. so it was not intended to open up a new market. it was intended to reflect the way in which companies were assuring their compliant in away that was more stringent than others sephardi been doing. ..

from the oil industry, oil and gas industry. the 2012 in sps targeted hydraulically fractured natural gas wells. reductions to green completion and expected to yield of 95 percent production including an estimated 1.7 million tons of methane. is it accurate that the nsps will not be implemented until the end of 2015? >> my understanding is -- and i'm sorry, congressman i think that is right for the full implementation. we did recognize in that role that there was equipment that needed to be manufactured and installed, and we worked with the industry to make sure we were not being overly aggressive about the ability

to have the technology available for full implementation. >> as epa calculated how much production the nsps has produced at this time? >> we have a good signal from our reporting program that has been tremendously effective at reducing carbon pollution because it is reduced as you are capturing volatile organic compounds. we have a very good sense this is effective already. >> i understand it is 190 of the 200,000 tons is the estimate. has the epa estimated the benefit? >> we have. i don't have them at the tip of my -- >> i have them. a 73% decrease. in january the white house and epa released a strategy for reducing ozone pollution stating sources that would be regulated, hydraulic

pumps and leaks from wellsite and compression centers. anyone anyone who has been on a rig who knows you put a whole in the ground and find oil you are most likely to also find natural gas. more than half of completed wells believed you find both. does the epa believe there is an overlap between these two? >> we believe there are affinities and provide a good signal for those that are both producing oil and natural gas as to what the regulatory obligations are. >> in 2014 the epa estimates indicated almost $200 $200 million in additional gas could be captured and sold from the natural gas sector. recently producers and recently producers and west texas have started using modular equipment to capture the methane, separate the gas

and sell the product will power back to the producer which is an effective and economical way to affect change. it is also going to require additional pipelines. in the budget doe has set aside some but not enough money to encourage additional investment in infrastructure. has the epa done anything sick to have similar? >> we are working on the quadrennial energy review to see what pipelines need to be constructed to make sure we can continue to enjoy the inexpensive natural gas and oil making a solid domestically. >> recently the white house counsel released a revised draft guide covering how federal departments and agencies should consider the effects of the greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. what are your views and how this will affect what the

epa is already doing to measure climate impact specifically how epa we will measure climate and fax/facts -- climate impacts impact stemming from construction of knew natural gas pipelines? >> it provides us an opportunity to be clear that it is a flexible tool and greenhouse gases should be looked at one appropriate to do so and the impacts are significant enough to warrant and provides good guidance moving forward. >> thank you. mr. chairman, one more question. i we will submit it. superfund budgets. budgets. we have some superfund areas in my year. i thank you for your time. >> i recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> i think the chair and welcome kayfive. your epa gina mccarthy.

your epa is taking comments on knew standards for ozone. in houston we have been fighting this issue for decades and have made huge strides including up our air first slide, please. i will give you hard copies. this 1st slide is your estimate of trends that we will violate proposals. any shade of blue is bad. blue counties have a hard time getting permits for new factories or exploration even highway construction

the department of public transportation creating an infrastructure mess. the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. i would like to talk on the ozone issue with questions that require yes or no answers. next slide, please. this slide is from page 209 of your impact analysis. i have something for you right here. >> i am having a little hard time reading it. i can't say i recognize it specifically on that exact page. >> 209. yes or no does this slide show that half the technology impact to meet the standard does not yet

exist in the eastern part of america? yes or no? >> i don't understand the question. >> based on 2014. in fact it shows -- >> i'm sorry, ma'am. the question is yes or no. >> i can't answer at the way you phrase it, sir. i do know what we are achieving, almost all counties will achieve and ozone standard of 70 with the exception of about nine in the state of california. >> i'm sorry ma'am, i ma'am, i have to move on here. next slide, please. another issue is background ozone.

carbine. i showed you the slide of chinese smart pouring and our country i want to focus on another slide. next slide, please. this is your map. it shows how much ozone in our country comes from background sources compared to american sources. anywhere from 58 percent of ozone is outside of our control. you ask us to do the impossible controlled we cannot control. look at that map. again, yes or no, am i correct that correct that there are almost no parts of the country were americans are contributing more than half the ozone?

>> i don't know the answer to that question, sir. >> yes or no, am i correct that chinese emissions have increased in recent years? [inaudible] >> staff petitions on foreign pollution than from china. >> actually, no states are being asked to reduce emissions that are background levels coming from another country. >> foreign sources of ozone. can i get that from you? fourteen seconds left. let's talk about the exceptional impact role. resources of ozone from calculations. yes or no, do you rely on this rule to make that achievable? can that make these new standards viable?

>> i think you are referring to exceptional which has been part of a program since day one, and we are trying to make sure states can easily access our ability to have exceptional events documented so that they can make sure they do not interfere with the state plans for implement in the rule. >> one question i we will submit i we will submit for the record and follow-up mr. chairman. a document a document from the texas council of environmental quality that goes into great detail about the process in my own state, the fact state, the fact that we are zero for ten the past five years. seven have not been answered. >> i'm happy to -- >> zero for ten. >> without objection. i recognize the gentleman from new jersey for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mme. administrator with just a small small fraction of the budget the epa tackles ensuring clean air

to breathe and water to drink i just want to highlight a few of these important activities. i would like to discuss the work epa does the cleanup plan and protect vulnerable communities including more funding for superfund cleanups. what cleanups. what might that mean for minority and low income communities? are there other resources and the budget for vulnerable and overburdened communities? >> i think there are significant resources in this budget to help communities that have been underserved or left behind. this will help us get at potentially another 25 sites. it is an it is an increase in our superfund budget that will be significant. many communities surrounding superfund sites actually are low income areas

communities of color that deserve the same protections as everyone in this country. >> i appreciate that. this is important for health, health safety, and the economies of these communities. i would suggest to the chairman that at some.we hold a hearing on environ all justice to learn about the risks these communities face. unsafe and untested chemicals and our products and environment. strengthening should be a priority including significant funding for chemical risk assessment. can you describe how funding for toxicology and chemical risk assessment will protect human health and the environment? >> yes i can. in fiscal year 16 the epa requested an increase of

12.4 million for toxicology research. this is an important step forward because it strengthens our ability to get more chemicals assessed in a quick way. it it has the potential to significantly eliminate animal testing, which takes a long time to actually reap the benefits to ensure we can do these chemical assessments quickly. it it is a significant step forward and is cutting edge science being done at epa and a the wonderful opportunity to address the toxicity and chemicals and make sure public health is protected. >> thank you. i you. i would suggest they're be a hearing on computational toxicology to better understand these techniques and the potential change. lastly, i want to touch on one of if not the greatest environmental challenge of our time.

