today. please be advised the members may submit written questions to be answered later in writing. those questions and your answers will be made part of the formal hearing record. this committee stands adjourned. >> thank you. >>

>> politico is reporting today that jeb bush has been preparing for a potential presidential run since leaving the florida governor's office eight years ago. part of the strategy was to downplay the decision. politeco says a sudden burst of fund-raising now is part of that plan. in addition the former florida governor has head lined more than 50 events around the country and helped to raise an estimated $10 million for other republican and conservative causes. today jeb bush will head to the chicago council on global affairs and he'll share his thoughts on the challenges and opportunities facing the nation both here and abroad. c-span will have live coverage of that at 12:30 eastern. a couple of other live events today. c-span will have coverage of president obama and homeland security second jeh johnson. he'll be speaking at a white house summit on combatting violent extremism. the three-day event is looking into radicalization and

recruiting for isis and other such groups. and then at 3:00 eastern c-span2 will have white house cybersecurity coordinator michael daniel. he'll talk about information sharing between the government and private companies. his comments will be followed by a panel of private and government security officials. it's hosted by the atlantic council. again, live coverage starting at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. this week on c-span in prime time, three nights of tech featuring the executives and innovators driving today's most successful internet companies. >> for $40,000 a year it should be a bentley or something. but instead, it's just a taxi. and for that, for that privilege of leasing that car for 40 grand a year he gets to be impoverished. >> hear from insiders at facebook, paypal etsy and more, all part of a special presentation while congress is in recess. >> israel prob the top country

in the world went digital first for gdp growth, job creation inclusion of minorities, arabs orthodox jews, health care, education to every location, moving their cities to south. >> three nights of tech tonight at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. a look now at the government's rule-making process on greenhouse gas emissions. the senate environment and public works committee examined the epa's proposals to limit emissions from new and existing power plants. janet mccabe the agency's acting administrator for air and radiation testified. it's about 2 1/2 hours. >> get the unpopular stuff out of the way first. let me assure my friends on the democrat side that senator boxer did everything she could to change the minds of the majority.

on opening statements. it's been our feeling on opening statements, i can remember going as long as two hours in opening statements while the witnesses came from far away are not the case with you but with 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 mccabe, it is very nice to have you here. we're looking forward to working with you. by midsummer your office plans to finalize three separate rules to reduce carbon die oxide emissions at power plants which according to your own testimony before the house energy and power subcommittee on june 19th of 1914 -- 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 the father of global warming theory said the kyoto protocol will have little effect on global temperatures in the 21st century and it would take 30 kyotos, his words, not mine, to reduce warming. even when secretary chu 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 in this i said if we were to pass any of these cap and trade bills at that time would this have the effect of reducing co-2 emissions worldwide? she said no it would not. this isn't where the problem is. the problem is china 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 summer your office miss mccabe plans to complete the small business advocacy review issue, a model federal implementation plan and evaluate literally over 5 million public comments to your proposed rules. the agency has already missed its first statutory required deadline to finalize its new source proposal by january 8th of this year. i am interested in learning how the epa expects states to comply with an expedited time line the agency could not meet. it should not be a surprise that 31 states have now opposed the clean power plan. today ms. mccabe we are epa's day and your day in the barrel today, but we're are going to be inviting these

states, 31 states representatives, the ones who are paying for all this stuff the ones who are the stakeholders, the ones who have to comply, we'll be having a hearing with them. in the mean time we have a number of problems with the proposals. i'm concerned that your agency intends to impose the most expensive regulation in history. yet, failed to achieve your own goals. according to the economic consulting and analysis firm mira, the clean power plan 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 coal power plant they can. it's just that it will bankrupt it. so 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 might remember was the byrd-hagel 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 and that was in 2002. and the mccain-lieberman bill again in 2005. and another bill with lieberman in 2008. and every one 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 steamrolling ahead requesting billions of dollars on proposals which states reject, which ignores the will of congress

which 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 just think it's wrong. for 15 years we all listened to each other. i want a large official opposition of democratic minority to limiting opening statements to the chairman and the ranking member. and with the goodwill we have i hope we can -- >> let me respond to that before we start your clock rolling. we talked about that in our conference. we are majority now. i recall you saying at one time that 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

