so it could be quicker if they fast-track. >> we suspect to have that second phase go out. >> . . ous issues with hiring processes, appears to be more lawyers and lawyers -- layers of bureaucracy and more red tape that annual report which was due february 23 still has not been released because it has to be reviewed. i'm told by 10 different federal agencies before could be even shared with the first responders who it is designed to serve. is all of this new two u.? >> yes sir i'm not aware of that. >> you are wary that the 23rd

february 23 has come and gone and the annual report has not been given? >> i'm not sure the question you are asking. to whom is it referred? i them with the gao. >> oh. you are are all over saying it, right? you are the accountability office. >> we have done our first audit which is what i'm here talking about today sir. >> what i'm concerned about what it alarm you all that they might not be able to meet the person that needs as far as personnel? that's all they have been able to hire. >> we understand -- >> and someone else enter this? >> i can certainly respond to that. first of all the annual report actually has been issued. there was a bit of the time delay but you should have access to that at this point and it does require significant review you're absolutely correct on on that and maybe there's an opportunity. >> but i mean this is what

upsets people. >> you are talking to someone from the private sector. no simply doesn't make sense but i'm not an expert on government process so i'm not sure. sioux this is a national emergency and that something god forbid should happen that we help each other? i katrina type thing it was such a cluster. i mean with first met up and running? >> actually that's the beauty of first met. >> i know that but to cut through 10 different federal agencies tell us where your impediments are. >> the impediments today our personal hiring because it takes us anywhere from nine months to a year to get people on the payroll through the processes through hiring their security clearances of all those kinds of things that can take a significant amount of time to get on the payroll and that's where we are working with the department of commerce and procurement. again i would like to say it's important that we have as much control over our destiny is

possible to have people who are dedicated to this and feel a sense of urgency for whom it's not a second job and all the people who work at first net today feel the sense of urgency and want to get things done but it's difficult. >> if i could could work with the ranking member we could look at cutting some of this government regulation to get this up and running much quicker because we are hitting this in every aspect of government. maybe the commerce committee can cut through the sum of this stuff. >> i would be more than happy to work with west virginia because that is crazy. this stuff is beyond the pale sometimes when it comes to getting launched so let's do that. thank you senator manchin. senator peters. see that thank you mr. chairman thanks to our panelists for your testimony and your hard work on this issue and your insight into it. i want to say certainly i'm concerned about all the issues i have heard from my colleagues in michigan that i'm privileged to represent has a great deal of rural areas as well so i

appreciate your reference to making sure we have this network up and running. not only in urban areas but another area that's important to us as the border areas. we are a state that is on some of the most perverse border crossings in the country piggybacked we just recently have been moving forward on building an international bridge between detroit and windsor which will greatly increase trade between our countries and continue to make michigan a hub for the whole country and we abort across as an port huron and sault ste. marie and as a result of their frequent contacts with canadian officials. as we are dealing with border issues and when it comes to first responders we often have to coordinate with those international entities are in this case the canadian entities and they have different spectrum issues than we have in the united states so chairwoman swanson if you could comment a little bit about how first night is going to ensure that some of our merchants and communications along the borders are going to

be facilitated and give me a sense of what sort of discussions you have had with canadian officials in terms of making sure there isn't interference on our side of the border versus their side of the border. >> from a technical perspective one of our projects is not focus on canada but also the southern border because we know border issues are challenging so we are actually learning quite a bit from our projects and one of those is border issues. again we are focused on mexico and not canada but we have a very good relationship with canada. they have the same standards that the u.s. does so we don't anticipate a lot of difficulty frankly with canada. we are anticipating challenges with mexico which our project is focused on that as one of the key learning conditions.

so we have actually from a key learning condition things we have learned from our projects we have actually had 61 things that we have learned and i would like to mention another one in particular that has been extremely valuable that is then fed into the technical team and rfp process and that's our project in los angeles. los angeles is working to try to get some sites up and we have learned the use of existing government infrastructure is quite a bit more challenging than we had originally anticipated. developing memoranda of understanding, leasing excess capacity is very challenging so it has been extremely helpful through that project. i would have you feel more comforting after the rome and northern border instead of the southern border. i think we will be able to traverse those challenges quite easily. >> the other issue that we face is we have a large coast guard presence as well along the shoreline so just if you could

let me know what firstnet is doing to work with some of the military in the coast guard. depending on what the emergency is sometimes the coast guard or the first to respond and to respond in a work with the fire and police and ms personnel as well. >> i think it's an excellent question and just as we have our install the states we have been talking about we have a dedicated personnel staff to focus on our federal partners and there's actually the person said the federal government who is our single point of contact much like a state has. we are working with a group called the easy ec pc and there's a lot of acronyms in the federal government. emergency communication something something. i'm sorry i don't remember the acronym but it has to do with bringing all the agencies together around emergency communications in previously two of our board members undersecretary from department of homeland security were co-chairs of that committee. we are very engaged in recently met for the federal partners to make sure we can coordinate and

make sure they are part of this process. so we are very engage with them. >> wonderful. and the comments ms. bryant mama, you made thinking about a horror story if we ever crisis at the university of michigan football game which we have an awful lot of folks at the stadium. communications could be very difficult. how do you see firstnet handling that situation and the chairwoman as well how come we share that we are not -- we are going to be able to handle these incredible spikes invite this network is so important and credible -- handling incredible spikes. >> they are somewhat chaotic chaotic and those we experienced the most difficulty with voice communication. as we have to reach outside of our own jurisdictions to gather critical information to help us manage that incident the data side of this is what is really needed and what's important.

when we reach out to federal agencies that can provide this with information on other types of information that we would need with law enforcement reaching out for intelligence type information and having the availability through firstnet for the data is critical. again depending on the localities communication system, some are very robust systems out there. some are not so much at this point. so i look at this as somewhat of a safety net in those times that of your voice does start to feel you and you get overwhelmed you have that backup with firstnet on the data side to be able to exchange critical data. >> just a couple of comments. first of all going back to my comments about a dedicated network first of all that's a lot of capacity with 20 megahertz. as you indicated we sometimes

have spikes. we will do the rfp process get someone to actually want to use that excess capacity and it will be using the network and getting revenue for that. the beauty of long-term lte technology it has something called priority and preemption say that their people using the network those folks will come off the network and public safety brady. this is the first time this has been done. having been in telecommunications for longtime people talk about preemption but it's been done manually. we are doing testing in our labs in boulder right now to validate its more than just vaporware. we have vendor technology in our labs and we are testing it so the good news is that it works. i think it's important to mention because this is a big change for public safety. public safety is used to work and vertical organizations fire law enforcement ems. this is creating a very horizontal ability to communicate.

