it's a pretty strong indicator that this is a highly diversified economy and the substantial amount of those jobs 37% of those jobs that were created over the course of the last 13 plus years came in other areas of the economy not oil and gas and mining. i like to remind people that we are blessed to have the oil and gas industry. as a matter of fact california and new york have substantial natural resources. they have chosen not to develop them. that is their choice. under the latter issue at hand i do think that states have the ability to make very positive and impactful environmental issues outside of washington d.c. that actually can be even more influential in that, allowing them to come up with innovative ways to incentivize

their companies to address the issues of the environment in the me give you some statistics that are factual. over the course of the last 13 years the air in texas is cleaner, substantially cleaner, not just chemicals, pollutants, and in missions like nitrogen oxide -- excuse me not just oxide down 62% since 2000. o. zone down by 23% during that period of time. we put programs into place that took dirty engines out of the fleets. we gave incentives. all of that has helped create a substantially cleaner environment in the state of texas versus this last week the

announcement by the president of the united states that we are going to move away from colon that was a huge economic impact on this country. to say that we are going to take that out of the mix based on what i would consider to be science is not settled yet on the issue of co2. calling co2 a pollutant is doing a disservice to the country. i think it's doing a disservice to the world and if the president is surely committed to run all of the above energy policy like he said he was really be opening up the xl pipeline. we would be opening up federal lands to exploration whether it's raw or rare earth minerals

or oil and gas and i happen to think that there is a role for the federal government to play but it is not in setting policies that are going to kill jobs in this country and clearly that is his intention. i am substantially short-term i am substantially more concerned about iran changing the temperature then i am some 50 year down the road that could be played by the environmental choices that are being made in the united states. >> that's a sobering thought. tom. see if you decide to run for president -- [inaudible] they say we want younger people

and we want fresh faces and we don't want anybody who had anything to do with the last election. >> 66 is a fresh face. >> a minister response. from a practical stand how would you deal with that in and the republican party? >> i would suggest to you that is not an issue. i think the republican party in particular having watched this young inexperienced president bumble from scandal to foreign policy debacle after debacle is substantially more concerning to them than an individual's age. >> doesn't pass muster with the

tea party? >> at the americans are less interested in titles and badges and ideas. the republican party must become the party of big ideas again. they have got to stop being distracted from all of the side issues that may be relevant to some particular sector or section of the electorate or the country but stay focused on what i started my remarks out with is the most important thing for america. if we are going to have cogent influential foreign-policy we must first have to master policy economically that makes this country strong economically. >> rebecca. >> governor -- are their

preferences for who comes out on top? >> i don't. >> that was fast. miles. >> they were saying some unkind things about you some time ag ago -- to do anything catastrophe wise that. you are not worried about climate change and global warming 50 years down the road you say because it's not a settled issue and i wanted to ask you what it would take to settle it. >> i am not a scientist but i think the idea that we are willing to jeopardize the future of this country economically and let me share with you why i believe that strongly. we are very close to being on the verge of making some decisions in this country that

would put a lot of americans to work and give a lot of americans hope. bring people out of places that they don't want to be from the standpoint of economics to the really bright future in the energy industry is the quickest way from my perspective to do that. opening up the xl pipeline challenging the states to allow, and it's their call but there's a point in time when people look around and they see across the border of pennsylvania people getting to live very vibrant and hopeful lifestyle. the story of the two tioga's. tioga new york and tired of the pennsylvania and at some point in time people go do you know what? we are no longer going to allow you to hold us hostage economically by some small sliver of activists in albany. you must allow us to search for and explore and develop these resources that we have.

so economically this country can turn around very quickly. the jobs that would be created by the xl pipeline, just a massive impact economically that the energy industry, which does two things. number one that puts people to work but it also drives down the cost of power and then manufacturing comes back to america. we are already starting to see a really adjusting companies coming back. we have been in conversations for the last 12 months with some entities that want to create bid manufacturing zones, working with wholesalers that will give long-term contracts to these manufactures that come from on shore back into america to develop whatever the widget is that they have built. if you put into place these epa regulations at the president laid out last weekend it that in

its tracks. i don't believe that we have the settled science by any sense of the imagination to stop that type of economic opportunity in this country because here is one of the other byproducts. remember i am a results guy. i put these policies in place. here is one of the results of america being economically vibrant area of innovation an and -- we have been the place renovation occurs. when you look across the technology spectrum and recent history in particular the great innovation that has occurred in the world has happened in america. if you strangle the economic issue -- engine that keeps that from happening how were we going to, both with the new ways, the new technologies that allow for these issues of global warming to be impacted?

we historically, but that technology and then we sold it to the world. so we strangle our economy with these policies. there are 28, 28 coal powered plants on the books in germany alone. why would we put ourselves in the position on unsettled science regardless of what the president says. i will suggest to you that is not settled science. why would we do that and that's my question and i think it's a good one. >> i think you continue to allow the debate to go on in this president says we are not going to have this conversation and its conversation and it's settled then if you believe otherwise you are in denial. number one i am offended by that and i think most intellectually engaged folks ought to be. not that you aren't but i am

saying you are. see you are finishing a 14 year run as the ceo of texas and when he went to the state convention in fort fort worth you were very well received however when it came to the presidential -- he were pretty much eclipsed by senator cruise -- senator cruz and every poll i've seen in your own republicans cruz comes out far ahead of you. why is he so much more popular than you are being relatively new on the scene and how do you convince people outside of the state that you can make a presidential run even though you don't have the backing of people in your own state. >> i will just remind you that in 2009 i was 30 points behind senator hutchison when we started our race for governor.

polls are polls and they are a snapshot in time and i do not pay a lot of attention to polls during periods of oil in between. , i will put it that way. >> governor that may go back to the question which you mentioned as one of the key aspects in your background that would help you. as governor of texas you have had to deal with is outwardly republican legislature and by and large shares your views. if you went to washington as president you may have noticed that the situation is somewhat different from that. the structure is different and the political makeup is different. how does your experience dealing with a one-party legislature in a fact prepare you to deal in

this very complex situation we have in washington? >> well a number of things come to mind. one is that texas is not the monolithic place that you describe it as. we work with our democratic colleagues on a fairly regular basis and you know i have taken half a loaf a number of times when the alternative was no loaf. that's one of the experiences that i bring to the table and had i functioned for 14 years and is my way or the highway i wouldn't have been very successful i would suggest to you, not even with my own party or the opposition party. so i think it's hard work. i think you have got to spend a lot of time on capitol hill with members of not just the opposite

