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 entities, we are an all-public power state.

they are all working together. that is the good news. the bad news is, they are completely panicked in how to actually do the plan and how to actually meet the 26 percent mandated a reduction because we are 72% reliant upon cool. so in reaching out to them, they are frustrated with the lack of direction, what they see as conflicting information from the epa on how to move forward, but one of the areas that they would like to have nailed down is the percentages for reductions based on, is it 2012 numbers or 2005

numbers? >> where we look to start was the data, most recent, 2012. >> that is the baseline, 2012? why would they be confused? >> there is not really a baseline. >> how is there no baseline? >> carbon intensity. the reason people are confused because it is a year that people have been using a lot to talk about our progress toward reducing greenhouse gas. so in describing the impact of the rule epa has compared reductions achieved in to 2032 the 2005 number. the starting point for this is 2012. >> bottom-line, 2012 is the date that the state of nebraska has to use to calculate the

26 percent reduction, correct? >> that is the date we used to calculate their goal that they need to meet in toward the 30. >> again, if they are using 2012 as their baseline to reduce 26%, they are okay with the epa? >> as long as their plans shows that there will get to the goal that is set forth in the role. >> for 26%. >> 2030. >> by 2030. if that is 26 -- i don't know. >> that is the stated reduction that was told to the state of nebraska. so now, is there any flexibility in the states of using a different year as the baseline? >> well, no. >> we need to start the states at -- where they are. >> no is a solid answer. that is clear. clear is sometimes good, even if you disagree with that.

if states include a regal will portfolio standard in state implementation, does that make a federally enforceable 90? >> the plans will be federally approved. we laid out an extensive discussion on this issue in the preamble that we are interested in getting people's feedback on because we heard this question of what and are looking for feedback on how to design that . the plan itself would be enforceable. to make sure the reductions get done. >> right. i have four pages of questions from our power districts. we will submit those in writing. >> please do. we have had a number of conversations with officials from your state and will be happy to set up other opportunities.

>> i will state that i have talked to some of the board directors, and they said the only conclusion they have come to so far is it will cost them a hell of a lot of money. and we will have more hearings. you will have the opportunity to ask more questions. at this time i recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, the manager of the to arkwright baseball team for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome. as you know, pennsylvania generates a significant amount of electricity from coal, and over the last few years we have seen several of coal plants retire to be in compliance. i have heard this type of early action will be acknowledged. officials said on a recent conference call their intent credit plan retirements forced by the rule. i am curious how states and

generators will get credit for plants they retire or will retire between 2012 and the final roll. >> anything a state does that reduces the amount of carbon intensity generation in the state will be eligible to be part of their plan. so if a state is closing eight coal plant for whatever reason, and there are many why, if that power is replaced with either low or carbon, natural gas, or zero carbon we nobles or not as much generation as needed because of energy efficiency, that will work to the state advantage in building glidepath. >> but they will get credit -- i mean, basically we want to make sure we're getting credit for doing the right thing in the advance of the final ruling. you were saying there will be

the case. >> yes. >> okay. can you talk specifically about some of the opportunities my state might have to reduce carbon pollution? do you anticipate that coal will be a big part of our next going forward? >> i expect and we show across the country that it will continue to be about a 30% share of production, although i do not have the pennsylvania figures in front of me right now. a coal-intensive state like pennsylvania we presume would continue to have a significant amount of power generated from coal. the target that we calculated, in fact, very logitech that existing energy mix into account we think that pennsylvania has things that they can do. it was designed to capture things that can be reasonably done. >> i want to talk about flexibility options.

stay specific emission goals were divined from one calendar year of operations which people are calling the baseline. in the past roles and average of several years were used in order to smooth out anomalies. it seems a 1-your snapshot might yield an inaccurate starting point, especially if the state had several plants on extended outages or some anomalies exist in 2012 that did not exist in other years. with the epa be willing to consider more flexibility of sorts like averaging a few years to establish a more accurate starting point for baseline? >> i know we will get comment on that issue and is something we would consider and start to states about. >> finally, let me ask you about nuclear. several the nuclear generating stations have closed recently, and it is common knowledge that others are on the bubble. the main culprit is market

conditions, but market rules in a competitive market disadvantage base load power including nuclear. can we meet a greenhouse gas rules if more than clear plants close, and since most operate in competitive deregulated markets, did you consider this in your analysis? >> this is an interesting and complicated question. we did recognize what you just reflected is going on in the market. we actually have tried to send some signals in the proposal to encourage the retention of that nuclear generation that is kind of on the bubble. we definitely would like to work with states to see how the plan can help encourage the continued operation of those 0-emitting carbon sources. >> finally, let me ask you about reliability. one of the most important duties the state regulators have is to

maintain a reliable electric system which is vital to our economy. how does the proposal ensures states can and chief carbon pollution reductions while maintaining reliability? >> a good question, and one that was paramount as we worked through the proposal and often as we consulted with the department of energy and other agencies. there are a couple of things that make it clear that reliability will not be threatened. the length of time for implementation. there's a long time. utility sectors, this is what they do. if you give them enough time they can plan accordingly. the flexibility in the plan, the fact that no particular plan is required to meet any particular emission rate over any particular time frame is another way in which reliability will be protected because states have flexibility to plan resources accordingly.

