screeria -- nigeria. -ckane.

senator james inhofe chairs this 2 1/2 hour hearing.

>> get the unpopular stuff out of the way first. let me assure my friends on the democratic side that senator boxer did everything she could to change the minds of the majority on opening statements. it has been our feeling on opening statements that quite often and i can remember going as much as two hours on opening statements where witnesses came from far away are not the case with you but in many cases and have to sit and wait. so instead of that we are going to have longer times for questions so that individuals want to talk and combine that with opening statements they can do it. we are using the early bird rule. i will go ahead and start with opening statements. acting administrator mckane we are happy to work with you. three separate rules should be

introduced before the house energy and power subcommittee on june 19 of 2014 does nothing to save us from global warming. that's a quote that i will use when it is my turn for questions so that people won't question the accuracy of that. no one should be surprised. we have been here before. nasa dr. james hanson said the protocol will have little effect on temperatures in the 21st century and will take 30 to reduce warming. even when secretary contradicted lisa jackson in july of '09 of course she was the chairman of the director of the epa at that time, she honestly testified that u.s. action would not impact world co 2 levels. you don't have to go back to that time because that question i asked at one time sitting right here i said if we were to

pass any of these bills at that time would this have the effect of reducing co 2 emissions world wide? she said no it would not. this is not where the problem is. the problem is china and india and so forth. we all know that. i am going to go through here to try to get these points across and then we will hear from senator boxer. by mid december your office plans to complete the small business advocacy review issue a model federal implementation plan and evaluate literally five million public comments to your proposed rules. the agency missed the deadline to finalize the proposal by january 8 of this year. i am interested in learning how the epa expects to comply with an ex pedited timeline.

it should not be a surprise that 31 states have now opposed the clean power plan. today ms. mckade it iscabe we are inviting the stakeholders, the ones that have to comply will be having a hearing with them. we have a problem with a number of the proposals. i understand the most expensive regulation in history and failed to achieve your own goals according to the economic consulting and analysis firm the clean power plant alone would cost on existing power plants $73 billion a year and upwards of $469 billion over the next 15 years. it is hard to say on the new source because no one is going to be building a new coal plant,

those are the words of the president. he said so if someone wants to build a power plant they can but it will bankrupt it. that is clearly the intent of this. the thing that we are trying to do right now with regulation is what they tried to do since 2002 through legislation. the first one we remember was the rule that was 1997. they came back and vote on the senate floor was 95-0 not to adopt a kyoto type plan. then we had the mccain lieberman bill in 2002. the mccain lieberman bill in 2005 and another bill with lieberman in 2008 and everyone of them went down in defeat in the senate. these were all senate bills. they went down in defeat by a

greater margin. so i just think that you are looking at something now that we want to hear how epa is steam rolling ahead requesting billions of dollars and proposals which states reject and ignores the will of congress and relies on unreasonable assumption, costs billions of dollars and will increase our energy bill and not impact global warming. senator boxer? >> mr. chairman before we start the clock i want to respond to this idea that nobody can make opening statements except you or me. i think it is wrong. for 15 years we all listened to each other. i want a large official opposition of democratic minority to limiting opening statements. >> let me respond to that before we start the clock rolling. we talked about that in our conference. we are a majority now. i recall you saying elections do have consequences.

so some of these things are subject to change. my problem has always been many of the committees such as senate armed services committee only have ranking member and chairman making opening statements. these are large committees. i can remember sitting as long as two hours listening to each of us talk when we have people coming in from california, from long distances away. and i think with eight minute rounds which is what we are going to have i think each member can take half of that and use that if that member wants to. that is going to be the policy. i know that you don't like it. >> i don't. >> you voiced yourself. >> we don't like it and i don't like gagging members of this committee. but it's just -- i'm sad about it. we have done it for 15 years. and also part of it is you and i get to question first. so now you speak five minutes. i speak five minutes. the witness speaks. by the time we get to members

it's noon. >> let's start the clock. >> can i ask consent that my statement be included in the record? >> mr. chairman today's oversight hearing will examine the critically important steps that the obama administration is taking to address climate change by reducing dangerous carbon pollution from the biggest source power plants. they account for 40% of all carbon pollution released into the air and we are seeing the consequences. let's look at the trends across the country. it's official, 2014 was the hottest year in recorded history. 2014 was earth's warmest year on record. how hot was it? 2014 was earth's warmest year on record, data shows. everyone can say whatever they want and say it is cold and snowing. we all know the facts are the facts.