party but your own party and you all are the experts here. you have spent more time up here than i have but i would suggest to you going around the table you would tell me that this president really hasn't spent that much time on capitol hill working and trying to find any solutions to these issues and that is not how i function. i have for 14 years reached out to the democrats and some places where we could agree and work together. let me give you a great example and i don't care whose idea it is. if it's a good idea it's a good idea whether it's a democratic idea or a republican idea. i think in about 2002 that democratic judge came to me and said governor take a look at this idea about how we deal with nonviolent first-time drug offenders. it was a drug court and i looked at it and it made sense. we had this lock them up throw

away the key mentality in texas. don't be confused, we are still pretty tough on crime in texas that we took that idea and we implemented it and today not only do we have drug courts in texas, we have the chance courts, where prostitution courts. we have posted these course which we have given judges basically flexibility and saying to the individual and these are nonviolent first-time offenders. here are some options. treatment, probation, number of things than it has worked. our crime rate in texas is at the lowest level since 1968 and we shut down three persons in the last three years -- three persons. other states are building prisons. we are shutting them down. now i fall will give credit to

judge cruz in dallas for that idea. it was his idea and that is what is missing in washington these days is that we have moved to this time when i would rather get no loaf then let the other side take credit for getting a slice. from my perspective it needs to change it i think you can change but it takes a lot of work. i mean like a lot of work. you have to be willing to share the credit. so i am still hopeful that there are folks on the other side of the aisle that you can reach out to. i look back to the day when reagan and tip o'neill they go have a toddy together after work and i'm thinking that may be missing right now. >> we have got about six minutes left.

see you mentioned side issues that are distracting. can you just named three specific side issues that the party might not focus in on? >> ought not be focusing on. i think when you get distracted i'm thinking san francisco. i got asked about an issue and instead of saying you know what we need to be a really respectful and tolerant country to everybody. we get back to talking about whether you are or straight you need to be having a job. those are the focus is that i want to be involved with instead of getting, which i did and i readily admit i stepped right in. but that is a great example. if you really are going to be the party that's going to talk to everybody and say listen you

may not agree with all my positions that getting you and your family and your loved ones the opportunity to live a better life because we create a climate of this country where you are going to have a job and a good job and a good paying job. if we will do that than i think we will be successful. if we spend all of our time deflecting to the social issue or that social issue than -- i mean listen we are an incredibly diverse mosaic of a country. it goes back again to my 10th amendment believe that a lot of these issues need to be decided at the state level. social issues are a couple of them and i think our country will be happier -- if we are

economically happy and we allow people to live in the environments in which they are most comfortable we are going to be a happier country and that ought to be one of our goals as the government to help not just make our people economically sound but find ways that they can live in peace and happiness. >> we have nine or 10 people that want to ask questions. we have to end so you will have to come back sometime soon. mark. see the denam for us to the one initiative, policy initiatives over the past five and half years i president obama that you most admire or respect? see one of his major spokespeople and one of his cabinet members when eric holder talked about the programs that have been put in place in texas

dealing with criminal justice reform, allowing and i party talked about this from the standpoint of criminal justice and the drug courts. his administration standing up and saying you know what, you are doing something right there. >> that's get us to a minute and a half. mr. muddy you have about a minute and a half. >> you said we need to be physically as well as mentally prepared. you have some health issues. at this behind you? have you cleared yourself of those health issues and is there anything possibly in 2016.. >> no, i am healthy.

two things that were substandard changes for me. i quit running and i've replaced that with a whole lot of core exercises and i won't bore you with my personal fitness program but i do a lot of situps, pull-ups, crunches and planks and ride a bicycle for 45 minutes a day. an indoor bicycle. it's safer. then i stopped wearing cowboy boots. this verse is this. this is better. see those issues are behind you and the doctors told you are clear for now? >> i've had a number of scans on my back and it was a very successful surgery, very successful surgery so all the distraction that is ongoing with the sciatica is gone and that's

not to say from time to time i won't give pain in the backside. >> that's what you came here. see a couple of ibuprofen will take that away. >> thank you for coming sir. >> your welcome. thank you for having me.

see the environmental protection agency has proposed new regulations to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 30% by 2030.

the house energy and commerce subcommittee on energy and power questioned an epa official about the new rules and that tended to lessen the effects of climate change. this is just under three hours. [inaudible conversations] c. i would like to call the hearing to order this morning and today we will be discussing the proposed regulations on carbon dioxide emissions from

existing power plants which was proposed on june 2. before i recognize myself for an opening statement i want to welcome ms. mccabe. we appreciate your being with us this morning. it's also my understanding that we have a number of interns here today. some from here in the congress and i know we have quite a few also from epa so we welcome the epa as well as the interns from capitol hill. and with that i will recognize myself for a five-minute opening statement. ms. mccabe we are delighted you are here today. all of us view this as a significant and it many ways unprecedented regulation. and pursuant to the constitution

i can assure you that congress is going to do its role and look very closely at this over 600 page regulation that would dramatically change the way electricity is produced in america. and it's certainly a lot more than about coal. this is one of those regulations that will affect every person in america whether it be a manufacturing plant, an electric generator or consumer of electricity or whatever it might be. and this will be the first of many hearings on this regulation. now this proposal looks similar to the cap-and-trade legislation that the obama administration advocated for a long long time. they attempted to pass it in 2009. passed the house that was not successful in passing the senate. now the president as he has said is going to act unilaterally

antiestrogen epa to set rules and regulations that are essentially and many of us believe, the majority of us believe on this committee at least that they are unworkable and will not even have an impact on our future emissions of greenhouse gases or affect global temperatures. former epa administrator lisa jackson confirmed this when she testified before the subcommittee. we will not ultimately be able to change the amount of co2 that is accumulating in the atmosphere alone. the epa administrator gina mccarthy summed up the views of this administration when she testified before the subcommittee saying that epa does not measure whether it's regulations in the tens of billions of dollars spent by the administration will actually affect future climate change. it is simply part of an overall strategy to demonstrate the

president's global leadership. so, these actions appear to be about removing coal as an energy source in america and promoting president obama's leadership perception in the international community. nothing on the president's unwillingness to listen to the american people this proposal raises serious policy and legal questions. epa has never been this extreme under 111 the map before. instead of the states establishing a performance standard for units within the source category epa is not dictating to the states the level of protections that each state must make so statewide rather than individual units. in essence they are requiring the states to alter the way in which electricity utility

systems make power. in and our experience with oversight of this agency proposed rule rarely changes significantly. we are talking about a proposed rule that has just been introduced a couple of weeks ago that our experiences that even after the comment period that rule becomes final. the original clean air act respected the appropriate role for state and local governments. in fact the statute becomes -- begins with a finding that pollution is the primary responsibility of state and local governments. this policy is also reflected in the language in section 111t which has previously been used by the epa in a very limited and very deferential manner. ..