the factory we have annual averaging and lager averaging provide a lot of flexibility. if someone needs to bring a plant up to deal with the short-term issue, and out of -- annual average allows them to do that without compromising their compliance with their own plant. >> thank you. >> at this time are recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> i think the chair. i hope you have the same concerns i have. they're is a common theme back home. wind does the epa that works for me want to come by june? why didn't want to hurt my family? those questions will be answered in november. i have a few questions you can

answer today. the first follows the example of the chairman requiring a yes or no answer. question number one, epa added a great safety valve that 2012 mercury will pass away to stoke implementation. now america's impartial great operators, including the ones that keep lights on at your headquarters have extra staff here. my question is, will you commit to including the reliability valve in the final curtain will? yes or no? >> i cannot commit to anything. it is something we will consider >> it is important, ma'am. a follow-up letter. second question, epa has justified these new rules with up to 90 billion in climate

benefits. health benefits is an important phrase. according to the epa impact analysis the vast majority of these benefits come from cutting pollution, not carbon. mostly microscopic dust. you are just now starting to and to make a brand new air quality standards. my question is, does the epa national air quality standards protect human health with an adequate margin of safety? >> yes, they do. >> that is what i thought. that complies with law. second question, in the entire country, yes or no? >> i'm sorry? >> the entire country, all of

america will have to comply? >> that is the air quality standards. yes. [inaudible] >> yes. >> that begs the question, your scientists have just approved a rule designed to push us to perfectly safe levels of p.m. existing rules will protect health and then some. yet this new rule says that there will be billions in new protection benefits. that begs the question, if the epa gives this carbon greuel credit what is it doing? >> there are two answers to that. the rule that was just finalized is the standard, not the path to get there. states need to implement

measures in order to reduce to meet that standard, and this proposed plan would be one way for them to do that. it could be a critical element. the second answer to your question is that scientists show that there are health benefits from reductions of p.m. even below the standard. we set the standards to protect from a public health perspective at the national level, but there continue to be health benefits that are experienced by people when those particle pollution levels go down. so it is appropriate in our view to reflect the benefits that will accrue from further reductions. >> i have another here that you put out in december 2012. a fact she.

i want you to square comments. it says, mission reductions from epa are already on the box and will help 99% need the revised standards without additional emission reduction. you are already there. why do the standard? you said it. you are there. >> these standards are not driven by p.m. reductions but in order to reduce carbon which is a climate change pollutants causing significant health and welfare and economic impact in this country. the benefits that we reflected are additional health benefits that will be achieved as a result of implementing this carbon pollution rule but will be a real health benefits that americans will experience. >> the gentleman's time has

expired. at this time recognize the gentle lady from california for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for having this hearing today. i want to applaud the administration and epa for the release of this critically important proposed rule to cut carbon emissions. we already set limits for other air pollutants paillette power plants in it as much pollution as they want. yet the effects of climate change are already being felt. jobs are becoming more severe putting an incredible strain on water supply in california and specifically my district, sacramento, where we have experienced a historic drop. in addition, extreme weather is hitting communities across the country. we have to do something. in california we have made strides with a cap and trade program. energy efficiency programs and renewable portfolio standards.

naturally we already made progress by moving to cleaners sources of energy and improving energy efficiency. now epa is setting carbon standards for power plants to protect public health. now, my state has a lot of companies who have invested in other states. how well epa determine who gets credit toward compliance in one state or company that has invested in renewable and clean energy production in another state? i know that epa has asked for comment, but we are hoping that the epa encourages a fair way of assigning credit. >> we look forward to public comment and discussions. basically we start from the perspective of states being responsible for the carbon emissions in their states. recognize that there are programs where systems are set

up so that states or companies will invest in renewable resources that are outside state boundaries. the proposal doesn't contemplate letting those states take account of those investments as part of their plan. >> service california get credit for energy efficiency programs that deal with imported efficiency? >> it is a little bit different from renewable energy. we will focus there on energy efficiency that takes place in state and reflects reductions in use in that state. again, i am sure we will it comment because it is a complicated issue. you want to make sure your not double counting and that energy efficiency is being counted. >> absolutely. will the epa have ongoing the oversight of state plans?

>> like we do throughout the clean air act, we will provide oversight for the state implementation of plans has normally. >> california would have to convert epa rate-based standard to mainmast standard. with this conversion, will it affect the reduction target? >> it should work out to be the same. we have the technical support document and walks states and others through how you would do that conversion. >> what california give credit for its new pacific coast collaborative? the leaders of all four jurisdictions have agreed and that where appropriate and feasible will make programs to create consistency and predictability across the region >> if states choose to join with other states may would be able

to pool resources and targets in be able to put in a joint plan that we can review and approve providing more flexibility. those can be attractive arrangements. >> great. >> did epa find any part of the country that does not have the potential to boost their use of cleaner energy? >> no. >> can it affect the neighboring state reduction target? >> no. it not believe so. as i said, if they go in on a joint plan with others we would look at that as a joint plan. >> there is an interim reduction goal that must be met. what happens if they stayed as not meet this? >> well, it needs to be met on average over the decade between

2020 and 2029. they can plan that now. there are some states that know that they will have plant closures. each state's plan will lay out what it expects to do over that time frame and show how it is getting an average. we will work with the states to help along the way. >> thank you. i yield back. >> at this time i recognize the gentleman from kansas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to follow up on a question. he asked you about going beyond the source under 111d. he cited the clean air mercury rule. are there other precedents? >> we actually do not think this is because of -- going beyond existing sources. >> but you gave that example.

do you have other examples? >> now. >> under the clean air mercury ruled there was nothing outside of regulated sources. is that correct? >> that's right. >> my recollection is the clean air mercury rule was returned. >> not on that basis. >> lawless much like what you're proposing here. >> have you met with john podesta? >> i have. >> how many times? >> i don't recall. it is in frequent? >> it is.

>> and as mr. mccarthy met with mr. pesto? >> i expect the she has. >> can you give me the information about the frequency, location, and subject matter. >> i will take that back. >> that was not the question. >> i will take the question back >> politics. it is also not about science. i want to make sure nothing is changed in your view. thirty indicators on your website about how you measure the impact of what you call climate change. i want to ask you a series of yes or no questions about this set of regulations so will this set of rules when police

implemented reduce sea surface temperatures? >> i can't answer that. i don't know. >> will it reduce ocean city? >> it will contribute. >> do you have the data to support? , chen wen? >> you cannot predict. >> i will take that as you have no idea. it is that a fair statement? >> no. >> you have no data, no science? >> we have science to show that increased carbon in the atmosphere least a things like a russian a 70. >> decreases in like a race. how much less will there be? >> same answer i gave you before >> you don't know and cannot show me how much less. i would just like to see the data. it would seem reasonable for the citizens of america to demand you say we think this is the

impact. this is what you will get. this is where you would get. >> that is not the waste climate science works. >> right. yeah. science used loosely have you talked to them about the impact? >> yes. >> tell me about those discussions. >> i and my staff have consulted with staff as part of the interagency review process. so they have given us and put on electric reliability. >> do -- when you say in part, do you have a document? did you just pass in the hallway and talk? there has to be a written document. >> i don't believe there are.

