he's just following up on his promise. so, those of us in coal regions of this country are under attack coming and we have to deal with this. with our constituency into this debate. so that's wha where there's a lf emotion as you can imagine. also part of my portfolio here is the nuclear portfolio, the nuclear side. side. and so, there are some curious things about this rule that begs and that creates a problem based upon state that have cleanburning nuclear power or generators that have shut down but still have a standard by which now they cannot meet because we are incentivizing the closing of the nuclear power, which we are in the clean air climate change, we should be incentivized. what wwe give you an example. 2013, premature reactors to close. one of those was the plant in wisconsin.

when you all set the reduction target for wisconsin it did so based on electricity production in 2012 year in which they were still operating. you are calculating your reductions the year and you had the operating with no carbon emissions. that facility closed and now that state and many states that have nuclear power i have one of the largest generating states in the country. it's now is disproportionately harmed by the rules. extremely harmed. so the result is that wisconsin would be forced to compensate for the loss of the plan. is that alice is all correct? >> this rule addresses the fossil fuel sector.

it ithat is our responsibly undr 111 d.. that's where we started our job is to identify the best system of emission reduction for the fossil fired plants that doesn't include nuclear. nuclear. succumbinsuccumbing to 2012, wet the emissions in each state from their fossil generations. and we looked up with that system of emission reduction was from the national basis that would result in 2030.

>> but that is the problem for ratepayers. because, as a generating facility that has zero emissions drops off when 1200 megawatts, 800 megawatts, whenever the base load is, they have to make that up or their cost goes up. and so we're not taking into consideration in this carbon debate their emissions. we should be incentivizing this commission we not? >> we are, and for any state that uses zero emitting generation to replace coal-fired generation or meet their needs, they absolutely will be able to count that in their compliance plan a move that toward their goal. >> let me get to these final questions. what happens if the epa does not implement a state plan? >> they're is a little bit of language that says if we are not

in a position to approve a state plan, then the epa is to move forward. >> you will have a federal implementation plan? >> we are not focused on it right now. >> but that is what the law will beat, and in the world will be? >> yes. >> what will that federal implementation plan look like? >> we have not come anywhere near to -- >> i would suggest you start looking into that. i yield back my time, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman's time has expired. recognize the gentleman from kentucky for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. welcome the minister. last fall epa administrator mccarthy met to discuss the proposed rule, and after that meeting kentucky center of framework to the epa with ways and develop rules that would reduce carbon pollution, while effectively offering our state of flexibility to meet new standards. my understanding is epa involved

almost all of the commonwealth recommendations. is that correct? >> i believe so, congressman. >> and those included in allowing states to reduce emissions using measures such as energy efficiency, renewable energy, and fuel switching out of natural gas rather than forcing states to reduce emissions at any specific plans also recognizing differences among states resource potential, current generation portfolios, and allowing a variety of compliance options including energy efficiency and so forth, as you said. but here is another example of how that flexibility can help. the american recovery and beat -- reinvestment act established a rebate program to help spur development and adoption of energy-efficient appliances and to replace less efficient older appliances. general electric as a major manufacturing in my district. because of that program they were able to bring manufacturing

refrigerators back from mexico and create hundreds of jobs in the process. does this ruling allows states to take credit for reductions achieved through energy-efficient initiatives like this one? >> certainly any program that encourages or incentivizes or provides for ways for people to save energy, which means less carbon going up the stack, are completely credible under the plan. >> well, we're happy that the epa agrees with that and it is a good example of how to create flexibility and also create energy efficiency and help reverse save money and reduce emissions. i am glad the chairman mentioned waxman markey earlier in his opening remarks. are was one of a group of ten or 12 or so representatives from states that were heavily dependent upon carbon, coal-based energy who went to our effort in virginia. we basically send our leaders.

we could not support the bill as originally drafted because it would have been devastating for our consumers and businesses. and they made changes to the bill. before i voted for that bill, i talked to all of the major consumers of energy in my district, general electric being one, ford motor company has two major manufacturing facilities, the university of louisville, the jefferson county public school system permalloy the metro, ups with a global hub, and not one of those users of electricity injected to that law , proposed law. i talked to our utility company and asked what the impact of the law would be on residential customers. they said, we think that after ten years the average residents will have their rates go up 15%

if they do nothing else. they don't adjust the thermostat , change light bulbs, insulate. $200 a month at the beginning, ten years from now it would be to wondered and $30 a month. i feel pretty comfortable knowing that there would be minimal negative impact on my constituents. i am glad that the chairman low compared what the epa rule does not to that law back then. and oppose lot back in which republicans in the senate chaired. what to give manufacturing businesses were affected and moving out of state and so forth, again, i have not heard from many of my major manufacturers -- and i have a lot of them in my district. they are not afraid of this proposed rule. my question is to you, it is not easy to move a manufacturing company. ford has almost a couple billion

dollars invested in my district between their two plants. they cannot just pick up and leave. you made an estimate of what the increased potential rates would be to in the short term. i think you said about 3%, correct? >> that's correct. >> i think it is hard to logically predict that the 3% rise of manufacturing company rates would be enough of a financial disincentive to force them to pick up a major investment and move somewhere else. is that part of the calculations you did when you were creating this? >> energy efficiency is good for everyone and good for business. i think we all know that. and, as you say, the increases in electricity prices we will see are modest in the short term and go down over the long term. ipad businesses will take that into account. >> they keep. i yield back. >> at this time i recognize the gentleman from texas for five

minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman from texas. >> at -- this proposal that we are discussing today is not actually required by the clean air act. is that a true statement? >> no. it is required when we issue a 111d sector to go forward with the standard. >> welcome i think that is wrong i think it is allowed. i do not see any statutory authority that demands these proposals. i do accept that there is a supreme court case and a presidential finding of endangerment that allows the clean air act to be used, but i see no where in the statute that this has to happen. do you agree with us? >> respectfully, no. i believe -- >> rob, i want the general

counsel of the epa to back that up. will you do that? >> sure. >> to the committee. >> yes. >> my understanding is what you are attempting to propose is directed by presidential speech dated june 205th, 2013, that was called the climate action plan that has then been followed up by presidential memo where se of these requirements were directed toward the epa to implement that. i would assume that you are aware of this memo. >> i am. >> okay. >> can you tell me what the legal force of a presidential memo is? >> well, the president's memo and climate action plan laid out a series of steps that are within their responsibility of the epa and other agencies to move forward with. the president gave us a schedule on which to move forward with this rulemaking but directed

that we undertake the rulemaking is that our within our authority under the clean air act to address -- >> well, i said that the president has the right to give speeches. i even accept the fact that the president has the right to issue memos. as the chief executive officer of the federal government, he can direct the executive branch, in this case your agency, the epa, to try to implement this presidential memos. but i do not accept that this is something that absolutely has to be done. whatever documentation you can provide that shows that this is a forcing authority, i would like to have that. and your statement, you went to some lengths to talk about all of the flexibility that states are going to have. i am told in the case of taxes the decisions were made before the state of texas even had an opportunity to comment that they

received 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 groups. of course, this is a proposal. we are still taking comment. i have had at least multiple hours of conversation with states even since june 2nd. so there has been lots of a button to to talk about. >> just as an example, are we aware of that fact that if texas closed down every existing fossil fuel generation to are generating plant in the state from everyone, every coal-fired plants die every natural gas plant in the state of texas that it would still not meet the new proposed esps. are you aware of that? >> the plan relies on states implementing -- >> i am asking if you are aware

of that indicate @booktv vacation in texas. if we shut down every coal-fired plant and every natural gas plant in the state, everyone, we cannot meet these suggested goals. >> i have not done that calculation. >> well, i suggest that you do it. texas would end up with a new source performance standard that is below epa own standard. the epa standard is 1,000 pounds of co2 per million megawatts, permit a lot of production. for texas to actually meet what that epa has suggested it should we would have to go down to 791, which is about 21% your own standard. i mean, you know, renewable standard for texas is based on the energy -- renewable energy portfolio for kansas. i am not anti kansas. but chances electricity demand

and generation is 10 percent of the state of texas. texas leads the nation and renewal will generation, and texas produces three times as much energy by renewable as thet three states combined. >> texas has immense opportunities -- >> and we get no credit for that, at in your proposal there is none. >> the state does, actually. >> well, the state of texas tells me we don't. >> we are happy to have further conversations with the state of texas about the gulf. >> the time has expired. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> but that is extremely undecided on this proposal. >> yap. >> at this time would like to recognize the german from california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for coming here today. you mentioned that the epa predicts a reduction in energy costs on family energy bills, i take it by the year 2013.

would you elaborate and maybe give us some idea of what the reaction estimates look like? >> sure. so as the states implement their plans we expect a large reliance on demand side and energy efficiency measures that will reduce the number of kilowatts a family needs to consume over the course of a month. and so when we project that out we show that it is about an 8% decrease in a bill, in a family's bill. >> american families might look to something almost like 10 percent reduction in their monthly energy bill by 2030 as a result of this rule, the proposed rule? >> that is with the proposed will predicts based upon our forecasts. each state will do its own plan. >> that is not too bad. >> would you please describe the out reach that epa conducted to the various states and give us some idea of the magnitude of that effort?

