continues to be acting in as much of a bipartisan way as we have over the past four years and you know civil rights should not be a part of an issue. thank you. ..

in which he outlined his climate action plan. so i was reading a legal opinion recently and it said a president's speech is certainly not a matter of law but the president making these international agreements has

through regulation pursued his commitments that he is making. but other countries that are part of these agreements are not doing the same thing so the u.s. is being penalized because of these extreme actions. so what you all are doing, and i'm reading from a legal opinion that mr. tribe wrote, you are forcing a select set of victims including consumers communities regions, businesses and utilities to bear a substantial part of what is a global problem that even you and your predecessor indicated that these regulations were not solved so you are asking for 425 million more dollars than last year. a lot of that money is going to

go to hire additional lawyers to defend them litigate these extreme regulations so we look forward to the opportunity today in exploring this situation with you and with that at this time we are doing three minutes a day mr. rush so i recognize the gentleman for a three minute opening statement. >> thank you mr. chairman administrator mccarthy it's always a pleasure to see you come before this subcommittee and bring great news and sharing with the subcommittee what you all are doing over at the epa. i just want to thank you so much much, you and your agency for all the great work that you do in protecting the air land and the water we have. it is appropriate for us to give a standing ovation at this point

in time. but you understand how we feel about you on this side. but this is a budget hearing and we might as well address the elephant in the room and discuss the topic that is on the minds of many of our colleagues and that is the proposed rule 111d the clean power plant. administrator on behalf of those of us which include most of the american people who do not think the world's scientists and climatologists have conspired together to perpetrate a hoax by saying that climate change is real and humans have contributed to it under the leadership of president obama and yourself working to address this serious issue on behalf of america and our citizenry and indeed

everyone around the globe. the clean power plan represents a significant opportunity to shift away from some of the dirtiest carbon emitting energy sources that have contributed greatly to polluting the atmosphere to cleaner more sustainable forms of energy that will help pull us back from the brink of disaster and set us on a more stable footing. ..

>> that can be very helpful. as i spoke to you earlier, we look forward to collaborating on the coal ash and the toxic substance control act. today's hearing is not just an administrate exercise with bean counting. we don't write the checks but much of the work delegated rest in this committee. as a legislature i have many

questions where i think more information is needed to evaluate how statutory mandates are being carried out. i have questions about the filing budget request and policies that are being implemented like the clean power plant, the climate-ready water utilities program and regulations under the clean air act implementing 13-650 which i think is chemical safety. we know these regulations can be complicated to implement without guidance adding unnecessary cost to the businesses and consumers. this shows how much it could tax the powerplants themselves. if this plant puts reliability at the base and load energy from nuclear and coal in danger high

cost and brown outs when most in need are concerns. i believe there is a better way and week find solutions to the challenges without placing the burdens on the back of the consumers or sacrifice power powerplants that supply good paying jobs. i have questions on the agency's transparency concerning prioritizeing and setting choices. these areas are important as we look to work across the aisle on both sides to update the law. i thank the administrator for being here and look forward to today's conversations and the ones that will ball oh. i will give my time the barrett. >> you are also so personal in

public and private. i'm going to ask you utabout the china policy and talk about the new newable fuel standards. we appreciate your accessibility and look forward to the interchange. >> i recognize the gentlemen from new york. the ranking member of the environment subcommittee. >> thank you for holding this hearing on and welcome administrator mccarthy. we appreciate your keene intellect. thank you for being here to discuss the fiscal year 2016 budget request for the agency. the epa plays a vital role for the citizens and maintaining the resource base that spans our

society and our economy. as you state in the opening of your testimony, public health and a clean environment are very late. i agree. and the record of environmental achievement and economic growth over the years demonstrates that environmental protection is consistent with a strong and vital economy. in fact if we are willing to make investments in vital infrastructure such as the drinking water source water protection sewage treatment and waste energy systems we can create thousands of jobs and improve the conditions of our rivers, lake and coastlinesism we are not saving money by avoiding these investments. at best we are transferring them to state, local governments and businesses and individual citizens. but even worse we are raising the cost of the very systems upon which we depend. when polluted land and water are not clined up the resources are

unavailable for productive use. a contaminated property generates no revenue for the economy or community. pollution that is not atinded to spreads and leads to additional problems and it doesn't become less expensive to clean up at a later time. the cost only risus. our failure to repair vital infrastructure and address the complex changes of climate change has already cost a great deal. infrastructure does not repair itself and the pace and impact of climate change are indeed that both are increasing. we need to address the issues mow before the cost rises further. i know many members believe that cutting the epa budget is a good thing for the economy because lower budget blocks the agency from enforcing laws and making regulations. in fact, much of the epa's budget supports states and local governments through loans, grants or technical assistance.

cuts translate to extra burden on the states local and tribal governments. the administration and congress should be working together to maintain and improve on the record of environmental protection. epa's budget is an important part of that effort and i indeed look forward to your testimony administrator mccarthy and working with you to continue our progress as a nation in environmental protection and thank you for joining us. >> at this time i recognize the chairman of the full committee mr. upton for three minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. we do appreciate the administrator of the epa to appear before us and discuss the budget request and priorities. yes, we have sharp areas of disagreement but the two of us have never been disagreeable and i look forward to the continued relationship. i am sad to say the budget request looks more of the same

red tape and costly rules and that concerns me because i think some of the rags will cost households and family big time. they will cost the businesses particularly manufacturing. manufactureing in michigan and across the country does have an edge. for the first time in years michigan is being eyed for sed forsetting up the businesses. epa seems intent oplooking in a long list of new regulations that will find future administrations. along with the clean power plant they have new ozone laws that might prove to be the most expensive rule every. ever. i mind like to see them focus on the current rules before taking on new ones. they are well behind schedule

implementing the existing standard of the ozones and they routinely miss deadlines making this problematic program even more difficult. i remember the testimony last year when we thought he would have an answer last spring. we do have differences but your testimony also presents an opportunity to explore areas of common ground. for example we can embrace much of the epa rule on coal ash but go a step further and permit authority in the state. this should work to make sure the epa's control standards are enforces, and should work better for the states who have bench marks to beat and the authority to manage the implementation. and it will work with the people responsible for handling the res residual every day. likewise, it was clear last year that your goals and ours for

taska reform overlap. let's silt down and work on legislation that is bipartisan to ensure safety regulation for the products and chemicals cop tained. >> i recognize the ranking member mr. pallone for three minutes. >> thank you chairman and ranking members. and thank you administrative mccarth for being here. a clean environment isn't a luxury. it is essential to a strong economy. and epa is on the effort of making the air safer to breathe and the water safer to drink. the president's 2016 budget funds the epa at $8.6 billion, an increase of $450 over the fiscal year 2014 level and that is the minimum amount of money

