the median family spends about 5 cents out of every dollar on energy costs. low-income families spend about 20 cents. states like nebraska that receive a majority of their electricity from coal-fired generation would also be disproportionately harmed under this proposal. president guidelines would force the premature retirement of efficient, low-cost, coal-fueled generation. lead to the potential loss of billions of dollars in investments made over the last decade to make coal plants cleaner. and require construction of higher cost replacement generation. and would increase natural gas prices. also troubling sr. the epa-set admission guidelines that are not achievable at the affected source, the electricity and generating unit. energy efficiency and renewable portfolio medicine dates should not come through regulatory fiat. while i do not have enough time

to list all the concerns raised by this proposal, you know that i believe there are many. the issues are complex, and the impacts are far reaching. while i appreciate the 120-day comment period that was granted for public comment on this rule, the challenge presented to the states and other stakeholders to analyze and assess the enormous range of issues that are posed is beyond expectations. the level of complexity of the proposal, the volume of technical documents that are released, the amount of coordination required and the magnitude of energy impacts of the rule, i believe, warrant a 60-day extension of that public comment period. i hope to visit with you about that. i'm pleased we're spending time today examining some of the concerns raised by the proposal. this is an important discussion. this is an important debate. and i look forward to today's dialogue. thank you. >> thank you, senator fisher.

senator cardon. >> thank you, madam chair. first, let me think administrator gina mccarthy for being here and taking on the responsibilities of the environmental protection agency. it's not an easy task, and you were willing to step forward knowing full well the challenges you would confront. i want to thank you for being willing to do this. the chairman already mentioned that there are children at the hearing. i think that's wonderful. because it's their future that we're talking about. it's the environment they will be living in that's very much impacted by what we do here and what the administration is doing. the impact of climate change in maryland is well understood. the people in my state recognize the risks that are involved as a result of climate change. 70% of the population of

maryland lives in coastal areas. and they're at risk. property owners are at risk of losing their properties, and they know the financial impact that is involved. the people in maryland, the iconic shorelines that we have, that's our way of life, that is at risk. the economics of my state are at risk from the poultry industry that depends upon a reasonable price for corn and the cost of producing the poultry know that the weather conditions have made corn more expensive. therefore, their business more difficult. the loss of our crab population. seafood industry also understands the warmer waters affect all the produce coming out of the chesapeake bay. the port of baltimore is one of the economic hearts of our state. the climate change, rising sea levels make it more difficult to run the port of baltimore

economical economically. i could go on and on from the aberdeen grounds to the river in the southern part of our state to the naval academy. all very much impacted by climate change. and as my colleagues have pointed out, the science is indisputable that our activities here in our communities are affecting climate change. congress should have acted. madam chair, we tried. we should have provided the framework for the way that we deal with climate change. we tried. but we were stopped. we wanted to use a market-based solution to make it clear and make it more available for private companies to invest. but no, we were stopped in those efforts. so the administration is doing what they're required to do. epa has the authority and the responsibility to act.

and three supreme court decisions have made it clear that you're acting within that authority. let me just quote from the case that the chair mentioned. justice scalia, what he said just recently. and i quote, that it bears mention that epa is getting almost everything it wanted in this case. it sought to regulate sources that it said were responsible for 86% of all greenhouse gas emissions from statutory source nationwide. under our holding, epa will be able to regulate source responsible for 83% of those emissions. and then quoting from the clean air act -- not quoting, but the clean air act gives you authority to have baseline standards, which are talking about achieving a 30% net reduction in carbon pollution from power plants using 2005 as the kbas line by 2030. you have the authority.

you have the responsibility. you're acting. and thank you for the flexibility that you're providing. you're putting the states in charge. you're giving them the power they need to do what's right for their community. we can work regional among different states. that's what you've allowed, and i thank you for that proposal. maryland energy companies have acted. constellation and exelon have taken on this challenge and done it in a cost-effective way and created jobs in the meantime. madam chair, i hope that it doesn't take another cuyahoga river to catch on fire, which we needed before we enacted the clean air act or for toxic air to be breathed by the people in los angeles before we enacted the clean air act. i hope it doesn't take the loss in maryland or the washing away of the everglades or dust bowls to become the regular in our bread basket in this country before we act on this critical issue. i thank the administration for taking action. i hope congress will take action to be your partner in making the reality of america's leadership on global climate change what is desperately needed.

>> thank you, senator. senator inhofe. >> thank you, madam chairman, administrator mccarthy, thank you for being here. it's very nice to see you. there's so many problems that have been pointed out already by my colleagues with the existing source carbon rule that it's hard to know where to begin. first there's the issue of the impossible efficiency requirements that will replace some power plants. then there's the question of what should happen with the standard, the compliance for coal plants and how they're supposed to achieve reductions without going belly up. and how epa plans to enforce the rule and to what extent the agency will be allowed to tweak the state's plan if it's not making the progress that it needs to be made during the decade-long compliance period. these are very complex questions. and there are hundreds more, many smart people have been reading this rule for the last

two months and they're at a loss for what this will actually look like. in other words, it appears the epa is urging the nation to trust them as they are about to take over the entire electricity market in the black box confines of the comment period. that said, there are a few things that are crystal clear. first of all, we know the rule will cause electricity prices to go up. we know this from the epa's own logic. epa's rule set out to save the 6% of nuclear generators that have become economically marginal. how will the epa do this? by increasing electricity prices in the absence of regulatory relief from the nrc and the epa, which is not happening, the only way to keep a marginal nuclear plan in business is for it to be paid more for its power. the only way the epa can do that is by pushing the prices up. the second thing that we know is that this rule will end up with the united states looking like germany where the poor and the

business community alike are reeling under the high electricity prices. their prices are now three times what they are in the united states. and this is something the administration is doing even though the american people really don't care about this. talk about all the people joining in and saying that global warming is happening and science is over. they say that because there's nothing else they can say. we've already had this before our united states senate many times. it's been resoundingly defeated by a larger margin each time it comes up. it's come up four times. and so that's the trend line that's there. we all understand that. we know that in a recent gallup poll, it showed -- i can remember when global warming was the number one, or number two concern.

as of two weeks ago, it was 14 out of 15 concerns. according to the pew research center, 53% of americans believe global warming is happening. when asked what's causing it, they say there's not enough evidence to show it's because of humans. he put his $50 million up. he's going to raise the other $50 million. according to politico a couple days ago, he's been able to raise only $1.2 million from outside donors. the third thing we know is that this rule will have essentially no impact on global temperatures which is the very reason because that's ultimately what the rule is supposed to do. and according to one analysis, which was used a model developed by the epa, the esps rule will reduce global temperature. this is using their analysis. by 0.02 degrees celsius as is shown on this chart. it's hardly measurable with all of the costs we're being involved in. combine that with -- the other day i had -- it was monday night.

i had dinner with senator coreman who happened to be here in the country from australia. senator coreman is the guy that was leading the cause after he had one time supported the idea of taxing carbon to repeal it. so they've repealed it in australia. so for the -- you stop and think about it, it's china, it's in russia and the other states. even if you believe all this, they're the ones who are sitting back, anxiously hoping we'll somehow tax carbon so they'll be able to draw in our base. the last thing, since i'm running out of time here, is there's a study that's floating around that says this rule will enhance natural gas. you give an argument it would, but i think what they're forgetting to mention is that this is a war on fossil fuels. natural gas is a fossil fuel. as you can see up here, they

would be next. the war on fossil fuels is going to come right after -- natural gas right after coal. so that's what's behind the whole thing. and i appreciate your holding this hearing. we'll see what happens. >> thanks, senator. senator barasso. >> thank you so much. on july 6 of this year, "the new york times" wrote a piece about the outsized role that the national resources defense council, the nrdc, had in developing the epa's new regulations to curb power plant emissions. the article focused on three key senior nrdc officials who "the times" described as washington's best-paid lobbyists who developed the core of epa's plan. washington's best-paid lobbyist developed the core of epa's plan. "the new york times" stated that on june 2nd, president obama

proposed a new environmental protection agency rule to curb power plant emissions that used as its blueprint the work of three men and their team. the article says it was a remarkable victory for the natural resources defense council. for those outside the beltway, the nrdc is $120 million a year lobbying machine backed by hollywood elites. it is absolutely shameful to me that the epa under the direction here of the administrator will allow this powerful group of lawyers and lobbyists to draft their regulations. but yet this same administrator refuses to actually listen to the people whose lives and jobs will be severely impacted by these regulations drawn up by wealthy lawyers and lobbyists. in fact, the administrator refuses to listen to the thousands of americans who will be impacted by this rule. the epa administrator has refused to go out and visit

folks in coal country whose lives the agency is upending. the epa administrator won't hold a public hearing in wyoming, won't hold a public hearing in kentucky. the epa administrator has literally gone out of her way and the epa has gone out of its way to avoid hearing from unemployed families who have lost or will lose everything. their job, their homes, their retirement savings, issues relating to their health, all because the epa has decided to push a rule that was drafted behind closed doors by powerful, wealthy washington lawyers and lobbyists at the nrdc. let's be clear. the nrdc is a wealthy, elite, powerful lobbying machine with more than influence over decision making in washington than any ordinary american citizen. they have millions which gives them access. the epa has turned a deaf ear on those who don't. it should come as no surprise

that this is how the epa's regulations for new and existing power plant was hatched. in fact, "the times" article argues that the nrdc employs this very same tactic during the bush administration to craft their comprehensive energy strategy. when the bush energy strategy was released at the time, the nrdc issued the following statement about how it was crafted. the nrdc said, the conclusions of the cheney task force are a product of an undemocratic process. when nrdc filed a freedoms of information act request for documents identifying members of the task force and the calendars of task force members, the department of energy denied the request. i would say this is quite a change of heart by this group of wealthy washington lobbyists and lawyers. if i'm wrong, then the nrdc and the epa and its administrator can provide and should provide all records and documents that

are requested by members of this committee and my house colleagues on how these new regulations for coal-fire power plants were crafted. because right now it sure looks like the epa let a trio of high-powered washington lobbyists write their regulations for them. if what "the times" is reporting is what the epa administrator has called preposterous, then the epa must comply with any committee and freedom of information act requests for these documents. comply with requests from our house colleagues, comply so that we can then know the truth. if the answer is no, that you will not comply, or that there are more record-keeping mishaps, broken hard drives, lost files, then we'll know the truth about this agency as well. thank you, madam chairman. i look forward to the testimony. >> thank you, senator.