>> >> committed america to certain emissions without discussing with congress or with job creation. we welcome this opportunity to talk to you in depth

about this proposal and take you for being with us. i would like to recognize the gentleman from california. >> don june 2nd and the illustrator mccarthy release the centerpiece of the president's climate action plan proposed carbon pollution limits on power plants. is time historians may identify this as the a moment american but serious about climate change. we know carbon pollution is accumulating in the atmosphere worming the climate we are experiencing the results of this in every part of the country in real subtle power plants are the largest source of carbon pollution but yet today there are no limits at all

of the amount o# carbon pollution they can emit. there are many cost-effective ways to reduce pollution in the proposed rules that they can operate more efficiently. production can shift from the oldest coal-fired plants to the modern gas plants. retirements of nuclear power plants can be postponed. investments can be made in clean renewable energy we cannot contribute to become more energy efficient. the path outlined in the proposal is the path to cleaner air, better health than to say for a climate and a stronger economy. if we make these investments with cleaner energy the united states can be the world's leader in the industry of the future. that is not just a

perception, that could be a reality. but he would never know that from the house republicans they get the same scare tactics that opponents of clean air have always used the false a few industry have a credibility problem when it comes to claims about the economic impacts of the clean air act progress has been in congress almost 40 years in industry has made to stake claims that clean air regulations would shut down businesses and drive prices skyward to cripple economic growth than they have been wrong every time. this morning and released a fact sheet with the inaccurate claims and i ask this be made part of the record. >> without objection.

>> in 1990 when congress last amended the clean air act utilities underestimated the cost of acid rain controls under captain trade that we adopted which has been tremendously successful. they projected allowance prices of 1,000 to $1,500 the actual price was less than $150. ford motor company testified that "we do not have the technology to comply'' not even with technology on the horizon. in fact, the industry began making vehicles that mitt the new standards in just three years. dupont testified their provisions to protect the ozone there would cause severe economic and social disruption in or that the

requirements for the reformulated gasoline would cause a major supply disruption. these predictions never happened. today house republicans claim the power plant will cause a surge of electricity bills to end coal use in america. this is just the same old scare tactic. we heard it is not enough to deal with the climate change problem. not in and of itself but you don't refuse to take a step in that direction because you have not taken all the steps yet. we have air pollution reduction at the state and local level. that is the way it has always worked. under the epa rules. the clean power plant was reasonable and achievable

and gives the states the flexibility how to achieve the reduction. the goal of state specific and cost-effective to show public support by a large majority it is time for this committee to stop the partisan obstruction my republican colleagues of they have the better idea to protect our clinic for children and grandchildren they should speak up. to just say no to change ingenuity to condemn the next generation through droughts and wildfires and extreme storms is not an option. if you have another idea let's hear it. there is no problem we should not do anything at all. >> your time is expired but i may respectfully say we did present of a bill that

passed the house of representatives with of large margin. >> mr. chairman if you will yield but that said the epa may not act. >> no. said they could set the standard of existing plans in congress said the effective date also set a standard for new plants but we did submit a proposal it is waiting for action now in the senate. views said we are not submitting a proposal that was one of them. we feel quite confident. the energy emissions are the lowest today than in 20 years and the mansion with a field bill would make it even better. at this time the gentleman from michigan is not here so i will recognize mr. barton

if he does not utilize all of his time. >> does the chairman now with their other members? >> i will recognize the gentleman and from texas. >> thank you. mr. chairman and members of committee and to our witness one could argue the audacity of this proposal is so breathtaking in and of itself it is a health hazard because it literally takes my breath away. with what they have proposed in the case of my state, if taxes were to implement this in its entirety between 2012 and 2013 we have to reduce co2 emissions by 41%. 41%. we also in terms of the national total have to

reduce co2 emissions that would be 25 percent of the national total. i interest and texas is unique because we are creating jobs we still have an economy that is growing and in fact, over all of the net new jobs created in the last 10 years were created in texas. most people think that is a good thing but the administration says that is a bad thing so it is punitive in its nature and as the chairman has pointed out there are no false claims nobody is claiming this improves the of public health which is the number one goal of the clean air act and nonet environmental benefit even if it was a global warming believer which i am not, this does not allege any net benefits

to a changing global warming. what it is is an exercise of political arrogance that the epa has the power and even that is debatable under the clean air act of the power plants currently in operation regulated under section 112 of the clean air act. says claims we could regulate the same power plants better already regulated under section 111d is skeptical but i believe it will be overturned on that alone. my good friend from california with his opening statement referred to a carbon pollution but actually what we are regulating is carbon dioxide which i am creating as i speak to and which every

person in this room is creating an issue brief. i don't know, adds a few breeds but i don't think everybody is a mobile source polluter. may be the stance of the obama administration but not mine so calling co2 to be pollution does not make it so. i could call mr. waxman a conservative but that does not make him a conservative or he could call may a liberal. 22 seriously you review this proposal as the subcommittee does or the full committee does we will come to the conclusion this is more of a political proposal that an environmental proposal. i point out texas has reduced co2 emissions from

the 2012 baseline 41 percent of louisiana's 50 florida 28 pennsylvania 25 arizona 45. oklahoma 40 illinois 20. new york 49%. alabama a 24%. arkansas 46%. what is glaring about this list is the top 10 states to stayed with a the greatest population base is the los angeles basin in california is not even on the top-10 list and there the number one state with population. i could go on and on file they have 29 seconds. we have great respect for the epa i voted for those

amendments in the '90s. this proposal does not comport with maya understanding of the clean air act when we pass them in this committee over 20 years ago. with that i yield back. >> we recognize the gentleman from chicago for his five minute opening statement. >> thank you for this important hearing on the epa as part of president obama is climate action plan to cut mitigate the assessment of climate change this will allow the epa to use the existing authority to control carbon pollution from existing fossil fuel power plants. and imus say this could not

be more untimely as these power plants account for the largest source of greenhouse gases in this country. and they are responsible for the total gas emissions. that no current amendments of carbon pollution. this new proposal seeks to cut emissions by 30 percent compared with the levels by 2030 and gives states great flexibility when implementing the rules based on the existing infrastructure and policies. wallaby hair from industry groups -- while we hear from

industry groups the newly released report from the omb contradicts that claim. we know that the 34 major epa rules issued between 2003 and 2013 at the benefits have greatly exceeded the cost in fact, the rules issued under the bush administration the clean air interstate rule issued 2005 and the particle pollution rule issued 2007 with the highest estimated benefits and more importantly the science is settled. climate change is real and

negatively impacting their lives and livelihood of the american people. greasy extreme weather events from flooding on the coast to drought and crop losses and the planes and in the midwest. that is why mr. chairman for former republicans administrators with president nixon and reagan with the climate change rule just yesterday as george to view bush source as the

