increased greenhouse co2 level emissions the arctic ice is increased by 60% as shown by this aerial view. also the antarctic is expanding but more importantly this report coming out of the united nations is saying most experts believe by 2083, in 70 years, the benefits of climate change will outweigh the harm. what should be done about it? we hear testimony from the administration that all climate change is man-made and america needs to reduce its co2 emissions. hypothetically let's assume all coal-fired generation in america were curtailed, all coal-fired generation were curtailed. according to the united nations and the ipc see this would

reduce the co2 levels of the globe by 0.2% by reading all coal-fired generating power in the united states. the administration needs to remind people as you heard from the chairman in the opening remarks that man made problems represent 4% of all the emissions of the globe. natural issues represent 96%. as a result of this administration by virtue of these stream of job killing regulations is putting our nation at risk on the idea of clinging to the notion that cutting 0.2% will save the world's environment. let me remind you the rest of the world is not listening. the president's and nancy pelosi

is not being followed. china, india, russia and europe are expanding their use of coal. the administration is embarking on a new global initiative exporting uncertainty. the president is not going to allow lower interest fund loans to be made to developing nations around world. struggling nations come out of poverty will continue to suffer, lives will be lost, and the support of this policy, of the biggest moral responsibilities the united states should be to help imaginations must have access to energy for refrigeration. to give you an example in the sub-saharan of africa, the total

energy they can generate is a 60 watt light bulb per person for three hours a day. a 60 watt light bulb for three hours a day. why should they be denied access to affordable energy to come out of poverty? take this message to the president. this president must not prevent people around the globe from obtaining affordable, dependable energy. and threatening american jobs over 0.2% of the co2 emissions is not an acceptable energy policy. crushing america's economy to reduce co2 levels by 0.2% is an abuse of his presidential authority. i am just curious, both of you, the issue is 400 parts per million. can you tell me what level you

want it to be? is it what many people are promoting, 300 parts per million? >> you can respond but his time is expired. >> let's respond, a lot of issues you raised. if i may focus down for the sake of response, first of all as i have said before on this committee the issues in terms of the risks of climate change our not just based upon models. it is pretty simple arithmetic. number it 2 i don't believe anyone has ever said all climate change is man-made. the statement is the anthropogenic forcings from co2 are clearly of the scale that have long been expected to produce the kinds of changes the we are seeing and will see. third, we should address -- there are many things but let me focus on the hiatus so-called in

the increase of warming temperatures. let's not forget this decade is the warmest decade in modern, in recorded history. it is not exactly like it has been cooling off. secondly the issues of the cable scale changes in the rate increase our full expected. el nino, part of this, those models at that time did not include other issues such as deep water warming etc.. i will give you another example, there's an article right now in nature where by looking at the observed surface water temperatures in the pacific, putting them in east central pacific, putting them in becomes completely with this hiatus and is only a hiatus, in the constant global warming. i believe we have to say this is the miss reading of the record. the statement stands that anthropogenic co2 emissions and

other greenhouse gas emissions are underwriter at the level of multiple degrees centigrade in this century. we are up 0.9 so far and that is consequential. i remind you we wouldn't be here if it weren't for the greenhouse effect of water vapor which has provided 60 degrees fahrenheit of surface warming with just tuning that by a few degrees centigrade at great peril. >> with a gun 2 minute and 35 seconds over. >> mr. chairman i would like unanimous consent we put in the record a study by dr. benjamin zander, atmospheric scientist at lawrence livermore national laboratory where he says neither volcanoes nor the sun or internal variability in or any combination of those natural factors can plausibly explain the atmosphere temperature changes we have actually observe from space since 1979. >> without objection and i would

like to put in the record your photo of how ice has expanded by almost a million square miles in the last year in the arctic circle. >> reserving the right to object i would like to be recognized on my reservation. >> absolutely. >> i think this illustrates why we need a committee where we bring in the scientists. the statements the gentleman from west virginia read was were incredibly inaccurate and contrary to everything else everybody in the scientific community has to say including mr. moniz was an mit professor for 40 years, department of physics and linear accelerator center, undersecretary of the o e, ph.d. in theoretical physics from stanford university. we need scientists to come in here and talk about science. >> i you objecting to this? >> i want to make that point but i will not object >> i won't objective yours either.