as a result of that we have an advisory group called the public safety advisory council and they are looking at how this new organization is going to help local operations because i think it's going to change the way public safety operates. i think it's good but i think it's going to be different and we are going to enjoy as we see this technology rollout things that we aren't thinking about today much like you say in technology for consumers. i think it's very exciting but it's going to be a big change for public safety. those are the important things about the network that will make a very big difference. >> thank you. senator fischer. >> thank you mr. chairman. ms. swenson can you give us some idea when this is all going to be fully operational? do you have a window of time there? >> its eyes a great question. as i said we have the strategic roadmap that lays out the timeframe of getting tourist a consultation issuing the rfp getting the response and

obviously awarding to the winner of the process. while we don't know today is what might happen in that process. so if we were unencumbered by external factors than we could probably give you a more definitive timeframe but my expectation based on what everybody has told told me the government as we might see a few bumps along the way. the goal is to obviously get that rfp out get the response is then put that information together and deliver plans to each of the governors of every state. what happens during that timeframe we are hoping is smooth and i hope you get a sense of the sense of urgency we feel about this and how hard we are working to get it done as quickly as possible. >> you think you will reach that 2020 two-goal? >> oh yeah. if we don't we should be shot. [laughter] >> mr. chairman i don't even

know how to respond to that. >> we will find a lesser answer. >> appreciate your honesty on that. when we are looking at the gao's estimate that you are going to need 12 to 47 billion over the next 10 years, how do you think first of all do you agree with those numbers? >> as i said previously i think the gao report has looked at some assumptions and some estimates where they have no visibility to the assumptions that are made. i will tell you early in the process to early folks who are with firstnet along with the board looked at a financial model around some assumptions. we are pretty comfortable based on our experience with the cost structure to do this sort of thing. think the revenue side is harder but we have made reasonable assumptions. we have incorporated that into the lot to say is this even

feasible? can we even do this and i thought that was a very important process to go through because why expend federal funds to go down this path only to find out that if they ended it. >> can we do at? >> as we can assuming the assumptions we have our realize which is why the rfp process is so important and that's why i think the public notice i would like to highlight the public notice we issued on monday is critical to the rfp process because it starts to answer some of the questions that i think were maybe unclear in the legislation that we were trying to clarify before we go out with rfp. we believe that it can happen and it will only be validated through the rfp process. >> if by chance that's not going to be enough money what do you see happening? i the states going to have to pick it up? are we looking at turning

firstnet into a self-sustaining entity? where do we go from there? >> i think it's an excellent question. we have talked a lot about that inside of firstnet and if we don't realize what we believe the value of the spectrum as i mean we could literally fold up our tents and go home which is not a good outcome which is why this is such an important process which is why we are alpha state consultation reaching out to people. think about this we have to provide a compelling value proposition for first responders. we are in a different situation than the other projects. we have to actually deliver to our first responders something that they think is worthwhile. so i think it changes the dynamic in the way we approach this in terms of how we approach the project. so we are working hard to make sure that happens but if we don't realize the value of that spectrum is going to be very challenging to be self-sustaining. >> do you think firstnet would put in a claim for more of the

money that comes from the sales spectrum? >> we are not looking for more money actually. >> that is nice to hear. >> that's rare but we take that very seriously. i think that's why you see such a dedicated team at firstnet and senator booker talked about the importance of having people have done this before so you have a sense of confidence that can be accomplished. why it's so important at the rfp be very well done. we believe that there is interest in our spectrum so we have a fundamental believe and we validated that through conversations we had with folks. it's like gold. it's really valuable. even with priority and prevention it's very good spectrum and i think we have people out there who are more than interested in being part of that. we are confident that will prove to be the assumption that is

correct. >> thank you very much. thank you mr. chair. >> senator blumenthal. >> thank you mr. chairman could i found the remark earlier ms. swenson that you made somewhat staggering. it takes nine or 10 months to hire someone, did i hear correctly? >> unfortunately yes he did. >> so you have the funding meet in the spectrum it's necessary to set up and commonly identified that you are in fact including procedures that are ossified and completely inadequate to the task that you

face. what can be changed and those procurement policies that have handicapped the government and urgent task. >> as i said senator we are working with the department of commerce and the secretary's staff to see what we can do. in addition to the federal process we have some things internal to firstnet and commerce we are looking at the cycle time of that. why is it taking two months to hire a firm to hire people? it shouldn't take that long so we are looking to see what we can do to compress that which would significantly enhance our ability to get the job done. i'm telling you we are working very hard and i would love to report back to you on the progress we are making on that.

>> in each of the steps you have identified it has to be a partner correct? >> you know i am not as familiar. i think deputy secretary anders might be able to answer that. >> if i could give a little more context which is one of the things we have done is moved firstnet to the commerce personnel system which is a more streamlined and flexible process than the normal rfp process. their undoubted challenges because of the safeguards -- safeguards built on the lot in terms of hiring within the federal government. the needs of firstnet are incredibly special. >> what about ms. swenson and mr. secretary giving firstnet direct hire authority? >> we have made that request. it has not been granted. >> when did you make that

request quite? >> i would have to pay -- look at the exact date. eight or nine months ago and part of the reason we have guns to the alternative cap system -- >> would the said to? >> up until now it's not granted in what they think the hiring is. >> have they responded negatively? >> negatively. >> i would clarify that a little bit. they responded negatively to our first request and they have not responded to our second request. >> when was your second request? >> august of 2014. >> august 2014 so that a little while ago. let me just suggest that for the first year and a half i believe i'm correct in saying your board functions as the staff and now you have 110 employees which seems inadequate.

the success of this very important national priorities depends on having the best and brightest so there is simply no way you can compete for the limited pool of highly-skilled talented people who are being hired by google apple, you know there is a huge demand for these people. you are telling them sorry, we can't let you go for another 10 months and they are going to say thanks but no thanks, right? >> in fact they have. >> i'm sure they have in large numbers. so if i may respectfully suggest the federal government is failing you and lest we expose

you to capital punishment i think we have an obligation to compel the relevant agencies especially opm and anybody else to do better and to do more and do it more quickly so that you can succeed in this task. >> senator we really appreciate that. thank you for your comments. >> thank you senator blumenthal. senator cantwell and then senator wicker. >> thank you. one of the issues that this strikes me in this discussion is how fast you can go and whether there is more the private sector can do but i think the key phrase here is interoperability. my understanding is that some of those pilots were turned down because they weren't ensuring interoperability. i mean the private sector can get it done in a minute that i guarantee you'll be a closed loop system based on a technology that they build and build and build off of their

technology so you want to you can do that but the issue is making sure we have interoperability. is that correct in that is why some of the pilots were delayed because they weren't conquering that? >> let me respond to that and i can respond pretty specifically. as a board member in the beginning days of first firstnet negotiated releases. the projects were in existence prior to firstnet becoming a reality. they were put on hold because they were focused on broadband and to make sure they were consistent with what we were trying to do with firstnet. the good news is we were able to move some of those forward. some of the difficulties we have experienced one of the requirements was that the plan that the organization presented had to be self sustainable. in other words they needed to show financial viability. some of those cases it didn't turn out to be that. i will tell you personally senator i've personally worked very hard to get those projects completed because we know how

important they are. as i said we have learned a lot from these projects that we have incorporated into the technical work that the technical team is doing. the government assets and how we might utilize those i think the ntia has been involved in that activity as well. they have a different role than firstnet does. i will tell you we worked hard to get those projects on board because we are learning a lot from them. >> okay so i want to ask you about when we will see functionality because it is important. while i understand the issue of interoperability and making sure that is implemented throughout the network i think these state grants are very important. we had this horrible incident almost to its one-year anniversary which was the zero so mudslides which literally cut to communities in half and they were without medication required 30 different agencies to respond. i think everybody now knows exactly what we want and what

it's going to take in this particular area because of the typography. you have some communication challenges just a nap. literally at one point we were trying to greenlight basically putting the broadband but -- backup for a mile connected to the trees. that's what we had to do. we couldn't have residents we had over 40 people lost their lives in this incident. everybody wants to respond that we didn't have broadband communication until we greenlighted putting it back up and hang it on choodry limbs so first responders and everybody could respond. i hope that we will see the urgency that we have to get some of these pilots done and that we take these state plans and make them so up the actual needs so that then you can lay your work on top of it in a faster fashion

and we get some of these demonstrations and pilots up and running right away. so when would we have that functionality? >> let me see i'm trying to listen to all the comments that you have been there. i think it's important to understand that the pilots are important for us relative to building out our nationwide network and that is our first priority. i know that there are many people who would like us to do many more pilots and i will tell you it would be a bit of a dilution of our efforts as we indicated where we are resource constrained at this point so what we want to do is focus our effort and energy on the public notice we just issued which by the way really did a lot to support the rural states issues if you have seen that. it's a really important issue for the coverage there. >> when would we see functionality of one of those? >> the functionality of one of the pilots?