now here's where we stand. because we're trying to move on. we're going to accommodate the senators who were here so we're going to move to senator carper, senator sessions, and we'll close with senator merkley at that point. the colleagues that come later can have an extra minute to do a bit of an opening. okay. so let's move forward. we'll go now to senator carper. >> thanks. welcome, administrator mccarthy. very nice to see you. for a number of years i served as either the ranking member or chair of the subcommittee on clean air and nuclear safety. i remember early in those days, i think george voinovich was the chair at the time, we were meeting with a number of utility ceos from around the country. and we were talking about multipollutant legislation dealing with nitrogen oxide, mercury, co2. after an hour-long meeting, this one utility ceo from some place down south, kind of a curmudgeon-like guy, he said, all right, senators, this is what you should do.

this is with respect to multipollutant legislation. he said, you should tell us what the rules are going to be. you should give us a reasonable amount of time to implement those rules. give us a little bit of flexibility and get out of the way. that's what he said. tell us what the rules are going to be, give us a reasonable amount of flexibility, reasonable amount of time, and get out of the way. that was ten years ago. well, my hope and my belief is that epa is actually not just said these are what the rules are going to be. they said after talking to a lot of stakeholders, including utilities, including coal company, including environmental groups, including state and local governments, epa said, this is what we think the rules should be, and in doing so

basically put out a draft of what they think the rules should be. as for a lot of response, a lot of input from people around the country. that's where we are. i think it's great we're having this hearing. great that the administrator is here. but the way the system works here, epa doesn't mandate what's going to happen. i hope they get input from all kinds of groups, including groups like nrdc. that would make sense. i hope they get input from utility companies. that would make sense. i hope they get input from the coal companies. that would make sense. so i'm glad you're here. glad we have an opportunity to hear what the administration is proposing. and glad that we're going to

have an opportunity to provide input to that. delaware and some other states feel the impact of climate change. they're already taking place to reduce our local power plant carbon emissions. unfortunately, a few states like us can't tackle this issue alone. all states have to do their fair share if we're going to make an impact. clean power act unites our country in working to take on the largest source of carbon emissions together. i want to thank the administrator. i want to thank our president for the leadership and for moving forward with this rule. opponents of this rule are going to say that we have to choose between having a cleaner environment and a stronger economy. i've said a million times, that's a false choice. we can have both. if we're smart, we will have both. in fact, we've done it time and time again. we know the inaction of climate change only costs us money in the long run. inaction could be devastating to our economy. in fact, the government accountability office has already listed climate change as one of the biggest fiscal risks facing our nation. they're not making this stuff up. it is. that's why i believe we need to move forward with the clean power plan.

however, such an important rule, we need epa to get it right. we need to have a rule that reduces carbon emissions, protects public health, and grows our economy, which is finally growing quite nicely. we need a rule that does not pick winners and losers between clean energy technologies, and we need a rule that's flexible, legally defensible, so the states can meet their carbon targets. i believe that epa's trying to strike the right balance. god knows it isn't easy. through unprecedented outreach and hearings from over 300 stake holders nationwide, epa has developed a proposal that builds on what states are already doing to reduce power plant carbon emissions. the epa's proposal recognizes that what might work for delaware may not work for california, may not work for oklahoma, or alabama or mississippi or nebraska. but rather, your proposal allows each state the flexibility to find the most cost-effective way to reduce their own emissions. as my father would say, god rest his soul, that sounds like common sense to me. after working for more than a decade on legislative efforts to reduce carbon emissions from power plants, i applaud the epa's decision to set carbon targets that are meaningful,

flexible, and feasible. let me close by saying i encourage the epa to continue to listen to the stakeholders, listen us to, and make adjustments as needed to ensure we get this one right. it's important we do. i look forward to today's discussion and future discussions on this rule. welcome and thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator sessions followed by senator merkley. >> thank you, madam chair. the american economy is important. i know you know that. we have a decline in median family wages in america since 2007 from 55,000 to 50. we have an employment rate among the working-age population as low as the 1970s. it's been declining steadily. and the decline in energy prices, one of the finest things that helped the american economy

in recent years. so lower cost energy clearly creates jobs. it creates wealth. every $10 a family has to pay for an electric bill or more for their gasoline bill does weaken the economy. if it is for no benefit or little benefit. so we have to ask that. we can reach some accord on a lot of these issues. things that are cost effective, clean, efficiency programs are things that probably do make america healthier and a stronger economy. and there is common ground there we can have. one of the common grounds, i think, is nuclear power. we need to consider that more. last month, our regulatory group

versus epa's supreme court said this. quote, when an agency claims to discover in a long statute an unheralded power to regulate a significant portion of the american economy, we typically greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism, close quote. well, we know congress has never voted explicitly to regulate co2 and would not vote today if given the opportunity. by through whole statutes and interpretations of it, you now as an unelected official impacting the economy in extraordinary ways. and i just think we ought not to forget that. co2 emission targets for alabama are a reduction of 27%, but states like arkansas and georgia with 44% reductions are hammered even harder. south carolina with a 51% reduction.

tennessee with a 39% reduction. those are huge economically impactful regulations you're putting out that we don't get to vote on. the american people aren't given a voice in. so i want you to know we're concerned about the problem that you're concerned about and trying to make this environment healthy and positive. but we have to ask, what is the real world impact on it? we know germany is backing off and reconsidering some of its very green issues. australia recently scrapped its carbon tax. additionally, i'm worried about the nuclear industry. we only have a few plants that are going forward now. the tennessee valley authority, which handles most of north alabama, got a part of mississippi, and tennessee, they're building a nuclear plant. at watts bar. under your regulations, they'll spend billions of dollars to bring that plant online and will

get no credit for it whatsoever. and in fact, when the rule, the impact rule of reduction of emissions occurs, it'll be even more burdensome from them than otherwise would be the case. in fact, i think it's fair to say they are penalized for investing now to reduce carbon emissions through nuclear power. and they've done it already. they've reduced emissions, carbon emissions, by 17% since 2005. and on level to achieve a 40% reduction by 2020. but they'll be, i think, clearly unfairly impacted by the way you're calculating the nuclear power carbon-free power generation that could occur. so madam president, i'll wrap up. thank you for the opportunity to be here. >> senator, thank you very much. last but not least, senator merkley. then we turn to the administrator. >> thank you, administrator mccarthy, for coming and

addressing the clean power plan today. there is no question that carbon dioxide is a terrible pollutant, having profound impacts. we see it on the ground in oregon in multitude nous ways. we see it in terms of the expansion of the bark beetle or pine beetle destroying vast swaths of our forests because it's not cold enough in winter to kill them off. we see it in terms of our oyster industry that's having great difficulty with the reproduction of the oysters because the water is 30% more acidic in the ocean than it was before the industrial revolution. we certainly see it in the basin where the three worst ever droughts have occurred in less than a decade and a half. thus, carbon dioxide is waging an assault on our rural resources, on our fishing, on our farming, on our forests. it's absolutely right that under the clean air act, we seek to control and reduce this

pollutant having such vicious consequences across rural america. so thank you for coming and addressing the details of the plan. i look forward to the commentary. and i look forward to an understanding of how many jobs can be created by addressing noncarbon sources of power. it's clear that already in just the solar world there are twice as many jobs as there are in the coal world. not counting other forms of renewable energy. but there is huge growth potential to power up living wage jobs across our nation as we take on this vicious attack on rural america. thank you for your testimony today. >> thank you, senator. administrator mccarthy, you've heard from 12 of us, 6 and 6. i really want to say to each colleague, i thought each of you made your points very well and to the point. so we turn to you, administrator mccarthy. >> thank you, chairman boxer, ranking member vitter, and members of the committee for the

opportunity to testify today on epa's recently issued clean power plant proposal. climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. it already threatens human health and welfare and the economy, and if left unchecked, it will have devastating impacts on the united states and on the planet. the science is clear. the risks are clear. and the high costs of climate inaction are clear. we must act. that's why president obama laid out a climate action plan and why on june 2nd, i signed the propoezed clean power plant to cut carbon pollution, build a more resilient nation and lead the world in our global climate fight. power plants are the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the united states, accounting for roughly one-third of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions. while the united states has limits in place for levels of arsenic, mercury, nitrogen oxide