>> we started loss -- last august well before we even put into paper on the rule. in my experience, decades in working first from the stateside most of my career. i am not aware of epa ever doing this kind of outreach. and it was broad-ranging with all stakeholders, but in particular with respect to it states, we met with states in groups. they have regional organizations we met with them. our regional offices convened groups of state officials of from the environmental and the energy side as well as others takeovers and utilities. >> were most states cooperative? did they stay on this side and give a less cooperative stance? >> i would say there is great interest and continues to be great interest from state officials talking with us about the program. >> would you describe the reduction of conventional

pollution, it's projected impact on health and the monetary health benefits. >> as co benefits of reducing carbon there will be reductions in particle pollution, nitrogen, dioxide, sulfur dioxide which have a very immediate and localized as well as regional health benefits. and we predict about a 25% reduction of those pollutants compared to what they would otherwise be in 2030 without this rule. so that will result in reduced asthma attacks, emergency room visits, missed days of school in the billions 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 difference states? >> well, we do show that for every dollar invested there is a $7 return in public health

benefit as a result of the program. >> and would these be made by states or the private entities? >> well, 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 those benefits that those bring. >> well, you know, i understand the four pillars of this are increasing operating efficiency of the different plans. what could be more reasonable than that? using gas-fired plants that 70 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 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 obtrusive. are there other measures that can be taken that would also help reduce pollution included in this rule? >> those are so reasonable that they are being done in a widespread manner, but there are other things that states or utilities can think about doing, other types of fuel switching, they can look at their transition systems and see whether there is leakage their this can be tightened up. so there are a number of things. >> and stage flexibility come by and understand a great deal of flexibility the states have adopted which will make it more easy to implement the proposed rules. >> yes, that's right. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the gentleman from all i/o for five minutes. >> well, thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you very much. we appreciated.

last week the governor of ohio signed a piece of legislation on energy cost being a court concern and but a 2-year freeze on hiring is renewable energies mandate. considering the hypothetical situation in the future, assuming the ohio renewable energy standards in this state implementation plan and to comply with the epa existing plants rule, assume also that you can prove that. in that scenario does the state of ohio maintain its discretion to maintain the real will energy program in order to adjust the interest of ohio? >> the state would continue to have flexibility if the circumstances change to replace one particular measure with another. the proposal ways out the process by which a state could do that.

there is opporunity for states to adjust their plan. >> let me ask, does the state have to get that approval from the epa? >> of the 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 does it take for a state to get that implementation done? >> well, we work with states all the time and circumstances where they wish to change their state implementation plans. we work with the state terror prioritize such actions and try to me this states needs in terms of timing. >> and also it would be subject to the clean air act penalties that did not obtain epa approval before making implementation and change at that time? >> i do not believe so, congressman. the provisions of the clean air

act for penalties are pretty clearly laid out in that pretty clear process for win stuff could be involved. in any circumstance like this we would work with the state to make sure they could do what they needed to do as long as that is the ultimate goal. >> just to be on the safe side, if we could get that back to the committee that they would not face penalties if that would occur. >> short. we will answer for that. >> and also just tommy a little bit about ohio, 70 percent of our generation in the state of ohio comes from coal. in my district, which i have a low of 60,000 manufacturing jobs come 80's even higher than that. and often my area of the state, of very interesting situation. i'll lot of co-ops. how would that facebook.com/booktv power plant avoid putting the small co-ops have a competitive disadvantage, especially it customers. in my district commute are

talking about a lot of -- it's very unique. a large number of farms in the state of ohio. how do you put them not at a competitive advantage? again, you have farmers, small businesses, a lot of retirees. what happens? how do we make sure that does not do damage? this -- >> this is where the design of section 111d and flexibility really shows it's a value because it is -- it will be up to this state of ohio to design a plan that works for the state of ohio. i come from indiana. it is very similar. >> by could interrupt, you coming from indiana you know a few years ago when the president was talking about a cap and tax plan, ohio was at about 78 percent of generation of coal and indiana was about 90%.

they're really in harm's way. excuse me for interrupting. >> no, i gave you that. i actually do not think they are in harm's way. the way we have designed the plan is very respectful of the fact that states like ohio and indiana rely heavily upon coal and have different opportunities they can design a plan that is -- that addresses concerns related to small, rural co-ops, public power, particular concerns. this plan works. it does not require any particular plant still need any particular emission rate. and it looks at emissions over a long averaging timeframe. so that is another way in which the plant get lots of flexibility from the state to be able to adjust to its particular needs, manufacturing, wrote communities, cities, whatever

the particular needs. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my time has expired. >> i recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a little different texas accent than my colleague from texas. epa does have the authority to regulate co2 under the clean air act. the supreme court ruled it. the rule we are discussing today will have significant impacts for decades but on industries in my district of houston. climate change is one of the most important issues we should face as the congress. epa has constructed a framework allowing states the flexibility and opportunity and is important to remember those building blocks proposed are not the exhaustive list. the four building blocks are the very subscription force success bury six are allowed to construct a plan that matches the needs of their surrounding communities. as i said before, the epa is

legally justified. i would prefer cars take the lead. i believe as elected officials we have the duty to act on behalf of our constituents to regulate these pollutants. again, i am sure you are aware, epa in my home state of texas has such issues. for more than three years the epa was impossible for issuing permits which cause significant problems for our industry looking to build and expand. just this past week the governor of texas along with six other governors sent a letter to the president asking him to expose of the cardinal rule. it is my hope we do 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 stakeholder groups including states as a prepared the rule, and what did the epa due to meet these concerns and obviously from my part of the country appreciate if texas had some input in how you respond to it.

>> we heard a number of very specific things from states and other stakeholders. we heard that states wanted to be able to, for example, do their own plans or the ability to, perhaps, join with other states and to a multistate plan. states were concerned about the time that they would have for two things, to develop a plan and actually achieve the carbon reduction. and so our proposal response to both of those, first by giving an extended compliance time turn all the way out to 2030 with a long glide path down to that, but also in response to the first concern, how long it would have to submit a plan, we have provided for either a one or 2-year expansion from states to get additional time to put their plans together is needed. another thing we heard from states is to allow them the flexibility to either craft their planned around a rate based approach or a mass total

of tons of carbon approached if that is the way they wanted to manage their plan. so our plan allows for both. >> okay. i have reviewed the rule of the four proposed building blocks. epa estimated the majority of the carbon reduction would come from building blocks, two of them utilizing utilization of the existing natural gas compound cycle power plants. however, there are other additional reductions calculated under building blocks three and four. you may know texas has more wind generation than any other state, the first and the nation to pass legislation establishing energy efficiency research standards. my concern is epa has proposed taxes is capable of higher renewable energy and energy efficiency demands. my next question has to do with the studies conducted included by epa to meet these demands. epa state that these estimates are subject to significant limitations in the market

