she was questioned by the group's president, former congressman phil sharp. this is an hour. ladies and gentlemen, welcome to resources for the future to hear epa administrator gina mccarthy. and since she has wonderfully attracted a much larger audience for rff, i'm going to indulge a

couple of moments about who we are and what we're up to, if you don't mind, or whether you mind or not. let me just quickly say i think many people realize that we are an organization that strives to achieve high-quality, objective research on major public policy questions related to energy, environment, and natural resources. our organization's been at this for more than 60 years. we also try to promote serious public discourse, which is not always a simple thing to do in the washington, d.c. area. let me suggest to you that on the climate change issues in particular, and the various policy choices, rff scholars have been working on these for more than a decade so that we have done and are doing analysis on the whole range of alternative policy approaches that our government and other governments might take, such as cap and trade, such as carbon tax, such as clean energy standard. and of course these critical new rules that are being proposed at

the environmental protection agency. our folks have worked not only at the federal level of the united states but the state level and california, currently working with a number of state governments on the rule here. they have done work in europe on the european trade system, done work now in china on the proposed cap and trade systems that are being regionally adopted there, and in mexico. and ahead we'll of course be continuing that kind of analysis and consultation, but in particular i want to draw your attention to two things. one is a new series started on our website a week or two ago called "our expert forum" with respect to the clean power plan. and the second one yet to come, another series that we're going to do co-hosting with the electric power research institute, epri, on a whole variety of the questions, these will be a series of webinars, on the various questions people are raising about this rule. let me just have to do a quick

note on the process that we're engaged in here after the administrator speaks. she and i will engage in some question and answer and we will at that point be inviting questions from the audience. you have on your chair a card on which you may write that down as clearly as you know how. and we will be assisted by a couple of our folks to try to get in as many questions as we can. if you're watching this online, you can use the tweet system which now my generation are discovering what that really means. and that is -- you would do that by reaching out to #askrff. well, it's my great honor and pleasure to introduce the administrator and the only comment i wanted to do that in case is, in case you haven't noticed, we are in a time not only in washington but in this country of intense part sans and

idealogical conflict that for many americans is quite disturbing. one of the most remarkable things about the person we're going to hear from is somebody who is unbelievably in her career and is currently working to do is bridging many of those deep divides in our society. she has been a state regulator in republican governor states. she is now, of course, as one senate confirmation in a very unusual, not a simple battle i'm sure from her point of view, but in fact with a battle in which she won praise from many people who disagreed with the administration, disagreed with some of the policies of epa, but had to acknowledge the knowledge and the skill of her leadership. so ladies and gentlemen, it's my great pressure to introduce administrator mccarthy. >> thank you, phil. good morning, everybody.

it's great to are here at rff. no wonder, i'm surrounded by epa alumni here. where's dave, dave cohen just came. how many -- i shouldn't ask how many people. it is great to be here. but the expertise and the integrity of this organization is really testament to your leadership, phil. it's a great organization and you all are filled with a passion for the work you do and you're filled with a passion for people who work here and it shows. so it is great to be here. and let me start off with a story that has been decades in the making. 40 years ago, scientists at the university of california uncovered a global crisis. chemicals in our hairspray, our refrigerators, and our air conditioners were destroying our ozone layer. the earth's protective shield against the sun's cancer-causing

radiation. and the world needed a solution. and the world needed a leader. the united states at that time did not temper its resolve. despite the hesitation of other nations. american science identified the problem, and american industry innovated the solution. because we acted, the ozone layer is healing. our people are safer and our economy is stronger than ever before. our fight to save the ozone layer was a defining moment in american leadership. today, with the threat of climate change, the pollution, and the problems are slightly different. but the principle that i'm asking you to think about is exactly the same. once again, the world needs a leader. once again, the leader must be the united states. that is the message that president obama took to the u.n. this week.

the president said, and i quote, "we cannot condemn our children to a future beyond their capacity to repair, not when we have the means to begin repairing it right now." he's right. climate change supercharges the risks to our health and our economy. because the thing is, we don't have to choose between a healthy environment and a healthy economy. rff knows that for sure. they're not separate, they're intertwined. a world-leading economy depends on a healthy environment and a stable climate. that's why under president obama's direction, epa proposed a clean power plan to cut harmful carbon pollution that is fueling climate change from our largest sources, our power plants. i was at the climate summit this one and one thing was clear.

u.s. climate action is changing the game. our leadership is spurring action from government and business leaders around the world. what's also clear is that when it comes to climate change, the most expensive thing we can do is nothing. we no longer project tomorrow's impacts we're simply tallying up today's damages both in lives lost, properties damages, as well as costs. this past decade was the hottest on record. the streets of miami flood on summer days. ocean acidification threatens washington state's oyster industry and well beyond. across the country, people grapple with floods, with fires, and severe weather. today, california is facing a historic drought with a projected job loss of more than

17,000. 20 tw 2002 was also the second costliest year in history for natural disasters with a price tag upward of $110 billion. if we see warming of 3 degrees celsius above preindustrial levels, instead of 2 degrees, we could face additional economic damages of almost 1% of global output. now, for those of you who aren't at rff, let me put that into perspective. 1% of 2014 u.s. gdp is almost $150 billion. and this is just talking about the incremental cost of going from 2 to 3 degrees. add that up, folks. think about it. absorb it. as seas rise, so do insurance premiums, medical bills, and food prices.