epa needs to address to many challenges we are facing which happen to be the greatest threat to the planet we have seen and that is climate change. the funds represent a small portion of the overall budget. less than one quarter of one percent and 40 percent is shared with states and tribes to help implement laws squawchieve national goal. those funds support local economies and communities big and small. it includes significant funding for brown field cleanup and protething human health and the environment the cleanup projects are promoting growth and gains in community and property value. according to a recent analysis on sight businesses and organizations on one of the epa nine's region provides over 6200 jobs and contributed 340 million in anian employee income. and another study found

properties within three miles of the sight experienced an increase in value as well. this will provide over a billion for state revolving funds under the state drinking water act and support needed infrastructure for public drinking systems well beyond the year. i want to commend the president for prioritizeing the actions to reduce climate change in the budget. the budget allows programs for states to develop strategy and incentive plans for states to go above and beyond the carbon reduction goals. some say the clean power plant rule is a problem but the regulations have created benefits and supported the economic growth. and close to home i appreciate

the efforts to help smaller communities build smaller resilience resilience. my district was one of the hardest hit by super storm sandy and epa's plan can help the smaller areas upgrade their infrastructure and this is essential to protecting the communities facing the devastating cost of climate change. this is a sound budget. i support and look forward to hearing from administrator mccarthy. thank you. >> at this time that concludes to the opening statement. so you are recognized for your five minutes of testimony. >> thank you chairman and ranking members and the members of the committee for giving me the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the environmental protection agency's 2016

proposed budget. i am joined by david bloom. the budget request in discretionary fund forking the 2016 fiscal year provides resources that are vital to protething human health and environment and building a solid path forward for growth. since 1970 when the epa was founded we have seen over and over again a safe environment and strong economy go hand and hand. this budget works to address climate change improve air quality, protect the water, safeguard the public from toxic clemicals, support communities, maintain core enforcement strength, support needed research and work towards a sustainable fiche for all-americans. effective environmental protectio is a joint effort of epa, states and our tribal partners. we are setting a high bar for continuing our partnership efforts and looking for opportunities for closer collaboration and targeted joint planning and governing

processes. that is why the largest part of our budget 3.6 billion or 42% is provided directly to state and tribal partners. the fiscal year 2016 request includes an increase in budget request. 1.1 billion to address climate change and improve air corlett. these resources help protect those most vulnerable and the harmful health affects of air pollution through common sense standards, guidelines and partnership programs. climate change isn't just an environmental challenge. it is threat to public health the domestic and global economy and international and national security. the request supports the president's climate plan and the clean power plant that establishes carbon pollution standards for power plants.

in addition the president's budget calls for a 4 billion clean power state incentive fund to support state efforts to accelerate carbon pollution in the power sector. protecting the nation's water is a top priority for the epa. in 2016 we will finalize and support implementation of the clean water rules and clarify the types of water covered and foster efficient business decisions to protect the nation's water. recognizing the need for water infrastructure the related efforts are funded at 2 .3 billion and we will focus on financial planning for future public infrastructure investment and expanded efforts with states to identify financing opportunities for drinking water and storm water infrastructure. last month the agency launched the water infrastructure and

reisilancy finance center. it is as a key component of the expanding efforts moving forward. we are proposing efforts to help communities including low income rural and communities of color including targeted funding and on the ground assistance in a network of circuit writers. an investment of 16.2 million helps local communities improve safety and prepare for oil spills. these efforts recommend a shared commitment among those with safe security ranging from facility owners to first responders. the 2016 budget request will let us make a real difference to communities every day. it will give us a foundation to improve infrastructure across the country and sustain state, tribal and federal efforts all across our programs.

with this proposed budget the president is not only sending a clear signal about the resources epa needs to work effectively and efficiently with states and tribes to protect public health and the environment. it is also part of an overall federal budget proposal that doesn't doesn't accept the bad policy in sequestration and hold back resources in order to increase needed defense spending. instead the president proposed the budget finds a path forward to avoid sequestration and properly support both domestic and national security interest. mr. chairman i thank you for the opportunity to testify and look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you very much for your testimony. i recognize myself five minutes for questions. first question i would just ask you is how confidant are you that you can defend the use of

111- d for the existing coal plant rule. >> can you repeat that? >> how confidantly are you that you can defend the 1-11- d. >> i feel very confidant. i say that because of the extensive outreach the agencies has done to each state and all of the stakeholders including environmental. i feel confidant we are seeing plans develop now that will be sound and we can move it forward in a way that is beneficial >> do you think the outreach would preempt what the language says? >> i think the outreach helped form inimplicit language so it is reasonable fair and allow states to move forward. >> now in your submission your budget document you talk about further efforts are required to put the country on an emissions

trajectory consistent with the president's long-term goals. i assume you are talking about the commitments in copenhagen accord where he said he wanted to reduce carbon emissions in america by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. and then 26-28 percent below those levels by 2025. >> i think i am referring to the president's understanding that climate change is a significant issue that the administration has the authority and responsibility to address and i am trying to make sure that we deliver portion of that plano effectively. >> how did he decide on 17% below 2005 levels by 2020? >> that was an international goal the u.s. government put forth.

>> the u.s. government presented that? >> yes it is part of the -- >> how was that determined by the u.s. government? how did they reach that conclusion? >> i think you would have to speak with the department of state to know the ends and out of that discussion. >> have you had any discussions about that with them? >> certainly. we talked about the rules the agency had on the way at the time. >> i can make the arguments that it is pretty arbitrary. could i make that argument? >> i think what we are talking about now and the plan that is before you, the budget plan, is very concrete authorities at the epa has responsibility and will be concrete steps moving forward that are measurable. >> when you testified on the senate in july of 2014 you mentioned this is not about pollution control. you said it in your statement this is not about pollution control. so must be about honoring the

president's commitment. >> my statement was referring to the fact that when you seek to address carbon pollution there are many ways in which it is an investment opportunity instead of end of pollution control technology. >> in other words this is about investment opportunities from your perspective? >> what i am suggesting is the state can look at it like that. >> but it isn't about pollution control? >> it isn't about installing pollution control technologies. >> would the president's clean power plan meet his international commitments without the adoption of this rule or these rules you are proposing? >> i think the president has established some aggressive goals for this nation that go along with our north -- interest in addressing it domestically and meeting internationally to address the commitment.

we are not focusing our legal efforts on nam or domestic goals. we are just implementing the authorities under the clean air act. >> >> the reason many of us are upset about this is the cap-and-trade system was rejected but the president goes out and makes international commitments, does not consult with congress, comes back and announces at a georgetown speech this is my plan and epa follows up and we are going to issue these regulations to meet the president's plan so he can make his international agreement. >> the clean power plan is a direct application of the authority that congress gave us to look at how to establish a system of reductions for the power sector and address carbon pollution. >> i want to ask more questions but my time is out. i recognize mr. rice for five

minutes. >> again, i am going to say thank you to the administrator. i want to also express my gratitude for the meeting that i had with the acting assistance administrator janet mckeene last january i believe it was where we discussed my concerns around the nuclear provision in the proposed 1-11 d rule. as i said in my opening statement it is important the finalized rule gives due credit to all zero emissions sources of energy which not only include renewable like solar, wind hydro, and geothermal, all of which support, but nuclear power generation also. as you know my home state of illinois is home to the highest number of nuclear reactors.