and particle pollution that power plants can e-commit, there are no current regulations on carbon emissions. the power plan will cut hundreds of millions of tons of carbon pollution and hundreds of thousands of tons of other harmful air pollutants from existing power plants. together these reductions will provide important health benefits to our most vulnerable citizens, including our children. the clean power plant is built on advice and information that we drew out and listened to from states, cities, businesses, utilities, and thousands of people about the actions they're already taking to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. the plan aims to cut energy waste and leverage cleaner energy sources by doing two things. first, it uses a national framework to set achievable state-specific goals to cut carbon pollution per megawatt hour of electricity generated. but second, it empowers states to chart their own customized

path to meet those goals. we know that coal and natural gas play a significant role in a diverse national energy mix. the plan draws to lower pollution and paves a more certain path for conventional fuels in a clean energy economy. the epa stakeholder outreach and public engagement and preparation for this rule making was unprecedented. starting last summer, we held 11 public listening sessions around the country. we participated in hundreds of meetings with a broad range of stakeholders across the country, and we talked with every state. now the second phase of our public engagement has begun. we have already had dozens of calls and meetings with states and other stakeholders in the more formal public process. both a public comment period

that runs through october 16th, 2014, and public hearings next week in atlanta, denver, pittsburgh, and washington, d.c., will provide further opportunity for stakeholders and the general public to provide input. each state is different. so each state goal and each path can be different. the goals spring from smart and sensible opportunities that states and businesses are already taking advantage of right now. under the proposal, the states have a flexible compliance path that allows them to design plans sensitive to their needs, including considering jobs and communities in a transitioning energy world. it also allows them 15 years for when the rule is final until compliance with the final target to consider and make the right investments, to ensure energy reliability, and to avoid stranded assets. all told, in 2030 when states meet their goals, our proposal will result in a 30% less carbon pollution from the power sector across the u.s. in comparison with 2005 levels.

in addition, we will cut pollution that causes smog and soot by more than 25%. the first year that these standards go into effect we'll avoid up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2100 heart attacks. and those numbers just go up from there. in 2030, the clean power plan will deliver climate and health benefits of up to $90 billion. and for soot and smog reduction alone, meaning for every dollar we invest, families will see $7 in health benefits. and because energy efficiency is such a smart, cost-effective strategy, we predict that in 2030, average electricity bills for american families will be 8% cheaper. this proposal sets targets at a reasonable schedule that can be achieved by every state using measures they choose themselves to suit their own needs. the epa looks forward to discussion of the proposal over

the next several months, and i look forward to your questions. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, administrator. i'll start off. i'm going to respond to a couple of my colleagues and then i'm going to ask you a question about how the states' role is so important in your rule. first of all, senator barrasso was quite eloquent in attacking the nrdc. so for those who don't know the nrdc, this is their very -- this is their goal. and see what you think of it. their goal is, quote, to safeguard the natural systems on which all life depends. sounds like a terrific goal to me. and the further -- the ideas that the nrdc had were actually released at a national press club event in 2012, their plan. it is true that epa borrowed from that, but good for them for

putting out some really clever ideas. because i think the notion of states taking the lead and the flexibility was very, very smart. and i know that epa has held public stakeholder sessions before the rule was even proposed. we'll hear more about that. i'm sure there will be a lot of questions on who epa discussed the rule with. then my friend senator wicker also very eloquently, you know, says the president uses unilateral action. no, he doesn't. he's doing what he has to do. you know, and i'll quote from christie todd whitman, who's a republican and headed the epa. quote, i've gub -- begun, she said this right here, i have to begin by expressing my frustration with the discussion about whether or not the epa has the legal authority to require carbon emissions -- to regulate carbon emissions. the issue has been settled, she

says. epa does have the authority. the law says so. the supreme court says so twice. well, i would add that since christie todd whitman said that, the supreme court acted again a third time in a scalia opinion, upholding the authorities of the epa. so i don't know why we have to fight about things that have been settled three times by the supreme court. i mean, it's interesting and it's always a pleasure to debate my colleagues on these things, but i think, you know, we should move on about that. now, my question is, the clean air act states, quote, that air pollution prevention and air pollution control at its source is the primary responsibility of states and local governments, unquote. how does epa's proposed rule on controlling carbon pollution for existing power plants uphold this cooperative relationship between the federal government and state and local governments? and adding to that, to be a little specific, as you know, california has been a global leader in reducing its carbon

pollution, and its landmark climate change program is driving investments in clean energy, spurring new job growth, and improving the state's air quality. and i want to make sure under epa's proposal my state will be able to continue its climate change program and use the existing program as a key part of its state compliance plan. so if you can expound on the role of the states and also my state. >> i'd be happy to. first of all, let me indicate that there is tremendous flexibility in this rule. and it is because epa listened to every stakeholder. and when we met unprecedentedly in our outreach efforts -- really, they were historic, to reach out to states, utilities, to stakeholders. yes, to the environmental constituents as well. we heard from every one of them that it was important to have flexibility. i also read the clean air act,

which said that the law that i'm implementing looks at where states are today and it looks at what reasonable, practical efforts they can undertake to reduce pollution moving forward. the flexibility in this rule is not just the fact that we had individual state standards, which respected where the energy system was in each one of those states uniquely. but it also provided 15 years as our proposal to move forward. that doesn't even begin until 2020 -- i'm sorry, 2015, in order to achieve these standards. so we're talking about standards being achieved in 2030. so it's a tremendously long timeline. but every state gets to design their own compliance strategy. every state gets to look at what they want for their own fuel diversity, what they want to invest in. and the great thing about this

proposal is it really is an investment opportunity. this is not about pollution control. it's about increase efficiency at our plants no matter where you want to invest. it's about investments in renewables and clean energy. it's about investments in people's ability to lower their electricity bills by getting good, clean, efficient appliances, homes, rental units. this is an investment strategy that will really not just reduce carbon pollution but will position the united states to continue to grow economically in every state based on their own designs. but it also will position us tremendously -- >> can california continue its effort and get credit for what it's doing? >> that's the last flexibility i should mention. we opened it up entirely to individual state plans or to regional plans they want to do. if california wants to continue with its very successful cap and trade program, it can do so. but in the end, what we're looking for are reductions at

those fossil fuel facilities but use your own imagination on how to get here. we're doing exactly what has asked epa to do for a long time, which is you set the standard based on science. we'll get there in the cheapest, most cost effective way that we can. and we're actually telling states to go do that. >> well, thank you very much. senator vitter. >> madam administrator, it appears in the proposals accompanying regulatory impact analysis that climate benefits are calculated using your interagency working group social cost of carbon estimates. previously, i've asked why the estimates do not include a domestic cost-benefit calculation as required versus just a global cost-benefit calculation.

so i'll ask in this context. why did epa again not include that domestic cost-benefit calculation in regard to co2? and is it because as under the brookings institution analysis, if that analysis is correct, the benefits are largely enjoyed by other countries while all of the cost is born by the united states? >> well, let me just make a couple of comments and i'm happy to answer your question. the cost and benefits associated with this rule are not just benefits in terms of reduced carbon but also in terms of health benefits. and each of them far exceed the cost associated with the rule. when you -- >> i don't want to cut you off, but i have very limited time. did you all do a domestic cost-benefit analysis as required? >> we did exactly the requirements for omb in the law that we needed to do for the r -- >> did you do the domestic cost-benefit analysis? >> it was considered to be not the most appropriate way to look

at it. it's looked at globally. >> you don't think that's required by the law? >> we actually followed all the procedures we needed to do for the office of -- >> i disagree with you about that. >> okay. >> i think it's required. i also think it's useful to know a domestic, a u.s. -- i mean, we're representing u.s. citizens, a u.s. cost-benefit analysis. let me ask you some louisiana-specific things, which i'm concerned about. in reviewing epa's calculations regarding louisiana performance goals, we discovered it appears epa included at a capacity factor of 70% at least two, maybe more, natural gas combined cycle units that are not operational or not fully operational. it's a significant mistake that makes our burden significantly larger. is that going to be corrected? are those mistakes elsewhere in state plans? >> senator, the reason for the

comment period is to take a look at all of the state data as well as the framing that we've put out there. so we're open to comment. but we have not in this rule required any state to operate their ngcc at a 70% capacity. and if, in fact, we have overestimated the amount of fossil fuel pollution generated in louisiana, it would be a benefit to know that for both the state and us. >> okay. we're certainly going to get that to you. but i just want to note that factored into the epa's louisiana plan are just facts that aren't there. >> actually, that would be a benefit to the state. >> i'm also concerned because louisiana has some major significant job-producing industrial projects coming online in the next five to ten years in particular. so that's going to dramatically increase electricity demand.

did epa factor into state emission targets that sort of economic growth and necessary load growth, or did it only factor into state emission targets demand destruction and reduce growth? >> actually, it -- the reason why we did -- we took this comprehensive approach instead of a within the fence line look at each facility was recognizing the economy needs to grow and making sure that states had the flexibility to design their plans for exactly this reason. so states will be able to continue to grow and to design a plan that accommodates that. >> in louisiana's case, what demand growth did you build in? because again, we don't have average demand growth. we don't have growth that we're experiencing now as a nation, which was very low. we have major industrial projects coming online. so is that specifically factored in? >> well, it is certainly considered. economic growth is part of what's considered when we look at energy prices.