actually there's a pilot in colorado in the boulder area that is up and functioning. we have another project that is not a broadband project but it's in harris county texas and they have an operational system. in fact i've visited harris county in january of 2013. they are actually experiencing in using these with first responders to test the interoperability. some of these projects are up and running. in new jersey we have a deployable project. they are in the process of actually getting a deployable so they can test the ability to operationalize those deployable's. >> i'm sure our state is very aggressive and i know my time is running out here. we will have to get some details about what her state is doing and when we will see a pilot within the state of washington. >> we will be happy to spend time. >> thank you senator cantwell. senator wicker. >> thank you mr. secretary. the broadband technology

opportunities program or btop came about as a result of the stimulus act of 2012 when the tax relief act came along and now we have firstnet. mississippi was one of the grantees under the top and moved forward very aggressively with greater speed than any other recipient. and the department and our delegation have had numerous discussions about her disappointment with how this has turned out. i understand firstnet could not reach a spectrum lease agreement with the state of mississippi. this was unfortunate because tens of millions of state and federal tax dollars have been spent significant fiscal assets deployed and the system weeks away from going live mississippi would have provided an early demonstration of the great

potential broadband holds for first responders. i assume you're aware that the entire delegation met with the assistant secretary strictly in 2013 to press upon him how important restarting the original vtop project was put at that time i tried to help firstnet in the state of mississippi retune agreement. assistant secretary tried to work with us to find a way forward and of course this has not come to version. as saving taxpayers money by quote avoiding investments that might have to be replaced if they are in compatible with the ultimate nationwide architecture under the public safety broadband network unquote however one of the fundamental questions imposed on all 700 megabirds -- megahertz to the

plate network that is fully interoperable. so that argument does not seem to hold water. furthermore mississippi's contract with its vendors requires complete compliance with quote all the rules, specifications and functionalities unquote. that may change per the fcc were ntia during the buildout of a nationwide network. understandably we in mississippi are disappointed and upset. given these assurances by the state of mississippi and the vendors how exactly is the ntia saving taxpayer money especially when in fact the agency is telling mississippi to spend money to dismantle the lte equipment already deployed? >> senator as you know there were originally seven pilot projects that we looked at.

for them were approved in three of them are not approved including the 70 million dollar mississippi grant. we were deeply disappointed as well because he wanted to try to make this work but at the end of the day the state in nta couldn't agree on terms because the state's plan didn't provide the necessary level of detail we needed to meet the statutory requirements. as you know under the btop program there were specific statutory requirements that this had to meet and the mississippi plan that came forward was not a viable alternative that medbee statutory requirements. one of the things that ntia is committed to -- the. >> to requirements from 2012? >> i believe from the original btop program and my understanding is the mississippi program didn't provide broadband so that was one of the challenges of this. but look we wanted to try to make this work or at the firstnet team worked very hard and long hours with mississippi

trying to find a way to make it work. through the projects were not able to go forward because for one reason or another including this one. ntia is working with the state of mississippi to dispose of the equipment. mississippi the medical communications equipment held by the hospitals and the ambulances will be retained in mississippi so we are trying to keep as much of that value but ntia is committed to helping to dispose of the access equipment frankly to avoid a loss to taxpayers. >> mr. secretary we were weeks away from employment. mississippi was a leader in deploying the network for first responders. based on the statute that was enacted in 2009 with the federal government make the decision to dismantle the original btop project forcing the state to start over. mississippi has already accomplished the goals of ntia's implementation program which is why the state turned down the

offered grant. mississippi today has a mature governance structure for the network created in 2005. the state was only weeks away from turning on its broadband network. when the btop grant was suspended by ntia i hope that your offer to continue working with the state comes to fruition. ms. swanson was invited over a year ago to come to mississippi. for whatever reason that meeting has not taken place yet. but i can tell you that we in mississippi are entire delegation republican and democrat are very concerned about this, very disappointed at the wasting of federal money from the economic stimulus program. and we are particularly

disappointed that netcom is not able to go forward, a project that has received essential equipment and would allow first responders to transmit life saving data to provide hospitals with support in vital medical services to proceed on. i time has expired but i hope this hearing will result in some purposeful action on the part of the department and firstnet to make things work in mississippi. >> thank you senator richter. senator daines. >> thank you. i come from montana and in a state like montana we have almost the tale of the two types of them are meant rural and permits across most of our state and the same time because of technology it is removed

geography is a constraint. we are able to build world-class companies in montana because we can attract and retain great talent because of the quality of life we have. it also helps us improve our first responder services, the technology and encouraged in terms of what firstnet could do to improve public safety by coordinating these communication capabilities. when we have incidents that are 50 to 100 miles away in terms of a medical emergency we could bring electronically the doctor to the location of the incident. it's the difference between life and death. in a state like montana we have some very important national assets. we have a third of the nation's icbms located in montana, 150 warheads. we share a border with three canadian provinces. so without perhaps this background i'm concerned about the definition of rural.

firstnet plans to deploy on top of existing infrastructure first and that makes complete logic, makes perfect logical sense to me except for the fact that states like montana have very limited 4g lte coverage and in fact in tribal lands is virtually nonexistent. what sort of contingency plans do we have for these types of areas like for example the northern cheyenne reservation that doesn't even have 3g service let alone 4g lte and perhaps secretary maybe you can take the first shot at that. >> yeah with your permission senator i would like to allow suit to take this. >> she is smiling. >> first of all i think it's important senator that you know that the public notice that we issued on monday takes a bold step about rural and making sure

that rural is taken care of in this total plan. so we know how important it is for states like yourself and so we are spending a lot of time on that particular topic. we also in her first public notice senator asked for public comment on what rural meant because in the legislation it could have different interpretations we want to make sure we have consistency. we have got a lot of good feedback on that and we will incorporate that. i'm assuming that your state can give us feedback on that particular topic. if not we are happy to take that. in terms of tribal i think it's important you understand that we take the tribal consultation very seriously. as you know there are 566 recognized tribes in the u.s.. all the different states have abraded tribes that we need to consider. tribal organization should be part of stay consultation so when that occurs the single point of contact it's important that we make sure that

representation is actually part of the state consultation. we as an organization hired and have a person dedicated to the tribal organizations so they are fully represented. we also as part of the public safety advisory council of the tribal working group. one of our board members mcguinness has been traveling the u.s. meeting with all the different organizations so i dissuade to no rural is important, tribalism port and i believe we are taking steps to make sure those areas work. >> what's the preliminary thinking on the infrastructure that doesn't exist today will they wait until infrastructure is there or circumvent that her mother had them put this infrastructure in? >> that is part of our rp process and would like to get feedback from the partners in the vendors who will be responding as how we cannot only cover and uncover rural. the idea is that we would make that as high a priority as our urban covers. i think there were some comments

about leveraging existing infrastructure. part of the rfp needs to address the rural coverage and the folks responding to the rfp need to respond and how they plan to do that. >> of course the paradox here is some of those areas are in the greatest need of telecommunications. >> we understand which is why we are making it up ready. >> as i understand and also maybe ms. swanson the governor of each state would have the option to accept or opt out of the firstnet plan. i'm not hearing that montana is planning to opt out but i know there was curiosity rounded the governor did opt out of the plan they are responsible for coordinating and submitting a plan to the fcc. and a sense of what the costs associated with opting out versus accepting the plan for some of the states might be? >> it's a great question and i think a lot of people are trying to figure that out. i think it's important to understand you are not opting out of the nationwide network. you are assuming responsibility for building your own radio access network.

all states where do do you use radio access network or builder on will connect our national core. that is what creates the interoperability across the nation. in terms of the cost that would be something for your team in montana to determine. we are going to give the governor a plan that will handle the coverage we have in terms of priorities and then we will give you what the cost of that is where the pricing to your end-users. you will then have that to make a determination as a state in the governor makes that decision as to whether or not you want to take on responsibility. >> so we will have a cost if there was a knockout? >> we want to determine your costs. you will determine that will determine data and issue an rfp and determine that. we will tell you what our plan is. you can then compare it to what you think building your own radio access network would cost. >> thanks for that know i'm out of time mr. chairman.