i would like to represent, recognize dr. christensen from the virgin islands for five minutes. >> i am glad we are having this hearing. i support president obama's sensible plan to address climate change by reducing carbon pollution and helping communities prepare for the impact of climate change and in reading your testimony and hearing your testimony i applaud the open approach to setting the standards that have been engaging and will engage the stakeholders and their concern in the process. despite this we hear a lot of criticism of the president's plan from our republican colleagues and like ranking member blacksman i ask what is their plan to give the president said he is willing to work with anyone who wants to propose an alternative and i'm glad congress won't act, he will. i am also glad that both of you included in your testimony that

the economy also benefits from the prior responses to climate change. my district in the virgin islands and are already experiencing the impact of that change. in the virgin islands, we have endured a serious coral reef beach event that significantly impacted our fisheries and by extension our tourism products and economic stability. if we were to continue to do nothing we could expect increased notion acidification, sea level rise which will impact our coastal infrastructure and more intense storms as much of the country is experiencing. it is absolutely and abundantly clear that climate change is real and we have to act and it is important also, we discussed

with congressman matsui that will be on this vital issue. as we respond we have to make sure we transition to clean energy sources in a way that is workable especially for the communities with the greatest economic challenges. in the virgin islands and other territories electricity is the highest in our country. we have strong incentive to scale of affordable, renewable energy and energy efficiency but it is going to take some time. administrator mccarthy, you have entered my first question, you made it clear that the rule you proposed on friday will apply only to new power plants. >> that is correct. >> next you start to work on a rule to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants. it is going to be particularly important for my constituents that we find cost-effective solutions that work for our specific circumstances and the same is true for all of the

territories, the state of hawaii given the high prices we are already paying and the challenges related to being an island where we're located. also have read in your testimony that you plan to work with states and territories to ensure that you understand our specific circumstances as we do these things so under the provisions of the clean air act, states and territories have the flexibility to achieve carbon pollution in ways that will work for them, do you anticipate that flexibility will be there? >> that is correct. >> secretary moniz, as we look to the future of our energy supply system, do you see promising technology based solutions that will allow places like a virgin islands and the other territories to meet our electricity needs with clean as well as a portable power? what do you see as the most

promising area? >> yes i do and i also recognize islands often have the biggest challenge in that combination of risk and high energy prices, that is where first of all renewable, not being dependent on oil imports is very important and that is where renewables can be very important and also there is an advantage, at least one advantage in an island setting and that is transportation based upon electricity and/or natural gas can be more attractive because the driving range issues are not as important. there is the real future for green islands and we will be delighted to work with you on that. >> where are you with ocean conversion? it seems like that would be a good source. >> we continued to do research. that is a case where if we saw

that curve we have shown earlier with cost propping and deployment we are in the early stage of that curve. barista waste going cost reduction. the research is going on and there are private projects in various parts of the world. >> my time is up. >> the gentlelady's time is expired. recognize the gentleman from kansas for five minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. miss mccarty, a want to ask a couple questions of you. one of the objectives is identifying greenhouse gas regulations that already exist and those in future that have an impact on climate change so you would agree we want to make sure we have a successful climate policy as a result of those sets of rules and regulations you promulgate and is that a bass line statement? >> in the context of a larger international effort yes. >> on your web site you have 26 indicators used for tracking climate change. they identify various impact of

climate change so you would believe the purpose of these rules is to impactditors so you put a gag rule in place you get a good outcome26 indicators. >> i think the better way to think about it if i might is it is part of an overall strategy that is positioning the u.s. leadership in an international discussion because climate change requires a global effort. this is one piece and it is one step but it is a significant one. >> would it be reasonable to think regulations you promulgate and link them to 26 indicators you have on your web site? >> it is unlikely any specific one step is going to be seen as having a visible impact on any of those impacts. what i am suggesting is that