and for goodness sakes how out of step can people be with the scientists and people of this country who are so far ahead. thank you. nasa and noaa found in the 134 years of record keeping no year was hotter around the globe than 2014. the president's proposal will enable america to lead the way to avert the most calamitous impacts of climate change such as sea level rise, dangerous heat waves and economic disruption to our farmers, businesses, tourist industry to our people. i often say if people can't breathe they can't work or go to school. we know that this particular proposal will avoid up to 3,700 cases of bronchitis in children, 150,000 asthma attacks, 3,300 heart attacks 6,600 premature deaths and 490,000 missed days of school. who are we working for? the people of this country or the polluters? i think that is the question.

the obama administration gets it. and so do the american people. let's look at a new staff poll which found 83% of americans including 61% of republicans say if nothing is done to reduce carbon pollution global warming will be a serious problem into the future. and 77% of americans of all political stripes say the federal government should be doing a substantial amount to combat climate change. last year this committee for four former epa administrators all republicans who served under presidents nixon, george w. bush agree climate change requires action now and shouldn't be a partisan issue. i thought for sure that would change some minds on my republican side. not one mind was changed. now, the president's plan relies on the authorities under the clean air act which was created with an overwhelming bipartisan

consensus. in 1970 the clean air act passed the senate by a vote of 73-0, passed the house by 375-1, was signed into law by president nixon. the clean air act has a proven track record of success. what president obama is doing is building on that success. i often say in all of the years i have been in office it's a long time no one ever complained that the air was too clean. barbara, the air is just clean enough. don't do anything more. they want us to keep cleaning the air. my home state has been a leader in proving you can grow this economy. california households pay the ninth lowest electricity bills and the per person carbon foot print is among lowest in the country. we also added 491,000 jobs in the first year of the state's cap in trade system a job

growth rate of 3.3% better than the national rate of 2.5%. and over the last four years we have turned a $26 billion budget deficit into a projected $4 billion surplus. don't tell me that if you move forward on clean air you destroy the economy or destroy your budget. it is quite the opposite. climate change is happening now. we can't afford to wait. and i commend the president and the epa for taking action to protect our families and our children from the worst impacts. in the time remaining i ask unanimous consent to place into the record the article today in the washington post. thank you. it says studies on modifying climate urge geo engineering would be a risky last resort scientists say. i urge everyone to read this. we don't need this brave new world of geo engineering. we can move forward on the

policies that the president has put forward and that republican presidents have put forward. let's move ahead and do the right thing for our children and our families and our nation. >> thank you members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today. climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. it already threatens health and welfare and economic well being and if left unchecked it will have devastating impacts on the united states and the planet. the science is clear. the risks are clear and the high cost of climate inaction are clear. we must act. that is why president obama laid out a climate action plan and why this summer the epa will be taking flexible common sense steps to cut carbon pollution from the power sector. these steps will help build a

more resilient nation and lead the world in our global climate fight. starting in january 2014 epa issued three proposals. these rules will set standards for co 2 emissions from new, existing and modified and reconstructed fossil fuel powered plants. as we announced the epa intends to finalize these rules by mid summer 2015. epa's stakeholder outreach and public engagement in preparation has been unprecedented and resulted in an unprecedented amount of public input. we are reviewing the comments received on the proposal and the more than 3.5 million comments on the proposal for existing and modified and reconstructive sources. as we work our way through the comments what is completely apparent is not only the time and effort that states and many stakeholders have put into developing their input but the importance that we as a country place on moving forward to

address climate change. this input is especially important given the important role the states will play in this program. we have received comment on a range of crucial issues from the investments these rules might require to maintain reliability which is a consideration we view with the utmost importance in implementing all clean air protections to costs to right levels of stringency and establishing a workable path to bring about success in moving to a less carbon intensive energy production while safe guarding a reliable and affordable supply of electricity. businesses and consumers many comments identify opportunities to drive investment in innovative clean technologies as well as reiterating the importance of emissions reduction in addressing climate change. we are addressing and accounting for all of the information and ideas received on the three separate proposals and we are confident that the final rules