from water scarcity to willing crops. countries -- companies like general mills and coca-cola see climate change as an absolute threat to commerce. paying more for soda means less cash to buy other thin and that chokes economies and that is what stunts job growth. the bottom line is, we don't act despite the economy, we act because of the economy. it came to -- i came to rff because you understand the power of an economy that values clean water, that values clean air, and that values our natural resources. you get that because climate isn't just about polar bears and melting ice caps. you understand that it's about protecting local economies and it's about creating jobs. as well as protecting polar

bears and melting ice caps. the good news is, climate action is not just a defensive play anymore. we can advance the ball. we can turn our challenge into an opportunity to modernize our power sector and to build a low-carbon economy that will fuel growth for decades to come. that story of energy progress is being written all across america. epa's historic fuel economy standards for cars and trucks are cutting pollution. saving families money at the pump. and fueling a resurgent auto industry that added more than 250,000 jobs since 2009. automakers didn't fold, they flourished. since president obama took office wind energy has tripled and solar has grown tenfold.

that's thousands of jobs that cave cannot be shipped overseas. renewable energy on public land by itself accounts for 20,000 jobs. in less than four years, the average cost of solar panels has dropped over 60%. every four minutes, another american home or business goes solar. and jobs in the solar industry are growing faster than any other sector in the united states. a study by a group, environmental entrepreneurs, shows that in the second quarter of 2014 alone, we added 12,500 clean energy jobs. america's clean energy progress is bringing down energy costs. it's bringing in good-paying jobs. and it's bringing back manufacturing in the united states. an abc poll showed that 7 in 10

americans want us to act on climate. so do public health advocates. so do business groups. so do faith leaders. so do evening orred moms and -- organized moms and grandmas who have come to our hearings, basically tell issing us and reinforcing the president's message that this is about an obligation that we have to future generations. we have over 1 million comments on our clean power plant proposal. not alm them from moms and grandmas but we have many. we have great advice from rff as well and i thank you. we want every good idea possible. so we exetended the comment period through december 1st. we have an ongoing bet how much those comments might increase and end up but it's going to be substantially more than we already have.

and frankly we're looking forward to it. people want us to act. i think because the benefits are clear. from soot and smog reduction alone, every dollar we invest through the clean power plan will return $7 in health benefits. $1 to make $7. in 2030, total climate and health benefits could reach up to $93 billion. the key to making our plan ambitious and achievable is its flexibility. we'll get more into this a little bit later, i'm sure, in the question and answers. but basically, we use section 111-d of the clean air act to allow states to choose their own low-carbon path forward. the path that best works for them. flexibility means more choice and more ways to invest. that sends a powerful market signal that unleashes

innovation. we want to raise the common denominator so that states everywhere can do more and they can learn from the states that are already doing more. our plan is not a one size all prescription. it boosts progress already under way in companies, city halls, and state capitols all across this nation. for years, states in the northeast have teamed up in a market-based program to curb greenhouse gases. at the same time, those states have enjoyed some of the nation's strongest economic growth. my home state of massachusetts -- go, massachusetts -- cut emissions by 40%, while their economy grew 7%. cities and states acting on climate are not slowing down. they're speeding up. and according to a new report from the carbon disclosure project, major companies like

delta, google, and disney use an internal carbon price in their business decisions already. if they get it, everyone has to get it as well. why? because investors and ceos are seeing the cost of climate change and the value of taking action. that's what we need to focus on. we know a global problem needs a global solution. although we can't act for other nations, but when the united states of america leads, other nations follow. we set the bar for solutions. we set the pace for progress. years ago, it was american chemical companies like dupont and honeywell that innovated safer chemicals to replace the ones that were destroying the ozone layer. and they sold those solutions to the rest of the world. and president obama just convened a group of those companies at the white house

just last week to acknowledge the continued commitment, this time to slash the use of hfcs and to announce administrative actions that will support and accelerate this transition more broadly. when it comes to the american economy, cutting pollution does not dull our competitive edge. it sharpens it. thanks to our fuel efficiency standards, the auto industry is once again a source of economic strength. the number of cars coming off american assembly lines that are made by american workers is the highest it's been in 12 years. from catalytic converters to smoke stack scrubbers, america has a legacy of innovating the world's -- i'm sorry, of innovating and we have the world's leading environmental technology sector. we account for -- that sector

accounts for more than 1.5 million jobs and $44 billion in exports, just in 2008 alone. and that number keeps climbing. that's more than any big business sector like plastics and rubber products. if you want to talk return on investment, in over four decades we've cut air pollution by 70%, while our gdp has tripled. the health and economic benefits of the 1990 clean air act amendments by themselves, the costs outweigh the benefits -- i'm sorry, the benefits outweigh the costs -- [ laughter ] that was a serious mistake. nobody can quote that. i never actually completed the sentence. the benefits outweigh the costs 30-1. phil, i want to just point out that i know you champion those amendments when you were in

congress and i thank you.e thos amendments when you were in congress and i thank you.d those amendments when you were in congress and i thank you. and the public health thanks you. today we have more cars, more jobs, more businesses, and less pollution, and that is how we should all define progress and that is how you build a low-carbon economy. so it is sad to see that we continue to have a small but vocal groups of critics who are saying the word economy like it's a problem. when you talk about action on climate change. but they can't hide behind the world economy -- the word economy just to protect their own special interests, because the truth is that climate change is actually in everybody's best interests. action on climate change is in everybody's best interests. and it's worrisome when we hear those critics say, and i quote, i'm not a scientist, but climate action is going to ruin the economy. well, the president has said those critics have one thing right, they're not scientists. but they're not economists

but guess what, we've got some pretty good ones at epa and at noaa and at nasa and across the federal government. and if we can trust them to put astronauts in space and to tell us when our air is safe for our kids to play outside, they can keep our food safe, then these world-renowned scientists, medical professionals, and economists, everyone needs to stand up and pay attention and take action now, because we are speaking the truth about climate change. so simply put, the economy isn't a reason to fear action. it's a reason to take action. a report from the new climate economy shows that not only is global climate action affordable, but it could actually speed up economic growth. another recent study shows that the u.s. -- in the u.s., the states that are still skeptical about this -- i don't want to name names, but let me --

arkansas, louisiana, oklahoma, and texas -- that they actually see an annual benefit of about $16 billion, with a "b," if they embrace the challenge that is now before them. if they really worked to develop a plan towards a low-carbon future. you know, a sure-fire way to damage our economy is to neglect our need for a healthy environment. a health i didn't environment where we can live, work, and play. that is what is at stake here in this climate debate. when we took action to heal the ozone layer, special interests also then predicted doomsday scenarios for manufacturing. they spun stories that the economy would shut down, that supermarket refrigerators would turn off and food would spoil. and guess what.

