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. our little benefit. so we have to ask that. we can reach some accord on a lot of these issues, ms. mccarthy. i don't think there's any doubt about it. things that are cost effective, clean, efficiency programs are things that, properly done, i think do make america healthier and stronger economy and there are common ground that we can have. one of the common grounds i think is nuclear power and we need to consider that more. last month in our regulatory group versus epa's supreme court said this. "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." well, we know the congress has never voted explicitly to regulate co-2. and would not vote today if given the opportunity. but through old statutes and interpretation of it, you know as an unelected official are impacting the economy in extraordinary ways. and i just think we ought not to forget that. co-2 emission targets for alabama are a reduction of 27%, but states like arkansas and georgia with 44% reductions are really hammered even harder. south carolina with a 51% reduction. tennessee with a 39% reduction. those are huge economically impactful regulations that you're putting out that we don't get to vote on. the american people aren't give an voice in.

so i want you to know we're concerned about the problem that you're concerned about -- trying to make this environment healthy and positive. but we have to ask, what is the real-world impact. we know germany is backing off and reconsidering some of its very green issues. australia recently scrapped its carbon tax. so i just -- as a matter that we need to concern ourselves with. 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 part of mississippi and tennessee, they're building a nuclear plant. 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 their rules, the impact rule of reduction of

emissions occurs, it will be even more burdensome from them than otherwise would be the case. in fact, i think it's fair to say they're penalized for nesting now to reduce carbon emissions through nuclear power. and they've done it already. they've reduce ed missions, carbon emissions by 17% since 2005 and are intent to receive a 40% reduction by 2020 but i think they'll be 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 and thank you for the opportunity to be here. >> senator, thank you very much. last but not least, senator merkley and then we turn 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 multitudes now ways. we see it with the bark beetle, it's not cold enough in winter to kill them off. we see in the 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 in the the climate basin where three worst-ever droughts have occurred in less than a decade and a half and 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 non-carbon 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 -- six and six. and i want -- i really want to say to each colleague, i thought each of you points made your 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 in 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 cost of climate inaction are clear. we must act. that's why president obama laid out a climate action plan and why on june 2 i signed the proposed clean carbon plan 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 limited in place for levels of arsenic, mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particle pollution that power plants can emit, there are no limits on carbon pollution

levels. epa's proposed clean power plan will cut hundreds of millions of tons of carbon pollution and hundreds of thousands of tons of other harmful air plu tanolluta from existing power plants. these reductions will provide important health benefits to our most vulnerable citizens, including our children. the clean power plan 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 climate -- that coal and natural gas play a

significant role in a diverse national energy mix. the plan builds on actions already under way to modernize aging plants, to increase efficiency, and lower pollution and it paves a more certain path for conventional fuels in a clean energy economy. the epa stakeholder outreach and public engagement in preparation for this rule making was unprecedented. starting last summer, we held 11 public listening sessions around the country. we participated in hundreds of meets 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've already had dozens of calls and meetings with states and other stakeholders in the for formal public process. both a public comment period that runs through october 16, 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. testimony goals spring from smart and sensible opportunities that states and businesses are all ready taking advantage of right now. under the proposal, the states have a flexible compliance path that allows them design plans sensitive to their needs including considering jobs and communities in a transitioning energy world. it also allows them 15 years from 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 until 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%. this will avoid up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 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 a couple of my colleagues and then i'm going ask you a question about how the states' role is so important in your rule first of all, the senator was quite el gheegant i attacking inrdc. so for those of you who don't know the nrdc, this is their goal "to safeguard the natural systems on which all life depends. so their plan was released in 2012 and it's true epa borrowed for that but good for them for putting out 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 but we'll hear more about that. i'm sure there will be more questions about who epa discussed the rule with. then my friend senator wicker also very eloquently says the president uses unilateral action. no, he doesn't. he's doing what he has to do. and i'll groet christie todd whitman who is a republican and headed the epa. "i begin --" 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 ar bonn 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 woulded that since

christie todd whitman said that, the supreme court acted again and 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 we should move on about that. now, my question is the clean air act states "that air pollution prevention and air pollution control at its source is the primary responsibility of states and local governments." 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. when we met, unprecedentedly, in our outreach efforts, really they were his storic to reach out to states, to utility, stakeholders, yes, to 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. and this -- 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 by 15 years as our proposal to move forward. that doesn't even begin until 2020. -- sorry, 2015, in order achieve these standards. so we're talking about standards being achieved in 2013. 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 yule 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 internationally. >> hopefully they'll continue its effort and get credit for what it's doing. >> that's the last flexibility i should mention which is we opened it up entirely to individual state plans or to regional plans. 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 everybody 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 calculations. so i'll ask in this context. why did epa again not include that domestic cost-benefit calculation in regard to co-2 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 borne 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 they -- and each of them far exceed the costs associated with the rule. when you -- >> madam, i don't want to cut you off but i have very limited time. did you dual a domestic cost benefit analysis as required? >> we did exactly the requirements for omb and the law that we needed to do for the -- >> did you do a domestic cost benefit. >> it was considered to be not the most appropriate way to look at it. it's looked at globally. >> you don't think that is required by the law. >> we actually followed all of the procedures we needed to do