will be improved as a result of this input. while epa is firmly focused on the work needed to finalize rules that take into account the input we receive we remain committed to continuing engagement with states, tribes, other federal agencies resource planning organizations and others. as part of this process we know that states are beginning to think about the very real task of drafting and developing state plans used to implement the plan when it is issued. we are preparing to provide states the assistance they need as they begin to develop their state plans. that is why we are also starting a rule making process to develop a rule that both would set forth a proposed federal plan and by providing a model could help states thinking about their own plans. i want to be clear that epa's strong preference is that states submit their plans tailored to their specific needs and priorities and we believe states will want to do that here. we also know that setting out a

federal plan is an important step to assure clean air obligations are fulfilled. we believe many states find it helpful to find a federal plan proposal as they begin to develop compliance plans. that is why we are aiming to issue the federal plan proposal in mid summer, as well. when fully implemented the plan is expected to help deliver 730 million tons of reduction in co 2 emissions, a substantial reduction of the harmful pollution and lead to thousands fewer heart attacks and other health benefits. these reductions deliver tens of billions of dollars in public health and climate benefits that outweigh the costs of the plan. the reductions achieved with the reductions in carbon pollution alone will yield $7 in health benefits for every dollar we invest in meeting the standards.

because energy efficiency is a smart cost effective strategy we predict average bills will be 8% cheaper than projected to be without the clean power plan. when he unveiled his climate action plan in june of 2013 president obama made clear among his goals was not only achieving meaningful reductions in domestic but asserting leadership in the international effort to combat climate change. we believe the clean power plan will fulfill obligations under the clean air act to protect communities from dangerous air pollution. it is a significant component of the administration's broad based set of actions that have achieved and will continue to achieve significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. there is evidence that the clean power plant has spurred progress and commitment from other countries and advanced the international discussion as a whole. we are confident that all of this can be achieved in a way that strengthens the economy and

creates new jobs at home. i look forward to your questions, senator, thank you very much. >> thank you very much ms. mccabe . we are using the early bird rule. it is my understanding that senator marquee is under a time constrain and i think the ranking member is going to let you have her time. it is my understanding also that senator fisher has time constraints and i will be very happy to yield my time to her for questions. we are going to have eight minute rounds, senator fisher. >> thank you mr. chairman for your courtesy and thank you ranking member. thank you for being here today. i am glad to have the opportunity to talk with you about the impacts of your power plant rules on my home state of nebraska. as you know nebraska is the only state in the nation with the wholly publically owned utility sector. public power utilities are cost-based entities with no

profit motivation or obligation to provide stakeholder dividends. that is vitally important i believe to keep in mind as epa considers these proposed rules. the compliance cost will be directly borne by nebraska residents through their electric rates. today i would like to touch on some of the concerns raised in the public comment period by my state's public power utilities and by the nebraska department of environmental quality regarding mandates from existing power plants. our state has written that the building blocks contain quote inaccurate assumptions and unrealistic expectations that will result in goals that may be unattainable regardless of the emission reduction strategies employed, unquote. let's start with building block one. the nebraska deq states quote heart rate improvements of 4% to

6% are not achievable at nebraska coal fired plants. nebraska utilities are required by law to deliver least cost reliable electricity as such they have implemented most if not all achievable heat rate improvements at existing facilities. i think i said heart rate before. it is heat rate. as you know as a basis for setting the building block one level epa relied on a 2009 study by sergeant lundy. it is widely known that epa misconstrued this study hypothesizing heat rate improvements discussed on the study on a cumulative basis. he has explicitly stated that the ranges presented in the report, quote, do not support the conclusion that any individual coal fired egu or any aggregation of coal fired egus

can achieve 6% heat rate improvement through implementation of best practices and equipment upgrades as estimated by the epa, unquote. so our state deqs say that building block number one is unachievable. is this an area that epa plans to correct before finalizing the rule? how can epa justify emission reduction targets based on building blocks if the building blocks themselves are so very flawed? >> thank you for your question senator. this gives me an opportunity to start saying something i think i will be saying a lot today which is that we have received many many comments on the proposed rules and are looking very closely at all of them. this is just one area where we have received significant comment. we expected to. that is what the public process