we're here, our food is okay, getting better every day, i hope. but none of those dooms day scenarios actually came true.da scenarios actually came true. and if those scare tactics sound all too familiar it's because they're the same ones that get regurgitated over and over again and the same ones we're hearing on climate change. those same fingers point at other nations dragging their feet as some kind of excuse for the united states to standstill. but we don't hide behind the inaction of other nations as an excuse for mediocrity. and we're not about stagnation. the united states is about innovation. and we don't bend to the false warnings of those who lack faith in american ingenuity and to toss aside the values that have made this country great. can you imagine president kennedy looking up and the moon and saying, nah, let's just wait for somebody else to go first.

you know, when we've faced challenges before, we've acted, time and time again. and it's made our nation stronger. because we've acted, our kids don't grow up with acid rain. or toxic leaded gas fumes. because we acted we eat safer food, cleaner water, and we breathe cleaner air. because we acted, nations came together. compelled by american leadership, to save our ozone layer and to protect the health of our people.leadership, to sa layer and to protect the health of our people.compelled by amer leadership, to save our ozone layer and to protect the health of our people.leadership, to sa layer and to protect the health of our people. kofi annan called that effort the single most successful international agreement of any kind. our climate challenge is not just a responsibility we should accept. it's an opportunity that we must seize. to retool and to resurge the new technologies, new industries, and new jobs that will come with climate action.

let's remind ourselves what we're capable of. let's embrace this defining moment of american leadership. we owe it to our kids to lead on climate change, not just to leave them a cleaner, safer planet, but an opportunity-rich economy for generations to come. thank you. >> thanks, phil. >> well, administrator, thank you very much for a powerful and moving address there. i'm almost reluctant to ask you a question to bring us to any other direction. but let's talk about two things. one is this -- what's turning out to be a rather extraordinary week in new york and around the country and elsewhere, and you were up there, and i wonder if you just want to fill in a little more of your impressions.

because my sense is it represents a part of, and we'll turn to the economics of what you're talking about, it's actually a significant shift that is occurring in the public dialogue here and around the world. >> i think that the dynamics are our climate seem to be changing. not just here in the u.s. but internationally. it was an incredibly positive experience. i think the march was a clear signal that people are getting restless. not about the -- about the actions we might take but they're getting restless that they need to see leadership here and response on an issue that they consider to be closed. we need action. but when i got -- you know, i will tell you the most fun thing was when i went to the summit. because i don't know how many of you have gone to these, but i've gone to many. i have never seen positive energy as i saw at that summit. i've never seen it. the leadership of presi the u.

the hot topic. and i think it was in rooms, not just the one i was in. and people are seeing -- they're really getting a sense that because business really was the dominant factor at this summit, it was business leaders stepping up and saying, you know, you got to move here. we need change. this is costing us big money. and by the way, an economy that shifts towards low carbon is really big money too. it's better. you know, and they can do this. it was an incredibly positive moment, i think, and one where they were talking about tipping point in an entirely different context. originally we've been talking about how quickly do we need to act before the climate is out of control. and theirs was more, i think we're done talking, the tipping point is that we have solutions today. we need to put the solutions into action at this point.

so it was really fun. it was very engaging. the president did great, which is also good. >> well, also, i wonder if you just want to say a quick word. may not be appreciated, i know it's not on capitol hill among the general public -- about the role that epa played internationally. not just on this issue but we have for many years, your agency and folks have engaged with other governments on trying to solve both intercountry problems but also their own problems. >> yeah, well, i think one thing that i've come to realize even more since i've been at epa is how well recognized epa is internationally. we are just seen as a world leader, bothperspective. and i think it's well earned. it's a reputation that's well earned. we spend considerable amounts of time working with other countries to try to build up their structure to address

environmental protection at many levels. ask then we try to share technical assistance and information on new technologies and how to do things in ways that allow them that when they begin to embrace the environmental challenge, they can learn from our lessons and advance at a much quicker pace than we were able to do while we were developing these technologies and this understanding. i've been to china a few times and it's been mostly talking about air quality. epa was the one that successfully supported the embassy putting an air monitor in the beijing embassy. and lots of things happened there to show what the air quality really was. and it had a significant ripple effect. i've been down there to try to work with them to say, please, as you're thinking about air pollution challenges, think about climate change. because the answers may be different and actually more successful. and it will be a different way to go. when i go back to the office

today, i'm meeting with a minister of hong kong, the secretary of hong kong. and i am meeting, who else am i meeting with? germany, the minister of germany, from germ 93. so this is, you know -- epa's always had a great presence on the world stage. and we continue to do that and we will continue. because pollution doesn't know any boundaries. and the more successful china is in addressing their pollution problem, the better it is for the united states of america. >> well, you just addressed us on the economic benefits and the potential cost, obviously, in a very powerful way. and that represents not just from you but we're seeing more and more of it, i think a significant shift in general thinking about this, where originally the assumption was the economic drag of anything we do about carbon is so great, we just either don't want to do it or want to defer or whatever. however, let me just push you into the recall a little bit in