>> thank you very much mr. chairman. thank you to you and ranking member nelson for holding this important hearing. as a former prosecutor and cochair along with senator burr of the 911 caucus in the senate i know how important is to support our first responders. i'm also the state that had that bridge collapse and while everyone saw on tv the firefighter, the first responder show up and repeatedly dive into that water to look for survivors and all the work of emergency responders what people didn't see where the 77 men and women at the minneapolis emergency communications center who took those calls. while a number of people died it could've been so much worse because people were able to get to hospitals and people survived because of our first responders. i have worked hard to strengthen our states emergency response network by working on the legislation that led to the creation of firstnet. i think is critical to our

communications infrastructure and congress intended it to be built on a combination of new and existing infrastructure. i know senator thune and senator daines another's were talking about the rural issues so i'm not going to focus on that but ms. swanson are you committed to making sure as first firstnet formally launches partnerships opportunities will be available to entities of all size? i note that nucor wireless based in st. cloud is participating in a pilot project with firstnet in elk river and its a trial project but i want to make sure you are going to continue to work with entities of all sizes. >> yes in fact i think it's important to understand that the processes decide to do that. we have a responsibility to make sure that we deployed in nationwide network of the most effective cost structure so as we go out and talk to people who have different assets who want to participate in a request for

a proposal everyone will have an opportunity to do that. we will weigh those options and also look at the complexity of the design and also the speed to market. those are the things we have to consider but certainly we are welcoming one and all because this is going to take an integrated and joint effort to make this work. >> okay. the spectrum act included an amendment by works to include that created a funding mechanism for more than 150 million for next-generation 911 research and grants coordinated by ntia and it's a and i continue to have as my top priority making sure that we not only have a nationwide network in place but we integrate the nextgen technologies that are already transforming public safety and real-time video text messaging. ms. swanson what involvement has firstnet had with public safety answering points and the

911 community? >> actually we are in good medication with the 911 organizations frequently and in fact i'm planning to go to the nato conference in the month of june because they know how critical it is to the overall system. it's an ongoing dialogue. say i thank you. mr. andrews what are ntia anissa doing to further the 911 operations? >> that is a great question as one of the things we have done in partnership between ntia and in senator gardner stayed in boulder we have created a public safety communications research program which is our effort to push forward into the next generation of public safety. as you know as well ntia administers the nextgen 91911 program that's something we are working on. smack very good. we should invite senator gardner to join our 911 caucus. it's a very exciting group. we have a lot of emergencies that we respond to. my last question ms. swanson i

understand minnesota was the second state to have its -- with firstnet last september. what were some of the takeaways of that meeting with the stakeholders? >> as i indicated earlier it is important that we learn from each of the states the individual circumstances. every state has a set of circumstances that are very different. your topography is different and your priorities are different and we are learning and each of those consultations what exactly is unique to your state so we can incorporate that into the rfp process. >> okay very good, thank you very much. >> thank you senator klobuchar. senator udall. >> thank you very much chairman thune and thank you for focusing this hearing on this very very important topic. let me first just say that i want firstnet to succeed, ensuring our nation's first responders have the communication tools they need.

should be a top priority of this committee. despite lessons learned from the terrorist attacks of 9/11 our first responders still do not have nationwide interoperable communication networks. as many of you know in an emergency this can be a matter of life and death. in my home state of new mexico i'm pleased that the recovery act broadband grant helps upgrade the state's public safety communications. this hopefully puts my stayed a step ahead as first firstnet becomes our fur ball. one concern i have is that congress sometimes makes good policies but then fails to follow through by adequately funding their implementation and i think that could well be the case here. building firstnet is no easy task and wants congress to give firstnet a chance to succeed. it's important for first responders to have the communications tools they have to protect all of us.

many senators have already raised the rural issue. i think rural is tremendously important in new mexico so i wanted to focus on that. ms. swanson is talked in your written testimony and i think to a question asked by senator daines about tribal the tribal issues and how tribes are going to be included. i want to applaud you on having a person dedicated to the tribes. that's usually the way it works the best is somebody that really understands these tribal issues and develops a long-term relationship and worked with them. could you expand a little more on your testimony, your written testimony about how you are going to make sure tribes aren't left out in this moving forward? >> certainly. as you know the act requires that we engage with tribal so there was no ambiguity about that so we are very clear about that. setting that aside first i

really understand the importance of tribes. as you said we have a person dedicated to that within firstnet and that's unique for organization to dedicate a resource to that. we also have as part of the public safety advisory council of tribal working group and that is focused on tribal issues so is represented within the public safety community in the tribal group. that particular small group had a meeting in washington d.c. two weeks ago and so it's a very high purity for us. in fact when i was in town hall meeting a couple of weeks ago the tribal representative from our organization was there the town hall. we had tribal representation of the town hall meeting and he was going to get in his car and drive along the coast to meet with as many tribal organizations as possible. he is out about and one of our board members kevin mcguinness who is from the ems community has been taking on that responsibility as a board member

to go out and make sure we are reaching out making the tribes aware of it and making sure that the tribal representation is part of consultation. it's really important that those state meeting so we can understand their perspective as well. so we are very focused on that and consider it a high priority. >> as you said the consultation part is tremendously important. the tribes look to the federal government to look and see that they are going to be communicated with and consulted with on these kinds of issues so we appreciate what you are doing and we hope we have your commitment to make sure they are not left out. smack you ask -- you absolutely do. >> thank you senator udall. senator gardner. sprey thank you to the witnesses. i apologize for coming to the hearing way. i was attending an aumf with secretary kerry. we want to thank ms. swanson for the work you are doing.