is about. let me also mention that in designing the proposal and in setting up the building blocks what epa did was look across the range of activities that are currently in use by the power sector that have the result of reducing carbon emissions. there are numerous. they go way beyond the four that we identified and included in our building blocks and our assumption in going into the proposal was not that every single source would be able to achieve exactly the amount of reductions that we identify in each building block. in fact, we believe that some can do more in one area and some choose to do less in other areas. the kinds of comments that we are getting that suggest that in some states in particular one approach is more suitable than another is exactly the kind of comment that we expected to get. that being said, of course we are looking closely at any comments that suggest that our

factual conclusions need to be rethought and we will be looking at that very closely and making adjustments as appropriate as we always do after reviewing comments on a rule. >> i appreciate hearing that because sometimes the statements that i hear from epa and my constituents and our public power in nebraska the deq in nebraska what we hear from epa is that things are pretty well set and that while there is a public comment period we haven't felt that there will be much accommodation to the concerns that we have in our state with these specific concerns. so you give me some hope here. and i hope you will follow through with that, as well. another question. according to sergeant even with

the best maintenance practices in place performance of many of the heat rate improvement methods included in the 2009 report will degrade over time. epa did not take into consideration the normal heat rate degradation when it applied the heat rate improvement ranges across the coal fired fleet nor did it consider that units are the most efficient at full load and their efficiencies decrease with decreasing loads and with frequent load changes. don't you think those are significant oversights by the epa and an overestimation of the real heat rate improvements that can be achieved and sustained across a coal fired fleet? >> these are important issues that people have raised that we are looking at very closely, senator. >> do you feel that you can work

with states in trying to really address that overestimation? >> well, we spent a lot of time talking with states and with the utilities, as well who have raised these kinds of issues with us. and we have one-on-one conversations with states. we are meeting with groups of states to talk about a whole range of issues. so in particular states have been very forth coming with us about particular concerns in their states as have utilities. so as i say when there are one-on-one conversations that we need to have we have them and then we are looking at these issues as they apply across the whole spectrum of the rule. i do want to emphasize that in the final rule we very much want to maintain the flexibility of the states to have choices as to how they comply. >> would you commit to me that when you're contacted by our

public utilities in nebraska or state government in nebraska that you will respond to their concerns and let me know that you have done so? >> i can certainly commit that we will converse with anybody who calls us from nebraska and will certainly keep you up to date on those conversations to the extent that we have already had those we will be sure to give you information about that. >> i think you will be getting a lot of calls. >> we are happy to get them. >> thank you very much. >> senator boxer, did you want to yield your time? >> i thank the senator from california. i apologize. the police men and fire men who captured the bombing suspect after the marathon bombing in massachusetts in 2013 are about to be honored down at the white

house and they were in my congressional district as well. and through your graciousness i am going to be able to make that ceremony and i thank you so much. i might also make this point that i think from my perspective if each member was given at least one minute to make an opening statement because of the busy schedules of senators and then have the remainder for questions that at least each senator would be allowed in the opening to make their main point if only for one minute. i just make that suggestion, mr. chairman. in the house if you wanted to you could waive your opening statement and then just add it to the question period that you have. only each member at the beginning of the hearing if they are there to make their point if only for one minute. i think it might be helpful given the busy schedule.

mr. chairman, it is fitting that we are holding this hearing today. 50 years ago sunday lyndon johnson became the first president to warn about the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. a special message to congress on that day in 1965 he included the emissions of carbon dioxide the main cause of global warming in his warning on impacts of air pollution. 50 years later global temperatures are increasing. glaciers are melting. sea level is rising. heat waves are hotter. rainfall and snowfall are more extreme. as daunting as the challenges seem we have solutions available that can reduce pollution create jobs and aspire new technology. just months before his death president kennedy proposed the clean air act in february of 1963. in december of that year it became the second law president johnson signed as president. the original clean air act created a program in the public

health service to address air pollution establishing a public health foundation that has supported the strengthening of the law over the years. the clean air act has succeeded smog, soot, other pollutants have dropped an average of more than 70% since 1970 even as america's gdp grew by 219%. now president obama is using the clean air act to reduce carbon pollution from power plants and the same kennedy johnson vision that inspired an era of space exploration can spark a new clean energy revolution. since the inception of america's space program solar panels have been a critical power source for missions throughout the solar system. that same technology is now landing on roof tops and fields across the country, the solar industry now employs more than 170,000 people across our country and it is adding workers nearly 20 times faster than the