11. that provides 48% of the state's electricity. these generators run above 90% capacity which is efficient compared to other sources thchlt goal of the power plan is to reduce carbon emissions while making sure states can provide reliable power to the consumers than nuclear power must play a role to achieve this objective. i realize there are other market base consideration that result in nuclear being less competitive, i feel as though the epa must work to finalize a rule that incentvises states to

preserve nuclear power in their energy portfolios while valueing the sources. it is important the final rule promote the use of zero emission such as renewables and nuclear energy if we are going to achieve the carbon reductions that the regulations was intended to reduce. my question to you madam administrator is would you agree that nuclear power must play a vital role in the clean power plan and that to allow states to provide zero emission that is affordable, safe and reliable? >> i think it is a part of every state's strategy moving forward yes. >> can you assure the

subcommittee that the epa is taking into account of states like illinois that might be impacted if nuclear plan is not credited in the plan to meet the carbon reductions? >> i will certainly agree that nuclear power is zero carbon and it is an important part of the baseload for many of the states and it should be considered by those states carefully in the development of their plans >> thank you. i would also like to continue to engage on this issue to make sure nuclear power is appropriately valued due to its carbon emissions and any rule that is proposed. madam administrator, another priority for me is the issue of environmental justice and making sure the states are providing adequate direction in order to

achieve the interest of local income and minority communities. in cases where safe may not be sure how to conduct environmental justice analysis or how to define an environmental justice community then i believe that it would be very helpful if the epa provided states with guidance technical assistance and resources to help protect the most vulnerable communities that have the least amount of influence to help themselves. can you speak to this issue and assure me that the epa is listening and working with the environmental justice groups as the agencies prepares to finalize the rule and two the agencies will provide states with guidance data, tools and resources to help identify and protect these communities >> i can assure you of

that,ranking member and point out the environmental justice budget is given an increase this year which will go a long way to provide the tools >> i recognize the gentlemen from texas, mr. barton for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you again, madam administrator. i could really have fun with you today. >> for a short period of time anyway. >> you have always been responsive professionally and a accommodateing to make my calls so i will not grand stand. the president made a big announcement about china and a major breakthrough and agreement was made. but i am told there is actually

no written agreement. there is no signed document. is that true? >> i am not aware that is the case. i don't know. i have not verified that. >> i have on good authority that the majority of this committee that in reality it was just a press release. now if that is true and i am going to say if, we cannot find or maintain a copy of any document that was signed. can you check that out and let us know? it is one thing to have a disagreement about policy. it is another thing to have a disagreement over what are in these documents when our president signs things. the kyoto was signed on behalf

of clinton but not radified by the senate. we don't have something week debate the pros and cons of in this case. and given the fact this is a fairly visible issue, i think it is a fair question if there is a signed agreement let's see it. did you agree with that? >> my understanding is it was a commitment at the highest level in both countries in that the decisions was made to ensure that the actions that are commence with the obligations are captured in already existing agreements we have with the country and we have an action plan moving forward developed through our formal negotiation process. >> is that a long answer to say there is no signed agreement? >> there is very much a commitment. and we have agreements to work toward the commitment and put

the actions in the work we are taking. >> whethern the president of the united states, or the secretary of the united states or you as the administrator when you represent national relations if an agreement is made something is signed. you don't just stand up saying we have this agreement and hug and everybody loves each other. you have a document that at least, if the senate -- if it needs to be ratified by the sen senate or house it is a commitment. what you have i am told is a press release or a photo-op which is not unusual for this president i will grant you but in this case, a 30 year agreement should be documented. that is all. if there is something that is signed you will get it to the committee >> i am sure there was an agreement that was announced and i have seen those documents.

>> you have seen documents that obama and whoever the chinese official is -- you have seen they signed documents? >> i have seen the documents expressing both of their commitments to this goal and i am well aware we have ongoing negotiations and action items can be documented and tracked >> i can take you to the national a arsive -- archives and show you lots of documents with signatures on them as well. and we can agree you are not going to go out and rob a bank and we can hold a press conference we have agreed we will not rob a bank. >> i don't think this is discussed as that type of a bonding agreement but a task ford. >> i got 30 seconds left so switching gears. renewable fuel standards we have mandates that can not be met.

you have said publically and privately you want to fix it and you promised the chairman of the committee in a hearing you would have a program to fix it. we have not to see that. when can we expect to see something that gives real relief to this rfs mandate that simply can't be met? >> i think congressman, you know i have a real commitment to moving this issue forward. i wished it could have happened last year. the approach that epa took received considerable comment and so you will see something very soon in the spring that will address that issue and hopefully move us forward. >> can you give us a date? very soon? this spring? by the end of march? >> i don't have a particular timeline senator -- congressman. i was giving you a boost.

i want to cross our t's and dot our i's. i know we were not as successful last year as i would like to be. but i want to get this out >> keep us informed. >> senator's time expired. i recognize the gentlemen from new york. >> thank you administrator mccarthy. and thank you for your leadership and joining us this morning. i want to focus on drink water programs. i am pleased to see the modest increase for the drinking water state revolving loan fund. every week i hear about water main breaks across the country. a few weeks ago or over the last few weeks several have hit my district including my home town of amsterdam. while i am pleased the administration is asking for more funding for the primary

account dedicated to supporting drinking infrastructure i am concerned we are falling further and further behind on the maintenance and up keep of the systems. it cost far more to deal with a pipe once it burst than it is have a program of replayer and replacement of infrastructure that takes care of our systems. we have many communities that are not able to take on more debt as well. so a loan program isn't going to do it for them. they do need grants. so in this agency's budget there is mention of new technologies and new financing mechanisms that the agency will be exploring. for example, the new water infrastructure and resilience finance center won't provide funding but provide assistance to communities seeking outside funding for their projects. is my understanding of that budget correct? >> this year we are standing up the program yes and looking at other what states and localeities

are doing so we can share that and duplicate the public-private partnerships happening already. >> i have seen drinking water system leakage rangeing from 30-50 percent. this is representing lost revenue because the water is never delivered and it is lost in investment because utility paid to purify that water. so the water in dollars are flowing out of these pipes. programs like water sense that encourage water conservation good but the the biggest loss is from the delivery system we need to address this. does the agency have options of helping identify the leaks and address them? >> we have a fairly comprehensive program that starts with the office of research and development and conducts research on what types of technology are available to

identify where the leaks are happening and then we troy to provide technical assistance from the programs to help identify opportunities for reducing the leaks. we will be looking at this. and as the climate changes the water problems are considering. in the western part of the united states there is a desperate need for water conservation and the last think we want to do is see water suitable for drinking being leaked out of the system. >> right. it is indeed a precious commodity and we need a good collaborative effort to address the issues. the best way to address this is to ensure the source water is as clean as possible to begin with. i support the waters of the u.s. rule because i believe it is critical to efforts that source water protection. what other initiatives is the agency putting forth considering to assist communities with