climate change has to be a broad array of actions that the u.s. and other folks in the international community take that makes significant effort towards reducing greenhouse gases and mitigating the impact -- >> these are your indicators. >> there indicators of climate change, not directly applicable to performance impacts of any one action. >> how about the cumulative fact? certainly you are acting in a way that these that the indicators of climate change can't be the case that your testimony today is a cumulative impact of your current set of regulations and those you are proposing isn't going to have any impact at all on any of those indicators? >> the president was very clear. what we are attempting to do is put together a comprehensive climate plan across the administration that position the u.s. for leadership on this issue and prompt leverage international discussions and action. >> you are putting regulations in place for the purpose of

leadership but not to impact the indicators that you, the epa said the indicators of climate change? >> we're working within the authority congress gave us to do what we can but all i am pointing out is much more needs to be done and it needs to be looked at in the larger context. >> in your opening statement you said we got bunch of greenhouse gases, six billion metric tons. how many for example one of your indicators is heat related deaths. how many heat related deaths have been eliminated as a result of the 2010 rules? >> you can't make those direct connections, congressman, neither can i. >> no connection to the activities you are undertaking. >> i did not say that. >> and make the connections. tell me what i am misunderstanding. can you draw connections between the rules you are providing, regulations your promulgating and your indicators? >> what you are asking is can epa in and of itself solve the

problems of climate change, no we cannot. but the authority you gave us was to use the clean air act to regulate pollution, carbon pollution is one of those regulated pollutants and we will move forward with what we can do that is reasonable and appropriate. >> i'm not asking the question you -- you have the capacity to solve greenhouse gases. what i asked was if anything you are doing doing any good as measured by the indicators that you provided for -- is your testimony that you have no capacity to identify whether the actions epa has undertaken has any impact? this is about science, cause and effect. is there any causal relationship between the regulations you promulgated and the 26 indicators of climate change you have on your web site? >> the indicators on the web site on broad global indicators. impacts associated with climate change.

they are not performance requirements for impact related to any particular -- >> the indicators are quantifiable. heat related debt, change in ocean, sea level rise, snow cover, those are great quantifiable, when you're telling me -- >> they indicate public health impact. >> you can't win your actions that epa to any benefits associated with those quantifiable indicators the epa itself has proposed as indicative of climate change. >> what we are able to do is to show and i hope we will show this in a package we put out for comment, what kind of reductions are going to be associated with our rules, what we believe they will have in terms of economic and public health benefit but it again is part of a very large strategy. >> the gentleman's time is expired. i recognize the gentlelady -- did you have a comment? >> quick comment. the reason academic literature does associate extremely hot

days with mortality, a will provide that paper. >> i will recognize the gentlelady from florida, ms. castor for five minutes. >> thank you for calling this hearing on the obama administration's climate action plan and administrator mccarthy, thanks for your leadership and willingness to assume the challenges as epa administrator. and secretary moniz, same goes for you. thank you for being here. my republican colleagues's arguments today relating to carbon pollution and changing climate are reminiscent of their arguments and the arguments of special interests in the past when it comes to updating our standards relating to pollution and health standards and clean environment and they predict and they always do we will have a rise in unemployment, the unemployment rate is going to skyrocket, they predict the

economy will go into a tailspin, if america tackles pollution and climate problems, it is an argument they raise every time america asks to set better standards for air, water, children's health. all you have to do is think back to the 1970s, i am old enough to remember what mornings were like before the clean air act and how smoggy it was a you would come out of your house and you could smell it and taste it and the country had the wherewithal to adopt the clean air act and over decades our air has improved. same can be said in the 1990s when it comes to acid rain, how america tackled the problem of chlorofluorocarbons that were depleting the ozone layer. the same can be said when it comes to cancer causing chemicals and plastic. plastic industry did not collapse.