this regard. obviously, whatever the long-term outcome is -- there are some short-term problems that various regions and industries will face under any change in policy. and i would like to -- for you to say how you think the rule proposed as it's proposed helps navigate that. >> well, phil, first let me say that history just doesn't bear out the idea that you can't make advances in the environment without continuing to advance the economy. in fact, i would argue it's just the opposite. but we knew that that was going to be a concern. and part of the great thing about 111-d and the clean air act, and i promise not to get wonky. >> and she can, and she can. >> i promise not to try to get -- to try not to get wonky. that little section of the clean air act is a small section, and it's wide open. there's not been a lot of legal

rulings that have defined it in any particularly narrow way. and when we were looking at climate change, we knew that every state is in an entirely different place in terms of how they get their energy. we wanted to make sure that we recognize that energy was structured from a regulatory and nonregulatory perspective differently. that it's delivered regionally and not state by state. we also wanted to recognize that we have great models of action from states already. you know, we have about 80% of the states that are really doing utility energy efficiency programs. we have, you know, more than three dozen states that have renewable portfolio standards. and we have many states that have highly invested in natural gas, many highly invested in wind, highly invested in solar. so the way that we decided to do this was was to look at all of the work states are doing, to

try to sort of characterize those into sort of building blocks of opportunity. and we have identified looking at state conditions, what every state is doing, and where they are. and we've applied these building blocks in we think a very moderate way to establish individual state standards as a result. and then we're allowing every state to do what they want in terms of developing their own plans, that they can send to epa, to say that i can get here this way the best and we're not prescribing, we're just opening up opportunities. and frankly, it's a result, phil, of both knowing that every state is different, but also knowing that climate change has the uniqueness of really being able to be tackled in many, many different ways. but the challenge we wanted was to do what states have told us for a long time, which is, just tell us the goal and get away. and the interesting thing is now that we've done that, they kind

of want more direction. but we'll walk through that. we have left it open. and i think that provides them an opportunity to design plans that aren't just smart environmentally, but are really smart economically. and really smart from an energy perspective. that's the challenge. start there how do you want your state to grow, then look at what it means for carbon. and if they're not looking at renewables and they're not looking at energy efficiency as part of that, then they're making a big mistake for their economy more broadly, a mistake that most of the states are not making. >> well, let me ask you, in that regard, under your leadership on this particular rule, i think everyone, your critics and others, agree that there has never been such an unprecedented effort by the agency to reach out before formulating the proposal and then now in the follow-up. so i don't know if you can quickly give us, out of all those millions of people that are coming at you, any sort of -- what you're hearing back

that's sort of essential in your view at this point. >> well, it is unprecedented, and i think it's an acknowledgement that climate change is an unprecedented challenge for us. and we know that it has to be handled ini

into a mass-based approach, because as folks probably know, there are nine states that have a market-based system in new england and mid-atlantic states and they want to know what it means for them a little bit more definitively and they want to also solicit interests in other states doing similar things, because one of the things we tried to point out, phil, is that when you do take a market-based approach, when you do act regionally, the costs associated with actions go way down. and it almost matches much better the way that life works these days. because what you're seeing with states being aggressive on renewable portfolio sxards and they're meeting their standard by building a wind farm in another state. you know. so we had to understand those complexities and open it up. but there are those types of issues. and we fully intend, even though it is a comment period and we'll docket all these things, we're not slowing down in the conversations because we're learning a lot.

they continue to be incredibly positive. incredible. especially when we have meetings where the energy and environmental folks are at the available. it's when they go back to their respective corners that we have a less robust conversation. and that's part of the value here is the learning that's going on, that comes with knowing that they're all responsible to think this through, that it's not just going to be the environmental folks that put together this plan. it's been an incredible learning experience and one in which i think you'll see many states, like montana last friday, saying, you know, we have options here. >> well, now, just in the privacy of this room -- >> oh, yes, i'm sure it is. >> among your critics and -- >> that will make my press people nervous. >> what galls you most about some of the allegations that are made? you don't necessarily have to answer that.

>> thank you. >> yes, she does. >> you know, the only thing that concerns me about it is that the vast majority of the conversations we're having, really almost all of them, are incredibly positive. there are some states that are raising specific issues, either about the number or the framework that we've laid out that is suggesting that we may be looking for too much too soon and there are issues related to that. and i think people know me well enough, phil, that there's going to be changes between proposal and final. because we listen. and i really think that the reason to do the conversations is to listen. the thing that bothers me the most is that people who aren't in the process, when you hear about, you know, different letters coming in or petitions filed, they're just out of sync with the conversation. and i don't want the general public to think that that's how the conversation's going, because it's not. it doesn't reflect the rigor or the robustness and the

collaborative nature of these conversations. >> well, i find just in the things that i hear around this town, in washington, and in conferences around the country, is the amazing number of people who you're regulating, they will have to make decisions and changes. and instead of adopting a resistance, angry, negative road, they talk about how we can work constructively with you. i've been around this town long enough to know, that's not the common approach. >> i have to believe that people are paying attention to the issue of climate change in every state. and in every home. i think people are worried. i was -- had five minutes of watching the news this morning and just given the rainstorm that we just had, it's amazing what you're seeing with the intensity of storms. and i think people are worried and frankly i think people really want leadership on these issues. and they want to know that we're