the epa has the epa has provided tremendous leadership to understand address, and mitigate the effects of climate change. congressional change. congressional republicans have taken every opportunity to undermine them. we are hearing lots of claims about the clean power claim. at every turn i hear here about how you have an open door policy. i no that industry claims economic effects are overstated. we need to act on climate change and the clean power plant is a key part of that. i just want to put you on the spot here. if you are fully committed to developing a workable plan and we will you work with members on that and testify before the committee about your plan? >> yes, i am. >> i appreciate that.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. madame administrator, when epa wrote the rules in 2010 it acknowledged the reasons for placing the compliance obligation on refiners who don't blend renewable fuel instead of those who do as an outdated holdover from the 2007 rfs rules changing the definition of obligated party could help to advance the goals of the program and correct some of the problems we're seeing. epa did a significant amount of work on this issue. my question my question is, do you agree it would be timely and useful to include and accept public comment on opposable to ship the compliance obligation as part of the current 2014 2015 2016

rulemaking's? >> i no that is a comment we received. it is my interest to make sure we move forward with the 2014 rule as quickly as we can. it is important for the stability of the renewable fuel industry, but i am sure we will look at those comments closely. >> one of the problems with this program is it requires epa to make predictions each year on to highly uncertain things. first how much transportation fuel will be consumed in the following year and 2nd how much renewable fuel will be used. when epa gets these predictions wrong as it did in 2013 the result is exorbitant prices for economic hardships for merchant refiners and windfall profits for blunders. the cbo has told us it we

will lead to higher gas prices at the pump. the epa decision to delay the 2014 rule until 2015 created unnecessary uncertainty for all stakeholders, but there may be a silver lining. epa won't have to guess how much transportation or renewable fuel is used. epa can set the standard based on what happened. will epa well epa set the 2014 mandates based on actual consumption of transportation and renewable fuels? >> actually, actually, sir i am not able to answer that question because we are not yet through an interagency review and able to release it but we will be addressing that question clearly. let me say that the courts have been clear to us that we need to follow the direction of the eia in

terms of our projections command we have in clear and true to doing that and we will continue to do so. we we will so. we we will move forward recognizing that it was not completed as a final rule in time to generate the incentive to go beyond what was already generated command i recognize that >> well epa combined the 2014, 2015, 2016 mandate? if so do you so, do you believe the epa has the statutory authority to do so? >> the statute requires us to do out -- put out annual levels. there is a a great interest in making sure we send signals to the market that allows participants to be prepared for the numbers that might come forward. >> earlier this year epa tied the compliance deadline to the issuance of the final 2014 rule allowing obligated parties to make informed

decisions about using 2013 trends for 2014 compliance. the rationale is equally applicable to 2014 at each year following. will they tie the issuance to a final 2015 rule? >> as you no, this is an issue that is important. we have addressed it before and we will continue to do so. >> how we will the compliance deadline be impacted if epa combines the 2014 2015? >> those are issues we need to resolve if we intend to do that.

for a market as large as this it is difficult to always wait for an annual rule to come out and be finalized and we want to make sure we are providing as much signal as we can moving forward. >> thank you. my time has expired. >> i thank you for recognizing me. pleased to have you in the audience. thank you for your testimony i want to dress to have addressed several topics. i am pleased you have made this such an important priority at epa. i want to address the fact that there are both large-scale and small-scale efforts in the committee level important in addressing climate change.

in fiscal year 2015 budget for epa you propose implementing a locally target effort with regional coordinators and the so-called circuit riders to ensure communities have the resources. in other words being on site to see. >> this is an effort to work on climate resilience. we have identified having circuit riders which are trained individuals in this particular field and have them more nimble and available with a wealth of tools at there fingertips that epa and others have provided. it is an opportunity to make them accessible to local communities in a way that will be much more productive

than before. >> thank you. epa clean power plan is a very commendable a very commendable effort to address both air quality and climate change. there are numerous studies now showing that the clean power plan will be able to significantly address public health through reducing carbon pollution and improve air quality. can you elaborate? give us a comparison. what are the expected human health benefits? >> the human health benefits relate to a number a number of things. we no that vectors of disease changing in terms of territories. allergy seasons are getting larger. ozone we will be ozone will be a more difficult issue moving forward as the whether gets warmer.

all of these things directly relate to people's health. climate change is a significant public health problem. it should not be looked at as simply a natural resource issue and it also is clearly an economic challenge, particularly for those families struggling with kids who have asthma. we have a significant responsibility to protect those children and give them the future they can be proud of. >> agreed. now to address the concerns many of my colleagues have raised regarding the cost of implementation. the cost of energy that they believe will affect lower and middle income families. could you give us a comparison of the cost and benefits of the clean power plan?

>> in 2030 the benefits of the clean power plan will range from 55 to $93 billion in benefits compared the costs of 7.3 to 8.3 billion. it is a significant benefit. i i consider these to be investments in the future investments in clean economy and job growth. >> the investments are made and keep giving and keep benefiting. one final question. these are important priorities but also important is clean drinking water. in a way it relates but there are so many challenges to the availability of safe drinking water or lack of in california where drought is such a problem. how does how does this budget provide for the enhanced resiliency are water infrastructure needs for various needs across this nation again highlighting local communities? >> again we are working

with local communities to help coordinate their response to climate change and are significantly boosting our contribution to drinking water rfs funds. it is about supporting bringing dollars to the table and we are excited about the knew finance center and our ability to bring private dollars to the table. this is an economic challenge that is not just the responsibility of federal local or state governments but the business community as well. >> your time has expired. i want to welcome our former colleague. since he has left i don't think the republicans have won a single baseball game. i would like to recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania mr. murphy mr. murphy copper five

minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome ma'am. you cited a number of examples. i want to run over some of these examples. if you could respond with a yes or no if you are aware. are you aware the partially funded tempo project is $3 billion over budget? >> i am aware, yes. >> future gin project in illinois was discontinued? >> i am aware of that. >> the texas clean energy project is not broken ground yet? >> not exactly up to speed on that, sorry. >> something that was cited in your report. the hydrogen energy project in california uses petroleum? >> no, no, sir. >> the final project the epa cited for providing technical feasibility for coal-fired power plants was

hundred no what facility in saskatchewan canada is not a new plant at all but a retrofit? >> i am aware it is a a good example of one that is operating effectively. >> the canadian center for policy alternatives issued reports dating the project was twice as expensive as alternate generating methods which will make it significantly more expensive for families and may jeopardize the owner's owners financial liability to completed? >> i have not seen that. >> in this 2005 energy policy act behind me which talks about adequately demonstrated and references you have to use the best system of emission reduction adequately demonstrated available but in all the projects i just went over cited by the epa they have

not been completed, some not started, one discontinued one not in this country and none are large-scale. one only captures 13 percent of the eve -- excuse me the carbon. my concern is, and you said you want to stay true to the rule in the courts but i but i am not sure epa is following the law on this are you reviewing anything to withdraw the rule and start over so you can adhere to projects which are viable and can work toward the school? >> the projects you identified are a number of projects that have been moving forward. we can talk about each one i am familiar with. the record epa for group -- produced in the proposed rule went well beyond data from those facilities. we feel confident this technology is available and that the use of technology

at the levels we propose will be viable option for call to continue to be part of the future of this and other countries and that we are supporting investment through our department of energy. >> this is where you refer to investment opportunity. what does investment opportunity translate to? >> generally pollutants are captured by end of pipe pollution controls which are often direct costs for facilities we have designed our clean power plan in a way that a way that allows you to invest in renewable energy energy efficiency, make decisions consistent -- >> you invest, but we want to make sure that this is viable. you are citing projects that

people say why the bankruptcy company or stopped. it is a problem. >> other than investing -- >> but you must invest in things that actually work. are you aware september 2013 the national energy technology lab alerted the epa in writing your estimates are outdated? we believe current cost is not accurately represented including update data for inclusion in the rule a hundred $78 per megawatt 30 to 60 percent higher than the cost estimate epa put out. why are you ignoring? >> you are citing a document that was prior to our putting out the proposal.