>> just discussions about something that is as critical as electrical reliability but we have a radical and you did not ask them to put anything in writing or say tell us what you think in a formal scientific manner but lester said at a table and talk about it? >> we have sensitive discussions >> i yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from new york for five minutes. >> thank you. welcome. thank you for your work on facebook.com/booktv power plants the president and epa are doing exactly the right thing by placing limits on the amount of carbon pollution that can be amended. climate change is a serious threat. in the two weeks since the release of the epa proposed rule we have seen a lot of attacks. i want to give you a chance to clear up some of these misunderstandings.

one claim is that no one goes to the hospital for breeding in carbon pollutions of their can't be health benefits. can you please explain how this will help protect the public health from the effects of conventional air pollution and carbon pollution? >> yes. thank you. people do go to the hospital for breeding issues. this rule will, by reducing both carbon and also other ancillary pollutants that are emitted by a coal-fired plants will reduce the amount of air pollution, fewer asthma attacks, fewer visits to the emergency rooms, fewer premature deaths and heart attacks resulting from exposure to pollutants. >> and there's talk about the income on modest income households. i can tell you, representing households that saw their life savings or stairway is in effect

never totally recovered. and so the in action here can be expensive. we have repeatedly that the clean power plant is a heavy-handed attempt to regulate the power system and tell states exactly how much efficiency and renewable energy and thus achieve. this must be particularly frustrating for you. as understand it, the proposal is designed to authorize flexibility. can you respond to this misrepresentation? >> yes. it is absent and left to states, and they will pick and choose the things that make the most sense for them. if energy efficiency is were there want to make their investment than they can do that . if that is where they want to put their investment, the plan allows them to do that. ..

fund a wide variety of initiatives including efficiency and renewable energy, investment in education, training for new jobs, new jobs in clean energy, transition to jobs and support businesses and initiate plans for climate adaptation. in short, the rggi states have accomplished much already. in fact, since 2009 the nine member states, compact, has had an ambition reduction by 18% while our economies grew by 9.2%. by comparison, the nation in the nemaining 41 states of our omiso nation saw emissions reduced by

4% while their economies grew by 8.8%.thei so the track record is not intimidating. it's actually quite rewarding. it appears to me that what states are doing under rggi is consistent with epa's proposal.e the states and our coalition are already on the way to meeting her proposed target ur coalitiony underway to meeting the proposed target. is that the case or are we going to have to rework our initiatives collects. >> that is the case in the approach of the states have taken a sydney one approach approach that the states can choose to take and as you say has been very beneficial to the states and very workable. >> i okay. i appreciate that because i was involved in the early discussions about the formation and implementation of reggie. i heard many of the states claim, the same claims about threats to reliability and affordability on electricity job losses and everything short of returning to the days of reading by candlelight. it didn't happen.

i won't say these aren't challenges. they are challenges but they are manageable in the effort is yielding segment -- significant benefits for health and the economy. ms. mccabe opponents addressing climate change is a part of a war on call. his acclaimed power plants going to eliminate the use of coal? >> absolutely not piggybacked coal will remain roughly one third of our power supply in this country under this proposed plan. >> my time has been exhausted so i will yield back and i thank you for again appearing before sedan offering clarification. see the gentleman from. >> representing a call district were lots of jobs have been lost and more expected because of these rules we feel like we are under attack from washington d.c.. that being said it's my understanding and if i could get

answers is my understanding your lawyer by training is that correct? >> i am. >> is my understanding the attorney general of west virginia patrick morrissey wrote a letter to gina mccarthy on june 6, 2014 regarding these new rules. in their understanding epa agrees in its technical documents filed with this proposal that under the plain reading of the statutory language in section 111t found in the u.s. code epa has no one legal authority to regulate co2 emissions from power plants under section section 111t. in particular the u.s. code provides the epa is regulating a source under section 112 of the clean air act the epa cannot also establish standards under section 111t. is that true that in 2012 epa started regulating power plants under section 100 1200's mercury and air toxic rule black csr no black.

>> we did issue a regulation under section 112. >> any the plain reading of the less code in the legislation reported from this committee and the provisions of law enacted by the house and senate this decision to regulate under 112 for close the agency's ability to regulate greenhouse gases under section 111. is that correct? >> that is not correct. >> you base that on your understanding that the epa takes the position that they don't read the codes literally because they're so conforming amendment including in the 1990 air act amendments the u.s. cert and the epa assert create ambiguity in what the law is? >> this is not a new interpretation. this is the interpretation agency took in 2005 also in the mercury rule that reading of the statute. >> and do any of the following

still work pretty epa carol homes windy l. blake lex. >> yes some of them. >> the court made an error when he said the position was the opposite of what you just said and i read the opinion referenced virginia versus epa were all lawyers listening in. 517f i've hundred and 74 quote this requires regulations for new and existing use. the epa promulgating bicameral 111d but under epa's own interpretation of the section you it cannot be used to regulate sources listed under section 112. epa bus concedes that remaining listed under section 112 of aconda regulations for existing sources must fall. epa promulgated the new sources under section 111d on that basis

there would be no regulation of emissions a new source performance standards would be upcoming by national emissions cap involuntary cap-and-trade program end quote from the opinion that you just said were you people argue the opposite. the court seemed to argue what i think it matters you don't have an authority to regulate greenhouse gases under 112. not greenhouse gases that but regulate the existing coal-fired prior -- coal-fired plants how you recognize those two? now finding that your lawyers previously argued the opposite and least the court is not a stick in another case was appealed on other grounds. >> this decision was based on completely different basis. the decision to vacate the rule. >> i understand at the giga stated here today that this was not a new position for the epa to cause of this case. this case says the opposite.