not all in our separate corners duking it out. and so i think that many of the states see enormous value in approaching it with this broad a range of opportunities. and you know, i think my goal is to make sure that many of the states stand up and can, as early as possible, say, i can make this work for me. i can make it work for my reductions, meeting that target. but i can also make it work for my economy and i can make it work for my energy sector. that's what -- that's the goal. >> well, let's turn to a question that's come from our audience here. dallas bertrah, who's one of our main leaders doing the analysis and public discussion of these issues, is going to -- >> thank you. is this working? can you hear me? >> yes, i understand. >> lots of questions have come in, lots of areas, but several of them follow up on what you were saying just a moment ago,

administrator mccarthy, about how the epa chose to set its goal and setting targets for states under the clean power plan. that is, can you address the effort to try to balance costs across states, to give credit or reward for early action, and what other considerations were driving the process? >> well, one of the challenges that we have, and we continue to have in the comment period, is to explain the difference between regulating under this section of the this is 111-d which looks at what can we do to get some best practices out there, to reduce in this particular sector, which is just the fossil fuel have fired plants. how we got to the standards, we just looked at moderately applying those four -- what we call -- what do we call them? bench -- building blocks, thank

you. some reason i kept thinking benchmarks. building blocks. and it's basically shifting to cleaner supplies and getting the waste out of the system, whether it's at the facility or more generally. and it's pretty simple. we looked at what other states have been age to do, what their progress is, how they've been able to take advantage of it, what kind of pace that it takes to do these things. and we took a moderate approach to each one so that they'd have flexibility to take whatever approach they wanted, relying more heavily on building block two than one than three. then we gave each date a goal and that's how we articulated the overall reduction we would achieve. now, there are many states that have wanted us to recognize actions that have happened earlier. and we're looking at that and we'll take those comments very seriously. but the one caution i would sort of lay down at this point is, it's not going to look like a

cap and trade program. this is not about carbon offsets. this is not about achieving a particular national target. it never was. it is about applying the clean air act in a way that's going to be legally defensible but still be aggressive in terms of achieving the reductions. >> just to follow up on that in more detail, it is obvious you set different goals for different states. >> we did. >> as i understand it on your calculation of their potential, i'm sure some are challenging -- >> yes. >> -- that specific goal. but that is not the common way of most of the way we've regulated at federal level. is it? i may be in error on that. >> no, it is not the regular way. but this is a very unusual statute and a very unusual pollutant. and i'm trying to make sure that i regulate it in a way that makes the most sense and can allow the most cost effective approaches to come to the fore. and i think this is probably the only way that you would do this

fairly and reasonably. but i do think it's still within the confines of how 111-d tells us we should operate. and as far as i know, we are getting a broad range of comments from states, some of which said you let those states off too easy, but you're asking too much of me. then you have -- and the finger-pointing goes in many directions. but i think it's all continuing to be a healthy debate. and you may see adjustments in state levels, you may see adjustments in the framework. because we are getting great comments. but i do think all in all we're going to be achieving the significant levels of reductions through this program in a way that really gives great deference to the confines of the clean air act. >> my impression, going back to our earlier question, is that, you know, what -- some critics have always feared is the dampening of the economy.

yet what this -- my impression is your effort to set these goals was to recognize some people got a harder task in the near term to do and that -- and, in fact, this takes that into account. whether it works out that way or not -- >> that's what it's supposed to do. you just cannot think of this task as being about a specific facility. without thinking about the context in which that facility operates. they're heavily regulated. not just environmentally but from an energy perspective. and we have to thaink about tha if we're going to design it in a way that maintains reliability and affordability of our energy system. and that is one of our primary considerations. but once you open it up, it's just -- i think it's just going to be amazing. because i already know that states are thinking big thoughts about this. and at a point in time -- i'm not sure we could have done this five or ten -- five years ago,

maybe. not so ten years ago. not just -- not because of public opinion, but because we did not have sort of the choices we have today. the efficiency programs are amazing and the ability of our technology to make those accessible and affordable for people is amazing. solar, solar is now competitive in some areas of this country. i don't think anyone -- maybe you guys projected it here. but i'm not sure anybody projected that. but that's the great thing and part of the message, the economic message, is that when you need to innovate solutions, the united states of america, we look for that. you know, to basically sit back and say, we are where we are, we don't know where we're going. you know. it's just not the case with us. and you know as well as i do that when we were talking about catalytic converters on cars originally, you couldn't possibly do that. we tried to expand them to suvs and vans.

oh, you couldn't do that. and none of that was the case. and man, the industry we have now is just great. but to transfer that energy and enthusiasm away -- sort of away from a focus on pollution control to a focus on susta sustainable energy and renewables and energy efficiency, i just think it couldn't have been a better platform for success. >> we have a number of questions coming from all sides about natural gas. >> yes. >> there's questions about the role of natural gas and compliance under the clean power plan and whether states -- how the epa will feel about states trying to take natural gas into account in demonstrating compliance. there's a lot of concern about expanded development of natural gas and concern about fracking. and recently the epa's initiatives regarding the control of methane and methane leakage. could you address that area generally? >> does it need to be one sentence? let me start off by saying that

natural gas in the u.s. has been a game changer. the abundance of low-cost natural gas has really started an energy transition that we are really taking advantage of and hoping to follow through our 111-d process. so it's been a significant benefit to the united states. it's been a significant benefit to air quality. because it's allowed us some room to address pollution -- pollutants like mercury in a way that maintains reliability because it's accessible and it's affordable. we recognize, and i think the president does that methane remains an issue of concern with the natural gas sector. both oil and natural gas. we've taken some regulatory steps on that, in that arena, to take a look at how you regulate