for the office of management and budget. >> well, i disagree with you about that. 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 in our state discovered it appeared 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 mistake 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 have 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. capacity -- >> well, 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 dramatically increase electricity demand. did epa factor into state emission targets that sort of

economic growth and necessary lode 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 in state of a within the fenceline look at each facility was recognizing that the economy needs to grow in making sure that statesed that flexibility to design their plans for exactly this reason. so states will be able to continue to grow and to design a plan. >> in louisiana's space, what demand growth did you build in? because, again, we don't have average demand growth or 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 -- i really can't answer the question in terms of the way you're posing it, senator, because clearly the economy is going to continue to grow. what we looked at what 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 to take are practical 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 and that's a big problem. >> well, we're happy to take a look at it. and as 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. >> we'll turn senator carden. >> thank you, madam chair. administrator as i indicated in my opening statement, thank you for your leadership on this issue and for following the law and thank you for giving adequate time for comment which 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 steps 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 at -- by making significant investments and it's been very positive 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 and therefore it's critically important that all states do their share for the united states to make the type of imfact we need to make i noted in my opening comments you've given flexibility and you've allowed states to come up with plans 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 to -- 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 in those states for their leadership on 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 by important implementation flexibility so there's a longer win doe of opportunity to develop plans if states are looking at these regional approach which is can take 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? how does that mathematically work. >> 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 lower carbon sources they can do in the their own home state or they can build their renewable energy facility in another state and take credit for that. so we are accommodating an accounting system that allows regionals to be robust and specifically designed, even if you want to do regional just for renewables but you want to do the rest in your own state, that's fine, too. so one of the challenges with this rule is that 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 works and how these different approaches might benefit their state in a way they will think is most important. >> the flexibility issue, the states have pretty much cart blanch as to how they achieve their balances and you mentioned the renewables, you mentioned improvements to their power plants itself, that it's -- 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 states' targets on a 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 just -- this is to me what federalism is about in that we'll get states that make flog a cost effective way that other states will look at and use and we will get the most cost effective way to reduce the emissions so i thank you for your leadership and i thank you for the flexibility you've given our states and recognizing our states can come up with creative ways to deal with this problem. >> thank you. senator, i think a lot of states are thinking about what reggie has done and i know the western governors are working together. >> sorry to cut you off but we have to move forward. senator whor 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. ski they be inserted in the record. >> without objection so ordered. >> and i would read a portion of the petition signed by some 31, 487 american scientists, over 9,000 of whom have p.h.d.s. the proposed limits on greenhouse gases would hinder the events of science and technology and damage the health and welfare of mankind. there is 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 produce many beneficial effects upon 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, 487 american scientists have signed this petition, it is not settled science and 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 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 of west virginia disagrees and he points out this, ms. mccarthy. he says that the clean air act section 111-d affirmative 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 opposed extensive regulations on existing coal-fired power plants under section 112. is that correct? >> i think that 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. >> no, i t senator, i think, was asking me -- and at least this is what i answered -- as to whether or not the social cost of carbon benefits are looked at as ben nats aefits that are sol

gained domestically or whether they are based on global benefits. >> 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, sir. >> and this was -- was this conducted on a state-by-state basis? >> no, it was a national analysis. the challenge here, sir, is we've given so much state flexibility that 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, is that it's a -- it looks at national impacts. although it will, over time, get more specific as states make decisions and comments come in. >> i see my time has expired. i may commit a question to the record for you, ms. mccarthy, with regard to the costs offal

two projects that mississippi has undertake on the comply with recent federal regulations. these projects will have to be completely shut down under your proposed rule if it goes forward. thank you. >> i'll 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, administrator mccarthy, for being here and 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 and, what i would call, eccentric fringe that continues to deny and they are entitled to have their views, they are entitled to have their views. but we as responsible members of congress should not be basing public policy on eccentric fringe views. these are views that don't even hold traction with young republican voters. young republican voters under the age of 3535 think that client denial is -- and these are the poll's words, not mine -- ignorant, out of touch, or crazy. so if that's what young

republican voters think about this then i don't think that having this dispute here is very productive. let me ask you, ms. mccarthy. this proposal has been built based on an unprecedented outreach by you and by 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 capital is this outright denial that climate change is real argument? >> it is not a prominent issue. i have gone to many, many states and there is a vast concern at each state over the changes in the climate they're already seeing. we're no longer talking about projections of change, we're talking about adapting to the change that's already happening