and we look at the challenges associated with keeping demand down while the economy grows. >> were those specific major industrial projects factored in? >> i don't believe that --ty really can't answer the question in terms of way you're posing it, senator, because clearly the economy is going to continue to grow. what we looked at was what efforts can we accommodate for states to take credit for to keep that energy demand down. and we believe that the steps we're asking them to take are pact call and reasonable. >> what i'm hearing is you factored in overall national economic growth. that's not what i'm talking about. i'm talking about huge louisiana-specific industrial projects that require major load growth. and what i'm hearing is that wasn't factored into the louisiana plan. that's a big problem. >> well, we're happy to take a look at it. and i'm sure you're aware, this is about national impacts in the ria that were designed and developed. we're going to continue to

analyze that. but the most important thing right now in the comment period is for us to look at this data, make sure that we have it, and i think as you know, epa works very hard in between comment and final to make sure we get this right. >> okay. we will turn to senator cardin. >> thank you, madam chair. as i indicated in my opening statement, thank you for your leadership on this issue. thank you for following the law. thank you for giving adequate time for comment, which i think is important. we want to get this right. and the comment period is extremely important. i want to talk about a state like maryland. maryland has taken step over the years to try to reduce its carbon footprint. our utilities have been cooperative and have made investments to reduce emissions. they've done that by making significant investments. it's been very positive to our environment. but as i've mentioned previously, we are downstream

from a lot of carbon emissions. so we can do only a certain amount. therefore, it's critically important that all states do their share for the united states to make the type of impact that we need to make. i noted in my opening comments you've given flexibility and allowed the states to come up with the plan they believe is best for their state. in maryland's case, we are part of reggie. we've been there since 2005 and have worked with our regional partners to try to get plans that can benefit the entire region. could you just share with us how the proposed regulation deals with states that have already made progress and have joined with regional partners. how is that dealt with in the proposed regulation? >> well, the proposed regulation calls attention to the regional partnerships that have already been developed. and we actually allow the

flexibility to go it alone or to join other states. and we do recognize the regional greenhouse gas initiative and those states for their leadership in this. we also developed an economic analysis that took a look at the cost effectiveness of going it alone, nationally, each state on their own, versus these regional partnerships just to show how cost effective those approaches can be. and we have also provided important implementation flexibility so there's a longer window of opportunity to develop plans if states are looking at these regional approaches, which can take a little bit longer to develop and implement. so we're trying to give states flexibility to continue with the programs they have, which have been very effective and have shown significant leadership. or to develop programs as they see fit. but we do see tremendous value in these regional partnerships and we want that value to continue to be basically available to everybody and perhaps expanded.

>> so when you have neighboring states that have made progress in reducing their carbon footprint, that is allocated to their individual target under the rule? is that how it works? or how does that mathematically work? >> yeah, mathematically. we have indicated that if states -- let me give you an example. perhaps one of the most difficult is renewables. if states are using renewables as a way to shift to a lower comp in sources, they can do it in their own home state. or they can build their renewable energy facility in another and take credit for that. so we are accommodating an accounting system that allows regional approaches to be robust, that allows them to be specifically designed, even if you want to do regional just for renewables but want to do the rest in your own state, that's fine too. so one of the challenges with this rule is it is so flexible that states have many choices, and we're trying to work with them individually, which we

continue to meet with them, and regionally, to explain how the accounting system would work and how these different approaches might benefit their states in a way that they will think is most important. way that they will think is most important. >> the flexibility issue, the states have pretty much carte blanche as to how they achieve their balances. you mentioned renewables. you mentioned improvements to their power plants, itself. what are the parameters in which the states can operate? >> the only obligation that the states have under this rule is to achieve those state targets in a timely way. so we have based those state targets on carbon intensity. basically, it's the amount of carbon pollution you emit per megawatt hour of electricity you generate at those fossil fuel facilities. so you have a wealth of opportunity. you can use a traditional approach, and you can set a

pollution requirement for each of those facilities. we do that, that's easy to do. or you can use a different approach in which you actually calculate renewables and you actually look at energy efficiency program investments and you use those to keep demand down and then you calculate what you're emitting at those facilities and you see whether you made your target. >> i'll just make a comment. this, to me, is what federalism is about. we'll get states that will make progress in a very cost-effective way. other states will look at, use, and we'll get the most cost-effective way to reduce the emissions. again, i thank you for your leadership and i thank you for the flexibility that you've given our states and recognizing our states can come up with creative ways to deal with this problem. >> thank you. and senator, i think a lot of people -- states are thinking about what reggie's done. i know the western governors are working together. so it's going to be a great opportunity. >> sorry to cut you off, but we have to move forward. senator wicker? >> thank you, madam chair.

i hold in my hand a publication from the global warming petition project, summary of peer-reviewed research consisting of two pages, qualification of signers consisting of one page, and frequently asked questions of the global warming petition project, consisting of four pages. i ask they be inserted in the record. >> without objection. >> and i would read a portion of the petition signed by some 31,487 american scientists, over 9,000 of whom have ph.d.s. the proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology and damages to health and welfare of mankind. there's no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will cause in the foreseeable future catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate. moreover, there's substantial scientific evidence that

increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, produces many beneficial effects among the natural plant and animal environment of the earth. i say this in response to the continued drum beat from the other side of the aisle that the science is over with, it's been decided, and everyone who disagrees is somehow, some sort of a quack. to some 31,000 american scientists who signed this petition, it is not settled science. i appreciate them being a contrary voice to get the peer-reviewed facts before us. i would also point out, and i ask my first question about this, madam administrator, the attorney general of west virginia recently wrote epa and just last month and requested the withdrawal of the rule because, he says, epa lacks

the legal authority to adopt it. so while there may have been witnesses before this committee in recent days saying that epa unquestionably has the authority to propose such a rule, the attorney general west virginia disagrees, and he points out this, ms. mccarthy. he says that the clean air act section 111-d affirmatively prohibits epa from regulating any air pollutant emitted in an existing source category, which is regulated under the national emission regime of section 112 of the clean air act. so section 111-d says, if it's regulated under 112, you can't regulate it any other way. now, epa has imposed extensive regulations on existing coal-fired power plants under section 112. is that correct? >> i think the framing of the legal argument is incorrect, senator. >> well, but let me ask you this.

i'm not asking you for that. i'm asking you, does epa impose regulations on existing coal-fired power plants under section 112? >> we certainly do. >> okay. well, thank you for that. so based on that, madam chair and members of the committee, the attorney general of west virginia says having been regulated under section 112, the epa lacks the legal authority to further regulate these emissions under section 111-d. now, let me ask you this also. time is fleeting, ms. mccarthy. did you tell senator vitter that your cost/benefit analysis was done entirely on a global basis and was not -- >> no. >> okay. please correct my understanding. >> the senator i think was asking me, at least this is what i answered, as to whether or not

the social cost of carbon benefits are looked at as benefits that are solely gained domestically or whether they are based on global benefits. >> okay. well, good. so perhaps i did misunderstand it. i'm glad i did. you conducted a cost/benefit analysis as required by law. is that correct? >> yes. >> and this was -- was this conducted on a state-by-state basis? >> no, it was a national analysis. >> okay. it was not done -- >> the challenge here, sir, is we've given so much state flexibility, it can only be illustrative because it really is going to be up to the individual states how to design their strategies to achieve these reductions. >> okay. so you didn't do it on a regional basis. >> we did the analysis -- my understanding is -- and we can certainly follow up with more specifics -- >> okay, well, please do that. >> -- is that it looks at national impacts. although, it will over time get more specific as states make decisions and comments come in. >> okay. i see my time is expired. i may submit a question to the

record for you, ms. mccarthy, with regard to the costs of two projects that mississippi has undertaken to comply with recent federal regulations. these projects will have to be completely shut down under your proposed rule if it goes forward. thank you, madam chair. >> i'd be happy to look at that, sir. stranded assets is an important issue. >> thank you so much, senator. we turn to senator whitehouse. >> thank you very much. thank you very much, administrator mccarthy, for being here. thank you for your excellent work. carry on. with respect to my colleague's point that the science isn't settled on this, i'm afraid to say i think he's just factually wrong. and i think that it's not just me who thinks the science is settled. noaa thinks the science is settled. nasa thinks the science is settled. and they've got rovers driving around on mars right now.

they know a little something about science. the u.s. navy thinks the science is settled. the head of our pacific command says climate change is going to be the biggest threat we face in the pacific. every major american scientific society thinks that the science is settled. the property casualty insurance and reinsurance industry, which bets hundreds of billions of dollars on this, thinks that the science is settled. there is what i would call an eccentric fringe. that continues to deny. they are entitled to have their views. they are entitled to have their views. but we as responsible members of congress should not be using public policy on excentric fringe views. these are views that don't even hold traction with young republican voters. young republican voters under the age of 35, think that climate denialists, these are

poll's words, not mine, ignorant, out of touch, or crazy. if that's what young republican voters think about this, then i really don't think having this dispute here is very productive. let me ask you, miss mccarthy, this proposal has been built based on an unprecedented outreach by you and the environmental protection agency involving utilities, involving republican elected officials involving a whole wide array of stakeholders. how prominent, in your conversations outside of the united states capitol, is this outright denial that climate change is real argument? >> if is not a prominent issue. i have gone to many, many states and there is a vast concern in each state over the changes in

the climate we're already seeing. we're no longer talk about projections of change, but talking about adapting to the change that's already happening and the devastation that that is causing. there's very little doubt, at least i see in experience. the question really is right now on the table what do we do about it? do we actually meet our moral responsibility and take action, or do we not? and in this rule, we took very much to heart the fact that when states and utilities were not arguing the science, but instead arguing the actions, that we thought it was prudent to look at what the science told us in terms of technology availability, practicality in cost. what we're supposed to do under the clean air act. and to say what the target should be and allow each state to get at that target the way they thought was best for their individual state. that's what -- this is the most respectful rule at the federal level that i've ever been involved in, either as a recipient of that rule, or as a