vocs from new and repeated fracking operations. but we know there's more to be done and part of the challenge the president laid on us was to basically put out some white papers, get some better data in, look at the whole oil and gas m methane leak opportunities as well as releases and see what the numbers show the leaks are coming from and look for strategies for getting at it using all kynes of tools. so we recognize that's a challenge. we also recognize honestly that water remains a significant concern in many areas. states are really stepping up in terms of regulating that. but i think it's made a big difference. and i recognize there's lots of concern about whether or not there's going to be too much reliance on natural gas, is that going to squeeze out the ability for renewables to move forward? again, i'd only remind you the president's plan and epa's actions is very multi-faceted. it's not focused on any one energy supply. as you're looking at the

numbers, i think you can see from numbers i've already stated that states are pretty bullish on renewables at this point and they're bullish on efficiencies and they're looking at all kinds of energy supplies. and while it's a great transition and i expect 111-d will help accelerate that, i'm not in the business of picking winners and losers. i'm in the business of reducing carbon pollution. and that's where i'm going. >> well, to follow up on that, there are -- and the focus on international issues that has emerged just in the last week, contributes to the international climate change negotiations. coming in paris. >> well, i think judging from the tone of the discussion at the u.n., it's seen as a very big deal not only for us in terms of having an aggressive goal but also the opportunity for our goal to influence how other countries are going to come to the table.

i think it's an important step forward and it's recognized as such. >> as you recognize on this international question -- and i do think there's great value in this in terms of moving the international community, but one of the things in our domestic politics that we fail to look at is a number of other nations have been out front fighting on this issue to get action, a number of them including china and others are taking aggressive actions on the technology front, things that should over time pay off. none of this in most people's judgment adds up to what is necessary, but my point is the notion that we're acting alone is in and of itself just factually wrong. now, how hard and how much we go at it is a whole other issue. excuse me for lecturing. >> no, that was great. phil, just to add on to that, i think the confusing thing is the climate discussion thus far has been about what will governments

commit to do. the changing dynamic that i'm seeing is the business community, the private sector. it's really not what we're going to get with 111-d, it's what is our market going to drive as a result of signals like this? and there's a variety of them. and i don't think it captures the flavor of when you turn a corner from requiring something from a public health perspective to recognizing that it is actually going to transform the market and allow you to protect your business interests and grow them. that's the -- that's a game changer. and i just -- it's palpable when you were walking around the summit at the u.n. the meetings i went to were driven by large companies and small making commitments. they were standing up. it wasn't governments adding up what their poll sis might project, they get, blah, blah, blah. it was like standing up, i'm done. let's just call it a day and go.

>> well, i think what that represents is your articulating a very significant change in the view that private sector energy, one, is absolutely essential to that, but it is happening. and the other is a paradigm shift that many of our scholars talk about and you have and others that we're not going to get from the national government a top-down imposed policy. we're not going to get ain the international community a top-down imposed timetables. we're going to get this role and that's what it assumes we'll do. and one thing i humorously alluding to, states wanting choices but then saying ooh, don't give me so many choices kind of thing. the notion of multistate plans. that's the most unusual opportunity to hear about this and probably the most limited experience in many states with how to work with their fellow states. most of us believe that's a cheaper way to go. however, let's suppose i'm in a

state where i just don't think i can make that work plit click or i don't have time for that. the multistate option is always talked about. >> you do have simpler options but they tend to be more expensive. one of the reason to have this challenge is to try to avoid the last-minute political drama around this. and let's get real people sitting at a table. and i think it's going to make a difference. but it's only going to make a difference if people keep encouraging their states to think about this in the most positive way they can. you don't really need to agree with climate change to agree that there is a path forward to achieve these reductions. and people do have to keep in mind that, again, this is the clean air act. we have a good history of getting the reductions that we are putting out as requirements

under regulations, and this is not going to be an exception. and so to maintain that flexi e flexibility to use it as you can and boost and move forward in the direction your state want, now is the time to be having those discussions. >> also it might be worth reminding people, the endurance of the clean air act is very significant in american public policy. there are some critics on the sideline that are hoping they can outlive you in office, that are hoping they been outlive this administration and somehow all this will disappear. i don't know if you want to comment. >> i'm not planning on going anywhere. you know, i do think the clean air act has been remarkable. i think it's acknowledged internationally. that's what gives comfort. but one of the things that's also good about it from a business perspective is that it does provide a certain path forward. the business industry and markets are always looking for long-term signals.

we just gave a very big long-term signal that i believe and what i'm hearing is really opening the door to investments in the united states. and that is a very good thing. people should keep in mind and be comforted that it's heard three times by the supreme court. there's nowhere else to go. they said, yep, move forward. that's what we're doing. so i think it's as strong as signal as we possibly can that the u.s. is open to looking at how to devise a low carbon economy and get it moving and running in a way that's going to entice investments. and i think that's good for everybody. >> well, madam administrator, let me tell you, we deeply appreciate your taking time with us today and the work you're doing. and if i get it right, i'd like to borrow an expression from your boston backyard that you

did wicked good. >> thank you, sir. thanks, everyone. >> that's all right. we need to get it back. but also, i think the media are going to have a little press availability right -- right up here.

some of the issues they've raised -- >> sure. i think as you probably know we took pretty broad comment on this rule and we should have because it's a big rule and it deserves it. i mentioned the one about making sure that people understand how to translate the intensity into a mass-based goal. we also put in the proposal an alternative on how to address renewable energy sources and how to account for those. there's been a lot of feedback in a positive way on that. there's been a lot of discussion about how we handled nuclear energy. there's been some questions

about whether we're clear enough about the range of compliance options that would be available to states, for example, where we count new natural gas plants and those kinds of things, which we can clarify but a final rule should. so there are a variety of things that have been raised. and the reason why i'm excited about it is that they're gelling around some really concrete things that the agency really needs to thing about. they're exactly what you hope for in a rule-making process. so i'm pretty excited about it. >> how confident are you that the new comment period deadline won't extend the finalization that you're expecting in june? and how important it is to get this finished before this administration is out of office? is there a concern that a republican might drag its feet or not implement the rule? >> well, i actually made the decision to extend the comment period because we had more to talk about, and the kind of setting that we're allowed to do in a comment period.