and the devastation that that is causing so i am -- there's very little doubt that at least i see and experience. the question really has always -- 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? 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 and 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 have ever been involved in either as a recipient of that rule or as a designer in terms of recognizing

the leadership of states and allowing them to continue to lead. >> so i was down in florida not too long ago touring the coast where climate change is undeniable. sea level rise is something you measure with the equivalent of a yardstick, it's not really 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 an outlier among remembers in your experience? >> no, not at all. and republicans and democrats that i come across are worried about climate change and the impacts. they have dhads 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 wind, and storms associated with climate change? >> yes. and. >> and how do, freedom weather, high winds and storms do on 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 and in infrastructure that spoupports . >> so even if you were only interested in electric grid reliability, you should still have a concern about climate change and carbon emission? >> oh, absolutely. in fact, people have -- 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 senator fisher. >> thank you again, madam chair, and thank you, administrator, for being here. >> you, too. is. >> these are very complicated issues and i'd 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 to read it to you so i get all the facts in here correct as i pose it to you. ? building block two, the epa assumes that gas plants will run far more in order to run coal-fired plants for less. that will reduce the heat rate efficiency of coal-fired 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 on highway driving. what this means is that building block two, which calls for running coal-fired plants less is directly at odds with the goals of building block one which calls for improving the heat rate of coal-fired plants. so building blocks one and two 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 the amount of switching to natural gas effectively required by this rule would require coal power plants to operate less, thus driving up heat rates substantially and i think that would just obliterate any heat rate improvement that we would see at these coal units. >> let me give a little bit of

an explanation and i don't want to take too much of your time. 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 renewals and they need peaking units done in a way that's much more intermittent than this 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 and to shift to cleaner 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 about the flexibility, the flexibility for the states but i think that that flexible solution in effect is going to shut down coal plants because if you're going to avoid that conflict between bucket one and bucket two, it's going to call for heat improvements for the coal plants with bucket one but under bucket two you're going to run it less so how -- how does that make it more flexible? i think the conflict is 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 the state standard for west virginia, the state standard is not enormously aggressi aggressive. in fact, many have questioned why it isn't more aggressive. >> i'm not questioning that. >> i know. and neither am i.

we actually looked at the fact that they're heavily dependent on coal and their answer may very well be to invest in that coal to make it more efficient moving forward. in fact, if you look at our analysis, it shows that coal in 2012 generated about 37% 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 the lower sources and they won't need to. >> my concern, and i have just a few seconds, but 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 we see for that global security, especially in europe with regards to the belligerent moves of russia and our nato allies, 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 but it will provide a more efficient energy supply system and it will reduce the harmful carbon pollution that is in there. >> hopefully we can work with you on that. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. we move to senator carper. >> administrator mccarthy, give me some idea what percentage of all electricity is generated by nuclear in this country today. is it about 20%? >> it's something in that order. >> any idea what percentage of zero emission electricity 1 generated by nuclear in our country today? >> zero. >> think about that. what percentage of the electricity that has essentially zero emission is generated by nuclear. it's not zero. it's got to be closer to 50%. think about that. there's hydro, solar and wind but it's got to be close to 50%.

my staff and i have heard concerns that epa does not treat all zero-emitting resources the same in your proposal and specifically we're starting to hear that 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 some nuclear power plants may be forced to close down because of the way the rule is structured and that doesn't make a lot of sense. you and i have talked in the past about nuclear and we both agree 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 should be on an equal footing as renewable energy to help states meet their carbon goals set in this proposal? that's the first part of my question. and second, have you heard similar concerns from the nuclear industry? y k you tell us what is the problem in the crux of the proposal and to commit to resolving this issue, please?

>> sure. first of all, as you indicated, nuclear energy is a zero-emitting carbon energy generating technology and for that reason we have actually gone to great lengths in this proposal to make sure states are aware of that in that nuclear energy is factored into the standard setting process. we've also call aid tension 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 would allow them to go through the re-licensing process and make that process worth it, if you will. so we have been highlighting that issue in this proposal and encouraging states to really pay attention to this because the replacement of a base load capacity unit that is zero carbon emitting would be a significant challenge for states who are right now relying on those nuclear facilities. but we have heard that maybe we

didn't go far enough or went too far so we will be listening to those comments because we have heard them. >> it's important that you do. thank you. now that the proposal has been released, beyond the nuclear concerns, have you already heard feedback from industry or -- and/or states that youedly valid concerns and could be addressed in the final rule? is there any positive feedback 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. 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'll pay attention to each and every