we we work closely back-and-forth on how to best represent the cost associated with technologies command i believe we included our best judgment our technology folks are very good and we align well with doe and put the best proposal forward and are looking at those comments. >> it has to be adequately demonstrated. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your important work and protecting america's public health and our natural environment. american families and businesses continue to save money at the gas pump in part because of the

improvement in vehicles and fuel economy of the vehicles we drive. this is an historic look at the standard because they are set periodically to ensure vehicles are keeping up with the times. this is a nice little snapshot. 18 miles per gallon. 1985. then 2011 up to 30.2 miles per gallon. i really appreciate that the administration has continued to push. what we have seen is revolutionary in the types of vehicles available to consumers so that you have benefits of better gas mileage, reducing carbon pollution. the transportation sector is almost 50 percent of carbon

pollution. you're putting money back into the pockets of american families because they are getting more miles per gallon. do you have any recent hard data on the savings for american families and businesses? i want to talk about what the future goals are. >> we certainly can talk about what the projections are relative to rules we have done in the 1st term of this a ministration, but i but i think the proof in the pudding, if you will is you can't see a car commercial where they don't talk about energy efficiency because they know everyone wants fuel efficient vehicles and we have designed rules that allow even suvs to become more fuel-efficient and remain part of the fleet if people need the characteristics of those vehicles. we no people are already going further on a dollar

driving their vehicles and that by the end of 2025 we will have doubled the ability to actually make that dollar go farther to provide essential services to families. >> the goal for 2025 is 54.5 the the administration has set the 1st ever fuel economy standards for medium and heavy trucks the president called on epa to develop and finalize the next phase of the standards building on the success of the initial fuel economy standards. what are the expected benefits of the knew standards? what cost savings will consumers see? >> on heavy duty vehicles we put for the 1st phase recognizing there was a lot of ongoing work to make heavy-duty vehicles more efficient. it might surprise it might surprise people to know that long-term trekkers get about

6 miles per gallon. they are dying for more efficiency in the system. i do not have exact figures figures, but we know we can make a significant leap forward. we are working with the industry to put forth a proposal recognizing the challenge is to try to take advantage of knew technology to increase fuel efficiency recognizing commercial businesses need to remain viable and affordable. and we are trying to make sure we recognize that balance as we work with dot. >> another quick question. coming from the state of florida the cost of the changing climate are scary as we look out into future decades. infrastructure and wastewater infrastructure.

the coastal areas and local governments in florida looking at having to do significant retrofit. i am not sure your knew incentive fund would allow us to go to that part of money for those kinds of water infrastructure wastewater updates. is that a possibility or do we need to look at the more traditional programs? >> there are climate resiliency funds set apart in other parts of the budget why don't i make sure i provide you the information. the incentive fund i referred to was to make it attractive and encourage states to go further or faster than the rules require because we want to make sure they are reasonable for everyone but some states are prepared to move forward faster. and we want to make sure those dates are rewarded for that. >> with that include things

like smart meters? trying to empower consumers to control thermostats? >> we have not yet defined fully because we want to figure the best way. get more efficient. but there is lots of flexibility. >> the gentle lady's time has expired. >> thank you mr. chairman. madame administrator, thank you for being with us today. i we will go back to our former -- ask you a series of yes or no questions. under the proposed clean

power plan if the state does not file asap does epa claim the authority to regulate? do they claim authority to amend the coal-fired generators run less and existing gas-fired generators run more? >> i can i can answer that after some thought. >> does epa claim authority to mandate fossil fuel generators run less and renewable fuel generators run more? >> epa certainly has the authority in a federal implementation plan to establish standards for carbon pollution for those individual sources. how they choose to address those -- >> yes then? >> we have the authority the standard.

>> does the epa claim authority to make the epa use less electricity? >> we certainly do not regulate the behavior of the public sector. >> as you mentioned, especially going back if we could ask to get those in writing. in 2013 call fueled electricity under a clean a clean power plan will epa grant a waiver exception if there is a reliability risk or high cost to the ratepayer? >> epa does not see the rule to have an impact on reliability. as we have done we will ensure tools are available should anything arise.

>> so that would be a yes? >> we would be able to work to the issues. >> again it is important in my state because of the high use of call. if you get back to us on that. existing ozone standards were issued in 2008 but i just now being implemented by states. i have major concerns about going forward proposing stricter standards before the current is even implemented. am. am i correct states of not fully complied? >> that is correct. there is quite a long horizon. >> what percentage or how many states have complied by now? >> i'm sorry, sir. i do not have that at my fingertips. they go through a designation process and implementation will that has

been put out. we are we are working on that and it does not conflict as we continue to keep working on the standard itself. >> if you could give back to the committee, especially what states have not complied, that would be useful. epa has stated they do not know the cost to reach the current standards and we will not know until 2016. how can we have any confidence in agency estimates of cost to implement new proposed standards? >> we actually do estimate the cost associated with these strategies where we can't particularly identify but worked closely with economists to put a good faith effort. what we are doing is illustrating what states might do. the rule itself is only

about what we believe is necessary to protect public health. >> finally clean power plan transmission and distribution efficiency are other opportunities to reduce co2 emissions. does epa claim does epa claim authority to require owners had transmission and distribution facilities to increase operating efficiency? if so, by what authority? >> the assistant administrator was mentioning the fact we are provided flexibility in the clean power plan so that if it is not the building blocks achieving reductions there are many ways in which states can achieve those standards outside the boundaries of those building blocks.

and we are encouraging that flexibility to be considered. we are not encouraging any state to do anything they don't consider right are cost effective and reasonable. there are lots of choices and maximum flexibility. >> thank you. my time is expired. >> at this time i recognize the gentleman from kentucky. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. welcome, administrator mccarthy. i want to talk about mining. in your testimony you mentioned to recent court rulings. there is still a lot to be done. what resources will be available to help communities endangered by mountaintop removal mining? >> i don't have a broken down that way but i'm happy to take a look at it and work with your staff on getting you more specific numbers.

>> i appreciate that. earlier the chairman mentioned the and trade bill which he characterized as having been rejected by the congress. it did receive a majority of votes in the house and senate and was killed because of republicans in the senate who filibustered. is it fair to say that it had been enacted into law we would not be involved with clean power rules right now? >> in some ways that might be the case, but i do not no for sure because the clean air act is our responsibility to implement. it might have impacted the choice considerably and the requirement to move forward. >> talking more about the clean power plan kentucky kentucky, my home state and the home state of the chairman was pleased to see

yesterday the secretary of energy and environment in kentucky praising your work the agencies work in reaching out to the states on the clean power plan. he said what epa has done, i think, is incredible. he talked about your open-door policy. he went on to say we have already started the process of determining what a compliance plan would look like. i appreciate the outreach that the epa has made. states face different challenges and cutting carbon pollution. we are increasing our use of clean air and less expensive fuel the still generate most of our power from coal. i no epa recognizes that this is not a one-size-fits-all solution.

can you describe how the funding and your budget request we will be used to assist states with implementing the clean power plan? >> we have a $25 million a $25 million request and our budget to work directly with states on the implementation of this rule and have an overall request to ensure we have the staff available to be able to work with the states and take a look quickly at the plans to make sure there is no delay in sending the right signals about how to move this forward. can i say, glenn peters is a very honorable man. his advantage in kentucky is he looks at energy and environmental issues together, and i think that provides an advantage for the state to see that it can be done and actually will provide benefits to the state in terms of the utilization of energy supplies that are both effective, reliable and

cost-effective but can be designed to be effective in reducing pollution that impacts health. >> you obviously think that states like kentucky which are called dominated can benefit from the funds that would be appropriated? >> they absolutely can come as well as the incentives fund that the president has proposed, which is $4 billion. we have designed this in a way to recognize the kentucky doesn't and shouldn't have the same standard as other states that are so heavily reliant on call have. we have designed it in a way that is achievable from the get-go and flexible enough for folks like glenn peters to get his arms around it and make it work. >> i appreciate the flexibility and cooperation you have exhibited. i yield back. >> the gentleman from west virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you again, for

appearing. let me start with a question 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 can't answer that question. we certainly do our best not to make mistakes in the 1st place. job loss is not a consequence of environmental rules. >> i i want to make sure you understand and the public understands. i don't think there is a will in congress to do away with the epa. we hear that a lot. i don't think there is the will to do that. i think that many of us here recognize that the epa has helped lead the way for clean air and clean water