designer. in terms of recognizing the leadership of states and allow them to continue to lead. >> so i was down in florida not too long ago touring the coasts where climate change is really undeniable. sea level rise is something you measure with the equivalent of a yardstick. it's not subject to much rational debate. people understand it. i met with the republican mayor of monroe county who has developed her own climate change task force, they're vitally concerned about what sea level rise means, particularly to the keys. so in your experience, again, outside of this building, and outside of the influence in washington that polluters bear, when you're out there as a part of your outreach process, this republican mayor in monroe county would not be on outlier among republicans in your experience. >> no, no, not at all. and republicans and democrats that i come a crocross ro are

worried about climate change and the impacts. they have kids that have asthma. they have properties that they're worried about from flooding, from drought, from fire and they want us to take action. >> last quick question. is extreme weather, high winds and storms associated with climate change? >> yes. >> and how do extreme weather, high winds and storms do in terms of the electricity grid? >> it's very challenging. we are dealing with climate change is a reason why you would want to continue to invest in electricity in an infrastructure that supports it. the question really is going to -- >> only if you were only interested in electric grid liability, and all the issues this raises, even if you were only interested in electric grid reliability, you should still have a concern in climate change and -- >> absolutely. the funny thing is when

people ask me about the polar vortex, some of them pose it like it's a reason not to take action. it is exactly the reason we have to take action. >> thank you, chairman. >> thank you, senator. we turn to senator fisher. >> thank you again, madam chair and thank you, administrator for being here. >> you, too. >> these are very complicated issues and i would like to bring the focus back to those issues. i have a question that is a bit long. it's in the weeds. i hope you'll bear with me on it. i'm going read it to you so i get all of the facts in here correct. >> okay. >> as i pose it to you. in building block 2, the epa assumes that gas plants will run far more in order to run the coal-fired plants far less. this will reduce the heat rate efficiency of plants as running any plant less and on an intermittent basis always reduces efficiency. to offer an analogy, i think this is the equivalent of

operating a car in city driving where it's stop-and-go which reduces the efficiency in the form of miles per gallon as compared to when you're on a constant rate of highway driving. what this means is that building block 2 which calls for running coal-fired plants less is directly at odds with the goals of building block 1 which calls for improving the heat rate of coal-fired plants. so building blocks 1 and 2 are in direct opposition with each other. you can't run both coal plants less, while running gas plants more and then turn around and argue that the heat rate of coal plants should be improved. so did the epa consider that the amount of switching to natural gas effectively required by this rule would require coal-powered plants to operate less thus driving up heat rates substantially? and i think that would just

obliterate any heat rate improvement that we could see at these coal units. >> well, let me give a little bit of an explanation and i don't want to take too much of your time, but the building blocks were really opportunities, practical, affordable opportunities to reduce carbon emissions that went into the setting of the state standards. none of them are requirements. they are not requirements. states can actually achieve and comply with those standards in any way they design. so if states are heavily invested in renewables and they need ngcc, or peaking units done in a way that's much more intermittent than the 70% capacity rate they can just simply not do that. none of these are requirements, you need to do none of them, but they actually were our analysis of what we thought were practical and affordable steps that could be taken to get the system more efficient into shifts to clean the sources. so states can use whatever creative approach they want to use as long as they're getting

at the reductions in those fossil fuel plants that are required. >> you know, you've talked a lot about flexibility. >> yes. >> the flexibility for the states. but i think that that flexible solution in effect will shut down coal plants because if you're going avoid that conflict between that bucket 1 and bucket 2 it's going to call for heat improvements for the coal plants for bucket 1, but under bucket 2 you're going to run it less. so how -- how does that -- how does that make it more flexible? i think the conflict there is just going to mean the retirement of these coal plants. >> let me give you an example. i know the state of west virginia was mentioned. if you look at state standard for west virginia. the state standard is not enormously aggressive. in fact, many have questioned why it isn't more aggressive, but what it says -- yeah.

i know. i know. and neither am i. we'll take comment, but we actually looked at the fact they're heavily dependent on coal and their answer may very well be to invest in that goal to make it more efficient moving forward. in pack, if you look at our analysis it shows that coal today, i'm sorry, in 2012, actually generated about 30% of the electricity. what we're projecting is in 2030 that's going to be 31%. so it will remain. so we think coal states, heavily dependent coal states, will invest in coal. they will most likely not take advantage of the shifting to lower sources and they won't need to. >> i have just a few seconds. >> i'm sorry. >> my concern is that it just effectively shuts down plants. i did want to touch on another issue just very quickly. i had the opportunity earlier this week to have a dinner with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. we met with some officials with

department of defense. we talked about national security. we talked about global security and the need that we see for that global security especially in europe with regards to the belligerent moves of russia and our nato allies and what they face there with natural gas. how are we going to address, not just national security, but global security when we have such limits put on natural gas? >> if you can make your answer really brief. we have a vote started. my goal was to try to get everybody in prior to. we might be able to do it if we stick to the time so can you speak briefly to that and then we're going to -- >> well, again, this is a very consistent strategy to support the president's all-of-the-above energy policy. it does not set specific limits

on any fuel. it expects all fuels to continue to be operated at significant levels. it will provide a more energy sufficient supply system and reduce the harmful carbon pollution. >> hopefully we can work with you. >> thank you very much. we move to senator carper. >> administrator mccarthy, give us some idea, what percentage of all electricity is generated by nuclear in this country today? is it about 20%? i think it is. >> it's something in that order. >> any idea what percent of zero emission activity is generated by nuclear in our country today? >> zero. >> think about that. what percentage of the electricity that has essentially zero emission generated by nuclear? it's not zero. it's got to be -- i don't know, closer to, i'd say, 50%. think about that because there's hydro, there's solar, and there's wind, but it's got to be

close to 50%. 5-0. my staff heard that they do not treat all resources the same in your proposal and specifically, we're starting to hear nuclear energy could be disadvantaged by this rule because of specific benefits that renewables enjoy over nuclear and other energy sources. we've even heard concerns that some nuclear power plants may be forced to close down because of the way the rules are structured and it doesn't make a lot of sense. you and i talked in the past about nuclear and i believe we both agree that nuclear has to be part of the mix if we're going to meet our climate goals. just to make sure we're on the same page. do you believe that nuclear energy -- do you believe that nuclear energy should be on an equal footing with renewable energy to help states meet their carbon goals set in these proposals? that's the first part of my question. and second, have you heard similar concerns from the nuclear industry? so can you tell us what you believe is the crux of the problem and the proposal and to

commit today to resolving this issue, please? >> sure. sure. >> first of all, as you indicated, nuclear energy is a zero-emitting carbon energy-generating technology and for that reason we've gone to great lengths in this proposal to make sure states are aware of that and that nuclear energy is factored into the standard setting process. we've also called attention to the fact that there are some nuclear facilities that seem to be on the fence as to whether or not they're competitive today in a way that it would allow them to go through the re-licensing process and make that process worth it, if you will. and so we have been highlighting that issue in this proposal in encouraging states to really pay attention to this, because the replacement of a base load capacity unit that is zero

carbon emission emitting will be a significant challenge for states who are right now relying on those nuclear facilities. >> okay. >> wea've heard we didn't go fa enough and we went too far and we will be listening to those comments because we certainly have heard them. >> it's important that you do. thank you. now that your proposal has been released beyond the nuclear concerns, have you already heard feedback from the industry and your states that you think are valid concerns and it could be addressed in a final rule and is there positive feedback that you want to share with us today, please? >> i think a lot of the comments we're hearing are valid and we need to look at them. some of them are whether or not we understood certain state circumstances or whether or not the framing of the rule is as good as it should be. you know, we've heard from leadership states that we didn't give them enough credit for their leadership. we've heard from other states that we've given too much credit. so there's a lot of valid considerations here and we're

going to pay attention to each and every one of them, but i think we've got a great head start with this proposal because of the listening we did before we even put pen to paper. it gave us a tremendous opportunity to put out a proposal that i think for all intents and purposes has been very well received, but i know that states and utilities are rolling up their sleeves, trying to see whether or not they can make this work and how they can make it work to the advantage of their states and the utilities and we'll keep working with them every step of the way. >> and madam chair, a closing thought. coal is what, i think, 37% of our generating capacity a day for electricity, it's going to drop, maybe as low as 31%, that's still a lot. i would say to my colleagues, there is a huge economic here. huge economic opportunity just like there's economic opportunity in diesel emission reductions to create jobs and just like there's economic opportunity to reduce mercury emissions to create jobs and technology that we can sell all

over the world. there's similar opportunity here. whoever can figure out how to economically, safely, smartly reduce the emissions from the coal-fired plants. we're off in the races and just the market alone in china would be terrific. thank you very much. carry forward. >> thanks, senator. >> okay. let me tell you what's happening. the floor said if we got there 11:20, 11:25 we'll be okay, but i think what we're going to do after we hear from senator inhofe who wanted to go, is if it's okay with everybody, we'll break then those of us who can come back -- because i know senator markey, he's going to get extra time because he came, he missed the opening statement. senator barrasso wants to have another round. i would love to have another round. >> okay. >> we'll come back and we'll end this on a very high note with my good friend, the senator from oklahoma. >> if any of you want to go ahead and two on over there, i'll tell you on the floor what i said. all right?