one of them but i think we got a great head start with this proposal because of the listening we did before we put pen to paper. it gave us tremendous opportunity to put out a proposal that i think for all intents 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 just a closing thought. you call this 37% of our generating capacity will 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 is 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, 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'll do after we hear from senator inhofe who wanted to go, if it's okay with everybody, we'll break and those of us who can come back, because i know senator markey will get extra time because he missed the opening statement and senator barrasso wants to have another round and 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 go 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. >> 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 and how do you develop the state and let me be specific, under existing authorities, can you currently require a state to have gas dispatched at 70% of what is tea? 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 they work effectively. >> i'm talking about existing authorities today. under your authority today can you do something like that? >> not unless this rule were passed. >> that's fine and let everybody know and 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, say a state does submit a plan and their renewable portfolio 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 esep rule that we're talking about, they may be able to. is that accurate? >> that is one of the issues that we've raised because epa often has things in state plans, some of which we enforce and some of which we don't. >> 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 are 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 could dramatically reshape the entire sector of the economy and 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 questions would be raised with plans and what's included and how we could be implemented and when working with those issues with the states and all epa is doing here is regulating pollution from sources that you regulate -- >> 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. >> i'm talking about the authority under the current system. >> i don't think we're expanding our authority with this rule, sir, no. >> it appears to me that you are, but in the short period of time let me try to get this other thing out of the way. from what i understand the epa 's had the academic study that

about 6% of the nuclear fleet is at risk of shutting down and then the epa made an attempt to shut 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 them about these issues? >> at a high level, and i know that our staff was working closely and with d.o.e. in terms of our administrative actions. but i was just wanting 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. we'll 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 is time we'll go back and forth. thank you, everybody. we will take a brief rcespite. the 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 six minutes. >> thank you. administrator mccarthy, just to clarify, you have the authority, is that not correct, to set a carbon pollution standard? >> that is correct. >> now, when you were developing the state, you were looking at separate actions but a state doesn't have to follow these exactly. a state can figure out the best way, in their assessment, to reach the carbon reduction type. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> so 50 states, could have 50 different approaches? >> that's correct. that's what i expect. well, we may. >> we may. but we're not in a position to

tell them what to do. they have to make the decision. >> right. >> so 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 and they say pretty much 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 1977, and the 1999 clean air acts and with the exception of a period of 2008 and 2009 when there was a complete failure of regulation of the financial industry, we've seen upward of gdp grow. 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. 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 has really never come through, but 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 greenhouse gas emission and we've been part of this over the last six or seven years and massachusetts is now fourth in the united states. and we're not the perfectly sunny state. we're like the perfect storm state, but we're moving 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 six 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 are 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 pack, have a lot of evidence that shows that it can be done i understand that some states have already surpassed the renewable energy production level bell into the 2013 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 that's happened and 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.

>> in massachusetts, we have a funny accent and we say that's working smarter, not harder and so, explain what you're giving the states a way to implement. >> do this as best as you can with your accent. >> there are 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 and we can do that by increasing efficiency at the facility and you can 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 spend every month. >> i think your plan is smart, it's effective and it's ultimately going to be cost effective. thank you. >> smart. know smart, but -- okay. we'll turn to senator barrasso.

>> miss mccarthy, why did you let high-powered washington lobbyists with the 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 and 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 they're proud to have played a role. 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 when she attended the climate change conference in 2009? >> i have not made a decision on that, senator.

>> a key part of the climate change strategy is to us have believe that he and his environmental and diplomatic all-star team can arrive in paris 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 resets, miscalculations and lead from behind failures in iran, libya and iraq. and after all of those missteps, he wants us to believe that 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 officials from the epa and 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 wrote even as we strive to do better we recognize no country can solve this problem alone. even if the u.s. somehow eliminated all of the domestic greenhouse gas emissions it still would not be enough. the rest of the world 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 it will leave the united states in 2030 with a more efficient and cleaner energy supply system and more jobs and cleaner energy which are the jobs of the future. 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. >> no impact on global climate. you do. you never said how this would impact global climate. >> don't put -- >> just a moment. could you freeze for a minute -- 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 what you said? you take from her response something. she didn't say what you said, it's just not right. >> 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 to 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 and hurt families, cost of living and 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 threat edge the viability of the planet in the future and so i -- i'm responding to his epa and that's my job. >> if you want to stay for another round of questions, you're welcome to. >> thank you. >> please stay if you want. >> i would 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 the committee at the suggestion of senator whitehouse who worked for senators nixon and reagan, quote, 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 and i would like these to go right back-to-back with senator bar ro barrasso if there is no objection. we'll turn to senator gillibrand who was not here and she gets six minutes and as a republican comes we'll work back any forth and then i will close, so i will withhold and 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 and for holding this hearing. climate change, as everyone

knows is one of the biggest crises we've faced and very watched the destruction after super storm sand e 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 could continue or try to continue to pay for disaster after disaster make 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 hear to hear these numbers. these are economic engines and 1.1 billion in electricity