preventing water pollution and protecting source waters? >> yeah. in a number of different directions. one of the biggest concerns is that we see a lot of spills near source warters that are -- and in source waters -- that are challenging us from a drinking water perspective. we see new pollutants coming in as well. so we are working to make sure states get the guidance they need and we do our job in terms of setting national standard so the states that establish their own water quality standards and wrfing and categorizing have the information they need to protect themselves. we know we have had recent spills that indicate it is not enough. we are trying to identify what other assistence we can give to the states and trying to get them to think more creatively about planning water infrastructure needs so drinking water sources are protected and

we get an opportunity to move forward with the challenging issues that are contributeing to the pollutants getting into the drinking water. >> when you ask for the dollars in the budget and the budget increases somewhat we know a a lot of the efforts go toward our state and we appreciate that. and again thank you for your input here this morning. >> this time i recognize the gentlemen from illinois mr. shimkus. >> thank you, chairman and administrator, welcome. do you agree there is 84,000 chemicals listed in the inventory? how many do you think are in com commerce? >> i don't know have numbers

>> that is why we are trying to move bipartisan nature to try to get a handle on this. if we work with industry on chemical data reporting that should help us get a better idea of what that number is do you agree? >> yes. >> in your budget plan you have originally 83 work plan chemical risk assessments you want done by 2018. i look at the budget report -- we have five completes, 5-15 and 10-16 giving us 25. take that from 83 and that is still 69 that budget wise we don't seem to be able to get in a firearm -- timely mapernner. i appreciate the effort but i want to use the opportunity as i think we can get there and this is a perfect example of working with you and colleagues on the other side to move this forward.

so as i mentioned couple times, i want to move to 1-11d. this is where we appreciate some of the folks' responsibility because there is concern of coal fire decommissioning. and all are major generators and base low production. across the country nuclear power is stressed and you can look at the state of illinois my own state, where the state is trying to go through gyrations to make sure nuclear power is still online. has the epa taken into consideration the base low laws of not just 1-11d but what could

happen if we lose nuclear power and what do you think can be used to sub-plant that? >> we have looked at that issue and received a lot of comment on this as well. because the way in which 1-11d analysis looks at this issue is it indicates there is likely or continued to be over 30% generation through coal even in 2030 at the end of the target time line under 1-11d. but there is no question there is investments made in the base load in order to make it cleaner from traditional pollutants and we expect that baseload to continue and one of the biggest challenges is to make sure we don't do this in a way that sends different signals to the communities we care about. the energy world that is bringing reliable and cost effective internally. i want them to know they can continue to invest and it will

not be stranded and we are looking at that issue because there are many ways week achieve the goals that don't result in lower base load from coal other than what is projected that is going to be strong in 2030. >> we talked about the mid-term standards before and i know you have had lot of input from the industry and i would hope you would really look at those. that could be a tipping point of moving things too fast where if the end goals can be reached without upsetting the apple cart in the mid-term. >> we put out ideas for this and have great comments that will allow us to address this issue pretty effectively. >> and i want to weigh in on the rfs positively hoping that we do get a standard. i talked to the folks in my district who are concerned and say 14 15 and 16 will have

something that is highly fought and angered on both sides no matter what it is. but it brings me to the debate on biodiesel and the implementation of biodiesel without having the rvo's established. is this a point of one hand not knowing what the other is doing? how do we put that supply in for part of the calculation? >> rfs is going to be looking at the range of availability of fuel supplies of the bio diesel fuel supplies available internationally which is what the rule requires. in terms of carbon itself; that is decision was misunderstood and we can certainly talk about this. there was bio diesel coming in

already but we approved a better way of tracking that to make sure it was renewable fuel consistent with the underlying rfs principles. it was not intended to open up a new market but it was intend today reflect the way in which the companies were assuring their compliant in a way that was more stringent than what was going on. everyone is bringing in the fuel we are trying to support domestically were pro-- for purposes. >> i recognize the gentlemen from texas, mr. green. >> thank you for being here. to say the epa has a lot on its plate is an understatement. the rules and regulations seem to affect ever sector of our nation and i am happy to ask state department's decision questions about the balance we are trying to strike between protecting the environment and

helping businesses and industrial segment capitalize on what is required to be done. on april the 12th the epa released new source performance standards for chemicals from the oil and gas industry. they targeted hydraulic fracking and the rule target voc emissions reductions through green completion and expected a yield of 95% reduction including 1.7 million tons of methane. the first question is the vos and immsps were supposed to be implemented in a two-step process. is my underingstanding it will not be until later? >> i think that is right for the full implementation.

we recognized there was equipment that needed to be manufactured and installed and we were making sure we were not being overly agressive about having the proper tools. we do have a good signal from our greenhouse gas reporting program that it has been effective at reducing carbon pollution because carbon pollution is reduced as you are capturing the volitil compounds. >> i understand it is 190-200 tons that have been reduced. is there a co-benefit? >> i don't have the numbers. >> it is about 73% decrease. >> exkellcellexcellent.

>> the whitehouse introduces the strategy to reduce the oil and gas emissions and they had sources at hydrauling wells, pumps, leak from well sites and pressure stations. anyone on a rig knows you put a hole in the ground and you find oil and most likely natural gas and more than half of completed wells produce oil and gas. does the epa believe there is an overlap between the rules? >> we believe there are sinnergies and we will not duplicate efforts but provide a signal for those producing oil and natural gas as to what the regulatory obligations are. >> in 2014 the epa estimated about $200 million in natural gas could be captured and sold.

producers in texas have been using quipment to get the methane and separate and it sell or power it pack the producer. methane is a product we need to use. aside using it on site additional capture is going to require additional pipelines in the budget has side aside some but not enough to encourage investment in the module pipelines. >> we are working to take a look at what pipelines need to be constructed in order to make sure we can still continue to enjoy the inexpensive natural gas and oil that is making us solid domestically. >> recently the whitehouse counsel on environmental quality released a guide saying how the

agency should consider the affects of greenhouse gases. ...