but there is reaching the. someplace, and imbalance we want the epa to be more responsible and receptive to the impact your decisions for having on families i think you are missing that. examples the timing of your additional regulations and the use of improper or flawed models. let me touch on the timing issue. there is an adage we use. just because you can does not mean you should. we no the epa has the ultimate power to issue any regulation and you well know that congress does not quite have the votes to be able to overturn. whatever you are issuing is becoming the law of the land

there is a time and place for everything and i am concerned that maybe the epa has gotten more aggressive than they should be. i come from west virginia. that is part of rural america main street. rural america main street is still struggling. yet i keep seeing the epa put regulation on top of regulation. i think it has led to overregulation. in rural america it has led people's well-being and mental health is being affected. we are having depression in areas because of the threats of regulations what it is doing two jobs seeing more

and more people working part-time underemployed. i i believe it is directly attributed to the regulatory embodiment. all of us no. she sits at the kitchen table. she wants clean air and water but her 1st and foremost request: i want a job for my son. something has shut down as a result of overregulation. i am struggling with that. poor modeling with heavy trucks. in 2010 he said it would be about $3,400 but we are seeing three times

that cost. mercury and air toxin standard for your prediction said would only be ten gigawatts of power shutdown. the department of energy and others say it could be six or ten times that amount. yet you continue to issue more regulation even though the model is saying it does not work. a model that talked about how co2 impacts the temperatures around the globe. we no that does not work. let me close and the time i have. a george mason university report. regulations can affect job creation, wage growth and workforce skill mismatches can result in lower labor workforce participation and higher unemployment rates in the long run.

madame administrator i am torn over the disconnect about how you continue to say the epa is helping the economy when others say absolutely the opposite. we did not come to congress to be bullied by radical environmentalist policies. we came here, i think, to serve our nation. we want to preserve our economy. the regulatory environment we are facing is destructive. i hope you take that into consideration. >> the gentleman's time has expired. i recognize the german from iowa for five minutes >> thank you, mr. chair. i want to take this opportunity to invite you back to the iowa state fair this summer. it would be wonderful for you to be they're.

i have been going back and forth between this and another subcommittee. i hope i hope i am not repeating what was already asked and ask you to repeat what has already been said as as you no a big issue in my state. especially just trying to figure out what we will do go -- do going forward. as you know as you no, epa is required by law to set mandated levels for different types of renewable fuels blended gasoline and diesel. a big issue over 2014. a lot of folks are concerned about this reading things in the media. in article yesterday or the day before -- i don't know where they got there information -- that said

2014 levels will be set retroactively. fifteen and 16 have yet to be determined. can you give us clarity as to where we are? i no there are others here who want to no about this but may not necessarily agree with me. we have our differences on the panel about this. >> we are doing our best to take a look at a look at how we can move forward with 2015, and you are right. we are looking at how we can best send a longer-term market signal. the biggest problem we had was that we did not have an opportunity to send that research signal. continued investment will be a signal. we are looking at what we can do already late in proposing 2015.

we have to play catch-up in a way that a way that sends a signal that we recognize the statutory level that congress has set and needed trajectory to move forward. we had problems in 2014 that we have learned from and we will not repeat. i no how important it is to your state. i i sat down with the governor on friday who reminded me again. >> i'm sure he did. i know there are challenges. >> really it is the uncertainty attached to this not just talking about ethanol although that is the big one. diesel, second-generation, ethanol. it is a lot of different things. it gets complicated. it is so important for folks to have certainty so that they know what it will be so

that they can plan for investments. we have we have a lot of great people involved in this industry planning in spite of the uncertainty and doing the best that they can biodiesel, that is a tough issue for them. we get into credit as well as rfs, but those are tough issues. i am here to advocate and push to get this rule done and make sure we have certainty. the 2nd issue -- and thank you for your response -- as to the clean power plan which requires power plants to reduce emissions. iowa has made great strides taking advantage of alternative energy. one of my colleagues asked me iowa you get 25 percent of your electricity from wind i said 27.3, as a matter of fact. i have a lot of wind

generating industries in my congressional district. iowa has gone pretty far. not only are we showing others how it is done but we have cut emissions and need to get 16 percent. the question is is the epa willing to work with individual states? how we will that play out? >> we will work with individual states. we have been challenged to look at the framework and whether or not we got it right. we are looking at those issues. we are going to take our responsibility seriously to look at the individual state numbers and the framework. >> there are a lot of folks out there doing good things. i am proud of what we have done in iowa. >> i am amazed at the wind generation in iowa. >> thank you.

i yield back. >> the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being out here thank you for your service and taking time with us today. nuclear power nuclear power plants throughout the country provide zero carbon emission the power is amazingly reliable. capacity capacity factors were running well and to 90th percentile. unfortunately we have seen some retired and others being targeted. there are number of factors influencing this portion of the energy industry but i don't understand the initial emissions rate and goals set by your administration to the clean power plan. ..

>> the 6% attempt to recognize that there are number of vulnerable that had not committed to permit renewal and that will ensure they will remain a part of a slow capacity and that was an attempt to try to capture that. it indicates when building those into the standard process because we believe they may be

at risk but they should be staying in all things being equal, because we are providing an incentive for a low-carbon future with this rule. people did not appreciate the way we handled it, many of them so we are re-looking at it on the bases of the comments that came in. but it really was an attempt to recognize the value of nuclear in the current baseload and the danger of not recognizing there right now they are competitively challenged. 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's right. >> that's right an especially if you want to see the price of energy skyrocketed the nuclear power plants shutting down. the epa budget documents take the clean power plan will be implemented implemented throughout state compliance plan submitted to epa for review and approval with the initials of metal in 2016. as the epa plan to require initial state plans in 2016?

>> for many. we have also provided opportunities for longer periods of time. states looking at doing things that require legislative approval like interstate agreements we certainly need a signal in 2016 making a commitment to ipap moving forward. we are trying to divine what that would look like in the plant itself. do you guys have an estimate of how much it will cost states to develop these plans and can you supply those estimates? >> we have asked in this budget proposal for $25 million to support that activity to states which is hopefully going to send a signal that if we want to get this done with me to work together and we also need to support the efforts of the states in moving this forward. the states are pretty familiar

with this type of a planning process and i'm just hoping that congress will support that extra 25 million but we certainly give support to the states for all these assets to expand. >> will that go directly to states? is that a piece of what you will determine in the overall cost? >> without weakening their ability to do work in the air challenges. >> if you get estimates he may be highlighting highlighting something there but if you get estimates just bring them into our bus. >> i would point out the budget includes $10 million prize to support tools that the states would readily be able to use in their plan development. we are doing the best we can to make sure they have the flexibility to get this done. >> with all the comments making

changes put data and updating estimates and whatnot. >> yes thank you. >> mr. chairman i yield back. >> at this time i recognize the gentleman from oregon mr. schrader for five minutes. c thank you mr. chairman and thank you for being here. i would like to talk about that in site administration and funding. as you may or may not know portland the harbor is designated a superfund site. it's a little bit unusual in that both the business community community, people that may have contributed to some of the problems they are as well as others, stepped up a collaborative effort to deal with this. it's been almost 16 years now.