>> well, we don't want to miss it! stop the clock. put it back to five. there we go. good for you. >> ms. mccarthy there's been a lot of discussion as to what your authority is to do some of these things that are perceived to be done so let's just suppose a state that, say, oklahoma, does not submit a state plan and you develop a federal plan for the state. how do you develop that rule wr using only existing authorities? let me be specific, under existing authorities, can you currently required a state to have gas dispatched at 70% of capacity? >> senator, you're way ahead of me. those are considerations that aren't even on the table right now. right now we're looking at proposing a rule, and i have great hopes that we'll work very effectively. >> i'm talking about existing authorities today. under your authority today can you do something like that? >> not unless this rule were passed.

>> okay. that's fine. and let everybody know, then. under the existing authority, do you currently require a state to unilaterally restrict electricity demand by 1.5%? under current authority? >> no, sir. >> good. and under existing authority could you currently mandate the use of renewables in a state? >> we do not. >> okay. now, let's say a state does submit a plan, and their renewable port foe you standard does apply. i would ask you if you can enforce it. >> actually, sir, we wouldn't be requiring any of those things here. what we're requiring is a certain level of carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generated by fossil fuels. that's what an epa would be actually requiring and mandating. how the states get there is certainly their choice. >> well, but -- all right. but -- so you're saying that under current law and policies that epa couldn't enforce a state renewable portfolio

standard, but under the esps rule that we're talking about, they might be able to. is that accurate? >> i'm not -- that is one of the issues that we've raised because epa often has things in state plans. some of which we enforce, some of which we don't. >> i'm saying under current law, you may be able to under the esps -- >> actually, the one certainty i have is that we will be able to enforce the fossil -- the amount of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel facilities if this rule goes as proposed. >> what i'm getting to here, this rule would be a broad expansion of the authority, the epa has overstates that has a broad, political impact and could dramatically reshape the entire sector of the economy. isn't that exactly what the supreme court ruled against in the uarg case? the expansion of authority

that you would be having. >> actually, i don't think that the supreme court indicated that we were expanding our authority in that case, but, sir, questions have been raised about what we do with plans and what's included and how that can be implemented, and we're working through those issues with the states. but all epa is doing here is regulating pollution from sources that we regulate under -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt, but you are proposing a rule that you don't have authority to do, to enforce today. >> no, i believe we have clear authority to do the rule as we've proposed it. >> no, i'm talking about the authority you had under the current system. >> i don't think we're expanding our authority with this rule, sir, no. >> well, it appears to me that you are, but in this short period of time, let me try to get this other thing out of the way. from what i understand, the epa

relied on an economic staple. about 6% of the nuclear fleet is at risk of shutting down and then the epa made an attempt to help out the nuclear plants accordingly. the ferc has authority under power prices and power reliability, power transmission. the question i would ask you, did the epa talk to anyone at ferc about the adjustment of whether the rule would actually help nuclear plants? in other words, to help the 6% that we have found that are going to have problems? >> actually, i don't know what direct conversation epa might have had with ferc over the nuclear facilities. >> did you talk to ferc about these issues? >> at a high level, and i know our staff was working very closely with them and with d.o.e. in particular in terms of our administrative actions. but i just want to make clear -- >> there is no way you can tell me today or tell this committee who the staff was or who they talked to, but you personally did talk to someone about these issues.

>> we've actually been meeting with the commissioners. >> i'm talking about you personally. >> yes. i have had meetings with the commissioners and with -- with nayruk and many of the commissioners. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. so we're going to recess briefly, come back, and there's zero time left on the clock, so i'm going to run. when we come back, we're going to have senator markey open it up and then what happens? senator barrasso, sessions, and if there's a democrat that comes back, we'll go back and forth. thank you, everybody. >> thank you, chairman. >> we will take a brief respite. committee will come to

order. i hope everybody used that break for good purpose. so we are now going to turn to our newest member who i'm so pleased is on our committee, senator ed markey. you have seven minutes -- six minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. administrator mccarthy, just clarify, you have the authority, is that not correct, under the clean air act to set a carbon pollution standard for power plants. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> now, when you were developing the state targets, you looked at four different types of actions, but a state does not have to follow these exactly. a state can figure out the best way, in their assessment, to reach the carbon reduction target. >> that is correct. >> so we have 50 states. could have 50 different approaches. >> that's right. that's what i expect. well, we may. >> we may, we may not, but we're not in a position to tell them

what to do. they have to make the decision. so they may want to have the same plan as another state, but they may not. now, let me ask you another question. a lot of times you hear from people saying that it really hurts the economy of the united states when there is a clean air law that goes on the books. that it's just too dangerous to run the risk of trying to make the air cleaner to reduce the number of people who get sick, to reduce the number of people who die from dirty air. they say the air is clean enough. don't make it any cleaner, but we're seeing this huge increase in the number of people who don't die or don't get sick because of the clean air act. what we have over my shoulder is a chart from 1929 to today, and it reflects the growth in the gdp of the united states of

america that includes the 1970, the 199 77 and 1990 clean air act and with the exception of one period of 2008 and 2009 when there was one complete failure of the regulation of the financial industry, we've seen upward gdp growth. can you talk about that, the connection between this clean air, you know, journey that we've been on in the gdp in our country. is there a choice that we have to make? >> i think chairman boxer elegantly stated the kind of gdp growth that we've seen while we've been able to significantly reduce air pollution. basically, over 70% reduction of air pollution under the clean air act while gdp has tripled. and so every time we put a new rule out, that is what we often -- i'm sorry, what we always hear, frankly, from some small groups, but it really has never come true, and in this

rule, we don't expect that this will have an impact other than to have jobs grow, the economy to grow, the u.s. to become more stable, the u.s. to take advantage of new technologies, innovation, and investments that will make us stronger over time. >> so i just would like to say that -- and senator whitehouse is part of this regional greenhouse gas initiative. we've been in this plan in massachusetts for the last six or seven years. and something quite remarkable has now happened. massachusetts is now fourth in solar deployment in the united states. we're kind of not the perfectly sunny state. we're more like the perfect storm state, but we've moved forward on that front. we've now created 80,000 clean energy jobs in massachusetts. we're going to add another 10,000 this year bringing it up to 90,000 and while nationally, electricity rates have gone up 13% over the last 6 years, they've actually gone down in massachusetts by 6%.

even as we've had a system that's not too dissimilar from the one that you're now propounding for the whole country and we've seen a 23% expansion in the massachusetts economy while we've had a cap-and-trade system in place in massachusetts. so i just think it's important for people to understand that the model's already there. it can be made to work. it's flexible, but it does, in fact, have a lot of evidence that shows that it can be done. now, i understand that some states have already surpassed the renewable energy production level built into the 2030 state targets. are you considering building more ambition into the targets where states can and are already going further than the levels assumed in the proposed rules? >> senator, we are looking at all comments that we received. we have a very long comment period, 120 days. we are looking forward to four

public hearings next week. so we will be certainly listening to those and making appropriate changes one way or the other. >> and again, following on the massachusetts model, isn't it very possible that the proposed rules that you are considering could wind up lowering electricity rates for people all across the country? i think that's kind of, to some people, contradictory from the way they think about the issue, but we've seen it in massachusetts it's happened. talk about nationally what you could expect to be seen by consumers. >> what we're projecting is consumers will see a lowering of their energy bills and that's because we're getting waste out of the system and because that's the cheapest, most effective way to get these reductions is to become more efficient. >> so explain it just a little bit more. in massachusetts, we have a funny accent and we say that's working smarter, not harder and so explain the efficiency anger

in terms of what you're giving the states the flexibility to implement. >> well, there's two ways -- >> do this as fast as you can with your accent. >> okay. there's two ways to get reductions at fossil fuel facilities in terms of the pollution they emit. for carbon. you can run them less or make them more efficient when they run. both of those are part of the building blocks here. so you can actually do that by increasing efficiency the at the facility but also do that by providing consumers and many low-income consumers support for new building codes. weatherizing houses. more efficient appliances that they can use. when those things happen, their dollars go down in terms of how much they need to spend every month -- >> i think your plan is smart, it's effective, and it's ultimately going to be cost effective. thank you. >> smart. not smart. but -- okay. we're going to turn to senator barras barrasso.

>> thank you, madam chairman. miss mccarthy, why did you let high-powered washington lobbyists with the natural resources defense council reach into the epa and essentially write your climate change rules for you? >> i did not. >> well, not according to the nrdc. they had a blog on july 8th. madam chair, i would like to have this introduced into the record by the nrdc by one of the lobbyists involved in crafting the rules who stated, "the new york times" ran a very nice article yesterday about the nrdc's part in developing an innovative proposal for curbing carbon pollution for the fossil fuel fired electric power plants and they go on to say, we're proud to have played a role. so they're proud of what they wrote. let me ask you another question, are you going to attend the u.n. climate change conference in paris, 2015, as your predecessor did, lisa jackson, when she attended the climate change conference in 2009? >> i have not made a decision on that, senator.