variants including crude and consumer behavior. next question, are epa estimates and the proposed rule expected to overcome these levitations and barriers? >> the estimations we used for each building block for based on a national framework, so they are not individualized to each state. of course the state, as i said, has the ability to apply them in any way that it wishes and make sense. if there are market barriers, for example, two additional real will energy efficiency, the state can look to other, more reasonable, more appropriate measures for them to employ. >> okay. thirty seconds remaining. that epa estimates to building blocks are expected to raise prices. further estimates of 90 percent of the efficiency -- the efficiency comes from the rate payers. what affect do you think that these prices increase will have on consumer behavior? will they actually be more efficient and what consumers be more inclined to maintain the status quo as opposed to paying

more for a new program? the last thing, though, the studies that the epa is relying on, are they available to the public so that before the close of the public comment to and from? >> all of our technical support documents and studies are available in that package, 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 for desolating energy additions to programs, they are quite successful and that measures to get implemented and consumers to save money. >> thank you. >> at this time recognize the gentleman from louisiana, mr. cassidy, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will also first make a statement in and ask questions. when you say utility bills will go down by 8% to reminds me of candidate obama saying that

under his health care plan insurance premiums would decrease by $2,500 per family without increased taxes and without a mandate. of course now there are $2,500 per family. when you say you give states flexibility in reminds me of, if you like your doctor you can keep it. i tell you, i know of a family losing their homes. they refinance their mortgage. actually paying less for that, but the cost of food, gasoline, insurance is all going up. denying the economic benefits of projects like the keystone xl pipeline which now canada will ship oil to china to create chinese jobs, and you want to raise their utility prices. now, you may say that conservation will honor net decrease, but let's be clear, let's not mislead. the reality is, poor people, those who are lower income are less able to invest in those conservation measures. this is just going to be a

bull's-eye on other families ability to do things such as keep their rooms. now, there has been a lot of this administration raising to an art level misleading the american people by doing certain things. let's at least be honest. i will go to the question earlier. if decisions to invest in kentucky or invest in mexico, and we raise that input costs of energy, we are going to tilt the them toward investing elsewhere. >> there are many things -- >> the key input is energy cost and you're raising the cost beyond labor. energy cost is lower, so people have been read-shoring jobs. the reality is, now you wish to read increase those energy costs. that said, we will tilt them

toward doing further economic development elsewhere. >> i do not think i can agree with that statement. >> i have to tell you something else. at some point we have to be honest with each other. if you say this is not an energy plan and you're not saying anything about cutting down coal usage or eliminate or reduce, the only way to achieve the goal is which if they do not you will come in with your own plan is to eliminate coal-fired plants. even though you say you don't demand something, but the inherent nature of the rule, the only way that it can be reached without the federal government squeezing the state will be to shut down coal. can you deny that? >> i do, actually, congressman. the plan is that in 2013 coal will provide 30 percent of the energy. >> we have something here which is based upon an analysis of washington state. a 90% decrease in their use of carbon, and the only way they get it is to completely shut

down coal. the macy washington state does not have this mandate to shut down the coal, but the only way they get there is to do so. i feel like there's a lack of openness. let me ask you something else. as the epa examined the ripple effect of this throughout the economy? >> epa has focused on the impact in the power sector power, the ford motor plant -- louisiana has $90 billion in announced construction projects involving polymers, petrochemicals, gas, liquid, jobs that will create -- industry that will create great-paying jobs for working americans. have you analyze the impact of this regulation on the $90 billion of announced expansion in that sector based? >> no, no. we have not. >> yet. so these jobs are on the bubble. more families will lose their homes. now, if you call me skeptical, i

will join mr. barton in being incredibly skeptical. now, what else do i have here? sorry if i keep -- seem so aggravated. keep thinking about families losing their home. costs going up after they were told it would decrease. now we're told that their electricity bill will go down 8% by the way, and a coal-fired plant supplies electricity. this administration is so busy saving the earth that they are willing to sacrifice the american family. i am sorry to be so aggravated, but i cannot imagine the insensitivity of this president and administration. i yield back. >> the gentleman yield back. at this time right now the gentle lady from california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. 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, mr. chairman, for

holding this hearing. and i think you for being here today and for your hard work on these clean-power rules. climate change is a critical issue and it demands action and epa clean power rules, i believe, are a major step forward. climate change, as we know, is already having such a wide range of impact on weather, food and water supply, ocean health and higher-quality, and some much more. my background, i am particularly concerned about climate change impact on public health. epa analysis show there will be significant health benefits from implementing these clean-power rules. as i understand it, these health benefits, and two levels. this is what i would like to ask for confirmation on. one, the primary benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions that are 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 a firm that this is accurate? >> that is correct. >> and some have criticized the methodology used to evaluate these cut as benefits and accused epa of double counting. can you respond at this point, how does epa calculate the health benefits of this rule? >> yes, when we look at the health benefits of any given rebuild those on top of the health benefits that have already accrued from rules on the book. we do not include those benefits. the are all added on top of that, incremental. >> okay. opponents of these rules frequently cite the cost of compliance as a reason not to pursue them. and, of course, we have to acknowledge there will be compliance cost. there will also, though, however , be significant benefit, and i would like to argue that the benefits are particularly there for children and families.

>> yes. >> can you add to our discussion here about how the health benefits of these rules compare to the estimated compliance cost in other words, what is that a cost-benefit ratio? >> and again, the cost that will be incurred by the rules ultimately will be decided by how the state chooses to go forward with their plan, but in our assessment we estimate seven to $9 billion in cost compared to up to $90 billion health benefit, and in particular with respect to the health benefit, each dollar spent on the rule will generate $7 health benefit. and i should note in response to that and in partial response to the previous question that state programs that will be used to implement these, many of them building in assistance to low-income ratepayers and,

again, those are the citizens and families that are most at risk and most vulnerable to the health impacts that we see from air pollution and climate change >> okay. it is clear that these clean power rules will have significant benefits for the american people. i believe they deserve our support. i hope the confined way to work together to get these rules implemented as soon as possible. i, for one, do not believe we can afford to wait any longer. there are states like california where i am from that have seen great economic benefits from renewals. there are cost savings just in putting people to work on efficiencies and developing new resources for renewals. can you outline -- there is a minute left if you would like to use it to outline the economic benefits as these could offset the costs of changeover? >> tell -- california caylee has

been a leader and renewals, investment in energy efficiency, and this creates good jobs that are localized, jobs in machining equipment, installing insulation , weatherizing homes, whether existing homes or new construction. these are jobs that happen in our communities and results from these sorts of programs. >> thank you. just in the quarter of a minute that i have left, you remind me of programs that went into effect with some of our lower-skilled workforce during the recession to get them to weatherize input in the efficiency opportunities for some of our low income housing, reducing energy costs for the occupants of the housing, putting people to work, learning new skills, and this is, frankly , an ongoing process. as technology advances it will

never slow down or stop. i thank you for your answers and thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the gym and from alaska for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate that. i am hereby the argument that this is not a mandate. as the federal agency said, i live in omaha, but i have to make it to lincoln and a certain time. i can only take 45 minutes to get there. that is a mandate. if you let it be up to my own imagination of how i would get there, it is still a mandate. and so it is interesting that we can play word games, but it is still a mandate and will have costs. we are a state that is 72% reliant upon coal. we are a state where it can take six steps seven not -- hours at 75 miles-per-hour to get across. some of this does not make a lot

of sense, but i have reached out to our major public power entities who are in all public power states, omaha public power , nebraska public power, and our national power association and some of our roles. they are all working together. that is the good news. the bad news is, they are completely panicked and how to actually do the plan and how actually meet the 26 percent mandated reductions. because we are 72% reliant upon cold -- coal. so in reaching out to them, they are frustrated with the lack of direction, what they see as conflicting information from the epa. one of the areas they would like

to have nailed down his percentages for reduction are based on -- is it 2012 numbers or 2005 numbers? >> where we look to start to see where states were was the data, most recent data, which is 2012. >> the baseline is 2012. or would they be confused about 2,005? >> there is not really a baseline. >> how is there no baseline? >> starting carbon intensity. the reason people are confused about 2005 is because 2005 is the year the people have been using a lot to talk about our progress toward reducing greenhouse gases. so in describing the impact of the rule epa has compared the reaction there will be achieved and to 2302 that 2005 number.