there's more plastic today than ever before. i would say to my republican colleagues, have confidence in america's ability to innovate in the face of significant challenges, challenges like climate change and coming from a vulnerable state like florida, what we see clearly ahead of us is there is a greater cost to inaction. look at what citizens across my state and across the country will face in rising insurance premiums when it came to extreme events. we are debating flood insurance right now and that is going to be tied more and more to the changing climate and sea level rise in the future. think about what local governments and communities will do to invest in infrastructure. in the state of florida we are investing the great deal now to protect our clean water supply and drinking water supply from rising days and oceans that are

going to intrude on the drinking water supply, the salt water intrusion. communities are having to invest to protect infrastructure. just a plain old pipes under the ground that we need to operate as a normal community and down the coast. so i see in the face of more drought, more floods, longer fire seasons, more intense fires, faster sea level rise it is important that we take action. the costs ahead of us will be inordinate if the congress continues to ignore it. i am glad the administration is taking leadership. secretary moniz, let's talk about cost and benefits. when you propose a major role you are legally required to analyze the costs and benefits of that rule, isn't that correct? >> yes. >> in fact hasn't cost-benefit analysis been required for agency rulemaking the recent president reagan signed an

executive order on cost-benefit analysis in 1981? >> that is my understanding. >> it is called cost-benefit analysis because you are required to estimate the cost and benefits of government action, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> if you didn't look at the cost and benefits the information wouldn't help you assess the merits of a rule. if you look at cost no rule would ever be worth it. in fact, mr. secretary, d o e recently is a rule to require michael evans to be more energy efficient. as part of that rulemaking the only was required to estimate costs and benefits of the new standard by requiring the use of the tree city, the rule will reduce the pollution? >> yes it did and indeed the needs to do that comes from a court ruling in 2007. >> how did you get to that

number? was it developed through interagency process and was it based on peer reviewed science? >> yes. the process started in 2009 is based upon three highly peer reviewed models. there has been transparency on the models. back in the 2009-2010, every rulemaking that opens up for comments going forward, the recent change in the numbers was strictly a updating the peer review models using them with the same inputs used previously. >> the gentlelady's time is expired. i recognize the gentleman from ohio for five minutes. >> thanks very much, mr. chairman. thanks very much for having the hearing today and i want to thank the separate hearing for being with us today, appreciate the comments today. mr. secretary, if i could start with a question to you, as the

chairman earlier stated in his opening remarks, when the president came into office congress took under consideration what was essentially his climate plan. congress considered whether we would embark on a complicated and expensive regulatory program that was intent on massively decolonizing energy supply and raising energy costs. we are told the u.s. must take the lead. mr secretary dee think it is economically wise for the u.s. to unilaterally implement policies that result in more expensive energy costs for american households and manufacturing. this question is important because i have 60,000 manufacturing jobs and i spend all my time on the road going through large meetings, small plants, and what is happening in washington, the job back home.

is it wise to increase manufacturing facilities for american households? >> first of all, in no small part, due to the shale gas boom, we are seeing lower-cost in many industries and growth -- >> in the state of ohio's 70% of our energy is coal based. >> we're seeing lower energy prices in an ohio developing shale gas now. secondly in terms of the u.s. moving forward i would say number one, american leadership is indispensable if we are going to have international action. secondly, there is very much i believe, self-serving interests of developing the new

technologies that will in fact give us a strong position in the future multi trillion dollar market. >> continuing on with that, to continue on with questions, again in the climate action plan and also in your testimony we are talking about three pillars that you mention and the third point being that the united states needs to be that international effort. on the climate issues, what does the administration mean by the u.s. taking that leadership role and does this mean we are supposed to be the first nation that deep carbonize is our energy supply on a large scale and expect the rest of the world to follow, what is that leadership? >> i would say it means first of all we do lead in clean energy and i believe we do need for shore in clean energy innovation. we have to help deploy is, we

are working, the department of state in terms of the policy level has made tremendous progress in the g 20 context and with china and the department of energy we are working through a variety of mechanisms. for example, the energy ministerial which is advancing dialogues with other countries. for example, in many countries now we have active dialogues going on where our companies are working with companies in those countries, countries like brazil for example recently, yesterday in vienna discussions on monday with turkey they are very interested in our technologies for industrial energy efficiency. this is a market for our companies to go out there, both services and technology, that is what we mean by leading. >> also i see from your

testimony, page 8, you talk about finalizing the rule covering this standby power, microwave ovens, land fixtures, commercial refrigerators and commercial freezers, the question is are there any other appliance rules you see that are being planned in the future? >> yes indeed. a supply of a list of those, the next one we said, the next proposed rulemaking we hope to advance in november on electric motors. >> if you have any other appliances you see in the future if you could supply that to the committee. >> i might add that in addition to the rulemaking, when it is appropriate, right now with top boxes, we are pursuing voluntary discussions because frankly when