>> any shade of blue is bad. we have a hard time in this

even highly constructive. we have a record report with this infrastructure mess in the proposal. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> i would like to tackle a proposal of the issue with the chairman's questions that require a yes or no answer. next slide please. this slide is from page 209 of the impact analysis. and i have something for you right here. >> i am having a little bit of a hard time reading it. and i can't say that i recognize it specifically. >> 209. yes or no.

doesn't it show that half doesn't yet exist in the eastern part of america. yes or no. >> i'm sorry i don't understand the question. >> the question is if we go to 65 parts per billion, you cannot achieve that core technology. >> this lie does not indicate that the numbers that we look at are based on 2014 to 2016 and that is how this will work. >> the question is yes or no. >> i cannot answer the weight you phrased it. but i do know that with the national rules that we are doing, that almost all counties will achieve this standard at 70 was about nine that will continue to be challenged. >> the time is now to move on.

next please. another issue is background ozone. and so the last time i showed you this and tons of smog pouring into our country. i will focus on another slide. next slide please. this is your map. it shows how many come from background sources compared to american sources. over 50% of this is outside of our control. so controlling this, controlling what we don't control. again yes or no.

my correct that there are almost no parts of the country where americans are consuming more than half the ozone? >> i don't know the answer to that question. >> guesser know have these increased in recent years? >> i do not know. >> [inaudible] >> no states are being asked to reduce emissions that are background levels coming from another country. >> can you talk about that sometime in the near future. let's talk about the exceptional impact rule. >> yes or no you rely to make these rules achievable.

that such resources make this viable. right now they are not viable. >> it has been part of our program since day one. and we are trying to make sure that states can easily access our ability to have exceptional events so they can make sure that they do not interfere with the state plans for implementing the rule. >> the documents from the texas council of environmental quality, it goes into great detail about this process in my own state, the fact that we are zero and 10 only three have been denied and seven have not been answered. and so that is not viable to control the ozone. >> without objection. at this time i recognize the gentleman from new jersey for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. with just a small fraction of

the federal budget protecting communities across the country they do all this by partnering with state and locality with essential funds at all levels. i just wanted to highlight a few of these important activities and i would like to discuss how epa includes more budgeting than last year. what that means for many communities living around these types. are there other resources included in the budget for overburden immunities? >> there are significant resources in this budget to help communities that have been left behind in some of our national average to reduce pollution and this is going to help us get that potentially another 25 sites moving forward that will be ready for the cleanup stage

in the coming year and it is an increase that is going to be significant. we all know that many surrounding this actually are low income areas and communities of color that deserve to have the same protection as everyone in this country enjoys and that is what this is all about. >> i think that this phone is so important for health safety and the economy and i would suggest that the committee's sometime hold a hearing to learn more about the risk that these communities face. another source for risk that they are unsafe and untested chemicals in our products and our environment and that is why i believe that the cost issue should be a priority in this includes significant funding for chemical risk assessment and management and computational tax audrey. can you briefly describe.

>> yes i can. in fiscal year 16, they are requesting an increase of 12.4 million of computational toxicology research. i think that you know that this is an important step because it really strengthens our ability to get more chemical is assessed in a quick wave. it also has a potential to significantly eliminate animal testing which takes a very long time to reap the benefits we need and it is a wonderful opportunity for us to address the chemicals and make sure that public health is being protected. >> i would suggest to the chairman of the committee that there be a hearing on computational toxicology to better understand these techniques and the potential

change on this reform. and last i just want to touch on one of the greatest environmental challenges and that includes congressional republicans taking every opportunity to undermine them. and we were hearing lots of complaints. at every turn we hear about this and i also know that industry claims about economic effects are frequently overstated and the benefits are usually understated. i think that we need to act on climate change and this is a key part of that. some just want to criticize. i just want to put you on the spot. if you are committed to developing a workable plan with states an industry that ensures

reliability, and will you work with members on that and would you be willing to testify to the committee about your plan. >> yes, i am, mr. chairman. >> i appreciate that. >> the gentleman yields back. now we like to talk to mr. pitts for five minutes at. >> that an administrator, when the epa wrote the rules, it acknowledged that the reasons for placing the compliance obligation on those who do not blend renewable fuel instead of on those who do was an outdated holdover from the 2007 rules. changing the definition of obligated party could help to advance the goals of the program and correct some of the problems that we are seeing with the current program. the epa did a significant amount of work on this issue in 2009 and 2010. my question is do you agree that it would be timely and useful to

include an accept public comment on a proposal to shift the compliance obligation as part of the current 2142,016 rule makings? >> i know that that's a comment that we have received on the 2014th proposal that we put out last year. it is my interest to make sure that we move forward with the 2014 rule as quickly as we can and i think it is important for the stability of the renewable fuel industry and i am sure that we will be looking at those comments closely as we move forward. >> one of the problems is that it requires the epa to make reductions each year on two highly uncertain hangs. first how much transportation and fuel will be concerned in the consumption the following year and how much will be used. when the epa gets these predictions wrong as it did in 2013 the result is exorbitant

prices for economic hardships war merchant refiners and windfall profits and wonders telling us that escalating mandates will lead to higher gas prices at the pump. the epa's decision to delay the 2014 rule until 2015 created unnecessary uncertainty for all stakeholders, but there could be a silver lining. for 2014 the epa will not have to guess how much renewable fuel was used. it will be over in the epa can set the standard based upon what actually happened. and so my question is will the epa said the 2014 mandate based on actual consumption of renewable fuels. >> i am not sure because i'm not able to answer that question since we are not through an interagency review and able to release it finally. but we will be addressing that

question clearly. the courts have been very clear that we need to follow the direction of the eia and we have been true to doing that and we will make sure that we continue to do that as well as moving forward with 2014 recognizing that it wasn't completed as a final rule in time to generating the incentive to go beyond what was already generated and i recognize that. >> will the epa combine the 2016 mandate? if so, do you believe that they have the statutory authority to do so? and if you do, i would like to talk about this. >> we know that the statute requires us to put out annual levels, but there is a great interest in making sure that we send signals to the market in a way that allows all of the participants for the numbers that might come forward.

>> earlier this year they tied the 2018 compliance deadline to the issuance of the final 2014 rule. this allowed obligated parties to make informed decisions about using 2013 compliance. the rationale for delaying this compliance deadline is equally applicable to 2014 in each year following. will be epa qaeda 2410 compliance deadline to the issuance of the 2015 rule and what about subsequent complaint deadlines? >> as you indicate, we know that this is an issue that is important before we are going to continue to address that issue moving forward in the proposal. >> how well the compliance deadline be impacted? >> those are issues that we need to resolve if we intend to do that. certainly we know that for

research and investment services it is difficult to always wait for an annual rule to be finalized. we want to make sure that we are providing as much signal as we can moving forward. >> thank you, my time is expired. >> we recognize the gentlelady from california. >> i thank you for recognizing me and before i begin it is always exciting to have former colleagues join us. administrator mccarthy thank you for your testimony for being here and i'd like to address several topics around climate change. the effects that are far-reaching and has an impact on environment, human health, and the economy and i am pleased that you have made this such an important priority. i would like to address the fact

that there are large-scale and smaller scale efforts in the community levels that are important in addressing climate change. in the 2016 budget request, do you propose implementing a targeted effort with the so-called circuit riders? to ensure that communities have the resources. in other words being there, will you please describe his proposal and how it will help the local community. >> this is important to try to work with communities and states to look at climate resilience. we are learning a lot as we go across the country and talk about these issues and we have identified having riders that are trained individuals in this field and have them available to go into communities moving forward in these issues that would have the tools at their fingertips that others have

provided and we think it's an opportunity to stretch our resources and make them accessible to local communities in a way that will be much more productive than we have had before. we will be requesting resources to support that. >> thank you. the epa green power plant is a commendable effort to address the air-quality and climate change and there are numerous studies in the epa and other sources as well showing that they will be able to significantly reduce this. can you elaborate and give us a comparison. what are the expected health benefits of this? >> the health benefits relate to a number of things and one is that we know that this is changing in terms of the territory. we know that allergy season is

getting larger, that the ozone is going to be a more difficult issue moving forward as the weather gets warmer and there's more ozone being produced. all of these things directly relate to people's health and climate change is a significant public health problem. it should not be looked at as a natural resource issue and it's also clearly an economic challenge, particularly for those that are struggling with kids that have asthma. we have significant responsibility to protect those children and give them a future that we can be proud of. >> to address the concerns that many of my colleagues have raised regarding the cost of implementation and the cost of energy that they believe will impact families, of course we want to keep energy affordable.