>> bottom line, 2012, the date that the state of nebraska has to use to calculate how the 26 percent reduction, correct? >> that is the date that we used to calculate their goal that they need to meet in 2030. >> so, again, if they are using 2012 as their baseline to reduce 26%, you are okay with that epa? >> as long as their plans shows as they will get to the goal that is set forth in the overall >> word 26% to. >> for 2030. >> by 2030. >> and if that is 26% to 5i don't know. >> that is the stated reduction that was told by the state of nebraska. >> now, is there any flexibility in this state of using a different year as the baseline? >> well, no. >> okay. >> we need to start the states

at -- >> okay. >> -- where they are. >> no, it is a solid answer. that is clear. clear is sometimes good, even if you disagree with it. now, if states include a renewal portfolio standard for state implementation, does that make it a federally enforceable mandate? >> so -- >> jury your defacto. >> right. the plans will be federally approved. we actually lay out a discussion on this issue in the preamble of we are interested in getting people's feet back on because we heard this question of what and are looking for feedback on how to design that. the plan itself would be enforceable so that -- to make sure that the reductions would get done. >> right. i have four pages of questions from our in dq and power

districts, but i will submit those in writing to you. >> please do, and we have had a number of conversations with officials from your state and certainly would be happy to set up other opportunities. >> well, i will state for my last few seconds that i have talked to some of the board directors, and they said, the only conclusion they have come to so far is it is going to cost them a helluva lot of money. >> we will have more hearings. this time i recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, the manager of the democratic baseball team for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome. as you know, pennsylvania generates a significant amount of electricity from coal. over the last two years we have seen several plants retire from pennsylvania to be in compliance with the standard. i have heard this type of early action will be acknowledged and elan and epa officials said on a

recent conference call that if they are intent to accredit plan requirements forced by the rule, i'm curious, how well states and generators get credit for plans they retire or will retire between 2012 and the final rule? >> anything that reduces the carbon intensity of the generation will be eligible to be part of their plan. so if a state is closing a coal planned for whatever reason, and there are many reasons why they're being closed around the country, have that power is replaced with either lower carbon, natural gas, or zero carbon renewals or not as much generation is needed because of energy efficiency, that will all work to the state's advantage in building their glidepath toward the goal that is required.

>> but they will get credit -- i mean, we want to make sure we are getting credit for doing the right thing in advance of the final ruling, whenever that comes out. you are saying, that will be the case? >> yes. >> can you talk specifically about some of the opportunities my state might have to reduce carbon pollution from our power sector? i mean, do you anticipate that coal will continue to be a big part of our power mix going forward? >> i do expect, and we show across the country that coal will 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 its power generated from coal. the targets that we calculated, in fact, very much took that existing energy makes into account. we think that pennsylvania, like other coal-intensive states had things that they can do, and the

target was designed to capture the things that pennsylvania can reasonably do. >> i want to talk a little bit about the flexibility options in terms of the potential for increased flexibility. my understanding is that state- specific emission goals were derived from one calendar year of actual operation, 2012, which people are calling the baseline near. you know, in the past an average of several years were used in order to smooth out any anomalies. it seems that a 1-your snapshot might yield an inaccurate starting point, especially if the state had several plants on extended outages for example, or some anomaly existed in 2012 that did not exist in other years. would it epa be willing to consider more flexibility of sorts like averaging a few years to establish a more accurate starting point or baseline? >> i know we will get comment on that issue and is something we certainly would consider and talk with states about.

>> and finally, let me ask you about nuclear. several nuclear-generating states have closed recently and is common knowledge that others are on the bubble. i realize the main culprit is market conditions, but market rules have a -- market rules in competitive markets disadvantage base load power including nuclear. can we meet a greenhouse gas rules goals if more nuclear plants close? and since most nuclear plants operated competitively regulated markets, did you consider this in your analysis? >> the nuclear question is an interesting and complicated one, and we did recognize what you just reflected is going on in the market with respect to nuclear plants. we tried to continue to encourage the nuclear generation, which as you say, is kind of on the bubble. we would like to work with states to see how the plan can help encourage it continued operation of those 0-emitting

coal -- carbon resources. >> and finally, let me ask you about reliability. one of the most important duty state leaders have is to maintain a reliable delectable -- electrical system which is vital to our economy. how does that epa proposal work? >> a good question and one that was paramount in our minds. there are a couple of things that we think make it clear that reliability will not be threatened. one is telling the time for implementation here. they're is a long amount of time for people to plan. in the utility sector, 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 in a particular time frame is another way in which the liability will be protected because states have the flexibility to plan their resources accordingly. the fact that we have an annual averaging timeframe and lager averaging timeframe provides a lot of flexibility if someone needs to bring a plant up to deal with a short-term issue. an annual average will allow them to do that without compromising their compliance with their own plan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> at this time recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> i think the chair. i hope. [inaudible] they're is a common theme back home. why does the epa, that works for me, want to kill my job?

why does this same epa that works for me want to hurt my family? those questions can be answered here. they will be answered in november. a few questions you can answer today, first, you follow the example of the chairman requiring a yes or no answer. question one, teach your -- epa added a great safety valve. it was a way to stoke implementation and reliability -- if reliability is threatened now americans and partial grit operators, including the ones that keep lights on in your headquarters and asked her staff about that here. my question is, will you commit to including reliability valve in the final carbon rule? yes or no? >> i cannot commit to anything in the final rule. we have not even done the public, and yet, but it is something we will certainly

consider. >> it is important, meant for. we will follow up on this. the second question is, epa justify these new rules to the public with up to 90 billion in -- a planet and health benefits. health benefits faugh -- the vast majority of those benefitse from cutting initial pollution. mostly, mostly microscopic dust. my question again, yes or no, is does the epa national air quality standard fully protect human health with an adequate margin of safety? yes or no? >> yes, we do. >> that is what i thought. that complies with law.

the second question, in the entire country that is part of the existing standard in the coming years, yes or no? >> i'm sorry? >> the entire country, all of america will have to comply with this standard in the coming years, yes or no? >> that is the air quality standards that states need to me, yes. >> yes ma'am. many parts of the country's already meet the new rule, is that correct? yes or no? >> yes. >> okay. that begs the question, your scientists have just approved a rule signed -- designed to push us to safe levels of p.m. these new rules will protect america's health and then some. and yet this new rule says that there will be billions of new protection. that begs the question, does the epa give this carbon rule credit for what it was already doing?

are you double counting? >> there are two answers to that, congressman. the rule that was just finalized is standard, not the path to get there. states will need to implement measures in order to reduce p.m. to meet that standard, and this proposed plan would be one way for them to do that. so it could be a critical element of a state's compliance plan. the science shows there are health benefits from reactions 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, real health benefits that are experienced by people when those particle pollution levels godown so it is appropriate in our view to reflect benefits

that will accrue from further reduction. >> i have a memo here that you put out in december 2012 and january 2013. a fact sheet on that p.m. standard. also comments with this language it says, this is your doctor -- document, initial reductions in states will help 99% of kinds of monitors beat the standards without additional reduction. you are already there. why new standards? you said it. you are there. >> by these standards are not driven by p.m. reduction. these standards are driven in order to reduce carbon, which is a climate changed pollutants causing significant health and welfare and economic impact in this country. the benefits we reflected in terms of pm are additional

benefits that will be reached -- achieved as a result of implementing this carbon pollution rule. there will be real health benefits that americans will experience. >> the zimmerman's time has expired. at this time recognize the gentle lady from california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for having this hearing today. i want to applaud the administration and the epa for the release of this critically important proposed rule to cut carbon emissions from existing plants. we already set limits for other air pollutants, but we let power plants release as much carbon pollution as they want, yet the effect to climate change already being felt across the nation, droughts becoming more severe, which is putting an incredible strain on water supply in california and specifically my district in sacramento where we have experienced a historic route. in addition, extreme weather for americans and heat waves his hitting communities across the country. we cannot wait any longer.