general economy. so this connection that exists between lowering pollution while increasing employment is pretty steady. let me now turn to massachusetts and the regional greenhouse gas initiative states. those are massachusetts, maine, new york, maryland connecticut, delaware, new hampshire rhode island and vermont. since 2005 those states have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by 40% while continuing to see gross domestic product growth in their economy. do you believe that is a model which is going to be used by other states under the proposed regulations which the obama administration is considering right now? >> senator, as you just described, the approach has been quite successful both in terms of environmental improvements and economically and a good investment for those states.

and we certainly think it is one model that states might want to look at. i can't speak to whether other states would go down the same path but i think the approach has laid groundwork and shown other states how this can be done in a way that is successful locally. >> i think it is obvious that the model is there and i'm sure many states are going to use it. let me move on to the question of reliability. there is criticism that the proposed rules of the administration are going to cause a reduction in reliability of the system. we already know that extreme weather, climate change, is in fact impacting the reliability of our own electricity grid in our country. could you deal with that issue of these proposed rules and the reliability of the electrical grid system in the united states. >> we agree the worst thing to do for reliability is do

nothing. keeping reliability very much in mind as the president directed us to and as the administrator always reminds us we looked at how to design the proposed plan in a way to make sure that reliability would not be put at risk and in fact be enhanced. and there are a number of things that are built into the proposal in order to make sure that that will happen. one is the length of time that we put into the proposal for the reductions to be achieved. so there is a 15-year trajectory before the final compliance date. that was intended to be quite consistent with the requests that we have always received from utilities and reliability agencies and others that utilities need a long planning -- >> do you think that the proposed rules will actually drive the electricity system to become more resilient? stronger? >> we think the planning activities that will be going on and are going on now are

intended to assure a reliability electricity system. >> the american gas association comments on the proposal were complimentary of the epa's outreach efforts. they asked whether or not there could be more flexibility in terms of the planning at the state level in order to comply with the carbon reduction goals set for state after state. flexibility beyond the four building blocks that the states might be able to rely upon? >> i will emphasize again that the building blocks were intended to be a starting point. states have ultimate flexibility to decide on what approach they want to take. if they want to rely more than what our proposal might suggest they have every opportunity to do so. >> it is clear it is possible to reduce carbon, to increase the

gdp, to enhance the reliability of the system while engaging in significant job growth in our country. so i thank you so much. i thank you senator boxer for your courtesy. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you senator. i want to use about half of my time and then save some to accommodate some of my members. first of all we'll hear over and over again what science says. we will have a hearing with scientists at a hearing. i think when you don't have science on your side if you science is settled there is this assumption that that is this case. that is not the case. when you stop and realize what we are doing today we are talking about doing through regulation what we have not been able to do through legislation. in other words those of us who are accountable to the people, members of the house and senate,

we have resoundly rejected the very thing we are talking about today on co 2 on five different occasions in the last 13 years. now, each time there has been a vote it has been even more strongly rejected. what they are trying to do right now is do through regulation what they have not been able to do through legislation. so i'm just going to mention a couple of things here today. the recent analysis finds china emits 800 million tons of co 2 in one month and according to epa's proposal the maximum amount of co 2 reduction under the clean power plan is around 550 million tons in one year. question i would have for you, ms. mccabe is how will it impact when china is producing more co 2 in one month than the clean power plan could potentially reduce in one year

even when if it is implemented? >> the clean power plan will certainly result in less co 2 emissions as our clean car rules and other measures that we are looking at. so there will be less domestic co 2 from the u.s. as a result of the clean power plan. this is why it is important for the united states not only to be working domestically but working internationalally internationally internationally. we recognize that this is a global problem and that is why we have been very aggressive and involved with china. >> you don't disagree with this chart? this chart is an ipcc chart, a united nations chart. >> i don't know. >> it talks about what we have here in the global greenhouse gases. that is a total figure. china and india have -- the total and then the green over here is what you're proposing and this is the reductions that