savings and 16,000 additional jobs per year and 765 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 the program? >> i'm incredibly proud of the regional gas initiative and all of 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 part leadership states moving out in 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 and not just not hurt it and provide an impetus for growth and that has been the basis of this, our determination on best system of emission reduction and adequately demonstrated and the leadership states really, frankly, not just the reggie states, but all across the united states we've seen states show tremendous leadership and 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. >> 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. >> being able and how we could do it in a way that provided the flexibility to but investments in 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. 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 do you need from us? how do you expand this? >> i think trying to make sure that there say table set for every state to look at these issues and 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 provide them as much technical information as they can, to look at all of 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 we talked about the cost savings and 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 o zone from being formed which always results in more asthma attacks and this also will be directly reducing particularate matter and emissions, so-2 emissions and mercury emissions as we look at the regional -- at the ria that was developed. and just to name a few things, we're actually avoiding 2700 premature deaths in 2030, up to 6600 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 low income and you worry about minors 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 to 4 ruling 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. the 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 have approved this and that's one of the problems you face. the epa has proposed emission target for alabama which would require 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 mega watt hours from renewables as well as preserve existing -- existing nuclear capacity, and 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 respond to an inquiry from me? >> of course. >> 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 sites claims about projections about 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 -- >> it's 3200 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 basis 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, quote, 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 opinion 5%, where is the average today, i understand? it's 5%. >> are you confident?

>> so how can you have confidence that that would occur? >> we would have an actual we,a actua we would have an actual reduction in the cost of americans. >> sir, we feel pretty confiden americans. >> sir, we feel pretty confident that the data indicates this energy efficiency is the least effective way. >> i totally agree that the energy efficiency is a bipartisan issue that i can work on together with you, and i would say if you maintain that and don't do the other things, we might have -- 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 2012 and at the time it was about a guy named bart

slossum which was one of two residential customers of alabama power who were selling solar electricity back to the grid. he's, quote, wondered why there's no photo voltage 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 and alabama finishes at or near the bottom so it seems that 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 that because of the cloud cover we're not nearly as

efficient as the states further west who have clear sunshine and is 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 and there are costs that the rest of us have to bear 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 the bottom line. and what a lot of 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 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 and for our people? >> in 2030 it's a net benefit between $48 billion and $84 billion. >> between $48 billion with a "b." and $84 billion per year or -- >> that's per year. >> so in that time period, presumably we would have added up presumably over that time. >> i will double-check, but i

believe that's the case. >> but that would be the minimum? >> 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 positive net benefit. >> very much so. yes. >> i just want to say i appreciate very much the concern of my colleagues here. i know that senator barrasso is representing the state of wyoming and i know the state of wyoming has a significant coal economy. i believe that $1 billion of the revenues of the state of wyoming come in to its coffers from its fossil fuel industry. so if there's going to be an interruption of that, then senator bar ross barrasso has

every reason to be concerned and 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 in which wyoming gets its concerns ventilated, but has no interest whatsoever in what's happening in rhode island where we have kids with ozone. we have very serious asthma problems where we have 10 inches of sea level rise, where the flounder fishery is virtually gone and where our prospects of having a ski industry is evaporating such as and the ski valley if you want to go to rhode island and ski. it's not much, but it's there and we'd like to keep it, but the evidence appears to be from the estimates that connecticut and new york and massachusetts are going to lose theirs. so if they lose theirs it's unlikely rhode island will be a sanctuary of snow down there south of them. >> yeah. >> so we've got real costs on our side, and i hope that madam administrator, you will bear in mind that there are costs on both sides of this ledger, and i contend that the costs on our

side of the ledger actually outweigh the costs of the other side of the ledger in pure economic value by a lot. >> those were annual costs and they're pretty staggering. >> those were annual costs. >> so it will add up. >> the net benefits here are tremendous, but i don't think -- >> tens of millions of dollars. >> i don't think they by far and away capture the benefits that we're going to achieve by addressing and stepping up on climate. >> and so, madam chair, if there is that kind of benefit it would seem to be reasonable that we could find a way through the politics of this body to deliver some of that benefit back to 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. they can't do that if they pretend that the other side of ledger doesn't exist. we can't do that if they continue this pretense that coal isn't harming people all across the country as well as benefiting people in their states. >> senator, thank you so much for your contribution. i see senator sanders here.

i am going to do my round and i'll turn the gavel over to senator sanders to take as much as he wants and then close it down. now, i want to say, administrator mccarthy, that senator sessions told you that you don't run america. do you think you run america? >> i'm not taking the blame -- no. let the record show you don't think 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 major dangers identified in the endangerment finding were the dangers related to increased temperature, increased floods, increased droughts, disease that is related to this, heat strokes.