we have to do something. in california, as you know, we have made great strides with a cap-and-trade program, energy efficiency programs and renewable energy portfolio standards. already made progress moving to cleaner sources of energy and improving the energy efficiency of cars, trucks, and buildings. now epa is setting up carbon standards for power plants to protect public health and welfare, and i support these efforts in making our communities and the plan a cleaner and safer place. ..

states being responsible for the carbon emissions in their states but we recognize there are programs like the renewable energy programs where systems systems are set up so that the states are companies will invest in renewable resources that are outside state boundaries. so the proposal does contemplate letting those states take account of those investments as part of their plan. >> so california, does california get credit them for energy efficiency programs that deal with imported electricity? >> energy efficiency a little bit different from renewable energy so we are focused they are in a proposal on energy efficiency that takes place in the state that reflects reductions in use in that state. but again i'm sure we'll get lots of comments on this issue because of the competition of

london you want to make sure that both are not double counting but also all energy efficiency is being counted somewhere in the right place. >> absolutely. now with the epa have ongoing oversight of state plans or multistate plans? >> like we do throughout the clean air act we will provide oversight to the state implementation approval and implementation of plants as we normally do with state implementation plans. >> california will have to convert epa's rate base's rate base skated to a mass base standard due to programs it has in place. with this conversion affect this reduction target? >> it should work out to be exactly the same. that's the whole point and we have the technical support document that walk states and others through how you would do that conversion. >> okay. now with california give credit towards compliance for the pacific coast collaborative with oregon washington and british columbia? the leaders of four jurisdictions have agreed to

carbon -- and where feasible programs to create consistency and predictability across the region of 53 million people people. c. so if states choose to join with other states in the plan they would be able to pool their resources and pool their targets and be able to put in a joint plan that we can review and approve that provides a lot more flexibility. that can be a very attractive arrangement. >> okay great. did the epa find any parts of the country that don't have the potential to boost their use of cleaner energy? >> no, every state has many opportunities. speier the state does not comply or create a plan can it affect neighboring states reduction targets? >> no, don't believe so. each state is responsible for its own target and as i said if they go in on a joint plan with others than we would look at

that as a joint plan by the state is responsible for its own. >> there is an interim reduction goal that must be met by 2020. what happens if the state does not meet the interim standard? >> actually the interim standards needs to be met on average over the decade between 2020 and 2029 so they can plan that out. they don't have to have a straight trajectory. there are some states for example that now they will have plant closures later in the decade so they can do less in the first part so each state's plan will lay out what it expects to do over that 20 to 29 period and show how it's getting that average and we will work with the states to help them along the way. >> thank you ms. mccabe. i yield back. >> the gentlelady's time has expired and the gentleman from kansas or five minutes. stay i want to follow up on a question for mr. whitfield. he asked you about the president going after the source under

111d and you cited the clean air mercury rule. are there other precedence that the epa has for going on regulating existing sources? >> this is beyond existing sources because it's focused on the fossil generation. steve gave the example and you cited the clean air mercury rule. do you have other examples like the clean air mercury rule? >> guest: no? >> the other examples are industry-specific like this one is. >> under the clean air mercury rule there's nothing outside of regular sources and you can trade but you couldn't go beyond that to apply such as you are proposing here. is that correct collects a yes or no question. >> question. >> that's write. >> to my recollection the clean air mercury rule was overturned. >> it is no longer in effect. >> it was lawless much like you are proposing here. have you met with john podesta in the course of developing these regulations. >> i have.

>> how many times? one-time, three times, five times do you have an estimate? does he have a parking spot outside of your building class is at frequent? >> it is infrequent. >> how many times have your staff met with him outside of regulations? >> not to my knowledge or infrequently. >> has ms. mccarthy met with mr. podesta as well? can you give me the information about the frequency of those meetings in the location of the meetings in the subject matter of those meetings? >> i will take that back. >> the question is can you get me the information? >> i will take the question back. >> this is about love. we talked about that. it's about politics and it's also not about science and i want to turn to science now. i talked to ms. mccarthy about this and i want to make sure nothing is changing your view. we have 30 indicators down from 26226 to 30 indicators on your web site about how you measure the impact of what you all call

climate change today. i want to ask you a series of yes or no questions about these carbon regulations and what you think they will do to the indicators that epa uses. so yes or i know what the set of rules fully implemented reduced sea surface temperatures? >> i can answer that. i don't know. >> will it reduce ocean acidity? >> will contribute to reducing ocean acidity. >> you have the data to support that and as a result of those regulations? >> you can't predict. >> i will take that as you have no idea. is that a fair statement? you have no data. do you have any science to support the reduction in ocean acidity connected to these rules? >> we have signs to show increased carbon in the atmosphere leads to things like ocean acidity and less carbon. >> decreases and lake ice how

much less lake ice will there be? >> the same answer i gave before a. >> the answer is you don't know. i would like to see the data. if you are proposing a set of rules in of rules and you have indicators it would seem reasonable to demand that you say hey we think this is the impacts of this is what you're going to get with all the costs we'll talk about about this morning this is what you're going to get. you will get this much more of something that's really good. >> that's not that way's client simons -- science works. >> have you met with work in connection with electoral liability? and talk to them about the impact? >> yes. >> tell me about those discussions. where there memos were ferc provided memos on electricity liability? >> i and my staff at consulted with ferc. they are part of the interagency review process that we always go through so they have given us their input on electric

reliability. >> and can you say -- you say there's input do you have a memo? or did you just pass in the hallway? see no i don't believe there are written documents that it was more than passing in the hallway. we had discussions. >> there were discussions on something as critical as electrical reliability when we have such a radical world and you did nothing to put anything in writing or tell us what you think in a formal scientific manner? >> we had substantial discussions with them. >> mr. chairman i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back and at this time i recognize the gentleman from new york mr. tonko for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chair and ms. mccabe welcome and thank you for your work on epa's clean powerplant. the president of the u.k. are doing the right thing by placing limits on the amount of carbon pollution that can be emitted from power plants. climate change is a serious threat as we all know and we cannot address it without

addressing the biggest source of carbon pollution in the united states. it's been two weeks since the release of epa's proposed rule. we have are a lot of attacks on the clean power plant. i want to give you a chance administrator to clear up some of these misunderstandings. when the claims is that no one goes to the hospital for breathing and carbon pollution so there can't be any real public health benefits from limiting carbon pollution. would you please explain how this rule 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 breathing issues and further ailments that are caused or exacerbated by air pollution so this rule will by reducing both carbon but also other ancillary pollutants emitted by coal fired and other fossil fuel fired power plants will reduce the amount of air pollution in the air and that means fewer asthma attacks fewer visits to the emergency room's fewer premature

deaths and fewer heart attacks resulting from exposure to those pollutants. >> there's talk about the impact on modest income households. i can tell you representing households that saw their life savings washed away when their homes were totally destroyed is an effect that is never totally recovered and so the inaction here can be very expensive. we have also heard people think it's a heavy-handed efficiency and renewable energy they must achieve. this charge must be particularly frustrating for you. as i understand that the proposal is designed to offer flexibility as you mentioned here today. it promotes a target and left is it not to individual states to choose to achieve that? can you respond to this misrepresentation of the proposal? >> is absolute to stay so we know that states will pick and choose the things that make the most sense for them and the

energy efficiency is where they want to put their investment than they have the ability to do that. if investing in their coal-fired generation to make it just as efficient as possible as where they want to but their investments than the plan allows them to do that. >> thank you and then administrative mccabe i'm sure you are aware in the dark is a member of the nine state compact as regional greenhouse gas initiatives are rggi. our coalition is agreed to a cap on carbon pollution and river regional trading market for common pollution credits. the revenue from the sale of those credits has allowed us to find a wide radio initiatives including efficiency and renewable energy investment education training for jobs clean jobs in clean energy transitioning of jobs in to support businesses and initiate plans for climate adaptation. in short they rggi states have accomplished much already. in fact since 2009 the nine-member state compact has an