we have had. i want everyone to use a little common sense. if your projections are correct then they are going to continue to have these emissions and we would only be able to reduce the emissions by two tons after what period of time is that? emissions in one year. so at least i appreciate your honesty in looking at that and saying there is the problem. now, are you operating on some kind of a delusion that somehow china is going to change their behavior? is this what it is predicated on? >> we have been working with china and recently an announcement was made on certain actions that china has committed to take that will lead to steps to curb their -- >> let me go ahead and tell you what those are and i'm going from memory so you can correct me if i'm wrong. they had the meeting. they decided china said if you want to do this and have reductions you can have them but

we are going to increase our emissions of co 2 until 2030. they admitted that downward to 2020. if you believe china is going to do something then that wouldn't happen. they are still going to increase as they are doing right now into 2020. in the event that you can believe them -- i have talked to the people from china do you think they sit back and they smile. the thing they would love to have us do in this country is to make our reductions so that we will be chasing our manufacturing base over there. i would like to confine it to this. if you don't disagree with this, where is the logic here? what do you think is going to happen to change that green two tons a year? >> for the first time china has agreed to curb its growth in co 2. that is a significant. >> is there a document they have signed saying they are committed to do that?

>> i don't know if there is a document, senator, but they have made that announcement and made that commitment in conjunction with the united states. >> and the commitment is they start reducing it by 2020? >> that they will peak emissions and invest in significant, 20% of nonfossil fuel generation in the coming years which is a very significant commitment as well. >> i retain my three minutes. senator boxer? >> thank you very much madame chair and thank you ms. mccabe . pleasure to have you here addressing such an important issue. part of the conversation that we are having as initiated by the chair was how the u.s. changes operate in context of a global

challenge. this really is a global tragedy of the commons. we are all sharing the atmosphere on this planet. the gases we put in the atmosphere travel everywhere. it is only in the sense that there is an international strategy that we have some sense, some opportunity to take on this issue. but what happens if each nation among the nations of the world india, china and u.s. are major carbon dioxide polluters if each nation says let's not act until the other two nations act and then we will come along later? what happens to the planet in that situation? >> this is the dilemma the tragedy of the commons. we all have to act. if everybody says we are not going to act because we don't think anybody else will act then co 2 emissions will continue to increase. temperatures will continue to rise. oceans will get more acidic. we will have more drought and heat waves. we will have more suffering

around the globe and in this country as a result of the impacts on the climate. >> is there some possibility that by the u.s. taking this issue seriously and being engaged in dialogue with really all of the nations of the world but with india and china that we can accelerate action among all three nations? >> we absolutely believe so and we believe it is essential for the united states to be asserting and showing leadership. >> we look at total carbon dioxide production and most looks at it in the context of individual foot print. is it the chinese, indians or americans who have the largest per capita foot print? >> i believe it is the united states. >> do you have a sense of the proportion with other nations? >> i don't off the top of my head. >> if i was to tell you that the foot print here in america is more than three times larger

than that of china would that sound like that is in the ballpark? >> i think that could be in the ballpark. >> most recent statistics show the foot print is 12 times per capita that of india is that about right? it is right. thank you for confirming that. certainly we have or benefitted from utilizing fossil fuels on a scale much larger than individual citizens in china or india. in some sense that gives us the obligation in helping leaders in the world in taking this on. china has obligated itself to proceed to by 2030 produce renewable energy nonfossil fuel energy that is equal to the amount of electric energy produced in the united states from all sources as of this moment. were you aware of that commitment? >> yes. >> it is pretty phenomenal.

all of our fossil fuel energy from coal, from natural gas from solar from wind all of this combine together china is going to match that amount with renewable energy in the next 15 years. that's a pretty extraordinary commitment that we didn't have a year previous. >> that's correct. >> that commitment came out of a dialogue with china about the need for all of the nations of the world to proceed to take on this issue. >> that's correct. >> we are all going to suffer in the planet continues on its warming pace. >> currently we are on a path in which our carbon pollution has gone up from 400 parts per million. and the pace has doubled in the last few decades. we were going up about one part per million and now we are at two parts per million which means within the time many members on the panel are going to serve in the u.s. senate we