how do you reconcile that collects. >> i am not intimately familiar with the court decision you are reading. see i appreciate that. let's talk about good basic lawyering them. you know what is scribner's error is. you've been around the process for a long time and you have gone to law school in the understand when the bill passes and this committee does it all the time and we say at the end our chairman will say that you know closes by saying the technical conforming of minutes. what the epa's hanging their hat on is a scribner's error that it wasn't conforming amendment and you're saying the scribner's error should trump the law of the united states? with your background in education i would expect a better argument. >> the gentleman yields back. at this time i recognize that a lady from florida ms. castor for five minutes minutes. >> thank you very much chairman and welcome. it's very heartening that america is moving forward to

tackle the challenges of a changing climate and carbon pollution. we are already made an great progress when it comes to the cars we drive and fuel efficiency. we have reduced emissions substantially and put money back into the pockets of american families. that has been very positive. then look at what has happened with the appliances in our homes. they are more efficient than ever and we can do even better. the building codes are better. the new technology is out there seeking control with your smartphone what's going on in your own home and save money that way. again the new technology is improved by leaps and bounds and this is part of american ingenuity. we are going to bring that same ingenuity to tackling carbon pollution from the largest emitters. back home all i have to do is look around the tampa bay area on top of the huge ikea store. we have got large solar sprays

saving on their electric bill, the largest beer distributor in the area has a major warehouse. they said this makes sense for us now to the solar panels on the roof. a local governments have done it at courthouses and there is a corresponding benefit that we have created jobs in clean energy. we have created new businesses and we are boosting small businesses all across my community and all across america. so now comes this other important piece in the climate action plan to focus on the largest sources of carbon pollution. and when you review the proposed rule by epa i think the hallmark of it is the flexibility granted to the states. it says by the year 2030, it's almost hard to imagine where we will be in 2030 but by 2030 states will have have to meet this overall pollution reduction goals. some people have expressed to me

that the rule grants too much flexibility. a state like mine the state of florida at the state level we don't have much state leadership right now surprisingly. the state i would argue could be the most impacted by the changing climate. the leaders at the state level have perceived from energy efficiency standards. we don't have renewable goals at all so some folks say gosh couldn't the epa had done better by setting targets on energy efficiency? but i mean mr. barrow georgia is producing more solar power than -- and that's pretty ridiculous. there is progress at the local level. my home county of hillsborough county away cinergy plant plant that has been expanded and they

getting greenhouse gas credits. the city of st. petersburg is a leader nationally in what they are doing in lighting and solar power and the limiting wasted energy. here's a question. what will states be allowed to do to harness the improvements at the local level and it's not just local government. it's a nonprofit tennis businesses. how will that count towards our goal of reducing overall carbon pollution? >> this is a great point. i think there are something like 1000 mayors at a pledge to address carbon emissions in their cities and it's so encouraging and so positive. the way these programs fit into a states plan is that any measures that help the state reduce the amount of energy it needs to produce from its high carbon sources will be able to be counted in the states progress towards their goals. so all these local programs, weatherization programs, building efficiency programs

they all will be able to count. >> but you have to have a state organization that will be able to bring all of that data together. is that right? >> well the state government is responsible for the plan under the clean air act as they always are. they know how to do these things so we are working with the state agencies. they are definitely thinking about how they will do this and asking lots of questions and i think they have the opportunity to work with their mayors and their utilities and their local businesses and utilities to make sure they know what's going on. it's the it's really a call to action to everyone. we all have a responsibility to do this and i think there is a great potential for cost savings for consumers. it's interesting that you have identified the potential for reduced electric bills because of energy efficiencies. if you can serve you save money but one of the problems is the

state incentives do not encourage energy efficiency and conservation. hopefully we can do better. >> we think states will find energy efficiency is a very positive program for them to invest in. as some states further along that path of sound. see the chair recognizes mr. burgess for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman i appreciate you having this hearing and i appreciate the witness for being here for so long today. i wanted to get back to mr mr. shimkus in which you responded it would be an 8% reduction in electricity prices in texas. did i hear that correctly? >> we predict electricity bill will go down. >> can you provide us with the formula and the data that you put into the formula to come up with that answer? >> sure, that's all laid out in

arabia tory assessment in the attachment is in the record so we will be happy to point you to where that is. >> you also say and he said in her opening statement that we will avoid 100,000 asthma attacks under these rules. can you tell us since the passage of the clean air act and that was before the earth cooled the first time. it's been so long ago but how many asthma attacks have been prevented under the clean air act? >> i don't know that figure but we will be glad to get you my permission on that. see does this figure of 100,000 include those asthma attacks that would have been avoided simply because of the passage of the clean air act? see the health benefits that we predict from this rule are associated with the pollution reductions that are required by this proposal.

>> you said pollution reductions that this was all predicated on the endangerment funding for carbon dioxide but now carbon dioxide has become a regulated pollutant. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> his regulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere going to result in 100,000 fewer asthma attacks? >> the asthma attacks that we associated with this analysis are due to reductions in other pollutants that will happen as the carbon is rude. >> can you provide us with the journals that back up the 100,000 as well as the reduction to our surging? >> we will be happy to point to the record where we lay out our expectations. >> i'm really not interested in that. what i really would like to see are their publications and

refereed journals that will attest to this fact plaxo once have that i have been able to find really are rather nebulous about the finding that reduction of carbon dioxide means a lower number of asthma attacks. >> we will be glad to follow-up with you. >> i brought my hair since principles internal medicine with me this morning just in case he wanted to look at it. i got a don't see carbon dioxide listed as a trigger for inciting reactive airway disease. >> let me clarify because i didn't quite see where you are going. there are certain air pollutants that are clearly associated with exacerbation of asthma attacks. the impacts that we are seeing from climate change also can create conditions in which asthma can be exacerbated. >> manning i have to stop you there for a minute because you seem to conflate climate change with carbon dioxide.