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

american academy of pediatrics, the american lung association, the american medical association, the american public health association, the american thoracic society, the asthma and allergy foundation of america, chicago physicians for social responsibility, the cleveland clinic asthma center, health care without harm, national association of county and city health officials, national hispanic medical association, national medical association, national nurses united trust for america's health and i ask for unanimous consent to put this list into the record. i think if everyone listened to this you would say 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 as senator sanders has said cost $60 billion.

now i think this whole country lived through those disasters, and we want to mitigate those disasters and that's what your rule is all about. lastly, i want to make a point for my colleagues, my colleagues. i want to make a point, my colleagues, i want to make a point. my colleagues, i want to make a point. this is my point, and i think this gets overlooked, and 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, not carbon, put that aside. what does that mean? reduction of particulate matter,

50,000 ton reduction, reduction of sulfur dioxide, 425,000 ton reduction. nitrogen dioxide, 410,000 reduction. this is huge. we can move to clean energy or clean up the energy we have, which i believe is possible, and save our kids, save our families, save our health, premature deaths, asthma, missed work, missed school. so i want to say, administrator mccarthy, i can't tell you how much appreciate you taking this job as one who kind of suggested it, one of the people. >> you had a little hand in it. >> well, i want to say, i knew that you would step up to the plate, that you had the experience of working across party aisles, that you really

had in your heart exactly why you wanted to do this work, to help our families. and frankly, our economy, and our leadership in the world. and i just can't think of anyone else who could do it better. i want to say that, i mean, i, you proved it today. and even though my colleagues aren't here from the republican side, i felt they were very respectful of that. i appreciate that. >> i agree. >> i really do. but i agree with senator whitehouse, we shouldn't be having the argument about what

is as clear as can be. i'm pleased with this hearing. i'm pleased with this plan. i know my people support you and so do 70% of the people. with that, i'm going to hand the gavel to senator sanders. i need to go to a meeting, and i thank everybody. and i especially thank all the young people today. the little ones, they actually, they were pretty good. they were pretty good considering all the hot air all of us were putting toward them, but no, i appreciate everybody being here, and senator sanders, the gavel is yours, the time is yours. >> thank you so much. now we know that gina mccarthy does not run the economy or run the world because if she did she wouldn't have to sit her for two and a half hours, right? i just want to make a few points and give the mic over to senator whitehouse, if he would like it. i'm sorry my republican colleagues are not here. i understand when i was not here there was some argument from the senator from wyoming about how wealthy liberals have coerced you into moving forward in this

direction. and i find that is really remarkable that my republican colleagues would dare to raise the issue of 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. 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 campaign contributions, an enormous number, which is itself dwarfed by the amount of money invested in dark money super pac spending.

then we go to another level that is really hard for me to understand these guys would raise this issue. we have the koch brothers who are today as a family worth $80 billion, who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on political campaigns and setting up think tanks. and in fact, are doing that in this election as well. according to the washington post and the center for responsive politics, the koch brothers, where do they get their money? they are a fossil fuel industry. and they have invested $407 million, according to the washington post, supporting conservative, fossil friendly candidates in the 2012 election. so is there money coming into the process from wealthy liberals? the answer is yes. but that money is clearly dwarfed by the amount of money coming in from fossil, the fossil fuel industry.

i would also add that i do find it remarkable that some of my republican colleagues in this debate have expressed their deep concern about the needs of low-income people and the elderly. and i would remind the people of this country that these are the same folks whose compassion and love of low-income people prevents them from working to raise the minimum wage so people can have a living wage, allows them to make massive cuts in the leahy program which provides fuel assistance to low-income people. many of them are on record as making massive cuts in medicaid, trying to end privatized social security. so i think there are concerns today about the needs of low-income people might be held up to some question. senator whitehouse, did you want to add anything to that?

>> one last question for the administrator. the, i take the position that the costs of this regulation are dwarfed by the benefits. and i think that is epa's judgment as well. i also take the position that it's not fair for people to only look at one side of the length earn in evaluating this legislation. they can't just look at the interests of the coal businesses. they really need to look at america more broadly, and there are lots of us who are on the other side of that equation for whom coal really is a harm. and we can work in rational ways to try to balance that, but please don't pretend that my

side doesn't exist. the third is that there is legitimate concern, and then there is concern that is for rhetorical purposes. and there's probably an a little bit of a blend between the two. but if we look at the history that epa has seen of industry reaction to proposed environmental regulations, all four republican, former epa administrators who testified in those very seats, ms. mccarthy, indicated that, over and over, the industry concerns were exaggerated. they did not prove true in the actual fact. whether that was because they were exaggerated for rhetorical purposes at the beginning or whether that was because innovation was brought to bear

to reduce costs, both can be true, but let me ask you. you've been in this business for a long time, at the state level as well as at the federal level. you have worked for republican governors before. what is your view on what the track record has been of industry projections and warnings about the costs and consequences of environmental regulation by epa? >> it has, history tells us that it is, they always exaggerate the costs. they always project environmental benefits as somehow being contrary to economic goals, and it just simply has never come true. never. and i think one of the points that we haven't talked about a little bit, senator that you hit on is one of the great benefits of looking at, at setting a cost