and i'm excited by it. we're still working to the june deadline, but i don't want anyone to think that we're arbitrarily cutting off discussion for any purpose other than to make sure be get this rule right and we focus on implementing it as quickly as possible. and that's what we're going to do. >> you mentioned that a number of stakeholders were concerned about the way early action would be treated. >> it is. >> is that a particular area where you might revisit the way the rules -- >> yeah, we're going to look at whether or not there are other things that we didn't consider and think about, but one of the reasons that i brought up the idea of a market-based approach is that this isn't about developing a market-based approach where you look at a particular year and then, you know, and it's really all about where states are today, where these facilities are, what's available to them and how far they can move forward. but we've received a lot of suggestions that really fall within the category of a

fairness, are we being asked too much, is somebody else not being asked enough. and we'll take a look at those comments, and we think there are adjustments that can be made, but we'll look through them. >> -- good rule internationally well, so i'm wondering the rest of the administration's climate plan, how did specifically developing countries respond to that at the summit? i know you met with people on the side. >> yeah. there are a lot of things that i saw being discussed that relate to the president's plan. we had -- and most of the meetings i went to were with industry, so it was really fun. large industries as well as small. we talked about the 111-d proposal and the broad context about it's sort of game-changing nature, that it's a really strong signal for the u.s. the president's presence there was clearly another strong signal. i also had discussions with oil and gas on methane commitments. there are some great

opportunities to work internationally and we have the largest companies participating in those discussions through our climate and -- what is it called? climate and clean air coalition, which is an international sort of collaboration with dozens of countries and business sector. we talked a little bit about hfcs. there were big commitments on those as well. there was a lot of discussion over the development of renewables and how expedited they are and how much is being insta installed. it's just quite amazing. so all in all it was about the full range of things that the president has put on the table. and commitments that business is willing to make and trying to generate to advance this transition that we're in. >> how much can epa get beyond the 17% target when the

president brings forward a commitment next year? how much can the epa play a role in going beyond 17%? how high would you like to see that be? >> that's a discussion that's happening now. >> what can epa contribute to that beyond the clean power plan? where else do you go? >> epa's going to look at its obligations under both the clean air act as well as where it's heading as part of the larger climate initiative that the president's laid out and we'll do our best to calculate the reductions that we anticipate seeing. >> -- are you looking at boosting that 6% to some higher number in order to give it more of an incentive? >> we don't know what the response is going to be. part of the challenge is that that dialogue is continuing, and we'll take a look at it. i think we all know that nuclear plays a significant part of a low-carbon strategy in terps of providing a lot of base load capacity in this country for

electricity. that needs to be factors. we pretty much in the proposal put a sort of markers down that we really needed a broader discussion. and we're in the middle of that discussion right now. >> two more questions, guys. >> you know, there are some industry representatives who are concerned about what the epa rules might do. is there any sort of economic transition package you're looking at or some sort of programs under way already to help affected communities, coal country, to adjust. >> we certainly do have some programs available. and i know the white house has a liaison looking at those issues with communities. all in all we know by giving states the opportunity to design their own plans, we think in the end you're going to see a variety of different energy sources that will be available

and affordable in 2030 and neither coal -- coal is not going to be out of the system then. it's still going to have a significant part of the portfolio, but how every individual state responds in terms of developing a plan is going to be up to them. and i think they have great opportunities to make this both as a state and locally the best approach for them economically and from an energy perspective. >> is there a pot of money that would go towards those systems plans that you're talking about? >> there are many programs. i'll have to get back to you on what those might be. specifically they're not usually epa programs. >> the president -- fracking like -- and you met with oil and gas but we've asked for two years for a meeting with you. i'm really appealing with you. we really need to meet with you and show you our evidence. last year today we met with your people? no, my water's been poisoned by gas activity. >> we can talk afterwards if you

like. >> that's great. >> ask epa to make a decision by the fall on whether to regulate methane emissions. >> a few months yet. >> how close are you to making that determination? >> we're not there yet. we've tallied all the comments up. we know what some of the options are, but it will be a pretty long discussion. oh, yes, we did say the fall and that's what we'll shoot for. >> guys, we have to wrap it up. thank you very much. this weekend friday night the values voter summit. ted cruz and kentucky senator rand paul. and senator night at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a national town hall on

the critical and historic impact of voting. sunday evening at 8:00 on q & a, "washington post" columnist sally quinn. friday night on c-span2 just before 9:30, daniel green and william mullen, two operation iraqi freedom veterans talk about their experience in iraq, isis and the use of american force. and saturday night at 10:00 on book tv's after words, matt richtel. and on sunday the brooklyn book festival. friday at 8:00 on american history tv on c-span3 former staff advisers talks about the commander in chief and how he makes important decisions. saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern author jonathan white on the role of the union army in abraham lincoln's 1864 re-election. sunday afternoon at 8:00 p.m. eastern, author annette dunlap

follows the evolution of first lady fashion. find our schedule at c-span.org and call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org. or send us a tweet @dspan. on "washington journal" we talk to two legal abnalysts stephen vladeck and charles s t stimsonim about america's legale strategy against isis and the e] legal ramifications behind it. this is an hour. >> we are back. our discussion here now is does president obama have the legal authority to fight isis? joining me at the table this morning is stephen vladeck who g is a constitutional law professor at american university washington college of law. we also have charles "cully"