emission reduction i 18% for our economies grew by 9.2% by comparison the omission and the remaining 41 states in our nation sought emission reduced by 4% while their economies grew by 8.8%. 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 the epa's proposal so the states in our coalition are already on their way to meeting her proposed target. is that the case or are we going to have to rework our initiative's? >> that is the case in the approach the states have taken is one approach that states can choose to take -- you say it's been very beneficial to the states and very workable. >> okay. i perceive because i was involved in early discussions about the formation and implementation of rggi. i heard many of the states claim

the same claims about threats to reliability and affordability of electricity job losses and predictions and everything short of returning to the days of reading by candlelight. it didn't happen and i won't say these aren't challenges. they are challenges that they are manageable in the effort is yielding significant benefits for public health and the economy. ms. mccabe opponents to address climate change say requiring coal-fired power -- coal-fired power plants as part of a warm call. it's clean power plant going to eliminate the use of coal? >> absolutely not. in fact coal will remain a third of our power supply in this country under this proposed plan. >> my time has been exhausted so i will yield back and i think you are again appearing before force today in offering clarification. >> at this time i recognize that almond from west virginia mr. griffin. >> there've been lots of jobs lost in more expected to be lost

because these rules. we feel feel like we are under attack in washington d.c. and if it's not a word something pretty close to hell. thank you. that being said it's my understanding and effective i can get answers that appreciated. i understand you are a lawyer by training is that correct? it's also my understanding that the attorney general of west virginia patrick morrissey wrote a letter to gina mccarthy in 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 111d under the u.s. code epa has no legal authority to regulate co2 emissions under power plants under section 111. dave: . in particular the code provides that the epa is regulating the source under section 112 of the clean air act the epa cannot also establish standards under section 111d from the same sources. is that true that in 2012 epa

started regulating power plants under section 112 of this mercury and air toxics rule. yes or no? >> we did issue a regulation on section 112. >> under the plain reading of the u.s. code and by the way plain reading of the legislation reported from this committee and the substandard provisions of law law and acted by the house and senate this decision by the epa is foreclosed the decision to regulate or close the nation's ability to regulate greenhouse gases under 111. isn't that correct? the debt is not correct. >> you base it on the new understanding that the epa takes the position that they don't read the provisions of the u.s. code literally because there's a technical conforming amendment included include in the 1990 clean air act, amendments that you and epa as search creates ambiguity and what is the law is that your position manned? >> this is not a new

interpretation. it's the interpretation agency took in 2005 in the clean air mercury rule. that reading of the statute. >> and do any of the following still work for the epa carol holmes how are j. often were windy l. -- when. dave: l. blake. acquired made a mistake in his ruling and i read from the opinion that you referenced a jersey versus epa 2008 opinion for all lawyers listening in. 517f574 quote this requires regulations for new and existing e.g. you. epa promulgated under section 111d but under epa's on interpretation it cannot be used to regulate sources listed under section 112. the epa does concede that the egu remain listed under section 112 for existing sources

must fall. epa promulgated the camera will regulations for new sources under section 111d on the basis they would be no section 112 regulation of the egu emissions and new standards would be accompanied by a national emissions voluntary cap-and-trade program end quote from the opinion that you just said where you people argue the opposite. the court seem to think they argued what i think -- you don't have authority to regulate greenhouse gases under 112 that you don't -- not greenhouse gases that regulated the coal-fired power plants. don't have the authority under 111. how do you reconcile those two? your thought that this was your position before and now finding out that your lawyers have argued the opposite and another case was appealed on other grounds. >> the camera will decision was based on the decision to vacate

the rule. >> i understand that the e.u. stated here today that this was not a new position for the epa because of this case. this case is the opposite. how do you reconcile that? >> i'm not intimately familiar with the court decision you are reading. see i appreciate that. let's talk about good basic lawyering done. you know what a scribner's error is. you have been around the process for a long time. you understand when a bill passes and this committee does all the time when we say at the end our chairman will say that you know closes by saying the this staff can make conforming amendments. what the epa is hanging their hat on is a scribner's error that was a conforming amendment and you are saying a scribner's error in the conforming unimagined trump the law of the united states? with your background in education i would expect a better argument. think you've been very much mr. chairman and i yield back.

>> the gentleman yields back. i now recognize the gentlelady from california ms. castor for five minutes. see i think it's very heartening that america is moving forward to tackle the challenges of a changing climate and carbon pollution. we are already making 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 and 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. new technologies out there so you can control with your smartphone what's going on in your own home and save money that way. again the new technology has improved by leaps and bounds and this is part of american ingenuity. if we are going to bring that same ingenuity to tackling carbon pollution from the largest emitters.

back home i'll have to do is look around the tampa bay area on top of the huge ikea store. we have got large solar rays saving on their electric bills, the largest beer distributor in the area as a major warehouse. they said this makes sense for us now to put solar panels on the roof. our local governments have done in courthouses and there is a corresponding benefit that we have created jobs in clean energy and 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 focused on the largest sources of carbon pollution. when you review the proposal by epa i think the hallmark of it is the flexibility granted to the states.

it says by the year 2030 comments almost hard to imagine where we will be in 2030 but by 2030 states will have to meet these overall pollution reduction goals. now some people have expressed madam administrator at 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. this state i would argue that could be the most impacted by the change in climate. leaders of the state level have proceeded from energy efficiency standards. we don't have any renewable goals that also people, some folks say -- couldn't be epa have done a little bit better by setting targets on energy efficiency and renewables? but mr. barrow georgia is producing more solar power than the sunshine state and that's pretty ridiculous.

but there is progress at the local level. in my home county of hillsborough county i have to waste energy plant that has been expanded and they are getting greenhouse gas credits. the city of st. petersburg is a leader nationally in what they are doing and lighting and solar power and eliminating methane waste energy. so here's a question. what will states be able to do to harness the improvements at the local level and it's not just local governments. its non-profits and businesses. how will that count towards our goal, our state goal of reducing overall carbon pollution? >> this is a great point. i think there is something like 1000 mayors across the country that a pledge to address carbon emissions in their cities and is just so encouraging and so positive in the way these programs will fit into a states plan is that any measure that helps 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. 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. isn't that right? >> well the state government is responsible for the plan under the clean air act as they always are and 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. 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 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 at one of the problems is the state incentives do not encourage energy efficiency and conservation. hopefully we can do better there. >> we think states will find energy efficiency is a very positive program for them to invest in. some other states that are further along that path have found. >> thank you. see at this time i recognize that a recognize that some of the texas mr. burgess for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate you having a you having the hearing and appreciate are witnessing here so long with us this morning and your forbearance there are questions. i want to go back i think it was mr. barton or maybe mr. shimkus who asked a question to you responded that there would be in a% reduction in electricity prices and taxes. >> electricity bills. we predict electricity bills will go down.

this is the national average. speaking of providers with the formula and the data that you put into the formula to come up with that answer? >> that's all laid out in a regulatory impact assessment and attachment is in a record so we would be happy to point you to where that is. see you also say in your 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 i wasn't here then. 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 know mother figure that we will be glad to get you more information on that. more information about. >> does this figure of 100,000 includes those asthma attacks that would have been avoided simply because of the passage of the clean air act?