it's a difficult but vitally difficult task. firstnet if done right can help first responders across the country do their jobs more quickly and effectively and no one knows this better than colorado who is endured wildfires and flooding at great magnitude. my question stem from a place where want to help ensure the state has exactly what it needs to react to disasters such as these in the future. i want the network to succeed. i'm happy to talk about the 911 caucus so we will have to figure that out later. ms. swanson one of the concerns i have from the state is the current path forward for firstnet does not include the use of public assets that are willing to be utilized by the public safety network. my understanding is you first need to know who the commercial partners are when utilizing public assets. is there an argument to be made

that we should be using this public asset? >> that's a very good question and you weren't here earlier but let me state what i stated earlier. in the early days of firstnet we thought getting that information about government assets would be very important for building out the network. what we have learned there are btop projects in l.a. in particular is this is more difficult than we anticipated in terms of the unique circumstances coming to a memorandum of understanding about those assets the leasing of excess capacity. whatever the circumstances are they turned out to be more complex than we had anticipated. so what we would like to do is obviously know about those assets but take that into consideration after we determine who the partners and determine what additional what additional perhaps coverage our capability those assets can add to the

existing plan. we think from a sequencing standpoint and a complexity standpoint as i said earlier they want to make sure we are dedicating our resources on getting the national network built. so it's been a change from what we originally anticipated that we are very comfortable with this approach. additionally if they are assets that an organization in the state would like to be considered as part of a nationwide network that think it's important we look at speed looked upon a complexity and costs. we have a responsibility to make sure this is done in the most effective and efficient way possible. >> some of the follow-up questions i have on the sequence he and the speed with which we are getting this done you mentioned that adams county is functioning and so thank you for that. if a all the international standings and if interoperability is not an issue there we are looking at three years, four years maybe down the

road people in colorado need to get this done now. this adams county have to wait until they receive the state plan and build it out to be part of firstnet? i'm concerned we have places in colorado with rural areas and forest of terrain that need to move forward and take the time to build out. how do you respond to that? >> this is a complex issue as you know when we are very excited about what adams county is doing. it has become a good project for people to see how this new technology is working. i think it's really important for people understand our focus is getting on the nationwide network. we have limited resources at firstnet to spend time on individual projects so it would dilute our billet me to work on the nationwide plan. it's a trade-off for us frankly

senator. it's a difficult one because i would love to have all the resources in the world to do a lot more in different areas but we have an obligation to move this as quickly as possible so we have had to make trade-offs. >> i wanted to shift to the rural conversation it sounds like so many people broader. in previous experiences we have had with funding from the government intended and designed to good of unserved or underserved areas money was spent in areas where could easily be spent in those areas where money would be spent at difficult areas to reach for networks and others. that money was not spent in by the time they got to those areas the money was gone. they had to look elsewhere for opportunity. are there areas in and parts of colorado where firstnet will not be building out because it doesn't make sense or it's not responsible? >> i think that's an excellent question. it's important for you to know that the funding in the second

notice ensures rural build up. i think if you look at the public numbers we issued on monday there is assurance for rural buildout. the consultation that we do with every state is really talking about the priorities. not that we would never build but we want to understand where your priorities are. obviously a network of this magnitude would can't just snap our fingers and turn it on one day. it's going to have to go in phases that we have rural buildout milestones that we need to accomplish to make sure that we actually do that. the response of the earth he is going to be critical. and the folks who responded to rfps are going to have to address those issues. that's why we are taking information from your state consultation and putting that into the rfp so whoever is responding us that that's a priority for you. smack from your. >> from your -- i'm telling you we talk more about rural and we

do urban. that's how important is to us. we are constantly thinking about in making sure and i would commend you if you haven't seen it in for anybody that's listening the second notice assures that. we took great pains and spend time to make sure the situation you describe won't happen here. >> thank you. mr. chairman thank you. >> thank you senator gardner and appreciate the continued emphasis on the rural issues. i am sure you got that loudly and clearly today that there's a lot of interest in this good committee. >> i feel the same way. >> this has shed a lot of light on the subject that i think we need to get out and have this oversight hearing to raise some of these issues and that some of these questions we appreciate the panel's willingness to appear today and to respond to those questions. we will continue to provide that oversight. this is an important investment

something that has a lot of ramifications for our first responders and public safety community and making sure we are able to respond in an effective and timely way when things happen. we want to make sure we get it right in this committee will do what we can to stay on top of it. thank you all for being here today. the hearing record -- okay, all right. the senator from massachusetts is here. >> i apologize mr. chairman. i want to thank you for convening today's hearing. we understand very well how important is to have a strong reliable first responder network from the over 100 inches of snow this winter to hurricane sander -- sandy to the marathon bombing we know how critical it is our emergency responders have the tools that allow them to

work and talk to each other safely and that is why i have always supported firstnet because it's one of the most important recommendations of the 9/11 commission and interoperable public safety network. it ensures that our first responders have the tools which they need. so ms. swenson we must ensure that firstnet is reliable across the entire country however at each part of the country faces its own set of difficulties that will challenge the network's resiliency whether it's blizzard hurricanes tornadoes earthquakes, the list is endless. we have to make sure that the network has the capacity as a response to each one of these different challenges. so my first question is, is supposed to establish an advanced network for the 21st century public safety needs.

given that the states and municipalities already have existing public safety networks how will firstnet work when utilizing these resources and deploying the national safety broadband? >> thank you for the question. we we are interested in making this a reliable network and we were just talking to senator gardner about a similar question but i will be happy to repeat it. the issue with the current assets within the state when we started firstnet we thought that would be the way to go is to do an inventory of those assets and build upon those. it turns out one of our projects in los angeles the btop project in los angeles has informed us and has been useful in understanding the challenges in using existing assets because of the difficulty of developing memorandums of understanding releasing excess capacity and it has been extremely useful in

helping us understand that it was a little harder than we thought to do. that doesn't mean we wouldn't utilize those in some fashion but we did go through the rfp process, award partners to actually deploy the network and then determine how those assets could be utilized and also those assets depending on who owns them they could be part of responding to their request for the proposal. applying this network as you indicated it's important to do this in an urgent fashion and that's where we are dedicating our resources. >> on interstate 2013 in the middle of downtown boston with a million people watching the marathon there really is no other like this. we then had the marathon bombing attack so on the one hand you have the government response in on the other hand you have a private cellular network that you also want to have working and you have a million people are calling, what's happening to my family member running for in

this instance people who were running that were also injured. can you talk about the capacity in emergencies for the private cellular network to be able to find the kinds of information which is necessary for people to be able to respond properly? ..

we will be in a different class and we will harden those relatives -- harden those standards relative to each state. >> thank you sen. and thank you to the panel. the hearing record we will be open for two weeks during which senators are asked to submit questions for the record. upon receipt witnesses are asked to submit written answers as soon as possible. possible. thank you for your participation. this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

just under two hours. >> whoever is here, we will go by the earlybird seniority and then after the gavel we will get to them after everyone was already taken care of.

i really do think the most important thing is the state perspective they are the ones who have to carry these things out. the co2 regulations were existing compliance unprecedented and scope complexity command requirements it will impose and state government. the proposal undermines the long-standing concept of cooperative federalism in the care act with the federal government is meant to work in partnership with the states to achieve the underlying goals. instead the rebel forces states to redesign the way they generate, manage, and use electricity in a a manner that satisfied president obama extreme climate agenda.

thirty-two states oppose rule. so any agency of the lack of authority nine states have passed resolutions and their legislatures that express limits. have epa engaged in a meaningful dialogue the agency would not be rushing ahead to impose an unfair and unworkable and likely illegal regulation. while the epa is busy selling this is a plan to save the world from global warming, we know that this will will have have visceral impacts on the environment. they have yet to do any

modeling that would measure the proposal impact on temperatures and sea level rise. use the epa models and numbers and found that after spending $479 $479 billion over 15 years we would see the double-digit electricity price increase to 43 states reduce grid reliability resulting in voltage collapse and cascading outages. outages. it will reduce co2 concentration by less than 0.5 percent. global average temperatures rise would be reduced by 0.01 and sea level rise will be reduced by 0.3 millimeters the thickness of three sheets of paper.

benefit will be the continued emissions growth and china. hold that up higher. these results or lack thereof shows this is a consequence of the environment expanding the government control and every aspect of american lines. noted to be one of the foremost climatologist in history. if you control carbon you control wife.