my understanding of the purpose of this rule was because of an endangerment finding for carbon dioxide and asthma reductions that you are serving in your testimony this morning are as a result of reductions in carbon dioxide. >> that is not correct to let me be really clear. the endangerment finding combat missions -- emissions and greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide created adverse impacts to public health and welfare. and that is the red righty of impacts that the change in climate have. increasing heat. >> i have to stop you because of timing considerations but those are relatively nebulous. when i review the literature, i mean this is a fairly assertive statement that you have made for the record here in her opening statement and i don't see the data to back that up. i would just ask that you be

careful about the language because the language, i think i see why that language is being used but i don't think it's fair to use that. i think we are oftentimes accused of using fear to motivate people to be against some of these principles but here i believe you are using fear. who wants more asthma attacks? no one but your assertion that asthma will be reduced by 100,000 because of reductions in carbon dioxide in the rule that you promulgated as a result of a court opinion, i'm sorry it just doesn't follow. >> if i could be really clear the health benefits that we describe as a result of this rule the asthma attacks in particular, the result of the reductions in other pollutants that will happen accompanying the reductions in carbon. seau simply asked why haven't you reduce those other pollutants? why did you take this activity

to motivate the epa to reduce those other pollutants that it was in their power to do so all along under the clean air act? >> epa and the states have been working for many years to reduce air pollution that results in asthma attacks and other health effects and has made a lot of success along the way. this is an additional program that will result in additional pollution reductions in their real health benefits associated with those. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i have some additional questions so i will submit this for the record. >> we do have some more questions when you have more hearings. the chairman recognizes mr. -- c. sometimes i think the lonely place is the only honest place to be in this town but you be the judge. i accept the scientific evidence for climate change. i accept the scientific evidence on the common sense that tells me be take all the carbon that

god put in the ground that belch into the air we will have climate change. i reject previous legislative attempts to address this problem and i don't think they will work and they will definitely hurt especially when you considered in isolation or the backdrop taking place in the rest of the world. i think taking another approach basically putting mandates out there in the hopes that the technology will arrive in time to rescue. i'm firmly in the technology first camp and i don't think we are doing that with these regulations. but you talk about a number of things that we are doing that some folks are trying to use those tools to get where we need to be. you talk about things like making coal plants more efficient shifting from coal to natural gas. you talk about renewables and consumer efficiency and if righty of different ways. nowhere in there to talk about

shifting from coal to nuclear. the existing technologies show nuclear's family when i can provide significant basal capacity with zero emissions. my question to you is the shifting from coal to nuclear count and should it clouds -- count? the issue than it does. >> in georgia and south carolina where the only ratepayers shifting too cold to nuclear. in my district allowing generators to come on line in this country. focal free will come on line in 2017 and global foreign 2018. how will they be counted toward the goals we will be held to in 2020 down to 891 pounds per kilowatt hour taxi when those megawatts are produced by nuclear plant with zero carbon and they were placed by the watch that were produced by a plant that emitted carbon than those will be counted for the state and it will help you get towards its final. so you are telling me 2017 to

2018 reductions taking place and will be counted toward the goal that you set for us at 891 as the adjusted average? >> they will land with those plants as part of george's base and how they produce their power it will help address achieve th. >> what's with this in context. in 2005 georgia utilities were belching 2000 pounds per kilowatt hour into the atmosphere. we have already achieved a 25% reduction getting down to 1500 as of 2012 cylinder seven years between 2005 in 2012 we have achieved a 25% reduction. against the president's goal of achieving a 30% reduction by 20,000 -- 20,522,030 why haven't we still got there? >> each state is in a different place and they make different

progress that we did in our role as we looked at these reasonable and existing technologies that people can use and how much more is reasonably able to be done. >> my point is we are are ready achieving a 25% reduction shifting from coal to natural gas. one of the tools in the toolbox and we have plans to shift even more from coal to nuclear. we have already achieved .5% of the starting goal of reducing in 200522030 by 30%. we are most of the way there. white do we have to cut in half even further? >> this rule was not setup to achieve a specific goal of reduction. that's not the way works. it was set up to look at what the available technologies earned for each state that resulted in a different judge a different check. >> but we are utilizing to technologies. we are already most of the way

there. look at get another way. it makes no sense to me that an itty-bitty state like wyoming is going to be held to producing belching 1700 pounds per kilowatt hour into the atmosphere while a state like georgia will be required to belch out no more than 835 pounds of co2 per kilowatt hour. it makes less sense to let a state like north dakota do 783 pounds for is a big old state like texas will do no more than 700. that is the problem i've got to this whole approach. >> we would be glad to spend more time at the congressman and the plane how the targets affected. >> it's going to take a lot of explaining. thank you maam. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia mr. mckinley for five minutes. >> i would like to try to keep this issue in perspective.

maybe get back to the 30,000-foot level to look at this because according to the epa's own web site it says that 82% of all man-made co2 comes from areas outside the united states. to me it's kind of ludicrous as we have this discussion to think that we are going to improve and add health benefits to america and start reversing climate change with 82% of those kanji reading to co2 are exempt around the world. i can't think of any other way that we are going to make this policy work than by engaging the rest of the world into this discussion. this experiment of 30% doesn't seem to be working. if you go back to the kyoto protocol it called for 5.2 reduction in co2 emissions. but by the end of that protocol

the globe globe had increased by 10%. it just ignored what was being documented. so while we want to experiment and this administration wants to experiment by reducing 30% the international energy agency is already predicting that by 2030 arrests of the world is going to be producing 40% more co2 around the world while we are experimenting with reductions the rest of the world has not followed and they be going to 40%. china and india alone with this chart you can see this is what they are going to be doing over this time. math. china will be using 550,000 more gigawatts of coal power. by 2030 china is going to increase their co2 output by 60% while we are decreasing 30%.