we have gone through 10 different administrators. the goal posts have changed depending on which administrator in our region comes in. the staff has had a tremendous turnover in staff and it's been difficult to deal with these moving goalposts. we now have somewhat unrealistic standards regarding fish consumption it seems to be an indicator species that we are trying to grapple with, trying to work with the agency on but it's difficult and as a scientist and veterinarian i can look at these things through scientific prism and we will have a standards based on good science. even beyond that it would appear that the current regional administration has their own mindset about what's going to be done regardless of what is being talked about by the collaborative partners in the region. and we are having trouble getting this decision and i think it was the middle of 2013 there was a promise of additional help from folks here in d.c. to maybe move things along and an accelerated pace

and in january there was a discussion with her department of environmental quality working with folks in d.c. to help augment the ability to get things done. the basic question here is the decision was supposed to be coming here in 2016. we have heard it's going to be put off until 2017. we have been hearing this for a lot of years madam administrator and the uncertainty creates big problems for economic development in our region. we are trying to get people back to work into the right thing for the environment. the sooner we get the decision than the sooner we can decide whether or not it's economically feasible. i like to think that both of them are not mutually exclusive but what we are hearing it is mutually exclusive going to the highest cost alternative in terms of radiation rather than some of the efforts that are out there. basically want to know his his 2017 the best-case scenario and can we hold with all due respect agencies be to the fire and get

a record decision by 2016? >> i know that portland harbor was an issue that came up during my confirmation process in the interest in this. dennis mcdonough who is our richest -- regional administrator is actively involved in this issue in a way that tries to make sure it's moving forward. i know we are putting the resources to this and we will continue with this discussion. i think we have turned a better corner. i know we are not only looking at making sure we get the cleanup correct. did i say mcdonough? dennis mcdonough is the chief of staff. he didn't take on added responsibility since my confirmation. dennis mcclaren, i apologize. we are looking at ways that while we may need more time to explore the final cleanup, the record of decision on this that we will have sites ready and moving forward regardless of

when that decision gets made so we will get that decision made as quickly as possible but we are also getting all the preliminary steps ready so that we can continue to move forward and not sequentially think about these issues. i think we are working really hard with oregon to make sure that is the case so don't lose any time in this process. >> with all due respect we have lost a lot of time. i'm not sure the current administrator shares your enthusiasm with getting this done in a timely manner and the biggest concern i have is you collaborative partnerships want to step up and they are getting beaten up on a regular basis. here's a group that should be a shining example of how the process could work and your continued attention i appreciate. the other issue in my status wood products. we would like to be a big wood producing state in that doesn't seem to be possible anymore.

that's another topic for discussion. there's a wood composite industry that's pretty viable. i would like it to be more viable. waiting for the formaldehyde standards for composite wood products. economic uncertainty is the enemy of business. most businesses cannot adapt as long as they know what the rules of engagement are can you tell me the status of the regulation when it's going to be finished and are you aware final signoff yakked? >> i'm certainly where the challenge we been facing and getting this rule finalized particularly as it has to do with lemonades and their ability to address what is potentially a significant source of emissions but do it in a way that's viable and effective for the industry moving forward. we are looking very hard at how we use those issues so this rule can come out and we know we need the certainty you are discussing and i'll go back and see if we can continue to address this issue and get it out across the finish line. it's been since 2013 that this

has not been without its challenges. we keep trying to develop a testing method that will work and be cost-effective but remains a challenge for us. we will see but can't get it moving. >> work with the industry. i think they are on your team in terms of wanting to get this done so thank you very much and i yield back. >> the gentleman from virginia mr. griffith for five minutes. >> thank you ms. mccarthy for being here today. today is february 25, 2015 and earlier he told chairman whitfield you were confident going forward with the powerplant under 111d and i'm just wondering your budget document states the powerplant is president obama's top priority domestic climate mitigation agenda. yes or no has there ever been a time since it was announced by the president in june of 2014 at the epa has considered not

finalizing this rule? yes or no? >> know. >> has there have been a times as announced by the president in june of 2014 that you have considered as the administrator of epa considered not finalizing this rule? >> no sir. >> in the case of murray energy versus epa and virginia apartheid when your lawyer said the epa may not adopt the proposal related to final action of 111d related to clean power plan's your lawyers did not tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. is that accurate yes or no? >> sir the proposal is proposed may not be what we move forward with but there is forward with but there is never give in -- been an indication to me that it would indicate that. >> they say we may not move forward and that may be a complete statement of accuracy since today you are confident you are moving forward. let me move on.

>> i'm confident that we can get this done. under section 111d but i'm quoting from the opinion. but under epa's own interpretation of the section it cannot be used to regulate sources listed under 112. the epa concedes that the electric generation units remain listed under section 112 as we hold the regulations for existing sources must fall i would submit to you that the same your lawyers have conceded you don't have the authority to regulate under both 112 and 111d and yet you say you're confident moving forward.

i may redo the language of the actual code 111d1. the administration shall establish a procedure similar to 110 under which each state shall submit to the administrator plan which establishes standards of performance for an existing source of air pollutant for which air quality criteria has not been issued or which has not been included on that list published under section that sexual 111a or emitted from a source category regulated under section 112. it would seem from the language from prior court cases where the epa conceded the point that there is not legal authority to move forward and i knows you are not an attorney by training but i would have to submit to you as an attorney by training if you are confident going forward on 111d being upheld in the courts are confidence is misplaced in

your lawyers not telling you the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. let me switch to another subject. your budget request tens of millions of dollars to implement to clean power plan because you indicated you need expertise. i same however you do work well with the secretary of the department of energy. yes or no? >> yes. >> i thought you did so i have to ask why are you spending tens of millions of dollars that taxpayers to give you new employees for evaluating and capturing these compliance strategies requires agency to tap into technical and policy expertise not traditionally needed in the epa port number -- for for example nuclear wind solar etc.. when the d.o.e. possesses this expertise when i work with them and i would submit that is what got to do a map would save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. do you agree with me that if we can can use the dealies experts instead of a home in a branch that would be better for the

taxpayers of the united states of america yes or no? >> i do not agree that there isn't a need for expertise that epa. >> we can disagree on that. lastly do you agree that the health of people and employment are connected with each other in people who are employed generally have a better health standard and dan employed sometimes don't enjoy. you would agree with that i would think and i would have to say one of the concerns come you've heard about wave after wave of regulation for mr. mckinley and i picked up the m. employment statistics that camden county at the height of the recession 8.9 annual unemployment rate in 09, 8.9. at the end of 13 it's 9.8 because of regulations that are putting hundreds of thousands of coalminers and related industries, their jobs are gone. this is not counting the folks

who have decided to retire or shutdown of businesses and are no longer looking for employment. that was dickinson county. height of the recession 2009 annual number 9.0 and today 10.0. our economy is getting worse because of policies coming from your agency and i apologize i can't let you answer that because i appeal back. >> the gentleman yields back good at this time i recognized him and from maryland mr. sarbanes for five minutes. >> thank you chairman mccarthy for being here. just on the last exchange i fear your legal justification for the department regulation was impugned. i have high confidence in way to know there's a strong legal basis for the regulations in the position you are taking. i want to thank you generally i want to thank the epa and the obama administration for picking up the slack on the issue of climate change and addressing

the ravages of climate change. unfortunately despite the efforts of many others here to try to move forward with the statutory response to this issue at hasn't happened in congress has not done the job that it should do. the epa again i think has sound legal authority and has taken a leadership role and i also want to salute your agency and the administration generally for the climate action plan to address climate change, for the clean power plan for its historic international agreement undertaken which finally gets us in the position of momentum in terms of addressing the issue of climate change. in doing that you are reflecting where the public is increasingly increasingly. there is polling that indicates 70% of americans favor stronger

limits and carbon that's emitted by power points. understanding the health consequences of that and the impact on climate change. over 80% of americans think the united states should take action to address climate disruption in 2013. this is becoming an emerging consensus on the part of the public. i think they are appreciative of the efforts that you and your agency and the administration are taking to address this important concern. i understand the solutions are not simple. part of emission reductions have to be rooted in science. aggressive goals must be set to avoid the harshest impacts of climate change and reasonable and intelligent folks who differ on how to deliver those results will continue to have the discussion in this committee. but i think there's a false dichotomy that often gets put forward that somehow in