nothing more than a blatant and selfish paragraph. back when nancy pelosi was the majority. i appreciate the people coming so that we can hear their voices from the state. it is nice be to take the time to be here. sen. boxer. >> thank you, mr. chairman you, mr. chairman command i want to welcome our witnesses. a proud that mary nichols is here, here, legend in our state and has worked on the environment for her whole adult life. she now's executive director of the california air resources board who will describe what is happening.

my home state of california has been a leader. we are prospering. people can put there head in the sand, but facts are stubborn things. according to according to a knew peer review, research at the national academy of sciences california's record temperatures are driving the states extreme drought and scientists predict it will be worse.

just two weeks ago scientists that nafta and cornell and columbia found if we fail to act immigrant -- act aggressively we have an 80 percent chance of a mega- drought in the entire west. in the face of this peer-reviewed science states should be working together to find solutions to prevent climate change. we know the american people want action. action. this is not a gas. this is a poor. 83 percent of americans including 61 percent of republicans if nothing is done for emissions global warming we will be a problem again, you can sit here and say it is not an issue, but the american people would be in disagreement with that. ultimately climate change deniers continue to attack the landmark clean air act. just last week the majority leader mcconnell told state government to ignore the clean air act. imagine, ignore the law of the land and one of the most

popular legislative actions in the history. we know that we can reduce carbon while growing the economy and i want to talk about california and the regional greenhouse gas initiative where new york is prospering as well. you will hear some of that from our witness. california is on the path to cut carbon pollution by 80% 80 percent by 2050 as required under our greenhouse gas emissions line our state. ap 32. the people who try to overturn lost at the ballot. during the 1st year and a half california added 491,000 jobs growth of almost 3.3 percent. we are living proof a growing the economy in a safe environment goes hand-in-hand and are a large state.

this is benefit of the middle class. it may interest you to know that the energy information administration found last month california's monthly residential electric bill averaged $90 compared to oklahoma's which averaged $110. under california climate program many consumers are receiving a twice a year climate credit. california new york command other states should be proud of there leadership in putting forward real solutions to climate change

while we can't boil things they can't kick you out notice you just get an eviction on your record now the media but he is now our director. it is interesting mr. chairman. today, as todd testifies people have worked with a democrat governor, the republican governor in wyoming and has put wyoming 1st done what is best for state environment. it is a privilege to introduce one of those testifying, testifying to the director of department of environmental quality for wyoming.

>> thank you, you, senator. anyone else here for introductory purposes? we are going to go ahead and start with our testimony. we would like you to do your best. we will start with you and work. you are recognized. >> thank you, chairman ranking member, members of the community for inviting me today testify. i am michael myers from the new york atty. gen.'s attorney general's office. my perspective is slightly different than those of other members of the panel. as an environmental lawyer i worked for the past 15 15 years at the attorney general's office counseling state regulators on legal issues related to air pollution and climate change and limit -- litigating those issues and courts. it is particularly appropriate the commission continue to hear state perspectives.

another provision of the clean air act the epa is using states are in the driver seat. for us to succeed in this critically important area the state has to be willing to take the wheel. from the perspective of state new york has already taken action to cut greenhouse powerpoint initiatives, initiatives, i have good news, you can reduce these emissions and the power sector and do so in a a way that will help grow your economy. new york and other states have reduced greenhouse gases from the electricity sector by 40 percent from 2005 levels 2005 levels and reinvesting the proceeds from the art -- option of pollution allowances has kept down electricity cost in our region. region. epa clean power plan would build off of the work that

states like california have done in this area. the plan would cut greenhouse gases by about 730 million metric tons grade equivalent to the annual emissions of power and half the homes in america. the the shift to cleaner generation would also result in substantial public health benefits including 150000 fewer asthma attacks by 2030 back to back to what i started with. for this plan to work states have to be willing to step up. some are discouraging states on the grounds that the clean power plan is unlawful. my unlawful. my written testimony highlights why such arguments are meritless. first under section -- action under section 111 d to address greenhouse gases from fossil fuel power plants is required under the clean air act requiring epa to ensure states achieve emission reductions from power plants necessary to protect human health and welfare from the harms of

carbon pollution. second pollution. second, epa regulation of hazardous pollutants from existing power plants underwent provision of the clean air act does not preclude the use of section 111 d to require those plans to cut there greenhouse gas emissions. the implication of that claim is that the epa had a choice. a choice. it could either use the hazardous air pollution program to cut mercury emissions poisoning fish we eat or combat climate change by using the provision that the supreme court said speaks directly to powerplant current emissions. carbon emissions. not only does this interpretation defy common sense but is wrong as a matter of law.

third, it is clear epa has the authority to test substances emissions limitations for states to meet. in the absence of such a benchmark state plans get could widely in terms of astringency and effectiveness. it's clear that the epa has the authority to interpret the best system of emission reduction to reflect the various ways in which states and utilities have reduced greenhouse gas emissions from electricity sector. the building block approach appropriately recognizes successful strategies such as and and invest programs renewable portfolio standards and energy efficiency the states and utilities have already shown can significantly reduce carbon emissions and do so cost-effectively. in in conclusion here is what i urge state regulators to consider. world scientists are telling us we need to act now if we

are to have a chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change. faith leaders are faith leaders are telling us there is a moral imperative to act the law the clean air act requires us to act and the epa plan is on sound, legal ground. we are open to work with you on how best to cut emissions. the time is now. take the wheel. thank you for the opportunity to testify, and i look forward to answering your questions. >> the chairman of the california air resources board. you board. you are recognized. >> thank you, chairman ranking member members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to be here. i am chair of the california resources board and i'm honored to be here to support epa proposed clean powerplant which we believe will unlock state innovation across the country to

protect our people and grow our economies. the framework proposed by epa is a workable compatible plan that will cut carbon pollution along with other forms of pollution for the focus on increasing energy efficiency and the use of cleaner domestic energy sources. it provides an opportunity for a better future. this is a future that we working to create in california. our success story has been one of bipartisanship. the 2006 california global warming solutions act was signed by a republican former governor schwarzenegger who appointed me to this position and a democratic governor, jerry brown who has reappointed me and has placed climate change at the core of his agenda, championing our enormously successful carbon market ramping up green energy programs and working nationally and internationally to spread solutions that will protect our vulnerable citizens our

extremely valuable agricultural industry our coastline and are forced against the already growing reality of climate change. california overwhelmingly supports the efforts to move california toward cleaner and more efficient sources of energy and address the grave threat that global warming poses to america and the world. i am here today to share our successes with you and to emphasize that epa is using its clean air act authority in the way that it was went to the spread success across the country and encourage each state to develop its own plan to cut carbon pollution and to grow its economy. i am going to skip some of what is in the prepared testimony because i really want to focus on the fact that we believe that working

together, not just as an environmental agency, but under the direction of our government with the public utilities commission and our energy commission as well as the independent system operator the controls the transmission wires we can deliver not only in more resilient energy system that meet and exceed the targets that epa has set. we are on track for a 3rd of the state's vision is to be met by renewable energy. they are on track for a 3rd of the state's vision is to be met by renewable energy. governor brown's establishment of a goal to get to 50 percent by 2030. our carbon wide carbon intensity has already fallen by nearly 5 percent since 2009 and we will keep falling. that is not only due to electrical power plants that cleaner fuels and vehicles which are an integral part of a plan. the epa power plan is only

one piece of the overall president's climate plan but it is an important one. the main thing i want to emphasize is that this is happening at the same time that california is prospering, growing jobs are growing the economy faster than the rest of the country. we have grown our jobs since the market is gone and operation by 3.3 percent. personal income and wages are a growing and rates well above the national average. our electric power grid delivers power reliably, resiliently come and efficiently thanks to the continued stewardship of transmission operators and as senator boxer indicated, power bills are down. californians pay for my post electricity bills in the country. states all across the country, country, and we do talk to many of our colleagues are discovering