one of us talk when we have people coming in maybe from california from long distances away. and i, you know with eight-minute rounds, which is what we're 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. >> no, i don't. >> you voiced yourself to me. >> no, we don't like it. and i don't like gagging members of this committee. >> we're not gagging anybody. >> but it just -- i'm sad about it. we've 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. you get eight minutes. i get eight minutes. by the time we get to our members, it's, you know, noon. >> first of all i will probably not speak first but go ahead. >> good. that's good. well, let's start the clock. >> mr. chairman can i ask consent that my opening statement be included in the record? >> sure. all opening statements can be 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. so everyone can say whatever they want and say oh, it's cold and it's 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 has been 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, to our businesses, to our 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. now 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 stanford university poll which found that 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 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 they all agreed that climate change requires action now, and it 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. that i yearn for today. 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 reduce carbon pollution and 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 and 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." >> without objection. >> thank you mr. chairman. 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 chairman inhofe ranking member boxer members of the committee. thank you 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, commonsense 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. to address co2 emissions from power plants. these rules will set standards for co-2 emissions from new

existing and modified and reconstructed fossil-fuel fired power plants. as we announced in january the epa intends to finalize these three rules by midsummer 2015. epa's stakeholder outreach and public engagement in preparation for these rulemakings has been unprecedented and resulted in an unprecedented amount of public input. we are currently reviewing the roughly 2 million comments we received on the proposal from new sources and more than 3.5 million comments we received on the proposals 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 for all communities. businesses and consumers, many comments identify opportunities to drive investment in innovative clean technologies as well as reiterating the importance of emissions reductions in addressing likeate change and improving air quality and public health. 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 over the next few months to finalize rules that take into account the input we receive we remain deeply committed to continuing our engagement with the states tribes utilities, stakeholders,

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 that will be used to implement the final clean power plan when it's 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, as always is that states will submit their own 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 ensure that our clean air act obligations are fulfilled. at the same time we believe many states find it helpful to be able to examine a federal plan proposal as they begin to develop their own compliance plans.

indeed, they have told us so. that's why we are aiming to issue the federal plan proposal in midsummer, 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 this harmful pollution. moreover it will lead to thousands of fewer heart attacks and tens of thousands of fewer asthma attacksened other health benefits as well. these reductions deliver tens of billions of dollars in public health and climate benefits that outweigh the estimated annual costs of the plan. the soot and smog reductions that will be achieved along with the reductions in carbon pollution alone will yield $7 in health benefits for every dollar we invest in meeting the standards. and because energy efficiency is such a smart cost-effective strategy we predict that in 2030 average electricity bills for american families will be 8% cheaper than they are 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 greenhouse gas emissions but also 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. at the same time 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 plan has spurred progress and commitment from other countries and has 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 miss mccabe. we are going to be using the early bird rule. it's my understanding that senator markey is under a time constraint, and i think the

ranking member is going to let you have her time. it's my understanding also that senator fischer has some time constraints and i'll be very happy to yield my time to her for questions. we're going to have eight-minute rounds. senator fischer? >> thank you mr. chairman for your courtesy and thank you ranking member. thank you, miss mccabe for being here today. i'm 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 power 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 the mandates for carbon emission reductions from existing power plants. our state has written that the building blocks contain quote inaccurate assumptions and unrealistic expectations that will result in emissions 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 already 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 now widely known that epa misconstrued this study, hypothesizing heat rate improvements discussed on the study on a cumulative basis. when this was not indicated by the study. in fact sergeant and lundy has explicitly stated that the ranges presented in their 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 implement igs after best practices and equipment upgrades, as estimated by the epa. unquote. so our state deqs say that building block number one is unachievable.

sergeant and lundy say that you got it wrong. is this an area that epa plans to correct before finalizing the rule? and 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 may 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 very 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 and lundy even with 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. thank you very much. >> we are happy to get them. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator boxer, did you want to yield your time? >> i do i yield to -- >> i thank the senator from california. i apologize. the policemen and firemen who captured the bombing suspect after the marathon bombing in massachusetts in 2013 are about to be honored down in 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 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 had. but only that each member would then at the beginning of the hearing, if they're there, to be able to make their point, if only for one minute. so i just make that suggestion. i think it might be helpful given the busy schedule of members. >> thank you. >> 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. 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. >> well, senator, 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 horizon in order to -- >> do you think that the proposed rules will actually drive the electricity system to become more resilient? stronger? >> we do think the planning activities that will be going on and are going on now are intended to assure a reliable 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 keep saying 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 members of the 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 that 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