india is going to increase by 50% of their co2 output while we are decreasing hours 30%. this administration just seems to be ignoring that china, china burns more coal than the rest of the world combined and no one is following this lead. he seemed to be operating in a vacuum. just recently they epa administrator lisa jackson said u.s. action alone will not impact world co2 levels. do you agree with that yes or no? via we'll take your word that she she said it. >> she is said in yesterday epa administrator william riley said absent action by china brazil and india what we do will not suffice. >> i don't think anyone disagrees. >> with these regulations we are

ignoring the global reality that the rest of the world is not following us. we are going to affect our american economy and put it risk with all the numbers predicting anywhere from nine to $40 billion annually to pay for this experiment we are going to be increasing our utility bills and putting americans out of work. we will disrupt our manufacturing base. we ignoring the advice and their predecessors at a pe -- epa. a year from now china india and japan have not reduced their co2 emissions will you withdraw this regulation? yes or no. >> no. >> okay how about two years from now ask if no one is following will you withdraw? >> congressman i can't speak to. >> i'm saying in the final world since you mentioned earlier you

said the final language has to be worked out so well you agree to insert metrics into this? we want to see how you measure success so will you put into the final bill a metric that says that if america's economy is tanking because of this or the world is an following and will continue to increase theirs see it to emissions that this will void this rule? a yes or no. >> i don't believe that there would be inappropriate under the clean out their rule. >> again trying to paint the final picture years ago with this. this experiment in working separate from the rest of the nation and you yourself take efficiency. i agree with you about efficiency but i think what comes to mind is someone insulating their home and then

opening all the windows. what do have we accomplished with this? we are not working in concert with the rest of the world. they are not following us so for us to expect to have health benefits while 82% of the rest of the world are exempt from this is ludicrous. my time has expired. i'm sorry. i hope we can have more of a dialogue. >> we are absolutely not ignoring other countries and we have many other activities focused on it. >> thank you mr. chairman and i welcome and thank you ms. mccabe for joining us here or your testimony. i want to give you a chance to perhaps answer some of the questions mr. mckinley asked because there are a couple of arguments we hear over and over

again from those who oppose u.s. action on climate change. first they say this is a global problem so why should the u.s. at first and second even if america attacks is not going to solve the problem anyway if other countries ignore so why bother? as far as i'm concerned there's no question that climate change is a global problem and it demands a global solution. it doesn't mean they would wait for other countries to act first so to the contrary i would say global problems almost always requires united states leadership in a bikini one would claim that they leadership and action that i want to give you a chance to answer some of the specifics because it's hard when you have to answer yes or no to say what you really feel. >> i appreciate that congressman and i agree with the way you characterize this. there's no question it's a global issue. there's no question countries beyond the united states are going to have to take action.

this has been the case with other environmental problems in the past. i agree and the president agrees that the united states has a responsibility to act both because we are a significant attribute are the second largest contributor and because we are a world leader. we work in the international community and with others or countries with china india and other countries and are working with them to get them to look at similar sorts of approaches so that we can together address this global environmental problem. >> on the specific issue of climate change, you tell us why american leadership is particularly critical on this particular issue? >> well the global impacts of climate change affect us here in united states. they affect their citizens and their families and so we have a responsibility to do everything that we can to encourage and work with other countries to

have them take the kinds of steps that we ourselves are showing we have the leadership to take here at home. >> also issue meant than mention the united states is one of the world's top emitters of carbon pollution. in order to be an incredible negotiator i think we need to take action ourselves. walk the walk not just talk the talk. how will epa sections to cut carbon from power plants in particular from the united states ability to influence the direction of its negotiations on climate change? >> nrd is having an impact. when we meet with other countries in these discussions we see a major world leading economy is putting its money where its mouth is so to speak and taking affirmative steps to address carbon. that shows that it can be done. it shows that the country has moved forward in that regard and that puts pressure on other

countries to do similar or explain why they can't. >> now power plants are the largest single source of our missions in the source of the missions worldwide so obviously it would be credible to adjust power plants and by doing so we can help other countries understand that it can be done. >> i do agree and by moving forward with our power company we can be on the forefront of technologies and the types of methodologies that we can then help other countries with which will benefit our manufactures and are innovators here at home. it's the select me ask you. you have talked about it but i want to give you a chance. then those that oppose actions say this rule won't solve the problem so why should we bother, why should we bother to ask me it's an extremely important step to help solve the global problem for the united states to move forward with a real meaningful

reduction in carbon. >> i would just like to say i assume you agree and tell me if you do, no single action to reduce carbon pollution will ever stop climate change but we will never address this without individual actions of these actions do make a meaningful difference. >> that's absolutely correct. >> thank you and thank you mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. >> thank you mr. chairman. madam administrator many coal-fired plants have spent millions of dollars to comply with the epa's final mercury and air toxics rules. despite the retrofits many of these plants would operate significantly less or potentially retire under epa's proposed rule which contemplates greater utilization of natural

gas. my question is how does the proposed rule prevent the problem of stranded assets? in other words the coal plants that have made millions of dollars in investments to be compliant with mats they not be able to meet the requirements of this rule. there are plants in my state that has spent hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars to comply with the mercury and air toxics rule. their generators and their customers and their ambassadors have to eat these costs. >> that's a good question congressman hopefully i can give you a couple of answers to it. so one way in which we anticipated avoiding this kind of situation is providing a very lengthy trajectory for compliance. going all the way out into 2030 that gives utilities time to do two things. one is to plan carefully so that

the plants in which they have made significant investments they can get all the value out of those investments and also to plan to make sure that their fleet is being managed over time. the other thing is the coal-fired fleets in this country is aging as i'm sure you know. right now half the plants are in their 40s i think in 10% are 60 years old or older. there's a transition going on in the industry already. quite apart from that and quite apart from this rule and the flexibility that this rule provides allows states to focus on and utilities to focus on investing in the plants that have a long life ahead of them and make the most sense in order to continue to be key parts of the portfolio and not to invest in the oldest plants where it doesn't make as much sense economically to put investments into them.

that is how this rule helps avoid those kinds of situations which we agree is a very important thing to do. >> in your calculations in developing the rule did you take into account the loss of jobs as a result? did you quantify the impact by state? steve as i said before since since the states will ultimately decide exactly what their plans are all we can do is to do some illustrative examples in our regulatory impact assessment. we did look at the potential job losses and job gains associated with the rule. that's all late late out their. >> under the proposed rule for existing power plants epa is requiring that each state develop an implementation plan and to submit to epa for approval. what is such a state chooses not to participate? with the epa.