>> a key part of the president's climate change strategy is to have us believe he and his environmental and diplomatic all-star team can arrive in paris in 2015 at the u.n. climate change conference and convince the world to follow his lead. his whole plan hinges on president obama's foreign policy prowess. his foreign policy record is a series of empty threats and pivots, of revets, miscalculations, lead-from-behind failures, places like syria, russia, ukraine, iran, libya, and iraq. after all of those missteps, he wants us to believe in 2015 he and his team can demand that china and india would stop burning fossil fuels. well, even if the president was able to reach an agreement like the treaty in the 1990s, it would still have to be ratified here in the senate. the kyoto treaty overwhelming failed in the senate. so if the president and his team of officials from epa and the state department can't deliver in paris and subsequently in the senate, we're going to be left

with his domestic climate action plan which includes your rules for new and existing coal-fired power plants. according to secretary of state john kerry in a column he wrote in "the financial times" last month, he said, even as we strive to do better, we recognize that no country can solve this problem alone. he said, even if the u.s. somehow eliminated all our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, it still would not be enough. the rest of the world, he said, is spewing too much carbon pollution. that means that the president's climate action plan, which includes the epa's new proposed rules on their own do not reduce global temperatures or prevent any of the serious impacts that are predicted by the u.n. it can't make a dent. so the question is can you guarantee success in paris and if not, aren't these climate change policies all pain for america and the citizens of this country and little gain globally? >> sir, what i know about this

rule is that it will leave the united states in 2030 with a more efficient and a cleaner energy supply system and more jobs and clean energy which are the jobs of the future. so no matter what happens internationally this is of significant benefit to the united states in terms of those kids in the audience who want to breathe healthy air and don't want their kids to get sick. >> so you admit that it has no impact on global climate? >> no, it will have significant impact in the tone and tenor of the discussion. >> so no impact on global climate, though. you admit that? you do. you never said how this would impact global climate. >> don't put -- >> is this a rich person's gamble -- >> just a moment. could you freeze for a moment? freeze the clock. i don't think we should be putting words in anybody's mouth because she never said what you said she said. could you just refine? in other words, you take from her response. she didn't say what you said. it's just not right. >> thank you, madam chair. >> i take from your response and

from the secretary of state's comments that then no matter that these proposals that you're putting forth will have no impact on global climate as a result of the failure of others to cooperate as the secretary of state has stated? this can't be some rich person's gamble where you make a bad bet. this has a real impact on people. when, you know, we're asking coal miners, seniors on fixed incomes, families and children who suffer higher electric bills and the unemployed to make this expensive bet that you're putting forward and i have a lot of problems with doing that to people around the country because of some rich lobbyists and powerful lawyers in washington who are now reaching into the epa to write their regulations. you know, countries around the world are already abandoning fossil fuel, anti-fossil fuel policies because of need of affordable energy. we're seeing it in australia, their parliament just repealed their carbon tax.

the "associated press" last week quotes the australian prime minister who said a useless destructive tax which damaged jobs, which hurt families, cost of living in which didn't actually help the environment. why aren't we following his lead? >> senator, climate in action is what threatens our seniors and our kids. that's what's threatening our communities today and that's what's threatening the viability of the planet in the future. and so i -- >> germany is -- >> i'm responding to as epa, that's my job. >> yeah, germany is going to build -- >> if you want to stay for another round of questions, you're welcome to. >> thank you, madam chairman. >> please stay if you want. i'd like to ask unanimous consent to place into the record two documents. one is a poll just recently taken that shows that 70% of the people support your plan. so not withstanding the fact that other senators say that they're defending the people, you're defending the people, in my opinion. secondly, i also want to put in the statement made by william

ruckelshouse who appeared before this committee at the suggestion of senator whitehouse who worked for senators nixon and reagan, "we like to speak of american exceptionalism. if we want to be truly exceptional then we should begin the difficult task of leading the world away from the unacceptable effects of the increasing appetites for fossil fuel before it's too late." i'd like these to go right back to back with senator barrasso's, if there's no objection. we're going to turn to senator gillibrand who was not here. she gets six minutes. as a republican comes, we'll work back and forth. i will close, so i will withhold. we'll go to senator whitehouse and senator markey after senator gillibrand. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. i am so grateful for mccarthy for being here. i'm grateful for your leadership. i want to thank madam chairwoman for holding this hearing. climate change, as everyone knows is one of the biggest

crises we face and after watching the destruction after superstorm sandy, it is not only costly, but people are losing their lives and people are not acting bold enough and we have to do more and we have to do better. the costs of inaction are enormous. we can continue or try to continue to pray for disaster after disaster or make really smart steps to reduce carbon pollution and foster innovation for cleaner energy sources and more advanced technology. so i think that there is a picture of success here that we have to grab a hold on and achieve it, and i think with your leadership we will achieve that goal. new york state is a member of the regional greenhouse gas initiative, and i know you're familiar with it and have testified about it. today the regional greenhouse gas emissions are 40% lower than in 2005 and it's projected to produce $1.6 billion in economic benefit which i wish my colleague was still here to hear these numbers.

this is economic engines. $1.1 billion in electricity savings. 16,000 additional jobs per year. $764 million retained in local economies for fossil fuels and that's a huge success. from your experience, how can other states use the example to implement a successful program to cut greenhouse gas emissions and can other states and regions expect the same type of net economic benefits that we've seen in new york as a result of our program? >> well, i'm incredibly proud of the work of the regional greenhouse gas initiative in all those states because i think it was specifically designed to take the waste out of the system and to continue to grow the economy. those numbers are great, senator. thanks. the individual states can develop their own plans or they can certainly join other regional approaches like the regional greenhouse gas initiative and we're providing information to why that's inexpensive and why that's a good thing to do and provided an opportunity for them to have additional time if that's what they so choose, but i think the

most important thing for the leadership states moving out if front is that they've shown us that there are cost-effective, practical ways in which you can make this work significantly to address climate change and to grow the economy, not just not hurt it, but actually provide an impetus for growth. that's been the basis of this, our determination of best system adequately demonstrated. the leadership states, really frankly, not just reggie states but all across the united states, we've seen states show tremendous leadership. that's what we're building on. we just want every state to come to the table and look at the same things and see how they design it with the same idea of success in mind. >> now, i read that there were challenges when other regions of the world have tried to do this. there were fraud, you know, that undermined the results. can you talk about why we're successful and they weren't and how do we expand this more across all states and should we

ever have a national reggie? >> yeah. i think we learned from some of those lessons really directly, and i think we also learned from a lot of the work that congress did in trying to design a cap and trade program for the u.s. those are things that you learn from and you don't repeat mistakes. i think we very well understood how we can make sure that the reductions we were trying to achieve were verifiable. >> right. >> accountable. and how we could do it in a way that provided the flexibility to put investments and things that were actually going to be beneficial economically. like energy efficiency. one of the best designs of reggie is that money was actually going to support the kind of programs that are going to lower costs for individual consumers. >> i just think our energy cost savings are amazing. so how -- how can you, in your position, urge other governors, other states, other regions to really try to adopt this and be successful as well? what tools do you have?

what help do you need from us? how do we expand this? >> i think we're trying to make sure there's a table set for every state to look at these issues and to work together. i don't think epa is trying at this point nor should we tell states how they should meet these goals. we're trying to provide them an opportunity to get as much technical information as they can, to look at all the options available to them if they want our help doing that. and we have been having meetings that bring energy and environmental regulators together in every state so they can understand how they can design a strategy that works for them. that's the most person thing for me is that they roll up their sleeves and start working because action right now is essential. >> so, you know, we talked about all the cost savings. there's also obviously the health benefits that we can expect from these types of reforms. can you talk a little bit about some of the health benefits we can expect from the implementation of the new clean

power plan proposed rule? >> i certainly can. the health benefits in this rule are actually quite large, from reducing carbon pollution you actually have an opportunity to keep temperatures from rising, more ozone from being formed, which always results in more asthma attacks, but this rule also is going to be directly reducing particulate matter emissions, so-2 emissions, mercury emissions, as we look at the regional, the ria that was developed. and just to name a few things, we're actually avoiding 2,700 premature deaths in 2030, up to 6,600 premature deaths. we're talking already just in 2020, reducing more than 100,000 asthma attacks in our kids and in the u.s., one out of ten kids face asthma. >> i've been in an emergency room. >> and you worry about minorities and those in the front line of a changing

climate. those numbers matter. >> senator, thank you. senator sessions? >> thank you. well, ms. mccarthy, the supreme court statement that when an agency, epa, claims to discover in a long extent statute an unheralded power to regulate a significant portion of the american economy, we typically greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism. so what our american people need to know is that you've not been given explicit statutory power to do what you're doing. you've achieved it by i guess a 5-4 ruling some years ago by the supreme court, and it ought to be viewed with skepticism. the american people run this country. you don't run this country. epa does not run this country. you are accountable to the people for the best interest of this entire nation, and i think that you -- i think the congress

should never approve this, and that's one of the problems you face. the epa has proposed emission target for alabama would require a 27% reduction in the rate of co2 emissions relative to 2012 levels. it reaches a target by assuming that it is technically feasible for alabama to retire 10 million megawatt hours of coal-fired generation capacity which is significant. increase natural gas generation by an equivalent amount, generate over 14 million megawatt hours from renewables, as well as preserve existing nuclear capacity, not an increase. so, first, you've been talking about consulting. did epa consult with the state of alabama about those assumptions?

achievable assumptions? >> you know, we have been working with both the energy and environmental regulators in every state. i cannot name you specifically whether or not we've had individual meetings with the folks from alabama, but i can certainly check and get back -- >> i don't think you've been dealing that accurately or completely with them on these assumptions, these abilities and you're talking about a huge 14 million megawatt hours from renewables. are you aware? >> senator, i am not sure about those numbers. i am more than happy to go through them -- >> would you promptly respond to an inquiry, a question from me? >> of course, i will. >> thank you. section 111-d of the proposed rule that's been debated here quite a bit references extreme weather six times, at least, and cites claims about projections of increased severity of hurricanes and tornadoes.