so could you please give us a comparison of the cost and benefits of the clean powerplant? >> in 2030 the benefits of the plan will range anywhere from 55 to $93 billion in benefit compared to costs of 7.3 to 8.3 billion. it is a significant benefit. the one thing that i want to make clear of again is that i consider these to be investments in the future. i consider them to be investments in clean economy job growth. >> the investments are made, they keep giving and they keep benefiting. these are important priority is but also important is clean drinking water in a way that relates and there are so many challengers today and i think of the lack of it in california. how does this provide for the

enhanced resiliency that the water infrastructure needs across the nation, highlighting the local community. >> again, we are working with local communities to coordinate their response to climate change and we are also significantly boosting the contribution to drinking water because we know that it's not just about these things but supporting it bringing dollars to the table and we are really excited about our ability to bring private dollars to the table. this is an economic challenge that isn't just federal or local or state government but the responsibility of the business community as well. >> thank you. >> i also want to welcome our former colleague. since he has left, i don't think the republicans have one baseball game.

we are delighted that he is back today. i would like to recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. murphy for five minutes. >> take you, mr. chairman. when the epa came out with a rule on new source performance standards he said there at number of things that show that these are feasible. running over some of these examples let me just respond if you are aware of them. are you aware that the partially funded project is $3 billion over budget? >> i am aware that it is overbudget. >> are you aware that it's worth discontinued? >> i am aware of that. >> are you aware that the clean energy project has not broken ground yet? >> i am not exactly up to speed on that one. >> something cited in the report. are you aware that it doesn't use coal but actually petroleum coal? >> no sir.

>> are you aware that the final project that they cited for this was 110-megawatt boundaries. are you aware of that? >> i am aware that it is a good example of one that is up and operating effectively. >> is a retrofit. the canadian center for pols policy alternatives which support this says that this was twice as expensive as alternate generating methods which will make it significantly more expensive for families jeopardizing the owner's financial viability to even complete it. are you aware of that max enact yes, i am. >> so in this 2005 energy policy behind me, which talks about this being adequately demonstrated. and the references made before

have demonstrated to be able to limit pollution. but it appears in all of the projects and i just ran over, they have not been completed some have not been started, one has been discontinued in one and one is not in this country and none of them are large-scale. one only captures 13% of the epa rule and so my concern is, and you said that you want to stay true to the rule and the courts but i'm not sure that the epa is actually following the law on his. so i want to know if you are revealing anything to withdraw this and start over so you can appear that this can work is towards the goal. >> i think the projects we identified are those that have been moving forward and we can talk about each one that i am familiar with. but the record in this proposal

went well beyond from those facilities and we feel very confident that this technology is available and that there is a technology at the levels that we are proposing it. then it will be a viable option for coal to continue to be part of the future of this and other countries that we are supporting investments throughout the department of energy. >> it means generally this is captured by pollution control which is often a direct cost and we have designed the clean powerplant allows you to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency. >> we want to make sure that these are viable and that people

can actually do them. what you are citing here are projects that people are saying that they're going to bankrupt the company or stock after they have been going on. so not sure when you say this but one of those agencies [inaudible] >> things that can really work, i want to make sure that it works. are you aware that national energy technology labs alerted the epa -- that we believe that this is not accurately represented. they even included update data and found that cost an average of $170 per megawatt at the high-end of 213 and that is about 30 to 60% higher than the cost that the epa put out there.

>> citing a document, we worked very closely. and i believe that we included the best judgment in our technology and we align very well with the doe and put the best proposal forward. we are looking at all of those comments. and we are certainly taking consideration of all those issues. >> i hope you will pay attention while, because it has to be adequately demonstrated. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for joining us today and thank you for your important work in protecting america's public health and natural

environment. american families and businesses continue to save money at the gas pump and in part due to the vehicles that we drive. i found this good info graphic from energy.gov that provides in his work look at the standards because they are sent periodically to ensure that we are keeping up with the times. this is a nice little snapshot the standard was 18 miles per gallon. 1985, 27.5 miles per gallon, 2011, up to 30.2 miles per gallon. 2016, 35.5 miles per gallon. and i would really appreciate that the administration continues to push here. what we are seeing is those that are available to consumers right

now. so we have the benefits and what you get better gas mileage, the transportation sector is almost 20%, or putting money right back into the pockets of american families because they are getting more miles per gallon and it is reducing fuel costs for businesses. do you have any recent hard data on the savings for american families and businesses? and then i would like to talk about what the future goals are. >> we can certainly talk about what the projections are relative to the rules that we have done in this term of the administration. but i think that the proof in the pudding is that you can't see a commercial where they don't talk about energy efficiency because the car companies know that everyone wants fuel-efficient vehicles and we have designed these rules allow even suvs to become more fuel efficient if people need

bad characteristic that the vehicles provide. we know that people are already going further on the dollar driving their vehicles. and we know that by the end of 2025, we will have doubled the ability to make a dollar go fire. >> the goal for 2025 is 54.5. i know the administration has set the first standards for medium and heavy trucks just last week the president called to develop the next phase of the standards building on the success of these for heavy-duty vehicles. what are the expected benefits their. >> we put forth a first phase recognizing that there is a lot

of ongoing work to make the heavy-duty vehicles more efficient and i think it might surprise people to know that the long-term truckers get about 6 miles per gallon. so they are dying for more efficiency in the system as well. i do not have those exact figures yet, but we know that we can make a significant leap forward, we are working with the industry to put together a proposal that recognizes that the challenge is to try to take advantage of those that can increase fuel efficiency, but we also recognize that there are businesses that need to remain viable and affordable and that we make sure we recognize the bounces to put these rules forward. >> thank you so much. another quick question on your new proposed incentive fund. coming forward on the cost of

changing climate is kind of scary if we look out in future decades and i wanted to ask you particularly about water infrastructure and wastewater infrastructure. as we take a look at all of these, they are looking at having to do some significant retrofit. i'm not sure that your new incentive fund would allow us to go to that part of money for those kind of wastewater infrastructure updates is that a possibility? or do we need to take a look at the more traditional programs? >> there are actually brazilian seed funds, and why don't i make sure that i provide you the information and i was going to try to make it attractive than the rules require because we still want to make sure that they are reasonable for