the clean energy. texas as well as many places are taking action to ensure their ratepayers and citizens against risks to reliability that come from dirty and an efficient coal plants. we think that the clean powerplant will encourage states to take broader advantage of strategies that they are already using

saving money and invigorating economies across the country and to the extent that they choose to work together around the regional grid they will do even better because we don't own know the original approach will be more cost effective for all. as a result we believe the net benefits about to something like 48 to $82 billion in 2030 representing live say sick say, sick days avoided and climate change abated as well as a more efficient and secure energy system. bottom line is clean powerplant builds on 40 years of clean air act success and now confronts us with an opportunity to address one of the most severe challenges of our time in a way that a way that can create knew jobs and increase energy security >> thank you. commissioner of the indiana department of environmental

management. you are recognized. >> thank you chairman, members of the committee. i am the commissioner of the indiana department of environmental management. i bring you greetings and appreciate the opportunity to share with you the proposed regulations for fossil fuel. proposed proposed regulations will detrimentally impact indiana for a number of significant reasons. where the most manufacturing intensive state in the united states. more than 80 percent of the electricity comes from coal. the other 300 year supply. we recognize we need all forms of energy to power our economy. developing an updated energy plan for the state that will

continue to foster greater use of renewable and other energy sources. a crucial energy resource that must continue to be utilized. the mission is to protect the environment. my office examined the proposal and engaged private sector stakeholders and other state agencies and an extensive review of the proposal and its potential impacts. our analysis came to one conclusion. this will significant harm without providing measurable offsetting benefits. for those reasons we filed joint comments are urging the urging the epa to withdraw the proposal. the copy of the letter has been shared committee.

the most ironic impact of the proposed regulations is that they are likely to increase worldwide greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the international competitiveness of us benefits. us emissions will decrease. worldwide they will increase as businesses move to areas with less efficient and more carbon intensive energy supplies. indiana one so a competitive advantage due to the low cost of electricity, but no longer. the low cost of electricity advantage has slipped and epa regulations have significantly contributed to that change.

we have forecasted a 30 percent increase in electrical costs. the proposal will add additional costs on top of that. predicted is proposal we will increase the cost of natural gas. furthermore increasing energy cost hit the poor elderly, and most vulnerable at a time when indiana is doing all it can there is a real possibility that the increased energy cost will slow the economic process progress. we are obviously concerned about the economic impact of the epa proposed rule on business and consumers.

we also filed 31 pages of technical comments. we want to make sure the rule does not result in unintended consequences such as reduced reliability or not yet having the necessary infrastructure in place to convert from coal to natural gas. for purposes of due diligence indiana is evaluating all developed -- all available responses from submitting estate plan to participate in a regional approach or simply choosing to comply at all. the fact that this misguided policy will harm people while increasing the worldwide level the very emissions is designed to increase compels indiana to propose legislation. thank you for the opportunity to share. >> the director of the wyoming department of environmental quality command your recognized.

>> good morning chairman ranking member, members of the senate environment public works committee. i am the director of the wyoming department of environmental quality. i think the committee for inviting the state. providing extensive providing extensive comments to the health protection agency. we take great pride in how we manage natural resources providing both environmental stewardship and energy production. it is a false question to ask if everyone energy production or environment stewardship. in wyoming we must have both wyoming sends electricity to both the eastern and western power grids reaching from iowa to washington generating 49.6 million megawatt hours of electricity with 66 percent

of this electricity consumed beyond our borders. this this electricity generation includes 88 percent coal and 9 percent went. epa proposal impact states differently. each state has unique characteristics and energy portfolios that are the application of each of the four building blocks. the proposed coal is problematic and unrealistic to achieve. proposing a compressed timeline during which states should develop and submit plans. considering plans. considering the complexities of the proposal in developing the plan. 70 percent of the proposed stake is far greater than what can be achieved. this disparity is referred to as the cliff. wyoming. wyoming these evaluation identifying other data

errors are often more powerful building blocks. a focus on key concerns since it centered at -- since it has the largest impact. 100% of the missions from fossil fuel power plants regardless of end user we will be attributed to the energy producing states. 66 percent of electricity in wyoming is from outside its borders. there will be attributed to the consuming and not producing state. 85 percent of 4.3 million-megawatt hours. more than half of the land in wyoming is home -- on demands for the federal government was subjecting

renewable transmission projects to meet them. while the intent while the intent is good the process is slow. it took over four years. now the fish and wildlife service requires to fast-track transmission projects on there 8th year of the process, process both still awaiting a final decision. finally the epa assessment of available land in wyoming for wind energy development fails to consider high-priority environmental conflicts such as better safe ground, ground, habitat, other designated critical habitats, the protected areas of critical and cultural significance. factoring this significance. factoring this and reduces available land and renewals as opposed. all of these factors lead to an unrealistic goal for

wyoming. directing your attention to the two, number one depicts the glide path as proposed by epa. >> which one is one? >> on your right depicting a bar graph as proposed by epa. one can observe the dominant influence as shown in green. after a. after review wyoming determined what is practically achievable. this is shown in graph number two. read as can be seen as a a wide gap between epa and wyoming's analysis. based on the propose: with limited options simplest

illustration stranded investment would be nearly one half million dollars and does not include the cost of replacement. we look forward to continue dialogue is the epa considers epa considers our comments and reconsiders the proposal. thank thank you for allowing me to provide input to your committee. >> thank you. the commissioner of the service commission of wisconsin thank you for the opportunity to speak.

the chairperson. last fall i submit those comments together with our analysis of a written testimony the record. the manufacturing heavy state. if the problems in the clean power plan are not limited the work not done to restore manufacturing sector will be threatening. with that background and because of the far-reaching impact of the epa's clean power plan we brought

together an interdisciplinary team. this team consisted of public and service commission experts in utility rate monitoring economic and environmental engineering along with the department of natural resource experts environmental regulation particularly the clean air act. using a. using a standard utility monitoring program we forecasted the cost of this regulation under a number of scenarios with varying assumptions about the future candidly our team felt that taking into account the impacts of this wasn't -- this regulation in every family and business the us is the kind of analysis that should've been done by the epa before making such a proposal. a result of our analysis of been provided to the community. here are two highlights. this the single federal regulation will cost ratepayers between three-point 1 billion $4.1 billion. this does not include necessary upgrades to the

gas and electric infrastructure which we will add significantly. these costs are also on top of the 11.6 billion in carbon dioxide reduction measures that wisconsin ratepayers pay for since 2,000. not only do not receive credit for the investments but the proposal penalizes wisconsin for being a reactor. second, as. second, as our assumptions became more realistic, the cost rose. would you assume that this massive increase would drive prices higher? that reasonable assumption significantly raises the cost. at the heart of the matter we question the very foundation of this proposal. the epa constructed four building blocks, each of which was evaluated independently and then to determine the foundation for each this target reduction

they added the carbon dioxide reductions. unfortunately the epa ignored how the building blocks would affect each other when all four were implemented together. increasing reliance on natural gas far below the 6% requirement: one. furthermore epa used indiscriminate and unsupportable approaches to enter the building blocks. building block one applies a national level he rate improvement each coal-fired plan regardless of the ability of an individual plan to realize these games. in contrast, building block three, state renewable state the noble goals takes a region -- regional approach. as it is currently written under any previous interpretation of the clean air act the system proposed

is actually not the system of all. they are not recognizable systems that can be applied to an omission unit and they cannot guarantee certain conclusive greenhouse gas emission reductions engineers of the public service commission modeled in planning concluded that the building blocks would deliver a 15.6 percent reduction. this is a far cry from the 34 percent the epa claims is attainable and necessary for wisconsin to comply. finally the compliance timelines are unrealistic and unworkable. the leadtime required we will require the full proposed compliance timeframe through the end of 2030.