the industry and consumers come together and agree on a rule we think is good, that will get the rule implemented faster so we work on the rulemaking and convening voluntary approaches to we efficiency standards. >> my time is expired and i yield back. >> thank you, the gentleman from texas, mr. olson for five minutes. >> thank you for holding today's hearing. like you, i am disappointed that so many administration experts working to justify new carbon rules decided not to educate the public by testifying here this morning. two of 13 ratio does not bode well, in the most open transparent administration never. i am sure we will find out where these people are when they do their jobs as we leave here.

but we do have a few fans of the proud. secretary moniz, administrator mccarthy, welcome. my question will focus on refineries, u.s. energy renaissance and power grid issues in texas. first of all refineries. miss mccarthy, much of today's discussion is about the president's carbon plan, the power sector but also worry about tpa's next steps with refineries. this than one month ago your epa announced the scenario was on track to obtain ground level ozone standards by 2018. your epa personally said and this is a quote, these reductions are even more impressive given houston's rank

as one of the fastest-growing metropolitan areas in the country. rather than recognizing success epa is already working on more -- so-called tier 3 rules and we keep hearing rumors of new rules for greenhouse gases in the refining space. all this could mean billions of dollars, billions in compliance costs. these costs will hit families hard and be passed on to average drivers across the country in places like thailand and texas. so briefly, i say briefly because i'm over time here, can you tell me when to expect these carbon rules for refineries? >> i don't have a timeframe. >> will you commit to study the

cumulative costs, and refineries? >> i will certainly commit to following whatever protocols are required to do. >> in following the finger rule, answering yes or no questions, can you guarantee that your rules will not raise gasoline prices, yes or no? >> i don't know what rules you are referring to and i would never make guarantees. >> the u.s. energy renaissance. as you know, carbon emissions, despite new regulations. a significant reason, and the big rule, and hydraulic

fracturing and horizontal drilling have created a new renaissance that is helping refresh carbon emissions, yes or no? >> yes and no. it is a complicated question. make it very short, the new technology has did chance to our ability to capture natural gas domestically that has been a wonderful thing for air quality domestically but that answers your question. >> and regulate higher emissions. >> you are asking me complicated questions. >> one final question, in

desperate need, in reliable hours. at a time looking at blackouts, in 2015, without more power generation, the epa is considering carbon rules that mandate carbon capture. as we discussed earlier, and home to what the ccs qualifications, and outside texas. and mccarthy, ccs technology, economic foremost, not just parish plans. it is viable because we have oil and gas on the property. >> the combination of ccs with e o r is very attractive.

finding one thing, mr. chairman, the issue has come up many times, i just want to say there has been no trouble occupying three hours with two hours but secondly, our colleagues across the administration would be delighted to have a conversation about all these issues. >> thank you very much. the gentleman's time is expired. it took a lot of time today. we are going to get back in touch with those other agencies and read with them individually to a broader exchange so we will follow up with them. recognize the gentleman from illinois for five minutes. >> i thank you both for being here and for your service to your country and for the last few hours you have given us, mr secretary moniz i have heard you

speak in favor of the president's climate action plan and to that extent i understand the concerns surrounding the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions being expressed. that being said statements from energy experts said electable prices have increased 40% since 2001 to well above the rate of inflation and rising to the requirements of epa, clean air and environmental standards. in addition over 60% of the nation's clean power generation comes from nuclear power which is virtually emissions free and i am concerned with the efforts of your agency in regards to the future of the nuclear energy sector. i believe any serious plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions must have a strong nuclear components yet the number of nuclear plants that have announced their retirement this year has grown to almost epidemic proportions and more are expected in the near future. let me ask what are your goals and keep it as brief as possible, what are your goals for the growth of the nuclear