do you have any data that you can show this committee to establish that we can expect an increased number and severity of hurricanes and tornadoes? >> i -- i am well aware that the new national assessment indicates that we should be expecting more intense storms, more heavy precipitation. there is -- i don't believe any assumption made about the frequency of hurricanes at this point, but certainly the severity and the intensity of the storms is expected to increase. >> do you know how many days it's been since the united states has had a category 3 hurricane? >> i do not have that information, but sir, you know that -- >> it's 3,200 days. that's almost ten years. we haven't had a category 3 hurricane. i remember when frederick hit my town of mobile ten years before

that, we had camille which was a 5. frederick, i think, was 3, but we're not having increase. the data is pretty clear on that, so i just want to tell you, you're asking us to alter our policies economically, a great cost, and one of the bases of that charge is the increased storms. and we're not seeing them is all i'm saying. it may happen. i don't know, but i don't think you have a scientific basis and i would like to see any science you have to justify that position. finally, you suggest that by 2030 you predict in your written statement here, "average electric bills for american families will be 8% cheaper." as i understand it, you assume that we'll have a 1.5% energy efficiency increase every single year during that decade. 1.5%.

whereas the average today, i understand, is .5%. are you confident? so, how can you have confidence that that would occur? we would have an actual reduction in the cost of electricity for americans? >> sir, we feel pretty confident that the data indicates this energy efficiency is the least effective way of reducing carbon emissions that states will take advantage of. >> i totally agree that the energy efficiency is a bipartisan issue that i can work on together you. i would just say, if you maintain that and don't do the other things, we would have a much lower cost of electricity. >> thank you, senator. senator whitehouse? >> thank you very much, madam chair. while my friend senator sessions was speaking, i pulled up a story from the "birmingham news." now, it's two years old.

it's from august 2012. and at the time, it's about a guy named bart slossum in birmingham, who was 1 of 27 residential customers of alabama power who were selling solar electricity back to the grid. he wondered, "why there was no fhotovoltaic presence in alabama and it is full of sun." he said. the story goes on, "across the country and across the globe, solar energy is spreading spurred by equipment and generous incentives from governments and utilities and drivers across the border in tennessee and solar arrays are sprouting in the field. the sunshine state is a national leader in the production of power from the sun and georgia came online this summer with planned future projects expected to boost that state's generation by 2015. alabama finishes at or near the bottom of, it seems, solar surveys." there might be some potential there for investment in solar. >> it would be great if we could make solar work, but the experts

tell us because of our cloud cover, we're not nearly as efficient as most of the states further west to have clear sunshine, and it's not very effective. >> well, we'll certainly see about that and certainly the costs are coming down. my concern is that when the alternative to solar is to burn coal, there are costs to that that the rest of us have to bear that aren't in that decision anywhere. if you're an accountant and you're doing the books for a family or for a business, you've got to look at two sides of the ledger. you look at what the costs are and you look at what the income is, and then you get to a bottom line. and a lot of what my colleagues have been saying during the course of this hearing i believe has only looked at one side of

the ledger. specifically, the narrow side of the ledger that relates to the costs of the coal industry as if our highest and most important goal in this exercise was to make sure that coal plants kept running. i think that epa has actually tried to look at both sides of the ledger. looked at costs and looked at benefits and on a net basis, when you actually do accounting for the costs of this, looking at both sides of the ledger and not just a one-sided view, what do you get as your net assessment of whether this is going to be good or bad for our economy or people? >> in 2030 it's a net benefit between $48 billion and $84 billion. >> between $48 billion with a "b." and $84 billion. >> that's correct. >> per year? or summed up during that time? >> that's per year. >> so in that year, it will be a -- in that time period, presumably, it will have added up. >> oh, wait a minute. >> considerably more than that over time. >> i will double-check, but i

believe that's the case. >> double check. okay. that would be the minimum obviously? >> yes. >> the number gets bigger if you do that annually. than if that's the sum. >> that's right. >> the bottom line is there is a >> so the bottom line is that there's a positive net benefit. >> yes. >> i just want to say that i appreciate the concern of my colleagues here. i know that senator brasco is representing the state of wyoming. i believe that a billion dollars of the revenues of the state of wyoming come into its coffers from the fossil fuel industry. the senator has every reason to be concerned. he has every reason to expect the rest of us to listen to his concerns and to try to work with him to see what we can do to

help with those concerns. what i can't have is to have a dialogue where wyoming gets its concerns ventilated but has no interest what so ever in what's happening in rhode island. where we have kids with ozone, very serious asthma problems, 10 inches of sea rise, our prosp t prospects for the ski industry are evaporating. the evidence appears to be from the estimate that is we sooef from new york, connecticut is gone. so if they lose theirs, there's going to be very little snow. so we've got real costs on our side. i hope, administratoadministrat there are costs on both sides of this ledger.

and i contend that the costs on our side of the ledger actually out weigh the costs of the other side of the ledger in pure economic value by a lot. those are an yult -- >> those annual benefits are tremendous. >> tens of billions of dollars. >> but i don't think they, by far and away, capture all of the benefits that we're going to achieve by addressing in stepping up on climate. >> madame chair, if there is that kind of benefit, we could see it reasonable to find a way through the politics of this body to deliver some of that benefit back through the states of west virginia and wyoming to balance what's going on here. but we can't do that if they pretend that this problem isn't real. we can't do that if they pretend that the other side of the ledger doesn exist. we can't do that if they pretend that coal isn't harming people across the country.

>> senator, thank you so much for your contribution. i see senator sanders here. i'm going to do my round and turn the gavel over to senator sanders to take as much as he wants to close it down. now, i want to say that senator sessions told you that you don't run america. do you think you run america? >> i'm not taking the blame. [ laughter ] >> let the record show that you don't think that you run america. are you implementing the clean air act? >> yes. >> was there an endangerment finding that said that too much carbon pollution is a danger? >> yes. >> can you summarize for us the major dangers of carbon pollution? >> the endangerment finding were the increased temperature, increased floods, increased droughts, disease that is

related to this. heatstrokes. there are a number of impacts associated with a changing climate. >> is it your responsibility to protect the clean-air act and protect clean air, clean water, safe drinking water? is that what you swore that you would do when you took this job? >> yes, i did. and i meant it. >> yes. >> i know you meant it. >> i just want to say, colleagues, for all the bluster on the other side about how, you know, what administrative mccarthy is doing is a danger to people, people don't believe it. 70% of the people side with the e.p.a. and let me just read the groups that support e.p.a. carbon standards. i want everyone to mention who do these people really fight for, okay? the alliance of nurses for

healthy enviernts. the american academy of pediatrics. the american medical association, the american public health association. the american thoracic society. the asthma foundation of america. chicago positions for social sfonsblety. the cleveland clinic asthma center. health care without harm. national association of city and counsel till health officials, national medical association, national nurse's united trust for america's health. and i ask unanimous consent to put this list into the record. i think if everyone would listen to this, they represent the american people. the children. our families. so that's very, very key. and i also would like to note, i'm sorry senator sessions had to leave. that hurricane katrina in '05,

cost taxpayers $125 billion. and hurricane sandy cost 60 billion dlars. i think this whole country lived through those disasters. and we want to mitt gait mitiga disasters. lastly, my colleagues, i want to make a point. my colleagues,i want to make a point. colleagues, want to make a point. this is my point. i want it because my colleagues are so informed on this. i just think this is one other huge piece of information that's rather new to the debate. under this proposal, in 2030, air pollution benefits will total $62 billion per year.

what does that mean, reduction of particlat matter. reduction of sulfur dioxide, 425,000 ton reduction. nitrogen dioxide. 410,000 reduction. this is huge. and this speaks to the issue that senator white house spoke to. that we can move to clean energy or clean up the energy we have, which i believe is position. and save our kids. missed work, missed school. so i want to say, administrator mccarthy, i can't tell you how much i appreciate you're taking this job. as one who kind of sug jesed it. one of the people. >> you had a little hand in it. >> i want to say i knew that you would step up to the plate. that you had the experience of

working a cross partyreally h h exactly why you wanted to do this work. and frankly, our economy and our leadership in the world. i just can't think of anyone else who could do better. i want to say that you proved it today. and i want to say that even though my colleagues aren't here from the republican side, i felt they were very respectful of you. i appreciate that. i realitily do. but i also agree with senator whi whitehouse and senator sanders. we shouldn't be having the argument about what is as clear as can be. i want to say that i'm pleased with this hearing. with that said, i want to hand this over to senator sanders and finish this hairing. i need to go to a meeting and i

thank everybody. and i especially thank the young people here today. the little ones were actually pretty good. >> thank you, senator, for all that you're doing on this issue. we know that gin amc car thi does not run the world or run america. if she did, she would not have to sit here for 2 1/2 hours, right? [ laughter ] >> i just want to make a few points and then give the mic over to senator whitehouse. i understand that while i was not here, there was some argument, i think by the senator from wyoming, about how wealthy

liberals have coerced you into this direction. campaign finance and the amount of money folks are putting into the political process. so let me just recite a few facts for the record. mpl according to the center for responsive politics, in 2013, the oil, gas and coal industries invested at least $170 million in lobbying the federal government. according to the center for responsive politics, in the 2012 election cycle, the same industry spent more than $93 million in recorded chasm pain contributions