addressing climate change we are going to have to undermine our economy. i don't think that's a fair narrative. i think we need to look at the fact that investing in clean energy infrastructure can actually produce a terrific advance for our economy. we need to get on the cutting-edge of that because our peer nations around the world are beginning to make those investments. we can be in a position of being a leader which will actually help our economy but not if we are asleep at the switch. so when we say why are we doing these things there's a lot of good answers to protect the planet, to protect their health public health to protect our national security and to protect our economy by getting on the front end of these emerging technologies. can you speak to what the clean power act plan, the clean power

plan that you put forward in the agencies put forward what you see in terms of the potential positive economic impact and job creation effect it back and have have? it's an important part of the dialogue. >> thank you for raising that. i know that we feel very strongly that the way in which we have proposed this rule to provide flexibility to use energy efficiency and renewable energy as part of not just their standard setting process but our compliance process allows tremendous flexibilities for states to take a look at where their energy universe is heading. what is the transition we are seeing towards a clean energy future regardless of this claim powerplant and how can we follow that? how can we allow every state to identify what's best for them in terms of job growth opportunities, ways to invest in their economy and grow jobs. we believe because of the flexibility we have provided and because we know the economy and

energy system is transitioning towards a low-carbon strategy businesses are transitioning already. government has to follow and recognize there are ways of addressing our climate challenge that can actually be of great economic benefit to this country and provide the innovation that we need to retain international leadership. we see this as being a path to the future instead of continued investment and very little technologies that are not producing more jobs and are not being invested in. the investment is in clean technologies. >> thank you very much very outstanding testimony and your work. i yield back. >> at this time i recognize that shoeman from ohio mr. johnson for five minutes. >> thank you mr. johnson and administrator mccarthy, thank you for being here today. i represent much of appalachia ohio.

coal-fired power plants and the hard-working taxpaying men and women who work in those facilities to provide for their families. producing energy resources that are keeping the lights on heating the homes of the majority of ohio homes during this very cold winter. can you tell us why energy rich ohio was excluded from the hearings, the public hearings on epa's climate rules? >> as far as i know sir those hearings were strategically placed around the country to ensure that people could have access to attend those. >> it's interesting that they were strategically placed in places where coal-mining and coal operations don't exist. i have the list. how many coalmines are in pittsburgh? i can tell you how many

coalmines are in southeastern ohio. but we can fix this. i heard my colleague from iowa say that he invites you back to the iowa state fair. i would like to invite you to come to ohio. sit down and talk sit down and talk directly to ohioans who work in those cool kind -- coalmines and power plants who are likely to lose their jobs as a result of epa's actions, your actions administrator mccarthy. they pay your salary and they pay my salary so let me ask you will you meet with them? i will arrange my schedule so that i can be there to be there with you and we can have a dialogue with the people whose lives are being affected by the regulations coming out of regency. >> we have been reaching out all across the country. >> i am asking you, with me because i will set it up. that's a simple question, yes or no. >> i'm going to have my team return to your office to set up

that meeting because i'm going to take that as a yes. is that what he just said that you are willing to meet? >> i'm always willing to talk to you. >> will you come to ohio and meet with the men and women reclaiming my time administrator mccarthy. it's a simple question will you arrange your schedule to meet with the people that are being affected in ohio by the actions of your administration? >> i'm happy to continue to talk to you sir. if there's a stakeholder we have excluded from the process i will work on that. >> you are not going to answer the question so i'll move on. it's clear why you left those folks out but i will set up a meeting and we will reach out to your team and seabrick it worked that out. you know nuclear power is their only high-capacity baseload source that emits no carbon dioxide. we talked about that a little bit. we are in danger of losing some of our existing fleet for multiple reasons.

if any of them close overall carbon dioxide emissions increase. that's a fact because even if intermittent renewable energy wind and solar were to be displaced or to displace the power it must be backed up by natural gas generation. therefore i'm concerned about how the rules treat our existing nuclear fleet. for example plans to choose to go through the rigorous relicensing process will not be considered the same as new nuclear units for compliance and it seems to me they should be. so here are my questions. do you believe that the nrc will approve each and every nuclear relicensing application to receive throughout the compliance period and you believe that every are most operators will want to make a significant investment to pursue relicensing and before you answer that question your new rule basically assumes a yes answer to both of those.

>> i do not know the success of the nrc process in terms of relicensing. i do know that we attempted to address nuclear energy and point out its value and current baseload and its value and a low-carbon strategy in this rulemaking and we received a lot of comments. >> but you have assumed that every nuclear relicensing application is going to be approved and you have assumed that those nuclear facilities are going to actually go through that rigorous process and investment to get there. i'm going to tell you i think that's a flaw in your rulemaking and is something you folks ought to look closely at. i apologize mr. chairman but i have exhausted my time is will and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. at this time i recognize the gentleman from indiana mr. bucshon for five minutes.

>> thank you for being here. we appreciate it. climate is changing and it's been changing for centuries. i think reasonable people can continue to have a debate about the human impact on that. that said i think we can agree that we should eyes be working towards improving our emissions -- emissions as we generate power. my position is that we should be doing this through innovation and technology development and not through overreaching federal regulations. would you agree that the general rule that is imposed on any subject should be based on the availability of the technology to comply with the role or if the technology isn't available would you agree that maybe that rule needs to be revisited? >> we certainly know when we rely on the technology is part of our standard setting process we have to do our due diligence on that technology. >> that set them i'm not going to repeat what my colleagues

talk about with carbon carbon capture but then as misch -- administration has taken the position that no new coal plant should be built unless they put ccs technologies which earlier pointed out but right now there's nothing demonstrable to be successful to accomplish that that. the one that you quoted is not the united states and actually may well not be financially successful. but you know right now you are where the german is building new coal plants without ccs as other countries in europe and japan? does the epa object to that? >> the epa certainly is looking to not just epa but across the administration to provide opportunities for continued advancement of the technology and to ensure that coal gets cleaner over time so it's part of a clean energy future. >> because these countries are building state-of-the-art power plants without ccs should we allow them to be built in the

united states? >> they have different energy strategies and they are investing in a variety of things. >> they are investing in coal and getting out of other energy sources because the other energy sources they can afford them anymore. they are so subsidized by the government to government, the citizens can afford to pay for the power so they are going back to lower cost and that's the truth. i want to switch gears and talk about another subject. i was a medical doctor before i was in congress and about medical incinerators. this has to do not just with people but other things. what d.c. for treating medical waste such as ebola and over the past two decades the epa has regulated hundreds of medical waste incinerator site of existence thereby limiting options for hospitals to dispose of dangerous material. my question is what are our options? the epa has limited the option in the name of public health.

what technologies are available for hospitals and first responders to deal with the threat of medical waste and ebola waste for example but others and what resources has the epa dedicated to determine such technologies comply with the standards before we have to -- have other problems and potentially other outbreaks? >> i think epa standards have been sure that her medical waste facilities can properly manage waste. i think if you've been in the industry a long time you will know their lot of facilities out there that weren't properly managing normal medical waste nevermind the challenge of ebola. >> fair enough. >> we are working closely across the administration with the cdc and others to ensure there's a pathway for it to handle ebola waste and waste incinerators today are capable of handling that waste very effectively. >> how many are there in the u.s.?