>> health benefits that we predict from this rule are associated with the pollution reductions that are required by this proposal. >> now you say pollution reductions but of course this all was predicated on the endangerment finding for carbon dioxide and now carbon dioxide has become the regulated pollutant. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> so is regulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere going to result a 100,000 fewer asthma attacks? >> the asthma attacks we associate with this rule in our analysis are due to reductions and other pollutants that will happen as the carbon is also reduced. >> can you provide us with the journals that backup the 100,000 figure as well as their reductions that you are asserting? >> we will be happy to point you

to where in the record we lay out our expectations on that. >> i'm really not interested. what i really would like to see are, are their publications in journals that will attest to this fact? the ones that i have been able to find really are rather nebulous about the finding that production of carbon dioxide means a lower number of asthma attacks. >> we will be glad to follow up with you. >> and i brought my harrison's principles internal medicine book with main case we want to look at it. i don't see carbon dioxide listed as a trigger for inciting reactive airway disease. >> let me clarify because i think i didn't quite see where you were going. there are certain air pollutants that are very clearly associated with the exacerbation of asthma attacks. the impacts that we are seeing

from climate change also can create conditions in which asthma can be exacerbated. >> maam may i stop you there for just a moment because you seem to conflate climate change with carbon dioxide. my understanding of the purpose of this rule because of an endangerment finding from carbon dioxide and the asthma reductions you are asserting in your testimony this morning are as a result of reductions in carbon dioxide. >> no, that is not correct. let me be really clear. the endangerment finding found that emissions of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide created adverse impacts to public health and welfare. ..

your assertion asthma well be reduced because of the result of a rule, it just follow. >> if i could be really clear, then. the health benefits we describe as a result of this rule, the asthma attacks in particular, are the result of the reductions in other pollutants that will happen in a -- accompanying the

reductions in carbon. >> i would ask, what have you been doing? why health you reduced those other pollutant. if it was within they're power to do so under the clean air act. >> epa and the states have been working many years to reduce air pollution that results in asthma attacks and a health effects and has made a lot of success along the way. this is an additional program that will result in additional produce reductions and there are real health benefit outside associated with those. >> gentleman's time expired. >> i have additional questions. >> way have other questions and we'll have more hearings. this time recognize the gentleman from georgia, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, ms. mccabe for being here. i'm in a lonely place of this commitee, sometimes that's the only honest place to be. you be the judge. i accept the scientific evidence

of climate change. i accept the scientificked and the common sense that tells me if you talk all the carbon bad god put in the ground and belch it in the air we're going to have a change. and don't accept or agree with the current administration's effort to do it by regulation because the won't work, when you consider in isolation or against what is taking place in the rest of the word. so the debate between those folks that say put mandates in he hopes that technology will arrive on time to the rescue and those that think you ought to invest in technology, i'm in the technology first camp and i don't think we're doing that with these regulations. you talk about a number of things we are doing, some folks are doing, you talk about things like making coal plants more efficient, shifting from coal to natural gas, talk below more

renewables, consumer efficiency. nowhere in there are you talking about shifting from coal to nuclear. of the existing technologies on the shelf, nuclear is the only one that can provide significant base load capacity with zero emissions. my question is does shifting from coal to nuclear count? >> it does. >> in georgia, and in south carolina, where the only rate pairs in the nation making significant investments in shifting from coal to nuclear in my district we are adding the two next nuclear power generators to come online in this country. vocal three will come online in 2017, four in 2018. how will they get counted toward the goals in 2020 of getting down to 891 pounds per kilowatt hour us. >> when those megawatts are produced by a nuclear plant and replaced by a plan that emitted car been, athlete will be

counted for the state. >> in the time between these come online in 2017 and 2018 the reductions will be counted toward the goal you set for us as getting 891 as the adjusted average. >> they will and those plans as part of georgia's base and how they produce their power, it will help address -- achieve the goal. >> let me put this in con ticket in 2005, georgia utilitieses were belching about 2,000 pounds per kilowatt hour into the atmosphere, and we have already achieved a 25% reduction in that amount get can down to 1500 as of 2012. so in the seven years between 2005 and 2012 we achieved a 25% reduction. against the president's goal, of achieving a 30% reduction for 2005 to 2030, how come we haven't already gotten there? why are we still being required to cut from 1500 down to 891 in

2020 and 834 in 2030? >> each state is in a different someplace have made different progress. what we did in our rule is look at these reasonable and existing technologies that people can use, and how much more is reasonably able to be done -- >> my point is, we're already achieving a 25% reduction in shifting from coal to natural gas. well of the tool in the toolbox you say we have, and plans to shift from coal to nuclear in 2017 and 2018. we already achieved 25% of the starting goal of reducing what we're producing in 2005 to 2030 by 30%. we're most of the we there why do we have to cut it in half even further. >> this rule was not set up to achieve a specific goal of reduction. that is not the way it works. it was set up to look at what the available technologies are and for each state, that results in a different trajectory and a different ultimate goal.

>> we're utilizing two technologies, one you specifically list and one you haven't listed, coal to nuclear. let me put it another way. it makes no sense to me that a little itty-bitty state like wyoming will be held to belching 1,700 poundsmer kilowatt hour and georgia will be required to belch out no more than 834 pounds of co2 for kilowatt hour, and makes lessens to allow little state like north dakota to do 1783-pounds in 2030 and a big state like texas has to do no more than 700 something. makes no sense to me in terms of whatever the existing technologies and are that's a problem i have with this whole approach. >> we would be glad to spend more time with you, congressman, and explain how the argentinas were -- >> it's going to take a lot of explaining. thank you, ma'am. >> recognize the gentleman from

west virginia for five munches. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to try to keep this issue in perspective. maybe we have to get back a bit, 30,000-foot level to look at this. because according to the epa's own web site, it says that 82% of all manmade co2 comes from areas outside the united states, and so to me it's kind of ludicrous that we have this discussion to think we're going to improve -- going to have health benefits to america and we're going to start reversing the climate change when 82% of those contributing to the co2 are exempt around the world. it just -- i can't think of any other way we're going to make this policy work than by engaging the rest of the world into this discussion. this experiment he wants of 30% is just doesn't seem to be working. if we go back to the quioto

protocol it called for 5.2 reduction in co2 emissions. but by the end of the protocol the globe had increased by 10%. just ignored what was being documented. so, while we want to expert, while this administration wants to experiment by reducing 30%, the international energy agency is already predicting that by 2030, the rest of the world will be producing 40% more co2 around the world while we're experimenting with reduction, the rest of the world is not following our lead and are going to 40%. just consider china and india alone, with this chart you can see that this is what they're going to be doing. for this time period. china is going to introduce 557,000 more giga whats of coal-fired power house.

china will increase their co2 output by 60% while we're decreasing 30%. india is going do increase by 50% their co2 output and we are decreasing our 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. we seem to be operating in a vacuum. just recent hill the epa administrator -- former administrator, lisa jackson, said u.s. action alone will not impact world co2 levels. do you agree with that? >> i -- >> yes or no. >> i'll take your word she said that. >> just yesterday, former epa administrator william riley said absent action by china, brazil, and india, what we do will not

suffice. >> i don't think anybody disagrees that action is required by many countries to address -- >> so with these regulations we're ignoring the global reality that the rest of the world is not following us. we're going to affect our american economy, we're going to put it at risk, when already the numbers are predict from nine to 40 billion annually we'll pay for this experiment. increase our utility bills and putting americans out of work and disrupt our manufacturing base, we're ignoring the advice of our -- the predecessors with the epa over this thing. so i'm going to ask you quickly, a year from now, if china and india and japan have not reduced their co2 emission will you withdraw this regulation? >> we're not -- >> just yes or no. >> no. >> okay. how about two years from now, if no one is following, will you withdraw it. >> congressman, this rule -- >> is that a no?