administrator christine todd whitman called the subcommittee "the issue has been settled. the epa does have the authority, the law says so the supreme court said so twice. for that matter i now believe should be put to rest. the american people expect their leaders to address the serious threats not only to our environment the national security even the reagin epa minister said the science on this matter told the same

panel that other greenhouse gases are warming the atmosphere. we know it is contributing to more than 1.5 degrees fahrenheit rise in temperature. if congress refuses to listen to what the american people to man that the very least to do its job then they will go a long to address this dire issue per garment forward to hearing from our witnesses today. i yield back. >> the time is expired. this time i will recognize is ms. mccabe to get her views on this issue and as i said in the beginning we look forward to your

testimony and the opportunity to ask you questions. you are recognized for five minutes. >> the key chairman winfield and members of the subcommittee at 84 they opportunity to testify on the recently issued a clean power plant proposal. climate change is the greatest challenge of our time and already threatens human health and welfare and the economic well-being and if unchecked will have a devastating impact on the united states and planet. the science is clear the risk is clear and the high cost of inaction are not clear -- artillery must act so that is why obama laid out the climate action plan and administrators signed the clean power plan to lead the world in our global

climate fight. power plants of the largest source of carbon dioxide emission accounting for one-third of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions while the united states has limits in place for arsenic arsenic, mercury, and particle pollution there are no national limits on carbon pollution levels that will cut hundreds of millions of tons the other harmful pollutants from existing power plants in together they will provide important health benefits to more vulnerable citizens including our children. the clean power plant as a critical step forward built on advice and information for states and cities and businesses and utilities and thousands of people about the actions taken to reduce carbon emissions the plan claims to have energy waste

by first using a national framework for achievable state specific goals to cut the the megawatt power and empowers the state to have their own customized past to meet their goals reno called a natural gas played a significant role in this plan does not change that but builds on action already under way to increase efficiency and pave the pass for more conventional fuels. the epa stakeholder outreach was unprecedented. starting last summer we held sessions around the country with a broad range of stakeholders to talk with every single space now the second phase we already had dozens of calls the stake

holders and the more formal process by for this stakeholders for pop -- general and put this is a proposal and we need input from the public. that is why we having caged state utilities to get feedback. looking at where states are today and followed her they're going. each state is different cities path can be different stemming from where states are taking a vantage of right now under the proposal is considering jobs and communities in the transitioning energy world allows enough time with the rule is vital to compliance to make the right investments to share reliability.

our plan does not just get states more option but entrepreneurs more options to unleash the market forces that drive investment a greater power and bow carbon technology. when states meet their goals there'd be 30% less carbon pollution across the u.s. when compared to the 2005 levels. metric tons of carbon dioxide taken out of here. we will cut pollution that causes smog by 25 percent the first year these go into effect we will not avoid 100,000 asthma attacks and heart attacks in the numbers go up from there. in 2030 the clean power plan will have benefits up to $90 million and that means for every dollar we invest families will see $7 of health benefits because energy efficiency is said to

a cost effective strategy we predicted in 2013 the average electricity bill will be 8% cheaper. obama action plan gives a road map to meet the pressing challenge of the climate to promote clean energy solutions to capitalize on innovation to drive economic growth including coal and natural gas. the targets that can be achieved using measures that they choose themselves to suit their own needs the epa looks forward to the discussion and i look forward to your questions. >> thank-you ms. mccabe and neglected to mention she is acting assistant administrator at epa's we do appreciate you being here. of recognize myself for five minutes of questions and statements. i notice ms. mccabe we have

that question period we also make statements so i probably did of little bit of both. i wanted to read a statement from the coordinating lead article his name is dr. schneider of course, that is the international panel on climate change recognized as though world leader. but he made this statement on one hand we're ethically bound to the scientific method promising to tell the truth to include all the doubts and hang caveat. but we're human beings and want a better world but we must have media support. we must offer a scenario to

make dramatic statements and do not mention any scientific doubt then concluded by saying we decide what must me done to be most effective to get the message out. i say that because you were positive in your statement and it is our responsibility to raise doubts the dr. schneider is not the only lead coordinator. others have said we need to make dramatic political pressure on political peters. others said we have the worst case model serial but we have to focus to see what is really going on. my first question i would like to ask is the cpi is --

to pay corporate taxes and regulation under section 111d my understanding that you issued regulations under five occasions. now 111d traditionally has focused always on standards for specifics and it has never then attempted to do it in a state wide way. sets a standard to be achieved only statewide what president is there for this type of standard setting that has never been done before? >> there were six regulations issued under 111d with the clean air retro role in 2005 and to

that took an approach for utilities to trade among themselves to reduce emissions. thank completely within the four corners of 111d to identify what has been adequately demonstrated for the particular sector it is a fully integrated system that encompasses the kinds of technologists -- technologies and we know that because that is what we've heard. to reduce this from fossil q0 industrial plants. >> but basically you are setting up renewable mandates in setting the

efficiency of the coal plant , determining the natural gas capacity what capacity must be run and setting consumer demand going further than you ever have before in my opinion. >> we're not setting any mandates. >> but it is then the regulations limit their not mandates but the states have flexibility. >> they have to meet the four standards. >> they do not. >> but they have to meet your target. >> overall target but they can get there however they choose. >> i only have 15 seconds. one of the real concerns that we have we cannot build the new power plant because the technology is not there to make it feasible. the plant in mississippi is

a $5 billion cost overrun in europe they have shut down natural gas plants because prices cannot compete against russia but they're building new coal-fired plants and imported 53% of our exports of they have the flexibility to build new plants but we don't. is that fair to the american people? >> i disagree. rethink new coal plants can be built and they're going forward. >> rabil recognize the gentleman from illinois. >> i want to commend you ms. mccabe the epa and your colleagues the way you have approached this proposal.

you have been fairly open in this process and from what i hear today there would be more and more opportunities for states and stakeholders to hear their voices and a look at this proposal to have positive commentary on this proposal. ion from the midwest. way hagel of of higher pollution is starting out at

the gates but we have more opportunities explain to me and others in more detail how you develop the state's rules for the midwest and different situations in different states are reflected in the individual states roles. >> that is of very could question that we have been getting a lot. :back to the fundamental approach to take every state former it started when of allow this things is please don't do the of one size fits all the everyone has to do meet the demand and recognized states are in different places with the energy max so that is the

approach that we took so reluctant the power sector what people were already doing and what could be done but we found for that were the most prominent and promising to satisfy emission reduction. let's have the coal and gas plants to be efficient and we found that is being made across the country. what else are they doing? they're using gas plants more than coal plants but that results in less carbon. that was number two.