are going to see carbon levels that go up from 400 where we are now quite possibly through 450 and higher. and with that comes a global challenge in which we will surpass the point where we have a 50% possibility of keeping temperature rise from under 2 degrees. is that something we should be concerned about? >> we absolutely should be concerned about it? >> does that help drive the current policy saying this is why we need to look at the most efficient ways. you laid out a plan saying find most efficient ways to tackle carbon pollution. that makes a lot of sense economically. i'm seeing that carbon pollution is having a huge impact in oregon. we are seeing our oyster production is faced by a challenge because oysters are having trouble forming shells because ocean is 30% more acidic. if the ocean is 30% more acidic now than before industrial

revolution what else is going wrong in the ocean food chain? could be a lot more, i imagine. and we are having a fire season that is several weeks longer now than 20 years ago which is doing devastating impact not to mention the pine beadles. that is a huge economic issue for our state. we are having substantial droughts, three worst ever droughts in the basin in just the last decade and a half. huge impact on our agricultural base. that is an economic issue. it isn't just a matter of some theory about some computer model in the future. this is having a huge impact on our economy on our real way of life, fishing, farming and on our forests right now. thank you for bringing a plan forward that encourages each state to find the most cost effective flexible way of taking on carbon dioxide that makes a

tremendous amount of sense. each state will find a different path and maybe learn from each other. your plan allows partnerships to occur between states as another form of flexibility. >> correct. >> which also makes a lot of sense. huge flexibility. if you laid out the four building blocks these are basically one set of ways to get to these numbers. find the best way payableossible for your state. >> that's correct. sdpl i thank you for a plan that helps put the united states in the leadership role of working with the nations of the world to take on this devastating challenge, a challenge that is having huge economic impact on my state right now, huge impact on rural america right now and a responsibility of our generation to take it on and of each president who serves in the oval office to take it on. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for being with us today. i do believe this regulation we

are discussing today is epa's most blatant overreach thus far and there have been a number of them. but first let me just observe from the poster that the ranking member displayed earlier listing three head lines from national newspapers and saying it is official. i was >> and one of the thichgs lie knoll says is you've got to quit smoking. my doctors tell me smoke relaxes the throat. the king replies, they've all been knighted. and lionel preplireplies it's official.

so to say we've got some headlines from the w wa post and that may recollects it official. these were the smartest people in britain at 2 time. they were england exactly the wrong advice. some of the educated contrary yans will turn out to be vindicated in the end. i think you will agree that when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about carbon pollution, it's a new term that's been coined over the last several years. they're not talking about smog. they're not talking about carbon particles in the air. they're talking about co2.

carbon dioxide. it sounds so sinister and polluting and dirty and slimy, carbon pollution. but, actually, they're taurking ingtalking about carbon dioxide. carbon die o ied does not cause asthma. it hant been shown to cause children to miss school. so when we're using these terms, we're talking about nn none other than carbon dioxide. now, let me ask you, madame administrator, about capital costs and the remaining useful

life of coal-fired facilities: the clean air act says that they are supposed to consider the existing sources that they are supposed to regulate. the mississippi development authority says that the incremental rule is $14.2 billion. your own impact analysis will have to be retired because of the rule.

yet, because of the new rules, they will have to retire anyway: >> so tell me how your proposal krsz the remaining useful lives of these co-plants.

remaining useful life is absolutely, something that we are to take into account. and we did so in the proposal. we were very mindful ot not putting states in the position of stranding also sets. and, in particular, the ones that yourself has just mentioned, ones is that have recently invested and expected to produce electricity in a controlled way into the future. >> houjs is how long is that trajectory? >> the final kpliengs state is 2030. but the states, in planning over that periodover time are able

to make their own choigss about what to do. we expect and asumt that they will continue to operate. >> but fw the only way my state of mississippi can achieve the co dm 2 e mix tar get, are you saying we'll be able to work with your agency to keep those code plantds in juice during their remaining yugsful life? >> i don't know whether that is the situation in your state.

but we certainly would be happy to have that conversation. see what our reaction to that is and see whether the reflerksbleties we have put into the proposal can provide a path for them. >> it's my understanding that among the numerous items of input are from mississippi which people have to comply with this. >> i have to go back to what the people on the ground in mississippi are telling me.