energy sector overall? >> closures obviously have a bunch of factors in one case. there was an equipment issued in california, in vermont it is principally -- they are older and i say what we have for years already, the department of energy supporting things like life extension technologies so that is one direction. another is still working on provisional loan guarantees. it is important to get these new plants built. >> to be close any of those loan guarantees? >> on nuclear, it is an ongoing negotiation. it has been a while. >> i hear the discussion about it. >> i have taken a direct interest in this. >> from our perspective the administration, all i heard you

number of times, used the loan guarantee as promise for we support it but these are all conditional, they are not finalized and when you have a number of plants closing because of the age of these plants and we are slow to replace that capacity, let me ask you this do you believe the greenhouse gas targets set by the administration can be met without the use of nuclear power? >> 17% goal for 2020, almost halfway there. clearly if there are a lot of nuclear power plant closures in that time that will make it more difficult. >> we ask you to estimate how many more nuclear plants could be put out of commission before those targets begun unattainable? >> i do not know but i can tell you but i hope to have discussions with the industry to understand better where that is going. nuclear power plants exist, still have pretty low marginal

costs which make attractive but as we know, the lower natural gas prices lowered the clearance price in many parts of the country. >> and again i want to make the point what we were talking about earlier that there are no loan guarantees in existence right now. they are conditional. and to finish up, i don't want to take all my time, hold your applause, if the administration was serious about addressing climate change it would harness the clean energy from nuclear power as we have been talking about. at a minimum it would follow the law. i heard discussions about following the law today and it would reconstitute the yucca mountain program and provide a solid basis for the nrc to issue new plant licenses. i thank you for your time and your testimony and i yield back. >> we are following the law. >> the gentleman yields back. at this time you may have noticed we have sort of ignored miss ship county --schikowski.

traditionally we finish subcommittee members first. mr. griffin has said he noted you sitting over there patiently so i would like to recognize you for five minute. >> thank you bose especially mr. griffin for that courtesy. i believe that the threat to at least human life in our planet is the greatest challenge human kind has ever faced. and i feel so strongly that this congress, this congress is in a moment of such great opportunity where we could take leadership on behalf of the united states, on behalf of the country's around the world that we could

benefit economically. this is some moments of great opportunity, i fear as a mentor of the energy and commerce committee that we are squandering. and i look at young people in this audience, this is their century and i feel an obligation that we try to do something about this. i would like to see if either of you have a comment about this issue of coal, the ruling that promulgated, about to come out. the charges that would insignificant effect on climate change and would jeopardize the economic opportunities of people in poor countries and further impoverished them. that is a pretty heavy charge. i wonder if you, madam administrator, could give us

some answers. >> i would be happy. what i would say is the reason the power plant sector is one of the first places to go to regulate carbon pollution because it is by far the largest industry sector in terms of its generation of greenhouse gases. the second reason is there are opportunities to reduce greenhouse gases and that will position us in the energy future and i think there's every reason we should want to tee up ideas and options how to do that effectively taking the advantage of modern technologies, we could take advantage of and escalate their introduction both in the u.s. as well as internationally. that make significant difference, not just we're doing here but impact in moving cleaner technologies forward and the issue of the international discussion, i think you will see that the language in the

president's climate action plan is very detailed on this issue. it in no way steps back from the intent of the united states and our obligation to work with developing countries to ensure that they mature and provide energy for their citizens, the language in here is not inconsistent with that goal, what it does say is we need to be careful how we are investing and we don't want to developing countries to make mistakes that we might have made in not positioning themselves for the best technologies available in a carbon constrained world? >> i would add the climate action plan as far as things like the ex-im bank does have an exclusion for the least developed countries. >> let me just say how much i

appreciate your being here and having the epa administrator and secretary of energy at a single hearing i am sure we will have and i hope you will have an opportunity to hear others but that is not an everyday occurrence and i want to thank you for that. i also want to associate myself with mr. waxman's please that his been made more often once the we have scientists come in and talk to us. we can have the kind of forum where the science could be challenged, could be questions, wherever there are differing opinions but the seconds but i have, is there really a significant difference of opinion about the science of climate change? >> i would argue at the level of broad impacts in my view there