number three was states all across the country are looking at increasing the energy from renewable sources and that is say positive trend being pursued by a lot of people in of that was the third element. fourth, that a great interest across the country in almost every state to employ on the demand side surveyed now there is many, many ways to waste less energy and it is important to bring carr been down as well as other pollutants. we have a national framework that said a reasonable and moderate expectations for each of those for recognizing those were not the only things that states could do. we took the most recent information of the power sector in 2012 to apply those for building blocks to

each state. that generated the car bin intensity rate and this is what we think are reasonable to achieve. >> thank you so very much. my constituents when they heard about this proposed rule was going on was the price of electricity. with friends are engaged in fear mongering with the cost by low income constituents. so how does that affect the electricity bills for my constituents? to read the first and most important is each state is in charge of designing its

own plants. number one, they both of the opportunity to take those credit considerations to build those into their plan but also e.p.a. cannot predict what every state will do. and we do include those numbers. with the increase of energy efficiency implemented as a result of the rules that we predict will go down because people will be using less energy than the price of electricity will go up but the bills will come down. i also know that the low income families are the most

at risk for the adverse effects for carbon pollution and climate change jinmen gravely and it achieves those benefits. >> your time is expired. >> with the no energy policy a authority now placing itself under the of public commissions on director generation in issues not to mention other agencies. last month the d.c. circuit ruled without peer in a specific grant of jurisdiction the federal government cannot regulate areas of electricity from the federal power act to the state's lead generation interstate transmission and.

but what it calls flexibility to mandating efficiency are part of the interstate generation and transmission and distribution matters reserve by the federal power act for the state's. for third to use these specifically the jurisdiction over intrastate matters? where is the site you can refer to? >> this is not an energy plan but the rule done within the four corners of 111d that looks to reductions of the missions no state is required to enter into any particular agreement. >> you don't have a specific site?

>> neither toe or ferc can say had to operate their system. >> that is not what the rule does it is a pollution control rule. >> assuming you did have that legal authority can identify all federal and state agencies with the systems under the proposal? >> we have been talking to manet agencies but state government as they always are that are responsible for putting the plans together.

>> looking at the budget been taking a reduction with the agreed upon amounted a bipartisan way, the cr passed last january, you identified at the federal bubble to conduct this review of oversight? >> and that epa will active in the traditional role. >> but you have the hammer to go after them so will there be new folks engaged? >> we think the states will take a leadership role. >> what if they don't? i heard the west virginia and governor say that every

utility in his state would be closed. every coal-fired facility in his state will be closed. >> again i think states will want to be in the lead. >> i think i know where they want to be. >> i would suggest the plan does not require that all coal plants be closed in that stage or in any state. >> i yield back. >> at this time i will recognize the gentleman from california. >> doesn't the epa under the clean air act set standards the states have touche made that affect their energy resources within that state? to make to the extent that addresses pollution. >> so this is not

unprecedented. it is not. >> did they ask for a greater flexibility are that they should tell them what to do? >> favor arguing for a of greater flexibility for those tools. >> that there are a number of ways to reject that carbon pollution coming from the power plants if it is up to the states have to do it. this is not a mandate from washington how to accomplish but a mandate from washington to achieve the goal. >> that is correct.

>> with respect with the clean air act that is right to. >> it does not achieve the goals it seems every one of those is incorrect it comes up with the argument it has say bad impact on the economy to people make the claim that will help the economy? >> looking at a respective in packs will also heard from those that were moving

forward them realigned in the proposal with the additional investment with the creation of jobs it pursuing energy efficiency. >> put into the record of all the quotations of the last 40 years of the industries that said they could not achieve what the epa was asking them to under the law passed by congress on a bipartisan basis. they cannot achieve without closing down or suffering dire economic consequences. rehearings exaggerated claims of job loss or exaggerated electric cost. these are domesday claims that we have heard before. and in the paper we put out the showed how these claims

were made and how interactive they were. so to give us guidance if we have to choose between clean air or strong economies. >> and to the history of the clean air act shows we do not. that the united states says a global leader of control technology and energy efficiency and we expect that continue with this program as well. >> we heard a claim on the other side that this epa proposed rule would have no impact on public health. can you give us your view? >> we disagree. as i noted the rule of a 25% reduction of suit -- of soot

and smog pollution as well as carbon pollutants they affect public health to reduce those taking them of the air will it improve global health stibnite this just isn't a warming plan it to have been an impact on the health of people of the power plants? train wreck that's right. those are important. benefits. >> it makes sense thank is flexibility in the chiefs' the goal to encourage a entrepreneur ship with that technology to make arrests of peter to accomplish these goals. i yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from illinois for five minutes. >> it is great to be here.

>> i am sorry. mr. burton was on the best first. >> i am glad mr. waxman was year because a's are a the will live job losses i invite you to come by to lose their jobs under flexible system controlled by the state in the state made the decision to close the mine with told hundred workers so talk about the debate we're trying to save our jobs in this country and the president promised to make electricity generation and by call so extensive he would drive that out of our market. promises to the "san francisco chronicle" well-documented use following upon his promise of those of us in the coal

regions of this country are under attack can we have to deal with this with a constituency and the debate. that is why there is a lot of the motion as you can imagine also the nuclear portfolio there is some curious things about this rule that creates a problem based on the states and had clean burning nuclear power or generators that have shut down but still have the standard by which they cannot meet to incentivize the nuclear power if if we are in to clean air or climate change we should be incentivize. for nuclear reactors premature to close one was the plant in wisconsin.

when you offset the reduction target it did so based on the riches of the production in 2012 the year it was still operating. he were calculating your reductions a year with a nuclear plant operating with no car bin emissions. that facility closed now that state and others that have nuclear power i have one of the largest in the country is disproportionately art -- harm to by these rules. extremely. sold wisconsin has to compensate for the loss to reduce even further than the target. is that analysis correct? >> let me explain. >> quickly. >> this addresses the fossil fuel sector. that is our responsibility

under 111d. our job is to identify the best system of reduction in for fossil fuel plants not including nuclear. in 2012 looking at the emissions of beach state from fossil generation then what that reduction was from a national basis to results in 2013 we recognize states rely on nuclear power that is very good. >> but we disenfranchise those that have the nuclear option. >> in fact, we give them credit for some portion of nuclear in their compliance. >> but to meet the standard they have to have more cuts when the plant is closed because you base that off the in the shins of 2012 but they generate portfolio was based on a nuclear plant that was operating.