everybody. but some state have been prepared to move forward faster and we want to make sure that the states are rewarded for that. >> would that include things like smart meters? i find that it's been very slow going and trying to empowers consumers to control their thermostat and things like that. >> we have not yet defined fully because we want to make sure that we work with states about what the best way to do it is. but you have to articulate that that is somewhere where we can get more efficient or else there are lots of flexibilities to use it, the direct infrastructure improvement as well. so it all goes back to that carbon pollution standard. >> we now recognize the gentleman from ohio for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we appreciate it. that an administrator, thank you for being with us today. going back to our former

chairman, if i could just ask a series of questions, i think i have been here and it is a yes or no question. but under the proposed clean powerplant. does the epa claim authority under the following steps? the first question is do they claim authority to mandate that coal-fired generators run less and that existing gas-fired generators run more and that is considered under voting block number two. >> i'm sorry, i can certainly answer those after i give some thought, but it's hard to give a yes or no answer to that. >> okay, does the epa claim that fossil fuel generated and that renewable generators run more and that is assumed under voting block number three. >> the epa certainly has the authority to establish standards for carbon pollution for those individual sources. how they choose to address those

reductions -- >> would that be a yes to the question? >> we have the authority to set standards. but the facility itself decide how to meet the standards. >> okay. does the epa claim authority to make the general public use less electricity under voting block number four? >> we certainly do not regulate that in this world. >> in 2013, approximately 70% of electricity in my home state of ohio's electricity, they will grant a waiver exception -- >> they do not see the rule to have an impact on reliability.

as we have done to ensure that the tools are available should anything arise. >> whether it is a waiver on another process, the tools are available to us. >> again, especially with those tools, it's really important in my state due to the high uses of coal. and so you can get back to you on that. existing ozone standards were in just now being implemented by states and we have more than major concerns to propose stricter standards before this is even implanted. so am i correct that states have not fully comply with those standards until 2008? >> that is correct, there has been quite a long horizon for states work on these issues.

>> how many states would have complied by now? >> i'm sorry, sir, i do not have that at my fingertips. but we have gone through a designated process there is an implementation will that has been put out as well and we will be working on that. it does not continue as requires, as to whether it is to aggressively protected. >> which states have not complied and which ones have will be very useful to the committee. the epa has also stated that they do not know the cost of the current standards and will not know until it is cemented in 2016. question is how can we have any estimates of the cost to implement the new proposed standards. >> we actually do estimate the costs associated with strategies where we cannot particularly identify but we do work very

closely with our comments to put and make a good effort. then again, what we are doing here is illustrating what the states might do but the rule itself is only about what we believe is necessary to protect public health with adequate safety. >> finally i would like to just ask a faculty as stated that transmission and distribution we are other opportunities to do this beyond the voting block. do they plan to increase the operating efficiency and if so by what authority? >> i think that the system administrator was mentioning the fact that we provided flexibility so that even if it's not the building blocks that are achieving the reductions in which those are standing to standards, there are many ways

in which states can achieve those standards outside the boundaries of the building blocks and we are encouraging that flexibility to be considered. we are not think they will you. and so it has maximum flexibility in what they want to do. >> thank you. mr. chairman, my time is expired and i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired, we recognize the gentleman from kentucky for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to start by asking you about this, which is a process that poses a very serious risks to the health and welfare of appalachian communities. i was pleased to note that in the epa budget justification you mentioned two recent court victories and there are still a lot of things to be done. what resources will be available under this budget to help communities endangered by this

kind of mining? >> i'm sorry, i do not have it broken down, but i am happy to take a look on getting more specific numbers. >> thank you very much. earlier today the chairman mentioned this which he characterized as having been rejected by the congress, which is one way to characterize it. and in fact it did receive a majority of votes in both the house and senate and was only killed because of republicans in the senate who filibustered that dell. is it fair to say that if it had been enacted and not been stopped by senate republicans that we would not be involved with queen power rules right now? >> in some ways i could be the case, but i do not know that for sure because the clean air act is really our responsibility to implement and it might have implemented the choice considerably in the requirements

to move forward. >> talking a little bit more about this and my home state i was very pleased to see individuals praising your work reaching out to the states on this. he said i am from kentucky and what the epa has talked about recently, the outrage that they have done is incredible. we have talked about your open door policy and said you can meet with them talk to them and we didn't take advantage. he went on to say that we have already started the process. i appreciate the outreach that they have made to kentucky and other states and states have very different challenges in cutting carbon pollution. we are increasing our use of

less expensive fuel, but we generate most of this power from coal. and so i know that the epa recognizes that this is not a one size fits all solution. can you discuss how the funding and the 2016 budget request will be used to assist states with implementing the clean power plant? >> yes, we have a 25 million-dollar request in our budget to work directly with the states on the implementation of this rule and we have been overall requesting to ensure that we have the staff available to be able to work with this and the states and to take a look quickly to make sure that there is no delay in sending all the right signals in moving this forward. i would like to just say that he is a very honorable man. his advantage in kentucky is that he looks at all issues together. and i think that it provides an advantage for the state to see that these plans can be done and actually will provide benefits

to the state in terms of the utilization of energy supplies that are effective for cost-effective supply and also can be designed to be effective in reducing things that impact the health. >> city say that this could be appropriated? >> yes, they absolutely can as well as the incentives that the president has proposed in the budget which is $4 billion and i think that we have decided in a way to recognize that kentucky doesn't have the same standards that are not so heavily reliant on coal. so it's achievable from the get-go and flexible enough to allow individuals like this to get his arms around it and make it work. >> i appreciate what they have shown, and the cooperation that

we have had with kentucky and other states and i yield back. >> the gentleman yield back. we now recognize the gentleman from west virginia for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. take you for appearing before us. let me start with a question. is the epa -- has the epa ever made a mistake? >> i'm quite sure. >> do you think any of those mistakes have led to a job loss? >> i cannot answer that question, we do our best to not make mistakes in the first place. it shows that job loss is not a consequence of environmental rule. >> i just want to make sure that you understand -- i don't think that there is a will in congress to do away with the epa. we hear that a lot. and i don't think that there is a will to do that.

but i do think that many of us here recognize that the epa has helped to lead the way for clean air and clean water, but there is reaching a point somewhere in the balance that -- we just want the epa to be more responsible and to be more receptive to the impact that the decisions are having on families. and i think that you are missing the point. two examples with that include the timing of your additional regulations and the second is the use of improper or flawed models that you are using. just touching on the timing issues. there is an adage that we use and all of us have used and raising families. just because you can doesn't mean you should. we know the epa has the ultimate power to issue any regulation and congress doesn't quite have

the votes here to be able to overturn that. so whatever you are issuing its becoming the law of the land. so there is a time and place for everything and i'm just concerned that maybe they have got more aggressive than they should be with it. i come from west virginia and that is part of rural america. wall street may be having great success, but rural america, main street, is still struggling and yet i keep seeing the epa putting another regulation on top of another regulation and i just -- i think it has led to the well-being and the mental health that is all being

affected by that. and because of the threats of regulations and we are seeing more and more people working part time. they are underemployed, and i really believe it is directly attributed to the regulatory body and i think that all of us know mildred probably lives right next door. she sits on the kitchen table and she wants clean air and clean water, but her first and foremost west i want a job for my son. i can't find a job because something is shut down as a result of overregulation. and i'm struggling with that and i struggled with the second thing as well but i have heard