for climate change that is long term and flexible. is that what we're actually sending is a tremendous investment signal in what the united states values and cares about. it will unleash innovation and investment money. this is not about a scrubber at the end of a pipe or a smokestack. this is really about investing in things people care about. investing in things that people will make money on. one of the great things, frankly, about regulating, is seeing how the regulated community grumbles during the process, but in the end figures out how to make money the great old american way. and you'll see this. this proposal is designed to be

moderate in its ask, based on it's practical and affordable. but the vision behind it, the direction it's going to take, i think we will get significantly more benefit than we are requiring. because we're asking for the things that the american public actually wants to spend money on. less waste, cleaner energy, jobs, economic growth. that's what this is all about. and i'm pretty proud of it as a proposal. and i know we'll listen to folks. but in the end, this is going to be something i'm hoping we'll all be proud of. >> if i could pick up on something, administrator mccarthy. what you hear you saying is you believe the united states could be a leader in the world. >> yes. >> in new technologies. >> yes. >> which help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions. and in the process see significant economic development. >> that's correct. >> all right. i will tell you just in one area in vermont we have put some federal money into weatherization.

you know what we've done? we've reduced fuel bills for people, lower-income people, cutting their bills by 32%. cut greenhouse gas emissions. you know what else we've done? we've created jobs in the area. and i suspect your point is once the economy gets moving in renewable energies, we can be a leader in the world. is that what you meant to say? >> that's what i meant to say. >> you said at that better. the issue of money and politics has been raised at this hearing. with the suggestion that environmental folks are pouring huge sums of money in, and i would argue that their money is being dwarfed by the industry. do you have any thoughts on that in the amounts of money we're seeing lobbying, i know campaign contributions is not your venue. but. >> let me just hit the issue directly, because i know it had to do with a "new york times" article which has been given surprising credibility. but i think i know how hard the great staff at epa worked to design this rule, basically from whole cloth, listening to states and utilities and energy

in lobby be that lobbying that comes from contributions. >> let me just hit the issue directly, because i know it had to do with a "new york times" article which has been given surprising credibility. but i think i know how hard the great staff at epa worked to design this rule, basically from whole cloth, listening to states and utilities and energy regulators and environmental regulators and stakeholders from all walks of life. i am extraordinarily proud of the work they put into it. i know they didn't sleep for virtually any night, well, for months. we worked weekends. i can tell you, i had two hours of meetings on this rule alone for a week, for the past -- i don't know how many months.

and it's a discredit to them to suggest that somehow this was designed miraculously by one group many months ago, and we just had it in our pocket ready to unveil. this was a result of hard work, a result of lots of listening, and a result of more than 40 years in history of that agency getting the science right, understanding the law and doing the work we need to do, and that's what this is all about. >> and the result of a process in which the electric utility industry, the coal industry, the fossil fuel industry, the chamber of commerce and others also had their input, correct? >> i will also guarantee you that i have met many more times with utilities than i have the nrdc. >> thank you. by way of brief closing statement, i just want to thank senator sanders for raising this issue. i do a climate speech every year -- every year -- every week on the senate floor, at least

every week that we're in session. and this week, i'm going to be talking about precisely the point that you raised. if you look back at our history in this body, there has been a very constant, strong heartbeat of bipartisan activity on climate. and many of our colleagues who are still here have had proud histories of engagement with significant bipartisan climate legislation. and after 2010, you see that heartbeat of bipartisan activity flat line. if you look at what happened in early 2010 that might explain why it suddenly ended, you find a supreme court decision called citizens united.

that allowed unlimited corporate money, unlimited billionaire money to bombard our politics. and what people often think about that is that, oh, they all came in and they beat up the democrats on behalf of the republicans. and this is a partisan thing. but i've heard over and over from republican colleagues, what are you complaining about? they're spending more money against us than they're spending against you. and there have been times, i believe, when actually the unaccountable, anonymous dark money that citizens united unleashed was being spent more in republican primaries and against republicans than it was against democrats. and that, i think, has suppressed debate and had a corrosive effect on our politics and has ended what was for many, many years a proud bipartisan tradition.

so i'm very glad that senator sanders raised that, and i thank administrator mccarthy for being here and for her leadership and courage. here and call for leadership an courage. >> administrator mccarthy, thank you very much. with that we adjourn the hearing.