i sincerely appreciate the opportunity to speak to this esteemed committee committee command you we will find my submitted written testimony dealt much deeper into the issues of modeling and the technical aspects of the role we find troubling. we can agree on the need to protect our environment this proposed rule does not strike the right balance in protecting public health reliability of the grid command economic security. thank you very much. >> thank you. you submitted a sip a federal program would that create a problem. i think you answered that. very similarly, would like to ask you the north carolina propose to delay

the claim plant -- clean power plan until a final ruling by the courts on the plans many legal uncertainties. the administrator looked at hiring a bunch of knew attorneys. given that taking steps to comply with the clean power plan that the state came back and found was totally out of compliance. >> it creates a lot of uncertainty. where rates are going ago. we become commissioners but i'll give us crystal balls. unfortunately we can't look into the future but have to make the best decision based on information before us. a similar issue with the cross state air pollution will and utilities were

starting to make movements to attempt to comply command we have to do the best to allow them to try to recover and be judicious in spending ratepayer dollars so we will work closely monitor legal proceedings and any that wisconsin is involved in. >> in your written testimony you talked a little bit it could increase the amount of emissions in this position that i have held since lisa jackson said that doing something unilaterally in the united states is not going to affect.

>> most of our businesses the basic bottom of our economy, the steel industry the auto industry rely upon energy costs and they are internationally competitive. you can buy from brazil, india, russia and actually why would you bother? you just bring the finished product year. here. so the missions will happen is countries. some of them some of them have decided to, like i understand china signed an agreement to consider stopping the growth of the emissions by about 2030. between now and then there is still much higher production. our businesses that have to stay in business by the internationally competitive, i am concerned that emissions will go of.

>> thank you very much. if you don't analysis as to how much of the rate increase the psc would have to approve to implement this plan? >> we expected to be in double digits the the double digits pending upon which method of compliance we use. it can be easily in the upper 20 percent. right now we have more of an aggregate number. that will be fleshed out as we know more details and utilities come and ask for your recovery but this is can be a significant increase on ratepayers all across the board, low board, low income to large manufacturers. >> thank you. i'm going to be either ask you for the record or if there is time at the end if

you would agree with the position of many of taken. waiting until these not real issue -- these legal issues are cleared up. i hope i hope we have time because i do want to hear your answer. i say what parts of the clean power plan will require enactment of knew laws in your state, and how long will it take to develop pass and implement these laws. >> as far as legislation that may need to be put into place, anything that we will relate to a a multistate plan is developed would need some legislative discussion.

anything anything dealing with their noble portfolio standard, the building blocks would likely require some sort of legislation. the timing legislature meets for a 40 day a 40 day session and the 20 day session alternating. it's a budget session. something can be brought forth the legislature in a meaningful way through and term topic studies as well. >> in indiana i legislature does not meet year-round. we'll have authority we don't have authority for building blocks two three, four. >> we have a three-year process which i submit this would be one. we'll have authority over

building blocks. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. i'm stunned by the states attitude states that are doing this prosper and five more than your state. it is okay. okay. i want to ask mary nichols is question where they said actually these rules could mean that we would be increasing carbon worldwide because some companies will leave the states. and we found companies running away from california? last i checked silicon valley was booming, everyone coming increases in manufacturing. i wrong? >> not wrong.

we are experienced growth across the board. we are the leading state in terms of investment in technology and renewable energy. right now solar energy in particular is booming. we have some natural advantages whatever. only implemented are uncovered missions with the training program there were many who were concerned about the rising cost to much's -- electricity to a a manufacturing sector. it is a critical concern for everybody along with

reliability. no state or government can afford to take risks with the lights going out there state. that is job number one, in a manner how much we care about the environment or greenhouse gases. we know that our job is also to make sure that the lights stay on. i think it is important to recognize that this proposal that the epa is put out does have within that the flexibility and the time needed. i recognize the concerns of my fellow states and think they are legitimate but assert that the puzzle is epa has put it which admittedly they will be modifying can address those concerns. >> i think that is an important.because you make it very clear that we need transition. epa gets that. she is sensitive to the states. i wanted to ask you last year former epa administrator christie todd whitman who served under george w. bush testify

before our clean air subcommittee that it was settled law that the clean air act can be used to control, pollution. the proposed carbon standards supported by the terms of -- the three supreme court decisions? june 232014. >> yes they are. massachusetts versus epa recognize the authority under the clean air act regulate greenhouse gas emissions. the connecticut versus american electric power case was one new york was involved in seeking to get at the same emissions the epa clean power plan is going to get out and the supreme court in that case told us that with federal common-law nuisance not applying because section 111

speaks directly to these power plan emissions. but do expect to the last decision you mentioned the supreme court reaffirmed the authority of the clean air act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and found that under the acts permitting program if you are in many a certain amount of conventional pollutants you have to apply the best available control technology for co2 emissions. ..

to collaborate with other states to meet them. do you agree with rocky mountain power that wyoming should -- would be best served by completing a stay compliance plan? >> i can't speak specifically to the comments of rocky mt. empowered but what i can say is that our valuation when we look at the entirety of the plan doesn't work for wyoming because as it showed in the charge that we displayed the options and the

building blocks as presented by epa and the proposal don't work for wyoming and so we would say the plan is stated because we have more than one utility. >> i totally appreciate that. last question, have you told epa your concerns and have you given options to the epa because they really want to work with the states. have you let them know how you feel and specifically what's wrong with what they are doing for wyoming? >> yes, we have provided comments from the public service commission and we have had discussions. >> good, thank you. >> thank you senator boxer. senator rounds. >> thank you mr. chairman. during that time that we were on the campaign trail this last year and i'm new to the committee and new to the process up here one of the items we

talked about a lot was the anticipated cost to the average american family with regard to an increase in their costs for electric rates. the united states chamber of commerce last summer i believe estimated the average cost of the average american family would be approximately $1400 more per year than their electric rates. i was curious mr. parfitt in a recent statistic that comes in the case of my state of south dakota that our electric rates would increase probably about 20% or more as the result of the clean power plan. this is significantly more than 8.8 cents per kilowatt hour they are paying now. according to the wyoming public service commission compliance cost for the 111 b. proposals could well exceed --

what impact will this have not only on wyoming but also ratepayers and surrounding states? i know the people of south dakota receive power from wyoming and wyoming as you indicated earlier supplies power because of your location to the natural resources available and you have been an exporter of power. could you share about what this will do to the rates for other states as well? >> we do provide power to many other states and our compliance path as we have viewed it based on the proposal results in the premature closure of plants and the stranded assets that would likely result in raising of rates for all the customers, not just those in wyoming that would be shared across the network. >> what does the epa proposed or

how does the epa proposed that you respond to those stranded costs? what is their expectation? >> this is an issue that we have raised with the epa before the proposal was put out to notice in hopes that would be taken into consideration and in our view that hasn't been taken into consideration and we don't see at least at this point the offramp and we have expressed this concern to epa in our comments so we are waiting to see how they might respond in june when they come out with the final proposal. >> so you have not had a comment back or there is not a process in place to get a response back for the cost that you have indicated your state would have to pass on to other states but also