stimson, a senior legal fellow at heritage foundation and alsoy served as former deputy assistance defense secretary for detainee affairs. thank you both for being here. cully stimson, let me begin with you. justho domestically because there's a a lotnd of debate whee congress should come back and gl vote for authorization of war, k does the president h have the ad legal authority right ivnow? >> i think he does.ctions you have to really divide in debate into three sections. one is does he have the domestim legal authority? in other words is there a statute on the books that gives him the legal authority beyond his article ii powers under the constitution as commander in chief. second bucket is is there an international law basis for the strikes in iraq and syria. and third is does he have the cl backing of the american people and the congress?an peo i think the thirdpl bucket is clearly yes. the american people want to see strikes against isis. congress skedaddled out of town

after 12 days in september to gt back and run for re-election.o, so the focus of today's s. discussion is obviously on the a first bucket and maybe the othem two, but clearly he does. but there's a robust debate among the academy of lawyers. steve's one of the distinguished members in that academy. it's a viable discussion, one that has to take place, but they administration ultimately has te make the case legally for why they believe they have the legat authority to do so. >> where on the h books are you pointing to that you think legally they have the authorityh to do it?tary >> clearly the 2001 authorization for use of military force or to shorten it, aumf, which was passed a week after september 11th, gives the president the power, the express authorization from congress to go after those folks he ized, believes, he determines, plans, authorized, aided or abetted ni theyo 9/11 attacks. as the discussion plays out this morning, you'll see that isis

grew directly out of the core e al qaeda folks even though they4 were created in 2004. the that's the argument for the reliance on the 2001 aumf. >> stephen vladeck, do you agree? >> i think i iodo, but we're jumping over a fairly important threshold question.th we'reor jumping over why the president has legal authority to use force against isis. it might help to talk about whal force we're talking about.agains the why question depends on what we're doing.ies to a if we're talking about individual scatter shot strikesf against senior members of isis that may have ties to al qaeda, i think that's a very different legal question and a much easier legal question than some kind oh coordinated extensive campaign that has us introducing ground n troops into parts of iraq and syria. so i think there's a tendency jp especially if you're in washington to jump right to the what legal authorities can we to rely on question. we have to start with what are e we trying to do. what exactly are the uses of force president obama's conversa

contemplating, what's the ity wc endgame, only then do we have the conversation that cully has quite rightly opened up about fw which legal authorization canaye use. i agree with him that at least the 2001 aumf gives the legal sc leeway if we accept the predicate that isis isit the successor to al qaeda.ng ahe that's debatable based on what we know. at the very least it's efore plausible. but we're getting ahead ofha ourselves. the real question before we get to that is what are we trying tu do? what kinds of force are we talking about? how widespread? what kind of strikes? only then can we get into the weeds of the domestic have se international law question. >> stephen vladeck, you're saying the drone strikes, the individual pinpointed strikes, you feel that that's legal but going into syria and doing air strikes the aumf does not cover. that? >> it depends onfrom which stri your talking about.strati from what we know from what the obama administration has said ha publicly some of the strikes in

yemen have been identified as senior al qaeda leader. al wa lackey was of plotting use imminent attacks against the united states. there's no question that the 1 president has multiple authorities to use force in that case both under the 2001 aumf and if there is an imminent plot the president's own constitutional power to act as commander in chief in in self-defense. the problem is the line where the president's acting in , self-defense and where he's engaging in real offensive war may be elusive, but it's not ti. illusory, it has amazing constitutional significant cannes for this conversation. >> let's talk about the 2002 iraq war resolution because the white house back in july said to congress, you can rescind that. we're not going to rely on thati any more. but in a letter tuesday to the speaker of the house pointed to

not only 2001 authors but also the 2002 iraq war resolution. obtain decisive action by the u.n. security council to ensure iraq complies with resolutions. authorizes the president to use u.s. armed forces to defend take national security and enforce those u.n. resolutions. take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations including those who planned, th authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks of september 11th 2001. it doesn't say there that they r have to be part of al qaeda. >> right. and remember in may of 2013, thd senate armed services committee held a hearing in which senior administration officials testified. i was on the next panel, the th nonadministration officials. and the president made clear shortly thereafter that he wanted to ultimately repeal the 2001 aumf. the fact is that the enemy is ty the enemy, and the enemy has a say in what they're going to do. and the fact is -- by the way, i

agree with everything steve jusi said.fied the fact is that when i testified in may of 2013 before the senate armed services committee, i said it would be unwise to prematurely repeal thd 2001 aumf unless and until the threat from al qaeda and its affiliates is substantially diminished. tot we've seen and is pointed al qaeda and iraq which is now isis among other groups.think look, theth fact is i think the president did the right thing.ts i think the president is takinge the necessary actions against this enemy which the director of national counterterrorism center matt olson said is a very dangerous threat. we canagre debate the legal niceties. i agree withen steves that we're jumping over some key steps, bui what happens when congress leaves town and the administration doesn't engage in a debate there's a void. and we're in that void right i now. >> stephen vladeck, do you agree that the steps are appropriate for the threat? >> i think, again, it depends ot

information that we don't fullyi know.r fo part of what'slk frustrating abt this conversation is that it's s really hard for folks like culll and me and folks watching at home to assess all of this without all the information.go t how widespread are these strikes?over t we heardhe in an nbc news report two nights ago that there were 47 tomahawk missiles launched over the weekend. that's a pretty large number tof me, at least if we're talking as about which was previously scatter shot use of force.e idel but cully's point bears underscoring which is i don't t the ideal orced situation. i don't think it's ideal that president obama is forced to look back to these 13 and e 12-year-old statutes that clearly weren't designed for this. whether or not it's angre plaus argument, that's certainly not what congress had in mind, i don't think that's an ideal situation for president obama, . don't think it's an ideal situation for the separation of powers or for