>> it is they doesn't submit a plan epa would do one. i will tell you right now that we are not focused on that right now. we are focused on making sure that states understand the opportunities and we are confident that states will want to be an elite on this program. >> we saw so that many states and want to establish obamacare and trying to implement out at the state level. if epa were to impose a federal implementation plan what is epa envision the plants would look like? >> we really haven't thought that through and any proposed plan would go through public process. >> would the takeover energy planning for the states, decision-making about their electricity mix? which you takeover electric rates for consumers? >> no congressman our job is to look at the embedding facilities the coal-powered -- coal-fired

power plants and any proposed plan would be squarely within our authority. see you all right combined heat and power facilities are inherently efficient. what is epa done to prevent those facilities from being swept into the 111 the macworld? we take measures to assure those facilities are not adversely impacted by this proposal? >> combining powers and efficient way of generating electricity so those facilities will be very helpful to states. see this current rule that

retaining power generation is a cost-effective wolf means of producing carbon and i appreciate that. eight years of carbon emission reductions brought by renewable energy were wiped out with the closure of a single small nuclear reactor. i believe it's important talk about this given the fact that nuclear is the only base load power supply there went around the producing carbon. understand the current outlook on the industry have concerns with the direction arena tour agency is taking in reverse allowing them to operate and i would like to ask a few questions on the outlook for nuclear power going forward. past models of climate change compile the agency with major questions surrounding the degree to which nuclear power has been raised is epa considers to be a major area of uncertainty? see at him now that i can speak to that congressman. we do recognize nuclear power is an important aspect of clean generation and as i said before we have tried to signal and

encouragement towards attaining a plan and we know it will be advantageous to have planned. we recognize there are existing challenges beyond our control for industry. standard standard proposed rule on the study that shows 6% of the nuclear fleet is at rest but they are still expected to continue their operations going forward. in addition to this economic modeling of climate legislation by epa and others has shown a dramatic growth in nuclear energy is necessary to reduce carbon emissions. constrain development nuclear energy dramatically increases the cost of compliance. what will happen if the epa's assumption that these plants currently at risk will continue to operate and if that assumption is incorrect what will happen? >> it depends on what is they would choose to do to replace the nuclear generation so we hope and expect that there would

be opportunities for states to go with lower or others he wrote in knitting generation were -- there is a lot of wind power being built in the country a significant growth area. see a lot of wind replaces nuclear power. this epa has the authority to compel those plants to regulate their plants? does any great agency have that authority? >> i could not speak to that. >> recent modeling done by epa determining 44 new reactors would be necessary to satisfy performance standards aced on the lieberman-warner bill from 2088 and others showing additional money six gigawatts of power capacity would be needed by 2030 to meet standards set out in another proposed piece of legislation from 2009. this epa believe we can make

base load power generation must still ensuring reliable and affordable power without substantial growth in nuclear power generation? >> i do and i will note that our proposal here is not legislation like you described. it takes a very different approach which is what is reasonable to expect existing fossil plan to do and for states to do to reduce the carbon intensity and it takes every state where it is. if you see nuclear coming on the ground we consider it. we are not counting and we are not assuming other nuclear construction that is not already contemplated. >> do you know how many and of the proposed rule, and in nuclear reactors will be needed to meet the standards? >> i think we are aware of maybe five that are under construction now so we took account of those and we didn't take account of others. >> and currently there are eight licenses under review by the

nrcc right now. i want to reread 100% of power generation is carbon free. many more will need to be brought on to ensure affordable and reliable energy throughout the country and the key is talking about affordable and reliability. we will need a lot of nuclear power plants to come on line. thank you for your time and patience today and i yield back. >> all right, in closing the commanding committee has outstanding.request that hearing to the rulemaking for new plants. it's been four months since we initiated these request that the epa has been decidedly slow and is documenting. can you tell me who at the epa is accountable to the committee for responding to these requests? >> the agency will respond that we are working on them and we

have responded to various requests. responses are underway. >> all right info you commit on behalf of the ministry -- administration to fully comply with their requests? that won't make a commitment on behalf of on behalf of the mystery but we will certainly do we need to do to be responsive. >> we have commit to have your staff work with our staff to ensure the committee has what it determines is necessary to fulfill its oversight obligations? >> our staffs work very well together and again we will do what we need to do in order to be responsive. >> thank you. we will have questions for the record forthcoming. i would ask that you provide response in a timely fashion. when you commit providing responses to these questions within 60 days? c. right now on can't commit to a timeframe because i don't know how many questions they will be or what will be involved but we will do our best to be as

expeditious as possible. >> with that i want to thank you for being here today and for the testimony that you have given us and the members for their devotion to this hearing. that will conclude our hearing. naudib [inaudible conversations] >> today, irs commissioner john koskinen will be on capitol hill to answer questions about the alleged targeting of conservative groups. live coverage of the house ways and means committee begins at 9 a.m. eastern time here on c-span2 and c-span.org.

>> an f. on transparency and freedom of information, and i think my colleagues in journalism would give a similar grade. the freedom of information processed has become a joke but it was already well on its way onto the obama administration by this administration has perfected the stall, the delay, the reduction, the excuses and really it's shocking because i feel very strongly the information that they would hold and protect any time belongs to the public. we own it but there's no sense of that when you ask for a. they covet it as if they are a private corporation defending their trade secrets rather than understanding that withheld this information they've gathered on our behalf. >> journalist and investigative reporter sharyl attkisson on the changing face of network news and her career sunday night at eight on c-span's q&a.