live this afternoon a house subcommittee holds a hearing on the outbreak of ebola that's recently been plaguing western parts of africa. dr. tom frieden, director of center for disease control will testify live at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. during today's hearing, weigh in with your thoughts on facebook and on twitter using the #c-span chat. here on c-span3 former "washington post" reporter carl bernstein will be part of the discussion on watergate and resignation of president nixon. he'll be joined by co-authors of the book "the nixon tapes 1971 to 1972." that's live beginning at 7:00

p.m. eastern here on c-span3. tonight we'll be looking at senate races in hawaii, tennessee and virginia. we'll begin at 8:00 with hawaii senator debating challenger and current congresswoman and we'll be opening up phone lines on your thoughts for this year's upcoming midterm elections and also expect candidate speeches following today's tennessee primary. that all gets under way tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> while congress in recess this month krrks span continues friday with western conservative summit. saturday robert gates, condoleezza rice, madeleine albright on the situation in ukraine. saturday biographer edwin morris. >> next a house natural resources subcommittee hearing assessing recent advancements and new technologies for

studying earthquakes. witnesses include an official from the u.s. geological survey as well as the director of the pacific northwest seismic network and professors from the university of california and university at georgia institute of technology. this is just over an hour. >> the committee will come to order. presence of a quorum under the rule is two members. the subcommittee on energy and mineral resources is meeting today to hear testimony on an oversight hearing entitled "advances in earthquake science 50th anniversary of the great alaskan quake." under committee rule 4f opening statements limited to chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee. however, it is the practice to allow ranking member of the full committee or chairman of the full committee to make statements if they are here at the subcommittee meeting. i would ask unanimous consent to

include any other members opening statement if submitted. so ordered. i also ask unanimous consent the gentleman from alaska mr. don young be allowed to participate in today's hearing if and when he's able to be here. hearing no objection, so ordered. i now recognize myself for five minutes. today marks the 50th anniversary of the good friday great alaska earthquake. it was a massive 9.2 magnitude quake making it the second largest earthquake ever recorded with modern seismic equipment and the largest in the u.s. the eric occurred during a 580 mile stretch of the fault, aleutian trench fault and lasted between four and five minutes. the earthquake caused the greatest amount of vertical uplift ever measured, almost 34

feet. and southern alaska moved more than 65 feet seaward. the earthquake also caused the largest tsunami to hit the west coast and canada, the largest wave 222 feet high hit valudiz. alaska, california, many deaths were the result of the tsunamis and not the actual earthquake. the town was destroyed and many lost lives, children coming down to the ship delivering first fresh fruits and vegetables of the year. astra addition would have it, fraught was tossed to people who came to the ship. they captured the tragic destruction on film.

i would ask the fill now to play by staff. >> at valdiz, the ship came in, a red letter day for the town. first payday, working cargo down on the dock. for the women it brings fresh fruit and vegetable, the first they have seen since winter setting in. for kids it's like christmas. they flock to the dock knowing the deck hands will grooet agreed them with fruit and candy. it's dusk, almost too dark for good photography. two of the crewmen with their 8 millimeter movie cameras trying to get pictures of grinning kids

and dogs on the dock below. then a dozen miles deep under the mountains of prince william sound, the earth shifts, begins to move. suddenly the whole harbor at valdez begins to empty, drains almost dry. a subterranean chasm below the shift, suddenly it starts sinking. soon only the mast can be seen from the town." the dock splinters and goes down with it while crewmen try frantically to reach the people. out in the gulf of mexico of

alaska the ocean bottom plunges and heaves upwards a full 50 feet and waves start racing to shore. it to see it down with the dock had been and drives it into the heart of town. fred grabbed the deck and holds on for dear life and keeps his camera running. no one on the dock at valdez will survive, the longshoremen, the kids, or their dogs. the great alaskan earthquake was one of the most studied natural disasters, economic

reinstruction and research. geologists from usgs were some of the first geo scientists on site conducting field surveys and taking core samples. their findings published in a series of six professional papers and national academy of science published eight volumes of scientific research. research on the quake made significant contributions merging theory of plate tectonics. today earth scientists recognize the earthquake resulted from the convergence of the north american plate overriding the plate where it's sub ducted to the earth's mantle along the aleutian trench. according to usgs, knowledge gained from the research conducted on the alaska quake has provided geologic framework for assessing the framework and tsunami hazards at convergent plate margins around the world. many other contributions to earthquake science and hazard reduction were also made that provided geo scientists with

tools they could use to identify other plate boundaries that had major ruptures in the past and susceptible to future struck yours such as cass caddia structure in the pacific northwest. hassards caused by movement on secondary fault structures, a better understanding of liquefaction, a better understanding of earthquake hazards in general and tsunami hazards, assessments and warnings. these are all things we learned more about since the great alaskan earthquake. as was evident in the earthquake and others we've experienced in 50 years since, death and destruction from the tsunamis can be greater and more widespread than damage caused by the shaking. the tsunami can happen thousands of miles away from the epicenter of the earthquake. in recent years, massivee and tsunamis have wreaked devastation across indonesia, japan, chile and haiti, but