>> i can't speak to what -- >> i'm saying in the final rule, then, since you mentioned earlier in the final rule, you said that it's not final -- final language has to be work out. will you agree to exert metrics into this? engineers deal with metrics. we want to see how you measure success. will you put into the final bill a metric that says if america's economy is tanking because of this, or the world isn't following and they're continuing to increase their co2 emission that this will void this rule? >> that -- >> just yes or no. >> i don't believe that would be an appropriate thing to do under a clean air act rule. >> so again, trying to paint the final picture, this experiment in working separate from the rest of the nation, kind of -- and you, yourself, have mentioned efficiency, i agree with you about efficiency.

but when i think of it comes to mind is someone insulating their home and then opening all the windows. what have we accomplished with is? we're not working in concert with the rest of the world. they're not following us. so for us to expect to have health benefits from something while 82% of the rest of the world are exempt from this is ludicrous. i have to -- time expired. i hope to have more dialogue. >> happy to. we're absolutely not ignoring other countries and we have many activities -- >> you and i both know they're not joining us. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to welcome and thank administer moore -- administrator mccabe for joining us and for your testimony. i want to give you a chance to

answer 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 lime change. first, they say this is a global problem so why should the u.s. act first, and second even if america acts it's not going to solve the problem because other countries will ignore so it why bother. i'm concerned there's no question that climate change is a global problem and demands a global solution, and that doesn't mean that we wait for other countries to act first. so to the contrary i say progress on big global problems almost always requires united states leadership and i don't think anyone would claim the world will meaningfully slow climate change without u.s. leadership and action. i want to give you a chance to answer some of the specifics because it's hard when you have to answer just yes or no to say what you really feel. >> i appreciate, congressman, and i agree with the way you, whichized this.

there's no question it's a global issue. no question that countries beyond the united states are going to have to take actions. this has been the case with other environmental problems in the past. i also agree and the president agrees that the united states has a responsibility to act here, both because we are significant contributor, the second largest, i believe, contributor, and because we are a world leader, and we work in the international community with other countries, with china, with india, 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. >> so on the specific issue of climate change can you tell us why american leadership is particularly critical on this particular issue? >> well, it is. the global impact of climate change affect us here in the united states. they affect our citizens and our 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 we ourselves are showing we have the leadership to take here at home. >> and also, as you mentioned, the united states is the -- one of the world's top emitters of carbon pollution, and in order to be a credible negotiator i think we need to be able to urge and push other countries to do

>> i would just like to say, i assume you a

one way in which we anticipated avoiding this type of situation

is providing a lengthy trajectory for compliance. so going to 2030 that gives utilities a 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 their fleet is being managed over time. the other thing is that we're -- the coal fired suite in this country is aging. right now half of the plants are in their 40s, i think, and 10% or so are 60 years old or older. so there's a transition going on in the industry already. quite apart from this rule. and the flexibility that this rule provides will allow states to focus on and utilities to focus on investing in the plantses 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, the ones where it doesn't make as much sense economically to put investments into them. so that's 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 these as -- the impact by state? >> as i said before, since the states will ultimately decide their plans, all we can do is do some illustrative examples and in our regulatory impact assessment we did look at the potential job losses and job gains associated with the rule. that's all laid out there. >> under the proposed rule for existing power plants, epa's requiring each state develop a state implementation plan and

submit to epa for approval. what if a state chooses not participate? would epa impose a federal implementation plan in that regard? >> the clean air act does provide if a state doesn't submit a plan, that the epa would do one. i tell you right now we're not focused on that. right knew we're focused on making sure that states understand the opportunities here for a them and we're confident that states will want to be in the lead. >> we saw many states didn't want to establish their own programs to implement obamacare and trying to implement that at the state level. if epa were to impose a federal implementation plan in a state, what does epa envision that plans would look like? >> we really haven't thought that through and any proposed federal plan would -- we would go through a public process to get people's views on that. >> would you take over energy planning for the states and decisionmaking like about their electricity mix? would you take over planning

electric rates for consumers? >> no, our job is to look at the emitting facilities, coal-fired power plants and any proposed plan would be squarely within our authority. >> combined heat and power facilities are already inherently efficient, has -- what has epa done to prevent those facilities from being swept into the 111d rule. you take measures to ensure those facilities are not adversely impacted by this proposal. >> combining power is a very efficient way of generating electricity so those kinds of facilities will be very helpful to states in putting their plans together. >> my time expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> chairman yielded back. now recognize the gentleman from illinois for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for being here. on a long day. and thanks for your service. the epa recognized in the past and i believe they've tried to

recognize in this current rule that retaining nuclear power generation is a cost effective means of reducing carbon and i appreciate that. as we unfortunate witnessed in wisconsin, eight years of carbon emission reductions brought about by the construction of renewable energy were wiped out with the closure of a small single nuclear reactor. it's the only base'd power supply that runs around the clock without producing car been. understanding the current outlook on the nuclear industry i have questions on the regulatory agencies allowing them to operate. and i want to ask questions on the epa's outlook on nuclear power in past models major questions sounding the degree to which nuclear power is technically, politically,social live feasible has been raised. does the epa consider the use to be a major area of uncertainty. >> i decent know i can speak to that. we recognize that nuclear power

is an important aspect of lean generation and as i said before, we have tried to signal in the proposal an encouragement towards retain can existing and we know that new is being planned and built and that squarely will be advantageous to a plant but we recognize that there are existing challenges beyond our control for the industry. >> i understand the proposed rule relies on an eia study that shows six percent of the nuclear fleet being at risk but still expected to continue their operations going forward in addition to this, economic modeling of climate legislation by epa, iia ands has shown that dramatic growth in nuclear energy is necessary to carbon emissions and that can strain development of nuclear energy dramatically increases the cost of compliance. what will happen if the epa's assumption these plants at risk will operate? >> it depends on what a state

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 other zero emitting generation renewables and also re -- >> like a ton of wind mills or something. >> there's a lot of wind power being built in the country, significantly a growth area. and energy -- >> takes a lot of wind replace nuclear power plant. >> it does. >> does the epa have the legal authority to compel those plants to continue their operation? >> not that i'm aware of. >> does any agency have the that authority. >> i couldn't speak to that. >> in recent modeling by epa determined that 44 new reactors would be necessary to satisfy performance standards based on the lieberman warner bill from 2008, and another showed that an additional 96 giga whats of new nuclear power capacity would be needed by 2030 to meet standards

from '09. does the epa believe we can make meaningful rubbings in carbon dioxide company emissions while ensuring reliable and affordable pour without substantial growth in nuclear power generation. >> i do. and i note our proposal here is not legislation like you described. it takes a very different approach, which is what is reasonable to expect the existing fossil plants to do and states to do to reduce carbon intensity. so it takes every state where it is. if we see nuclear coming on the ground we consider it. we're not counting in -- we're not assuming other nuclear construction that is not already contemplated. >> do you know how many now -- under the proposed rule, how many new nuclear reactors would be needed to meet the standards. >> i think we're aware of maybe five that are under construction now and we took account of those

and didn't take account of others that aren't yet built. >> and currently there's eight licenses under review by the nrcc right now. i just want to reiterate that 100% of nuclear power generation is carbon free and not only will every plant be necessary to ensure compliance with any future mandates, many more will need to be brought on to ensure affordable and reliable energy is available throughout the country and the key is we want to talk about affordable and reliability. we'll need a lot of nuclear power plants to come online. thank you for your time and patient today and i yield back. >> in closing let me note the committee has outstanding document requests relating to our investigation of epa's ad herns the energy policy act of 2005 and it's rulemaking for new plants: it has been four months since we initiated these requests but the epa has been decidedly slow in its documents production. can you tell me who at the epa

is accountable to the committee for responding to its requests. >> the agency will respond and we're working on them. we have responded to various requests and the responses are underway. >> all right. and will you commit on behalf of the administrator that the epa will produce outstanding documents and fly with the -- comply with the request. >> i won't make a commitment on behalf of the administrator but dill do what we need to do to be responsive. >> will you commit to have your staff work with our staff to ensure the commitee has whatever it determines is necessary to fulfill its oversight obligations. >> our staffs work very well together and we will do what we need to do in order to be responsive. >> thank you. we will have questions for the record forthcomeing. i would ask that you provide your response in a timely fashion, particularly given this rule appears to be on a fast track with this administration. will you commit to providing responses to the questions within 60 days. >> right now i cack commit to a time frame because i don't know

how many questions there will be or what will be involved. we are do our best to be as ex-ped dishes as possible. >> thank you for being here today, and for the testimony that you have given us and the members for theirs devotion to this hearing and that will conclude our hearing. [inaudible conversations]

tonight, hearing on bonuses paid to executives at the department of veterans affairs. then from the faith and freedom coalition conference, kevin mccarthy, faith and freedom coalition chairman, ralph reed, and formle presidential candidate, rick santorum. >> mere nearly 80% of senior executives at the adapt of veteranses affairs received bonuses, some as high as $60,000, the secretary for human resources answered questions about the department's policy on bonuses during a house veterans affairs committee hearing. it ran one hour and 40 minutes. >> thank you all for being here this morning. we had planned on a business