something were paying a lot of attention to. In fact, we paid so much attention to it that in the fall we put out a notice of Data Availability identifying some of these issues that