do you have a ballpark idea of? >> i don't. i certainly will follow. >> is a something i i think from the medical community standpoint that is an issue and it sounds like the epa takes that seriously. >> we have brought them all together to talk about this issue during the crisis and we will continue to work with them. >> i would argue potentially with the threat of isis another organizations dealing with this potential type of outbreak is a national security issue and we shouldn't just do with it on the front and that the backend. if we have to start dealing with that i would implore you to look into that. again you stated earlier but i want you to say it again does the epa plan to revise its proposal for coal-fired power plants to eliminate the ccs mandate based on the discussion we had previously about what other countries are doing and the fact that there doesn't

appear to be technology available currently to comply with that mandate? >> there has been no final decision made. we will will look closely at the common at the common set of command that i understand that many have come in on this issue we will look closely at them. >> thank you very much and i yield back mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. can you quickly sum up what the epa's mission statement is? >> to protect the public health and environment. >> but not to raise revenue or provide fines or anything like that? it's to protect the public health, right? >> yes. >> can you tell me the total amount of fines that the epa assessed? this is off of your web site and i got this directly from you guys, fy14. administrative penalties assessed according to your web site fy14, $44 million.

judicial penalties assessed $56 million. stayed local judicial penalties assessed from joint federal state local enforcement actions, $7 million. supplemental penalties, $11 million. fy12 according to your web site administrative your web site administrator from his assessed 52,022,612. judicial penalties assessed 155 million $535,269. state and local judicial penalties assessed $49000,231. supplemented penalties $4,000,658,000,000. i say all that because it seems like to me every time we are cutting and i may be making an assumption here so stay with me,

your total budget for fy14 was $8.2 billion. is that not enough to operate epa with? >> it might help to know that those funds go to the treasury not to epa. >> that is the case why would webb industry be fined 395 or three and $87,369 for not filing a tra report which is a one page paper? they had never been having issues and they have had this building for many years but they failed to file at one time. get their other facilities they filed up with this one was an oversight. you guys came in and find them $387,000 which is astounding to me for a piece of paper but yet you said if they paid it in 10

days you would knock it down to $193,679. and when i asked if that money could be used for in bartow project which is historically the work you guys a allowed to do when it's a reporting issue, they were told by your agent the epa's agent no you will need it for funding. >> i don't know how that could be accurate. we don't get the funding. >> but there's a misconception to rule. if you look at the bill that you are referring to that the money is supposed to be going to there are exceptions to that. do you know what those exceptions are? if you look at the statute that you are talking to there are areas in their that allow that money depending on how it is written or what it's assessed for for you guys to keep.

so can you tell me all this money was cemented back to the treasury? >> that is my understanding. >> do you know that for a fact? we are going through too and i say this because we are going through this process. we are going through this process of trying to determine how these fines are being assessed. how do you come up with the dollars you are fining individuals, all this money that i had stated was coming right out of the back pockets of business owners coming straight out of the economy. going where? and what did it do when we are talking about the health, hold on. what does it do when we are talking about protecting the health of individuals? how does a 387,000-dollar fine protect the health of someone when it was a piece of paper? >> we are talking about enforcement that allows us to

level the playing field for businesses that are doing what they're supposed to do. it makes sure we are providing health benefits that our rules are anticipating. >> how is this leveling the playing field? who is it leveling up for other than punishing a company? >> the only thing i can think of to go back to your original question about the law, there may be an exception that you are citing that is for superfund money from responsible parties that epa gets to collect and then dispersed to pay for the cleanup. that is the only instance in which i know of that was a fine would directly benefit. >> how can you drop it by $200,000 if you drop it in -- paid in 10 days? >> you have a company that has been find? >> guess we have. >> i'm happy to sit down with you and your current position nor is the person who runs a company to walk through that issue. >> what we are doing is trying

to figure out why we can't even get an understanding why the fines are being assessed the way they are and you guys are willing to immediately knock it down by $200,000. our fine was nowhere near this. >> i will not apologize for this agency strongly enforcing the rules that the american public needs. >> you are making your own rules up as you go. >> no sir. >> at this time i recognize the gentleman from north dakota mr. cramer for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you madam administrator. that is nice to see you. i'm having a hard time knowing where to begin because i have so many issues but i think i will start with the u.s. because it's relevant to the budget considering the appropriations providing guidance.

do you regret not utilizing a small business panel and realizing you share this with the corps of engineers but without a mistake to not do an rsa? >> no i don't think so because we have done a tremendous amount of outreach to small businesses looking at this rule and i think we have the comments we need to make a successful final rule. >> but what the law requires a fee does it not? the law requires an rfe which you did not. >> we went through the process of looking at whether or not we needed to stand up for what we call us a brief of panel. that is the final decision-maker on this and we both agreed we had done the necessary average. >> so have you responded to the sba's office of advocacy and of course they disagree with your certification that it had an insignificant enough impact on small entities.

>> i have not directly spoken to them but certainly we have had interagency discussions on this. it's important to remember that the clean water rule is a jurisdictional rule. it doesn't result in automatic permit decisions. he says there are certain waters that need to be protected for drinking water and other reasons and the permit decisions themselves are what actually will be the result of the impact impact. >> i think the rule as i understand it presumes to narrow the jurisdiction that the sba office of advocacy in and impact the economic analysis doesn't it sync with your analysis and i have to admit when it gets to the issue of the lack of clarity which of course was stated in the definition of what navigable waters as i understand that should be clarified that seems as i look at the categories in the world that definition gets

cloudier not more specific in my view. in fact if we and some are after three out of seven that would be clear with nick? wouldn't it just be as clear for navigable waters? >> actually the area that lacks clarity is not the issue of navigable waters. the supreme court spoke definitively that navigable waters need to be looked at in a way that isn't the traditional definition. we haven't been looking at navigable waters the same way. it's a recognition that navigable waters in their ability to provide the functions we look for are severely impacted by the waters that flow into them so the challenge we try to face in the clean water rule was to take a look at how do we identify those rivers streams tributaries and wetlands that feed into those navigable waters.

we need to understand and protect so they won't degrade those waters. >> you just use some new terms new at least in this rule that were warning the previous one and i would add floodplain in addition. that is adding not restricting jurisdiction in my view. it looks to me like you are reaching for more power supposed to further defining it. i am concerned that is not the role of the epa but rather the will of congress. >> i appreciate your asking that. we are looking at that as a way to be clear and to narrow this because there's so much uncertainty that there are mark -- mark case-by-case decisions being made that need to be made. we are trying provide more clarity but we also know there a lot of questions in terms of how people are reading the rule and whether we were clear in our intent and clear in the language and working with those issues moving forward so the final rule

addresses some of those uncertainties. >> given all time i have left i just want to make a couple of comments. i'm hoping that technical conferences are going well. >> my assistant administrators attended those of me think they are excellent opportunities for us to understand. >> i think that type of consultation earlier in the process would have been better. with regard to mr. sarbanes comments about the epa being in more sync with the growing population or something to that effect i would just want to state that the absence of congress acting on cap-and-trade are choosing to not pass cap-and-trade should not be viewed as neutrality by the people's representatives. somehow a license to catch up to the public if you will. if public support is increasing its climate action plan i would

also submit to that the public is well ahead of the epa and more in line with congress with guard to for example the keystone xl pipeline which so far the only agency that the said anything remotely negative way has been the epa and by the way was not a negative referring to the lower price of oil. i just want to remind people that the price of oil was roughly what it is today when transcanada applied and i'm over my time. >> at this time i recognize those gentlemen from mississippi mr. harper for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman thank you ms. mccarthy for being here and i think we are at the end so that's a good thing. if i could talk to you specifically, you know we have a number of industries, number of groups in my home state of mississippi that are greatly impacted by rules that are

promulgated or enforced and one that i would like to touch on permanent would be our wood and pellet heating unit manufactures. they are problems with the standards the epa just finalized, it's something that really impacts us. these are small businesses that don't have a lot of room in their budget for r&d costs. in addition to testing testing and lab fees and those things. i think with the first stage in this rule but most companies are going to be okay. they can probably get there but the second stage which i believe you say should be implemented in 2020, that's going to be extremely costly. it sets low emissions targets that i think would be almost impossible to achieve with the