we are going to e have to, in short order, close down the entire current coal fire prurks in mississippi. a lot of theage psi city is about meeting in the interim. that is something we are looking very, very closely at.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm afraid king george got too much add viesz than science at the time. but i thank you. it seems to me if you look at the scientific information, it's clear that carbon is a problem. it's official. thank you. we're in agreement then. >> but carbon combined in our environment, causing climate change is real. and it's causing a serious risk. not only to the people in our country, but globally. we have a responsibility to act. i'd also like to point out that the clean air act has been

widely layed as being very successful. where he eve seen incredible improvements, people wo suffer from respiratory problems are cost benefit. we're building on that. and i thank you very mump. >> power plants are the longest single source. so epa not only has the legal authority, you have the response responsibility to act. the deal with that single largest source of carbon emissions.

thavs based upon your best judgment vrks is that correct? >> thaekt, senator. >> it didn't gist come out of thin air. it's not just by more efficient ebb e energy sources: it's by conserving energies. >> that's correct. >> as we become more e fishlt consumers save, don't they? >> yes they do, senator: so i just want to make that point. the cost benefit analysis under the clean air act or clean

waterer act, there's direct savings, that senator boxer has talked about the number of premature deaths and workdays which pashlts have to stay home because their child can't breathe. or the days lost at summer camp. it will also safe us money. >> correct.

you look at globally, the cost is incredible. in maryland, we have taken steps to deal with our power emissions. we've done that and we've had a growing economy. it's helpd our economy. you have a dual objective. in maryland we're one of nine states part of the regional initiative.

we've taken some pretty extreme measures. talk a little bit, as part of a reasonable oefrt how have you taken into consideration based on numbers. >> as we mentioned before very e fisht ways to skom in a regional area, to make row ductions in a wee that is very helpful to the american role in our economy. we give the state's flexibility to do a plan on their own or to join regionally. and our costs show -- our skost

analysis shows that regional plans ternd to be mr cost effective because e because there are more choices. i thrill that's what you're getting at senator. more choices for states to use more choices to have flerksblety to make the most cost e fiktive changes that are available to them. china is reeding the world

right now on renewable energy. they do it -- this is not a country that has the samt values that we do as far as our global responsibleties looking at ourselves in a democratic state. they've done it because their people are demanding it. when you go to china, you see pollution. they recognize it's in their economic best.

we cannot deal with climate change unless we have global cop ration and requires u.s. leadership. thank you, senator. put that chart back up, if you would. >> i just want to make sure everyone understands. that did not row fut the accuracy of this chart. >> thank you, mr. chair. thanks for your testimony today.

all of us think that it's very successful. >> i can talk a little bit about my state. highest standards on protecting the enviernt. at the state level probably in the world mplt one ft best records in the world of responsibilitily dwoching our resourss and protecting our pristine envooirnt. i also think affordable energy is very pornt. in my state, the citizens of alaska pay some of the highest energy costs in the country. and i also very importantly think the rule of law and the constitution is posht, which i'm assuming you do, as well. i certainly don't think -- there's been a lot of talk about china.

i still don't think the president and chooip that aut rised the epa to do anything. last time i looked at the constitution, that wasn't where he put his authority.

one of the things i've had concern about is the o obama administration two step. the president and his staff want to get something done. that's laudable. a rot of these require a head nod. and then, if that dubt work out he ends uptaking kmektive action anyway. this's numerous examples. stwl's no doubt that the 1002

coastal, is there's flo doubt that has to be done by congress. epa wanted to expand its authority. it didn't go anywhere. i think the chashman has laid out what you're trying to do sdnt work: it doesn't work for agencies to then say welt, don't

do it. that's not how the system works. in your agency, in my view, has been one of the biggest abusers of this two-step approach. but it's not jus my view. are you familiar with the recent utility air regulatory group. >> let me read a provision of that. >> do you thrill this rule

brings about an expansion of your regulatory thorty? >> correct. >> senator, if i could respond -- no just respond to that sequel. >> what provix. >> sections 111 b and 111 d. the questions crs had with regard to your authority to issue this reg? have you read that? >> if the epa can respond to the crs analysis of this regular ration and your authority under the clean air act to issue that.

>> we' e'd be lap pill to do that. >> do you thrill that this regulation dramatically expands your authority? >> i do not. i believer that we are following what the clean air act requires. this is a statute that congress enacted to protect public health department from the air pollution. that determination kwuz upheld and the epa, then, has