is none. there is a simple argument as to why this is expected. also observed that the pattern of effects decades ago, this is not somehow being made up. clearly there are specific -- and we had a discussion about the last several years have seen a slowdown of warming. as i pointed out this is not out of the expectations on decade of scales but that is a case where the scientists are still having some argument over the specific driver. recent papers, one example, have linked the essentially the el nino issues to that but that is an example of something that remains to be worked out. does not obviate the overwhelming conclusion and overwhelming support for what is going on in terms of global

warming. >> the gentlelady's time is expired. i recognize the gentleman from virginia for five minute. >> appreciate the comments about using as we move forward so we don't impoverished other nations and impoverish our own nation that we use modern technology as we move forward. the problem we have, the countering plan is we ought to make sure technologies are available first before we put regulations in place that then cause us to lose an entire segment of the population's jobs and energy production and that has been my concern all along and coming, coal producing region apologies already, not counting the ones that come out this week in the next few months i devastating the economy and it is quite moving when you see these people, hard-working men and women who are out there

trying to do jobs, not just coal miners but the jobs that are relying upon the coal mines. every time i turn around there's another manufacturing co. relying on the coal industry going out of business or needed affordable lectures to going out of business or another coal mine every other week, losing a coal mine in the district, people making $75,000 a year not making and now and the biggest one in my community, in fairness the two first factor is a listed were the double-edged scissors of obamacare, they listed the fact that the economy is so poor in the area, and we just lost a hospital in my district so some of my constituents have to drive an hour and a half to get to cardiac care in a hospital. this is not a good thing. when we look at cost benefit analysis, we look at the effect of people don't have the ability

to afford electricity in their homes that they then have to cut back on things and cut back on important things. you can't heat your home effectively in the wintertime in the mountains of virginia sometimes it gets pretty cold that can affect your health. if you are having a problem with your heart and all of a sudden able to go to the local hospital because of policies enacted in washington, you have to drive an hour and a half to get to heart care, that will have an impact on your health. there is no way around that. we have to look get these things and when they say this is going to be grand and great, we have to get the science and breakthroughs and technological breakthroughs out their first 04 we say we will set down coal powered plants because the technology is not out there for everyone that needs to be done to make some 100% and i don't think when you look at poverty, and reference to a german article how electricity became a luxury good. i don't think the people of the

united states of america consider electricity luxury good and i don't think we want to be at the point that they have the german environmental administer on higher giving out tips on how to preheat your oven to do cooking and if you lower the contrast and brightness on your television you can bring down your electric bill because the germans put themselves in a position where people can't afford it. i don't want that for my country but it is hitting my district are right now so i hope you take that into consideration and along with those things the president outlined a bold 17% reduction in 2005 greenhouse gas levels by 2020 and the climate speech in june at georgetown university, mr. secretary, we are halfway there. my question is is that from programs from the epa or is that from plant shutdowns and how much have the programs that the

epa has enacted brought down those greenhouse gases in the last five years? can you quantify how much? >> let me put the bowl in perspective. the goal clearly was stated in a climate action plan but in no way does the climate action plan say those actions are going to add up to the 17%. it is the start of the most economically viable opportunity. >> i apologize my time is running out, 17% was the number picked out of the air or was there a scientific basis for it? >> i believe it was an international bowl that was stated, there was some analytics but it was not directly associated with the plan but remains a goal -- >> do we know? we will try to reduce greenhouse gases but do we know how much each program will give us and that being said you get that stimulated because my time is

out, i truly believe when you are here to testify and i told people in my district i think you do care about the plight of folks so i ask you to commit whether it is my district or one of the other districts that has been hit so hard if we set up the trip would you come down and see what is happening in the district and jobs are disappearing and there are lots of towns with empty storefronts and looks like it goes down. >> i will follow-up directly with you. >> i appreciate that. i yield back. >> about half of the reductions have been from the shale gas revolution, purely market-driven and another part of it has been from especially in the transportation sector, the efficiency standards holding demand down. >> which were based on regulations. is that correct? >> i would like to recognize the gentleman from new york for five minutes. >> thank you. let me say i am applauding our committee for finally having a