[inaudible] they said back in 2010 it would be three times that cost is what it will effect. we have seen the mercury and air toxin standards. but there are only 10 gigawatts of power shutdown and the others say it could be six or 10 times that amount is going to be shut down, but that you continue to issue more regulations even though the model says it doesn't work. and they talked about how co2 impacts the temperatures around the globe. we know from the standard that that does not work. and so there is a university report and they say that regulations can affect job creation, wage growth, and

workforce skill mismatches can result in lower labor workforce participation and higher unemployment rate in the long run. and so i am torn over the disconnect about how you continue to say that the epa is helping the economy when others are saying the opposite. we didn't come here to be bullied by radical environmentalist policies. we came here to serve our nation. and the regulatory environment that we are facing is destructive. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from iowa please go ahead for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. it's great to see you. i do want to take this

opportunity to invite you to the iowa state fair this summer if you can make it. it would be wonderful way to be there and there's a lot of folks not just from the sector but from others that would love to see you there as well. and i have been going back and forth. i hope that i'm not repeating what was already asked and asked her to repeat what you vardy said. but that is a big issue in my state, we have talked about this in meetings and both of us were probably blue in the face. especially those trying to figure out what we are doing forward. as you know it is required by law from 2008 through 2022 and had a big issue over 2014 and i

am kind of concern as a lot of folks are about theirs. we are reading different things and the media, there was an article the day before yesterday and i don't know where they got their information, saying that the levels are going to be set retroactively based on what actually happened in 2014 and then 15 and 16 are left to be determined. and so i'm not going to point out anyone in particular but we have our differences on this panel about this as well. >> we are doing our best to take a look at how we can move forward with 2015 and we also are looking at how we can put in a longer-term market signal. the biggest problem that we had with not putting out this ruling in 2014 is bad we didn't have an opportunity to send that signal. i think that investments in this

are going to be essential. so we will get this rule done. we are also looking at what we can do in the following years and lead in proposing 2015 and we have to play catch-up here and do it in a way that sends a signal that we recognize the statutory level that congress has set and we need a trajectory to move forward here. and i think that we have problems in 2014 that we have all learned from and that we will not repeat those problems again and we will work with you. i know how important it is to your state and i sat down with the governor who reminded me again about this and the issues. because i know that there are challenges here that are difficult for all of us. >> you know, there's really uncertainty attached august. that's the big one and it's not his biodiesel or second-generation it is a lot

of different things that we are talking about here and it does get complicated but it's just important for folks to have this down the road so they know what it's going to be so they can plan for the investment and we have a lot of great people in iowa and beyond who are planning in spite of the uncertainty and they are doing the best that they can. the biodiesel folks, that's a tough issue for them as you might imagine as well. and so those are just really tough issues and i am just here to advocate obviously and push u.s. hard as i can to get this down and make sure that we have some kind of certainty for the folks. the second issue and thank you for your response, is as you know reducing emissions by 25% by 2030 in iowa it was already making great strides. one of my colleagues the other days have asked me about this.

and i said we get about 27% from electricity and i have a lot of wind generating industries in my congressional district. and so iowa has gone really far and not only are we showing others how it is to be done but we have cut emissions and we need to achieve at least 60% to me this goal. the question is is the epa willing to take into account as we go forward what individual states have done and how is that going to play out if that is the case. >> we will work with individual states in terms of the analysis done on a state-by-state basis and also looking at the framework. we are looking at both of those issues and we have received a lot of comment from them. but we are going to take our responsibilities seriously both looking at the framework and the individual state numbers itself. >> there are a lot of folks

doing good things. i'm very proud of what we have done and i was. >> i am amazed at the wind generation in iowa. >> it is quite a success story. >> please go ahead, sir for the next five minutes. >> thank you thank you for being out here thank you for your service and taking your time with us today. you know nuclear power plants throughout the country provide zero carbon emission and the power and amazingly reliable source of power, it's running well in the 90th percentile and unfortunately we have seen over 4000 megawatts retired with an additional 10000 megawatts nationwide being targeted. i understand that there's a number of factors influencing this, but what i don't understand is the goals set out by the administration for the clean power plant.

only 6% of the state existing nuclear fleet is able to be utilized and that leaves states with no reason to work with this in order to comply with this order. i know that this was touched on by my colleagues, but as the epa reviews and modifies the treatment of this. >> we have certainly received a lot of comments and we did key up a proposal and i would characterize a little bit different than you may have. but it was an attempt to recognize that we have nuclear bases that operate today in a significant source of electricity that is zero carbon and we wanted to point that out as we received a lot of comment on that and we will be taking a close look at this issue. i do know how important it is for your state. >> okay. you know why only 6% was included? >> that was an attempt to recognize that there are a number of vulnerable baseload that have not yet committed to

renewal that would ensure that they remain a significant part of the baseload capacity and that was an attempt to try to capture that and indicate that we are building those into the standard setting process because we believe that they may be at risk but they should be staying in all as evil because we are providing an incentive for a low carbon future with this. people do not appreciate the way that we handled it, so we are be looking at this on the basis that it came in. but it was an attempt to recognize this and the danger of not recognizing it that right now they are competitively challenged and that there is a need to look at that if you really want to make sure that we are providing an opportunity for a transition to a low carbon future that is viable and affordable. >> especially if you want to see the price of energy skyrocket. i appreciate that. and then also the epa's budget document stating that this will

be implemented throughout those with an initial submittal beginning in 2016. does the epa plan to require initial state plants in 2016? >> we have also provided opportunities for longer periods of time if states are looking at doing things that require legislative approval like interstate agreement. we are trying to be flexible and we certainly need a signal in 2016 that the states are making a commitment to a path moving forward, trying to define what that would look forth in the plan itself. >> so are you ready to develop a plan? you guys have an estimate of how much it is going to cost states to develop these plans and can you supply those estimates? >> we have actually talked about this budget proposal to support that activity with the states

which is hopefully going to send a signal that if we want to get this done we need to work together and we also need to support the efforts of the states in moving this forward. but the states are fairly familiar with this type of a planning process and i am hoping that congress will support that extra 25 million. but we certainly didn't support it. >> so well that go directly to the states? >> yes, in our state grants. >> is that just a piece of what you hopefully will determine if the overall cost? >> okay, and if you get estimates if you could just communicate that with the office, that would be great.

>> that includes what they are readily able to use in their plan development. so we are making sure that we have the flexibility and resources to get that done. >> with all of the comments, especially making changes putting that into this and so forth. >> yes. >> take you so much and i yield back. >> we now recognize the gentleman from organ. ..