>> it is not an energy plan for the state. >> that is the problem for the rate payers. because if they have zero emissions drops off whenever the base loaded as they have to make that up or the cost will go up. we're not taking into consideration with the car bin debate zero remittance. we should be incentivizing fat. >> we are. any state that uses zero emissions generation to replace coal-fired or to meet their deeds absolutely they will be able to count the with the compliance plan to move them to the goal. >> i appreciate that answers derek what happens if the epa does not approve the state plan? directive save provision of language we are not in a

position to approve but the epa will move forward. >> then you will have a better one. >> we are not focused on that right now. >> but that is the rule. >> what will that looks like. >> we have not come anywhere near. >> and would suggest you start looking into that. i yield back my time. >> i recognize the gentleman from kentucky for five minutes. >> last fall administrator mccarthy met with our governor to discuss the proposed rule and afterwards kentucky has a framework with recommendations to develop a rule to reduce carbon pollution cost effectively while hoping that flexibility minder standing is epa follows

almost all of the of recommendations. >> i believe so. >> that allowed states to have measures such as energy efficiency rather than forcing states to reduce emissions of any specific plant and recognizing differences and to allow compliance options as you said. but here is another example of how the flexibility can help. the american recovery investment act established a rebate program to spur development of appliances. general electric does the major manufacturing facility and because of that program were able to bring in an refrigerators from mexico to create hundreds of jobs in the process.

does the proposed rule allows states to take credit through initiatives like this one? mimics certainly any program that encourages his sore incentivizes war provides for ways to save energy which means last -- less carbon going up the stack is credible. >> we're glad you agree that is a good example how to create flexibility and help consumers save money. i am glad the chairman at mentioned waxman murky in his opening remarks because i would was one of the group of 10 or 12 representatives from states our heavily dependent on car bin energy who went to the leadership and basically said we could

not support the bill was originally drafted and it would be devastating for consumers and they made changes. before i voted for the bill i talked to all major consumers of energy in my district with general electric being one, a ford ford, the university of louisville, of the school system, ups and not one of those users objected to that proposed law. talking to our utility company to ask the impact on residential customers and they said rethink after ted years the average user rates will go up 50 -- 15% in

don't do anything else. if they pay $200 per month they'll pay 230 in 10 years so i felt comfortable i could photon that knowing it is minimal decorative impact on my constituents. i am glad he compared now to back them. another bill the republicans killed but to get to to the manufacturing businesses objective to move out of the states because i have not heard i have a lot of them so my question is to you for it has almost day couple

billion dollars. i can i just picked up and they've of the rates in the short term it is about 3% it seems hard to logically predict of 3% rise of the manufacturing companies rates would be enough of the financial disincentive to pick up a major investment is that part of the calculation? >> energy efficiency is good for everybody and good for business. we although that. the increases of electricity prices are modest in the short term and then go down over the long term. i think business as well take that into account. >> the gentleman from texas.

>> am i not correct administrator ms. mccabe that this proposal that we are discussing today is not required by the clean air act? >> no. it is required when we issue 111d standard for a sector to go forward with that 111d standard. >> a think that is wrong. it is allowed dido's see any authority that demands these proposals i do except there is a supreme court case and the presidential finding of and determined to allow the clean air act to be used but i don't see where this has to happen. day you agree with that? >> respectfully no. >> and i was the general counsel of the epa to back

that up and send that to the committee. my a understanding what you are attempting to propose is directed by presidential speech dated june 25, 2013 called the climate action plan that has been followed up by a presidential memo where some of these requirements were directed to the epa to implement. i would assume you are aware of this memo? >> i am. >> can you tell me what the legal force of the presidential memo is? >> the memo and climate action implant laid down a series of steps within the epa and other agencies to move forward. the president gave us a schedule with the rulemaking

in suggested we undertake those within our authority under the clean air act. . . the decisions were made before the state of texas' even had an opportunity to comment that they had a memo or a checklist almost after the fact.

are you aware of that? >> i am not sure what you are referring to, congressman. we had many conversations with states, both individually and in groups. of course, this is a proposal. we are still taking comment. i have had a least multiple hours of conversation with states since june 2nd. so there have been lots of upper today to talk. >> just as an example, are you aware of the fact that if texas coast down every existing fossil fuel generation plant in the state, every one, coal-fired, natural gas in the state of texas that it would still not meet the new proposed espn's. are you aware? >> the plan relies on states implementing -- >> i'm not asking -- i am asking if you are aware of that in the state of texas. if we shut down every cold-fired and natural gas plant in the

state , everyone, we cannot meet these suggested goals. >> i have not done that calculation. >> well, i would suggest that you do with. taxes would end up with a new source performance standard that is below the standard of epa. the epa standard is 1,000 pounds of co2 per million megawatts of production. for texas to actually meet with that epa is suggesting they should it we would have to go down to 791, which is 21% below your own standard. you know, the renewal will standard for taxes is based upon renewal energy portfolio for kansas. i am not anti kansas. but chances electricity demands and generation is 10 percent of the state of texas.

texas leads the nation in reno will generation, and texas produces three times as much energy by real ball as the next three states combined. >> texas has immense opportunities. >> and we get no credit for that in your proposal, none. none. >> the state does actually. >> well, the state of texas tells me they don't. >> we are happy to have further conversations with the state of texas about the goal. >> the gentleman's time has expired. extremely undecided on this proposal. >> at this time i would like to recognize the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for coming here today. you mentioned that there is reduction in energy cost family bills by the year 2013. can you elaborate and give us some idea of what the reduction estimates look like?

>> sure. so as the state's employment plans, we expect a large reliance upon demand-side and energy efficient measures that will reduce the number of kilowatts a family needs to consider the course of a month. so when we project that out we showed that it is about an 8% decrease in a family spill. >> so an american family might look to something almost like a 10% reduction in the monthly energy bill by 2030 as a result of this proposed rule? >> that is what the proposed will predict based upon our forecast. of course each state, as i said, will do its own plan. >> that is not too bad. would you please describe the out reached that epa conducted to the various states and give us an idea of the magnitude of that effort. >> we started last august while before we even put pen to paper on mobile.

in my experience, decades working first from the state side, i am not aware of epa ever doing this kind of out reach. and it was broad-ranging with all stakeholders. in particular with respect to states we met with states and groups. they have regional organizations we met with those. our regional offices convened groups of state officials both from the environmental and energy side as well as other stakeholders and utilities. >> were those states cooperative , where did they stand aside and give a, you know, a less cooperative stance? >> i would say there was and continues to be great interest from state officials on talking with us about the program. >> would you describe the reduction of conventional pollution, it's projected impact on health, and the monetary impact of health benefits from

these rules if implemented? >> as co benefits of reducing carbon there will be reductions in particle pollution, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur dioxide which have immediate and localized as well as regional health benefits we predict about a 25% reduction of those pollutants compared to what they would otherwise be in 23 without this rule. that will result in reduced asthma attacks, reduced the emergency room visits, reduced best days of school in the millions of dollars of health benefits to the american people. >> is there any way to talk about the return on investment that might have to be made by the different states? >> we do show that for every dollar invested there is a $7 return in public health benefit as a result of the program. >> would these be made by states or the private entities

involved? >> they would be made by the private entities, the businesses investing in technology, investing in new workers to employ energy efficiency around the state with all of those benefits that they bring. >> well, you know, i understand the four pillars of this are increasing operating efficiency of the different plants. what could be more reasonable than that? using gas-fired plants that 75 percent of capacity which is a good idea. in fact, gas is more affordable now than many other forms. using renewable energy applicable locally to the states and using nuclear as long as possible and encouraging user efficiency -- end user efficiency. these are all pretty reasonable in my mind. i do not see how that would be viewed, any of those, as too intrusive.