hearing on climate change. it is obvious to me and everyone else the science is undeniable and it is time for us to act and congress has been ducking this issue even going so far as to deny the basic science behind climate change. i have seen the devastating effects in my area with hurricane sandy new york, new jersey and connecticut and my district separate huge devastation, rising sea surface storms and greater flooding will only increase if we choose to do nothing so with congress unwilling to act on the issue i am happy the president has acted, has decided to act. some may deny the existence of climate change the science is clear. if people object to the specifics of the president's plan they should propose their own plan for curbing carbon pollution and climate change and the committee should actively pursue the matter. we also know from experience that government can regulate pollution without hurting the economy. many of the ideas that will

reduce carbon pollution have grown to new industries, renewable, and capture technology and other technologies that will help mitigate climate change. secretary moniz, you mentioned in your testimony devastation that sandy wrought upon new york, new jersey and connecticut will have a major issue arising from that loss of power, the length of time it took to return. can you speak to what the department of energy doing in regard to electricity, reliability and how that works with the president's climate change plan? >> thank you. one of the particular two areas, one is in the context of our general work on the e electric grid of the 20 first century, we are folding in very heavily resilience issues as well as the renewables and other drivers of that technology and i mentioned earlier that one specific project we just had announced in

new jersey looking at a microbrewed to support a major transportation corridor which is an import the evacuation route for new yorkers. the second thing which is very important and we are working closely with industry, with the american petroleum institute, what we learned in sandy the hard way was how the electricity infrastructure and transportation fuels infrastructures are so into dependent so we are working on that, being positioned for any future event. >> implementation of these plans is ongoing, we can expect that soon? >> yes, it is. we hope to have a product we will put out at the end of the month for example. >> thank you. i have been a long supporter of alternative fuels for

transportation. besides electric vehicles that you mentioned, what are other alternative fuels the the promise of energy is working on? >> we certainly support for heavy vehicles looking at the issue of natural gas, transportation fuel, we have a very extensive program on advance biofuels moving to biofuels, these are again a case where costs are coming down quite dramatically. not quite there yet but coming down dramatically and of course of accreditation, costs have dropped dramatically and not yet for the long-range vehicle for the mass-market, but the penetration is happening much faster than it did at a comparable stage for hybrid vehicles looking very interesting and more to the future of a hydrogen economy and fuel cells, that remains a

little earlier in development but i would say alternative liquid fuels and electricity are looking quite interesting. >> thank you. i know you have both been here a long time so i will submit a couple questions and spare you from having to answer but i think both of you for your hard work and the gentleman from new york if you completed your questions. >> i want to make a comment on the hearing which is an excellent hearing but we are at a critical crossroads in our energy policy and if we decide to do nothing which i sense is what the republicans want, to do nothing, it will lead to more carbon pollution, more draws and floods and other extreme weather events, more billion dollar disasters and relief bills to pay for them by the taxpayers. if we take that past history will not treat us kindly.

we will be the generation that ignored the warnings of scientists and left future generations in a violent and inhospitable climate. on the other hand there's another path. we have a shrinking window for action but we have a window to act, this is the critical, crucial time this decade. if we act now, if we invest in solar, wind and other clean energy sources, if we only american ingenuity we can stop carbon pollution, protect our atmosphere and create millions of new clean energy jobs. i want to thank the two witnesses who have been helpful and terrific in being here all this time. i hope we put aside our partisan differences to help achieve these goals, very important ones for the future of the country and the rest of the world, thank you. >> thank you. i would also say how much we

appreciate the two of you being here. we think it is a major accomplishment that our co2 emissions are lower than they have been in 20 years and as we move forward we all want a balanced approach, we want to protect the environment but we also want to make sure we have a strong, viable economy and we don't want to be left in a non-competitive position in the world marketplace. i hope you all will look forward to being with us in the future as we look forward to being with you again here. we spent three four marvelous hours together and i would remind members that they have ten business days to submit questions for the record and i ask that witnesses all respond properly to the questions we submitted to you all. so thank you again and we look forward to working with you as we move forward. >> thank you for holding this hearing. >> that concludes today's

hearing. [inaudible conversations] .. rose to that occasion if i could create something that is so moving and that permits the kind of distance you sometimes need from what is faithful, there are people who understand. understandin