>> this weekend american history tv is live from the gettysburg college civil war institute saturday morning started at 8:45 a.m. eastern. you will hear peter carmichael on robert e. lee followed by arizona so the touch of arizona state university brooks simpson. this weekend on american history tv on c-span3. >> c-span2, provide live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events. every weekend tv now for 15 years the only television network devoted to non-fiction books and authors. c-span2 greeted by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. spent democratic chris van hollen is ranking member of the house budget committee. republican rob portman sits on

the senate budget and finance committee. on tuesday the talked about the federal budget and points of agreement between the two parties on taxes and spending. from the national press club this is just over one hour. >> hi, everybody. welcome to the national press club. where news is made. i'm bob, the newsmakers committee event coordinator for today's bipartisan, bicameral news conference by two national leaders on the federal budget future. our two speakers will address future federal budget priorities and methods which you can do to cover areas that budget should attend to, programs the sugar should not be funded and to what extent, the usefulness and future of shutdowns and sequestration, strategies for bipartisan cooperation and action, it projected timeline, all in one hour. we think they will indeed make

news by telling us what they think will happen and win, and what they think will not happen, namely, what we have more shutdowns that close major portions of the government and will we have more sequestration of slices programs across the board without prioritization? and just how does this budget and funding process work anyway? maybe they can tell the american people who seem what to them looks like chaos. and can't it, will they be improved in the near future? so that is a lot to cover in an hour. our two experts leaders will each speak for 10 to 15 minutes followed by questions from the media and club members. now i'm just our two speakers. congressman chris van hollen is the ranking minority member into democratic leader of the house budget committee. he was elected to congress in 2002 and beat some very well known people with big legacies. in addition to representing the eighth district of maryland and serving in house leadership,

congrescongress and then all ofe elected by his colleagues in 2012 deserve a second term as a top democrat on house budget committee. in this position serves as the key point person on budget and economic legislation in the house for the democratic party. the "washington post" described cruz as a bona fide budget expert and the "l.a. times" that he is among his party's best budget mind. roll call has noted, which is here today, that he gets near universal respect from his colleagues for his intellectual firepower and come asia policy and political chops. i think a few years ago we called chris a rising star. now he is just a start. congressman van hollen was recognized by washingtonian magazine as the best metro area member of congress. and as the best local elected official by bethesda magazine. there may be some in congress today who have recently lost elections who will tell you just how important that local service recognition can be. chris also played an integral role in the effort to pass

comprehensive health care reform and fought to ensure that young adults receive expanded access. he continues to lead the fight for the disclosed act, to end secret money in elections and champion builds on lobbying disclosure form and whistleblower protections that were enacted. a former professional staff member on the senate foreign relations committee, and i emphasize a conformist of, congressman van hollen has a strong background in national security policy. maybe it's interest of their comes from fact he is the son of a foreign service officer. before his election to the house, congressman van hollen served four years in the maryland house and eight years in the maryland senate. he also worked as an attorney in private practice for kenya's. is a graduate of swarthmore college, the john f. kennedy school of government at harvard and georgetown university law center. he lives in maryland with his wife catherine and their three children. rob portman is united states

senator from ohio. he was elected in 2010, running a campaign that focus on conservative ideas to create jobs and get the deficit under control. he was born and raised in cincinnati where he lives today with his wife and their three children. he grew up in a small business family where he learned early on the valley of hard work, leadership and fiscal responsibly. when rob was young, his dad, bill portman, borrowed money to start portman equipment company with all work while growing up. his father and his brother built the family business from a small forklift truck dealership with five employees with rob's mom as a bookkeeper to one that employs more than 300 people. that's a nice story. i really like the. rob became a lawyer and developed his own private practice representing small businesses. in 1993, rob was a partner in a cincinnati law firm when he was elected to congress where he represented the first district in southern bbq served 12 years and all seven elections he never

received less than 70% of the vote. during his time in congress who is actively involved in crafting the historical reform welfare ever in was an advocate of the balanced budget bill that passed in 1997. he gained the respect of both republican and democratic colleagues to his successful bipartisan legislative initiative including measures the author to increase retirement savings, reform irs and at over 50 new taxpayer rights, curb unfunded mandates, reduce taxes and expand drug prevention and land conservation efforts. in the spirit of disclosure is his support for community and the drug coalition of the house the white house drug office or director of public affairs when we organize an event together in ohio that we first met and became friends. now as a senator he represents my alma mater. in 2005 rob left congress when he was asked by president george w. bush to serve as a united

states trade representative, cabinet level official responsible for u.s. trade policy. under his leadership american exports increased and the u.s. brought successful legal challenges against international trade law violations. following his accomplishments there he was asked to serve in another critical cabinet post relevant to today's discussion, director of the office of management and budget. he made his mark as a deficit hawk, proposing a balanced budget fighting irresponsible remarks and putting in place new transparency measures for all federal spending. he was listed as a vice presidential high prospect in 2008. and 2012. and we wonder, willie also be in 2016? so the national press club is privileged to have two superstars here today and their staffs. caitlyn done for senator portman and bridget fry for congressman van hollen have been immensely helpful and also display the kind of bipartisanship that we

are seeking to augment today. i want to introduce my wife, dr. patricia birch was professor at george washington medical center, and i've has a real job looking for cures for cancer. also i want to thank the national press -- also rebecca, if you raise your hand because rebecca be carrying the microphone around to the audience and that would the media will also given to get advantages of the questions from the audience. i know that's important to c-span also. i want to thank the national press club's executive director bill mccarron, joanne booze, staff liaison for this committee, and is noel st. john still there? the club photographer does a spectacular job and when you standing volunteer award for the whole club this past year. and/or audio people at the club. so we will lead first with the senate, senator rob portman.

>> thanks very much, bob is why we work together in the past. we can sit in and honorary ohio and having spent some time in overland and it's always good to be with them. he worked with the drug czar for a while and he's worked with republicans and democrats on the drug issue and he has been an advocate for not the current approach to drug abuse and addiction but rather want to focus more on prevention, education, treatment and recovery. i think this is one of the issues that follow will not talk about directly today, it's an example of something on the discretion part of the budget that is getting squeezed more and more as we don't do with the larger problem on the mandatory spending side of the budget. so as we're talking about that, maybe to keep in mind that's an example of a program, for instance, like a second chance at would try to get we authors right now that i authored 10 years ago that's on the discretion decide that's under more and more budget pressure

even though it actually is a program that is not a top down washington program and it actually saves money because it encourages states and localities to put in place prisoner reentry programs, keeps people out of this revolving door and encourages and is an successful in getting people into productive lives where they are taxpayers and taking care of their families and, of course, better for commuters but also better for the taxpayer. .. this i