are there other measures that can be taken that would also help reduce pollution? >> those are so reasonable that they are being done in a widespread manner. there are other things that states or utilities can't think about doing, fuel switching, look at transmission systems to see whether there is leakage that can be tightened up. there are a number of other things that folks can do. >> the last thing is the flexibility. i understand there is a great deal of flexibility that will make it a lot easier to implement these proposed rules. >> yes. that is right. >> i yield back. >> recognize the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you very much for being with us today. we greatly appreciate it. last week the governor in ohio signed a piece of legislation

setting energy costs being a concern and put a 2-year freeze on ohio renewable energy mandate that the state imposed on itself consider the hypothetical situation going into the future. assume that the ohio renewable energy standard was included in its state implementation plan and to comply with the epa existing plan will i see also that that epa proved that. in that scenario, with the state of ohio remain its discretion to freeze the program in order to protect the levels? >> the state would continue to have flexibility if circumstances changed to replace one measure with another, and the proposal is out the process by which a state could do that. there is opportunity for states to adjust plans. >> let me ask, what the state have to get that approval from

the epa? >> if a state wants to replace one measure with another, they would come to the epa and say, this is what we're doing. >> how does the process overall work, and how much time we take for state to get that and limited? >> well, we work with states all the time in circumstances where they wished to it changed their state implementation plans. we work with the state to prioritize those actions and try to meet the state's needs in terms of timing. >> also, with ohio be subject to clean air act penalties if they did not obtain epa approval before making changes and implementation at that time? >> i do not believe so, congressman. the provisions in the clean air act for penalties are pretty clearly laid out, and they're is a clear process for when they

are invoked. in any circumstance like this we would work with the state to make sure they could do what they needed to. >> to be on the safe side, if we could get that delayed -- relayed back to the committee. >> sure. >> a little bit about ohio. we get about 75 percent of our generation and the state of ohio from coal. in my district it is even higher than at. end up in my area of the state i also have a very unique situation, and a lot of electric co-ops. so how would the epa clean power plant avoid putting these small co-ops at a competitive disadvantage, especially their customers. in my district we look at who they are serving and you're talking about a lot -- it is unique.

6,000 manufacturing jobs, and large farming industry. how do you put them not at a competitive disadvantage under this -- under the clean power plant? again, you have farmers, small businesses, a lot of retirees. what happens? how do we make sure they're not at a competitive disadvantage? >> this is where the design of section 111d and the design of the plan shows its value. it will be up to the state of ohio to design a plan that works for the state of ohio. i come from indiana, and so it is very similar in terms of the types of -- >> i hate to interrupt. you come in from indiana, you know of few years ago when the president was talking about his cap and tax plan when ohio was 78% generation of coal. indiana is around 90%. they are really in harm's way. excuse me for interrupting.

>> i actually do not think they are in harm's way. the way we designed the plan is respectful of the fact that states like ohio and indiana rely heavily upon coal. they have different opportunities then states with a different energy makes and can design a plan that addresses concerns related to a small world co-ops, public power, particular concerns. this plan works. it does not require any particular plant to meet in a particular emission rate. and it looks at commissions over a long averaging time which is another way in which the plan gives flexibility for the state to be able to adjust to its particular needs, manufacturing community, rural community, cities, whatever the particular needs are. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my time has expired. >> at this time i recognize the

gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a little different texas accent. my colleague from texas, epa does have the ability to regulate co2 under the clean air act. the supreme court ruled that the level we are discussing today will have significant impact for decades on industry in my area, houston. climate change being one of the most important we should face as congress. epa has constructed a firm mark the provide states with flexibility and opportunity and is important to remember those four building blocks are not the exhaustive list. the four building blocks and areas for success, states are allowed to develop a plan that matches the needs of their communities. as i said before, the epa is legally justified in regulating congress. i believe as elected officials we have the duty to act on

behalf of our constituents to regulate balloons. again, i am sure you are aware epa have had issues. for more than three years epa was irresponsible for issuing ghg permits which caused significant problems. just this last week the governor of texas along with six other governors and a letter to the president asking him to dispose of the carbon rule. it is my hope he will not go down that path again. my first question having said that, can you explain to the committee what concerns your office have received from a stakeholder groups including states as you prepared their rules, and what did the epa due to mitigate concerns and obviously for my part of the country i appreciate if texas had input and how you respond to it. >> we heard a number of specific things from steaks and -- states and stakeholders. states want to be able to, for

example, do their own plans or the ability to join with other states for a multistate plan. our proposal allows for that. they were concerned about the time to develop a plan and achieve the car reduction. our proposal response to both of those by giving an extended compliance time frame of the way out to 2030 with a long glide path, but also in response to their first concern, how long they have to submit a plan, we have provided for either a one or 2-year extension for states to get additional time to put plans together if needed. another thing we heard from states is, allow them the flexibility to weather craft their plan around a rate-based approach or a mass tons of carbon in it approaches that is

the way it wanted to manage. >> i have reviewed the rule. epa has estimated with the majority of carbon reduction from the state of texas would come from building blocks, utilize utilization of the existing natural-gas compound cycle power plants. with the other additional reductions calculated under building blocks three and 45 and you may know texas has more wind generation than any other state, the first state in the nation to pass legislation establishing energy resource standards. my concern is epa has proposed texas is capable of meeting an even higher renewable energy and energy efficiency demands. the studies conducted included by epa to meet these demands. stating these estimates are subject to significant limitations including can. my next question, are epa estimates and the proposed rule

expected to overcome these limitations and barriers? >> the estimations we use for each building block are based upon a national framework. they are not individualized. of course, the state, as i said, has the ability to apply them in any way that it wishes. if there are market barriers to the additional renewable energy efficiencies the state can look to other more reasonable, more appropriate measures for them to employ. >> i only have 30 seconds. epa estimates to building blocks are expected to raise prices. further estimates that 90 percent of the energy efficiency comes from ratepayers what affect do you think these prices increase will have on consumer behavior? will consumers be more inclined to maintain status quo as opposed to paying more? the last thing, the studies that epa is relying upon, are they

available to the public so before the close of the public, the time? >> all of our technical support documents in the studies are available in the docket which i believe opened yesterday when the rule was published. but the answer to your first question is that, we have seen in states that have very proactive and forward-looking energy efficiency programs, that they are quite successful and that measures did it implemented and consumers to save money. >> thank you. >> at this time recognize the gentleman from louisiana. >> thank you. i will first make a statement and ask questions. when you say utility bills will go down by 8% it reminds me of candidate obama saying that under his health care plan insurance premiums would decrease by $2,500 per family.