current technology we have in the resources. my question is what budgetary support is the agency plan to provide to manufactures as part of your goal to deal with the air quality issues? >> congressman i want to first say i believe your businesses were engaged in this but we worked really hard with the small business constituencies on this and the small business administrator's office for advocacy. we did make substantial changes in the final rule that sought to accommodate their interest in making sure there was fewer impacts in terms of existing stoves that are generated and out there for sale so they could have additional time to get those sales out but also to extend the timeline for compliance on these spaces. i apologize i don't know the specific dates so i can't confirm that we did make a lot

of changes. i'd be interesting in hearing with you in working with you to see if they address the issues of concern. >> we will make sure that we communicate further on that because i believe this something that would necessitate additional discussion movement in fairness but what do i go back until those companies that are now looking at a large lab testing fee or r&d costs that they don't really have in their budget to be profitable. what do i go back and tell them? >> i think we did a good job trying to make sure the testing components of these were modern enough that they didn't impose a significant cost to the manufactures. the other thing to recognize and this is something maybe we can work on together is in the past epa and states and regions have had funds that support the distribution of these cleaner stoves. i know there are states that will be looking at the stoves is

being opportunities for them to meet some of the air quality standards they are facing particularly in the particulate matter. if i can provide any opportunity for that dialogue to happen on how we could work together it would be a pleasure for me to do that. >> thank you for that offer and i believe we will follow up with you on that. i thought i had a little bit of time left. maybe a minute and a half. i feel like the shot clock ran out. what i would like to do to follow up is on the issue of how much implementing the proposed clean power plan will cost taxpayers in this again is specific to my home state of mississippi. i checked with her mississippi development authority and they indicated the minimum incremental capital cost of mississippi to comply with the proposed rule would be $14.2 billion which will

primarily consist of constructing generating facilities not likely to be built unless compelled by mandate in the rule will almost certainly causes closure of existing coal plants in mississippi which would place upward pressure on a buttress of the prices paid at the cost to implement a clean power plan would be $15.2 billion would you agree that this is too much to ask of mississippi and would epa revise the state's targets? >> certainly at our economic analysis didn't indicate that was amount that would be necessary for mississippi to spend. in fact i think it may be lower than will be estimated for the entire united states. we should be sitting down and talking through what the options are that we think provide tremendous flexibility for every state to design a cost-effective strategy. >> do you have a figure for mississippi? >> i do not believe we broken

down by individual states but we can certainly have conversations about the underpinnings that came up with that number because it certainly seems that the order of magnitudes larger than mom would expect. >> thank you and i think my time expired twice. >> we welcome back mr. scalise are majority whip and recognize them for five minutes perry. >> thank you mr. chairman i appreciate that. thank you for coming to testify about your budget to go through and look at some of the proposals being made by the department throughout the year. i want to talk to you about some of the proposals that not only are being proposed and some of the impacts we are seeing and how they might have devastating impacts on our local economy but also ask about some of the others in the past. as you make proposals you also attached to them what types of

impacts that might have in certain ways. i want to take for example the air toxin rules. some federal agencies like ferc when they were looking at this said plant closures would be much higher than the epa estimates were going to be. same to me when epa got this information you scoffed at it but in retrospect now that we can look back and see the administration's data concedes that the rule will shudder 10 times more the amount of electricity generation then you all anticipated. how do you respond to something like that when other agencies within the obama administration are saying what you're proposing would be devastating to electricity generation and even more than you are anticipating and you were 10 times off of your estimates. >> sir i'm not necessarily agreeing that they air toxin's standard was the precipitate or for the closures we are saying.

>> but ferc made that warning too. snack there were concerns raised about closures and about reliability and cost which is why we worked with d.o.e. and ferc to address those issues together and frankly none of those concerns have proven to be a reality. >> so you are disputing they had shuddering of electric generation that has occurred since the rule? >> i said there were a number of closures. whether they were attributable to the mats rule the simple fact that the energy world is transitioning is the question. >> people need more electricity and you come up with a rule that other agencies have devastating impacts and those things happen and you say well it happened that maybe wasn't our fault. >> we factored those in. the shuddering of those plans were market decision. >> based on unachievable standards.

>> the compliance timeline is the staple and we have not received any requests legitimate request to extend that timeline beyond what is affordable and factored in. >> maybe you are not factoring in enough things. you factored in it would have a minor impact on bills but midwest capacity prices have skyrocketed over 340% largely due to maps. he said it's not going to have an increase in rates but a 340% increase in rates in the west. you need to go back and look at this stuff. i know the president loves to talk about global arming and they are canceling flights across the country due to snow blizzards. people are trying to heat their homes in these rules have dramatic impacts. i wanted to answer some questions about a study that just came out by the beacon hill institute at suffolk university in boston. i'm not sure if you are familiar with the study.

suffolk university came up with an economic impact study on the effects of -- on the united states and i would ask unanimous consent to submit this report. >> without objection. >> they not only look at national impacts which are devastating but they go state-by-state. the pelican institute for public policy which looks at this information and economic data they broke this down and looked at the report and according to what they have seen you would have an impact in my state of louisiana alone of an increase in utility rates by 22%. electricity prices would go up 22% by 2030. the state of louisiana alone would lose over 16,000 jobs based on these rules. you just have to ask and i will read it quote from the press and the pelican institute. along with these cost is worth

noting the increases in electricity prices would disproportionately affect lower income louisianians who spend approximately 70% of their after-tax income on energy. these cost me to be taken into consideration by state and federal policymakers closed quote. are you while taking into consideration devastating impacts like this on rules you are proposing when you increase people's electricity rates lower income people by 22% 16,000 jobs jobs lost and was tickled. of course this is a national impact we are having. >> i don't know what study you are talking about and what rules you are looking at. >> this is the suffolk university study that looks at the impact. >> i'm happy to take a look at it but i know congress has charged us to do exactly that to look at the costs and benefits. when we have done that we have not seen the damage you are indicating.

>> a 340% increase in electricity prices in the midwest alone has happened. if you can look at the study in relation to the proposed rules. >> i would be happy to. >> i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time and that concludes -- >> i would like to thank the administrator for a presentation today in the dialogue with the committee. there were a number of instances where members have asked the witness questions and didn't give her the opportunity to respond to that. i think we should extend the opportunity if she so chooses to respond to any of those situations today and i would also make the plea to the committee that we interact with these witnesses in a much more

courteous and sustain a style so it can achieve what we are all hoping to achieve. >> i think most people were pretty courteous today and i do know that there are questions that were submitted that you said you would be getting back to the committee with answers. if there is some response that you feel like you were not given the opportunity to make i would happy to give you that opportunity now to respond. >> mr. chairman first of all you are always a gentleman and i appreciate that very much. the only issue i didn't get a chance to talk about a little bit more specifically that i wish i would have is the issue that mr. griffith pointed out on this 111/112 issue and the only thing i would have pointed out was that he was quoting from the defense of the clean air mercury rule and the reason we were defending that way as the conflict occurred in cammer that does not occur in 111d in our clean power plan because that was about the same source

category, the same pollutants being regulated under two different sections. we do not have that conflict here so we did not believe that issue is going to impact the legal viability of the clean power plan. but i thank you very much for racing this and for allowing me the honor to testify before you today. >> i think one thing is certain that courts are unpredictable and we never know precisely. >> we can all agree on that. >> we do thank you for being with us today and taking the time to discuss the fy16 budget and look forward to working with you as we move forward. that will conclude today's hearing. the record will remain open for 10 days and we do look forward to getting the response is that you have committed to getting back to the committee. thank you. the meeting is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] ..