of course, now there are up $20,500 per family. when you say you will give states flexibility it reminds me of, if you like your doctor you can keep it. i know of a family losing their home that refinanced the mortgage. it is actually paying less, but the cost of food, gasoline, insurance is all going up. they have been denied the economic benefits of projects like keystone exxon pipeline which now canada will ship or oil to china to create chinese jobs. and you want to raise their utility prices. you may say that conservation will bring net decrease, but let's be clear. let's not mislead. the reality is poor people, lower income are less able to invest in conservation measures. this is going to be able side on other families ability to do things such as keep their homes.

there has been a lot of -- this administration has raised two and our level misleading the american people by doing certain things know it -- manipulating statistics, but let's at least be honest about it. if they're is a decision to invest in kentucky or mexico and we are raising the input cost of energy, we are going to tell them toward investing elsewhere. is that a fair statement? >> there are many things -- >> just a fair statement, if one of your key inputs as energy costs, and you are raising that cost -- we cannot compete on labor. energy costs have been lower. the reality is now you wish to increase energy costs. that said, doesn't it just makes sense that we will tell them toward doing further economic development elsewhere? >> i don't think i can agree with that statement. >> some now at some point we

have to be honest with each other. if you say this is not an energy plan and you are not saying in the state has to cut down coal usage or decrease, but the only way to achieve this goal wish if they not you will come in with your own plan is to eliminate coal-fired plants. you may say you don't demand something, but the inherent nature of the rule, the only way it can be reached without the federal government squeezing would be to shut down coal. do you deny that? >> i do, actually, congressman. the plan predicts in 2030 coal will provide 30% -- >> we have something based upon an analysis of washington state which has to have a 90% decrease in their use of carbon. the only way they did it is to completely shut down coal. you may say washington state does not have this mandate, but the only way they get there is to shut down coal.

again, i feel like their is a lack of openness. it has the epa examined the ripple effects of this? >> the epa has focused on the impacts of the power sector. >> throughout the economy the users of the power, the ford motor plant -- louisiana has $90 billion in announced construction projects involving polymers, and petrochemical, gas and liquid, jobs that will create, industry that will create great-paying jobs for working americans. have you analyze the impact of this regulation upon the $90 billion of announced expansion in manufacturing? >> no. >> these jobs are on the bubble. more families will lose their homes, and you have not done the math. if you call me skeptical, i will join mr. borrow in being incredibly skeptical. what else do i have?

sorry if i seem aggravated. i keep thinking of families losing their home. prices going up, and now we're told that the electricity bill will go down 8%. by the way, a coal-fired plant supplies electricity. this administration is so busy saving the earth they're willing to sacrifice american families. i am sorry to be so aggravated, but i keep thinking of them. i cannot imagine the insensitivity of this president and administration. i yield back. >> at this time recognize the gentle lady from california for five minutes. >> thank you. may i ask permission to include in the record a letter from several public health organizations in favor of this ruling? >> without objection. >> thank you for holding this hearing. i thank you for being here today and your hard work on these

clean power tools. climate changes a critical issue and demands action. facebook.com/booktv paulo rules, i believe, are a major step forward. climate change is already having such a wide range of impact on weather, food and water supply, ocean, health, air quality, and so much more. i am particularly concerned about climate change impact on public health. epa analysis shows there will be significant health benefits from implementing these clean power tools. as i understand it, these benefits, on two levels. this is what i would like to ask for confirmation on. the primary benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change and the co benefits of reducing emissions of other harmful air pollutants like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter. to you from this is accurate?

>> that's correct. >> some have criticized the methodology used to evaluate these and accused epa of double counting. can you respond at this point? how did epa calculate the health benefits of this rule? >> when we look at the health benefits of any given proposal we build those on top of the health benefits that have already accrued from rules and are ready on the books. we do not include those benefits these are all added to it on top of that, incremental. >> opponents frequently cite the cost of compliance as a reason to not pursue the. of course, we have to a knowledge there will be compliance costs. there will also be significant benefit, and i would like to argue that the benefits are particularly for children and families. can you add to our discussion here about how the health benefits compare to the

estimated compliance costs, in other words, the cost-benefit ratio. >> again, the cost that will be incurred by the rules ultimately will be decided by how the states choose to go forward with their plans, but in our assessment we estimate 7-$9 billion cost compared to up to $90 billion health benefit, and in particular with respect to the health benefits, each dollar spent will generate $7 health benefits. i should note in response to that and partial response to the previous question that state programs that will be used to implement these fees, many of them build in assistance to low income ratepayers. and those are the citizens and families most at risk and most vulnerable to health impacts we

see from air pollution and climate change. >> it is clear that these clean power rules will have significant benefits for the american people. and believe they deserve our support and public and find a way to work together to get these rules implemented. i, for one, do not believe we can afford to wait longer. there are states like california that have seen great economic benefits from renewals and energy efficiencies. as these are implemented, there are cost savings in putting people to work on efficiencies and developing new resources for renewals. can you outline some of the economic benefits as these could offset the cost of a changeover? >> california clearly has been a leader on renewals and investment in energy efficiency. he's created jobs that are localized, jobs and machining,

equipment, installing insulation , weatherizing homes, whether existing or new construction. these are jobs that happen in our communities and results from these sorts of programs. >> thank you. in the quarter of a minute i have left, you remind me of programs that went into effect with some of our most skilled work force during the recession to get them to weatherize and put in efficiency and opportunities for some of our low-income housing, reducing energy costs for the occupants of the housing, putting people to work, learning new skills that can continue which is, frankly, an ongoing process as technology advances that will never slowed down or stop. thank you for your answers. >> at this time i recognize the

gentleman from nebraska. >> thank you. i appreciate that. i am humored by he argument that this is not a mandate. a federal agency saying 11 ala but have to make it to lincoln had a certain time and can only take 45 minutes to get there, that is a mandate. if you let it up to my imagination of our would get there, it is still a mandate. and so it is interesting that we can play word games. it will have costs. we are a state that is 72% reliant on coal. a state where you take 6-7 hours and 75 miles-per-hour to get across. so some of this does not make a lot of sense, but i have reached out to our major public power enti