co2 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 to be working 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. right? >> 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 and look at this. 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 of those 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, senator. we all have to act. if everybody says we are not going to act because we don't think anybody else will act, then co2 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, senator, 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, if you will, per capita. is it the chinese, indians or americans who have the largest per capita foot print? >> i believe it is the united states has the largest footprint. >> 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 footprint 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. >> if i was to tell you that the 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 possible for your state. >> that's correct. >> 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 for doing so. >> 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 headlines from national newspapers and saying it is official. i was reminded of a scene from the movie, the "king's speech" in which he's talking to king george and one of the things he says is you need to quit smoking. and my doctors tell me smoke relaxes the throat. and lionel says well they are all a bunch of idiots. and the king replies they have all been knighted. and lionel replay, then it's official. to say that we've got some head lines from the washington post and other newspapers and that makes it official -- i would just observe. these were the smartest people in britain of the time and they were giving the king of england exactly the wrong advice about

what he should be doing with regard to smoking. it is possibly conceivable that the smartest people of our time might be wrong and that some of the very learned and educated contrarians on the issue of climate change will turn out to be vindicated in the end. let me also -- i think you will agree ms. mccabe that when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about carbon pollution -- a new term coined -- they are not talking about smog or carbon particles in the air. they are talking about co2, carbon dioxide. so it sounds so sinister and polluting and dirty and slimy,

carbon pollution. but actually they are talking about carbon dioxide. carbon dioxide doesn't cause lung disease in children. it doesn't cause at asthma. carbon dioxide hasn't been shown to cause children to miss school. and so i just want the public and the people listening to this both in the hearing room and perhaps on television to understand when we're using this term, dirty sounding term "carbon pollution," we're talking about nothing other than carbon dioxide. now let me ask you madam administrator about minimum incremental capital costs and the remaining useful life of coal fired facilities. the clean air act says that the agency is supposed to consider

the remaining useful life of existing sources that they are proposing to regulate. the mississippi development authority says that the minimum incremental cost, this rule, as it is implemented now will be $14.2 billion. and it will be generating facilities that we don't need right now under the current law and the current regulations. your own impact analysis says that over 50,000 megawatts will have to be retired because of the rule. many of the plants in mississippi have spent billions of dollars to come into

compliance to meet the rules and now they're in compliance. because of the new rules they will have to retire, anyway, irrespective of the fact that they have years of remaining useful life. so tell me how your proposal considers the remaining useful lives of these coal plants if the rule will force them to retire prematurely. >> thank you, senator, for the question. the rule does not allow any particular plant to take any particular action. we looked across the country at the age of plants, the average age of coal fired plants is over 40 years. there are a lot of plants that have certainly lived out or are close to living out their remaining useful life and we understand that business decisions are being made by utilities about how to proceed with those plants. remaining life is absolutely something that we are to take into account. we will do so in the proposal and we will do so in the final

further informed by the input that we have gotten. we were not in the position of stranding assets. in particular, the types of plants that you mention, that have recently invested in pollution control equipment and are expected to produce electricity in a controlled way into the future. one of the reasons that we have, again, a long trajectory, is to take into account those sorts of considerations. another reason that the plan is so flexible -- >> how long is that trajectory? >> the final trajectory is 2030. but the plants are able to make their own choices about what to do. if they have been recently upgraded. they have the ability to continue operating that plant. in fact, our projections are that in 2030, still 30% of the

power in this country will be produced by coal plants. we expect and assume that coal plants will continue to operate after these plans are fully in place. >> if the only way that my state of mississippi can achieve the co it emission targets is to close these coal plants. are you saying to keep the coal plants in use in their remaining useful life. >> we would be certainly happen to have that conversation with the environment regulators in your state and we may have already done so. to understand why that is their conclusion. see what our reaction to that is, and see whether the flexibilities we have built into

the proposal can provide a path for them. >> it's my understanding that among the numerous items of input that you have received during the time of this is some $3 million comments from around the country. among those are comments from people in mississippi who would have to comply with this. they're saying that flexibility sounds great. if the only way that we can achieve this goal is to shut down our power plants, then we have no flexibility at all. and i have to go back to what the people on the ground in mississippi are telling me. that is that we're going to have to, in short order, close down the entire current coal fired production in mississippi. so i hope what you're saying is true, but it seems that this is absolutely going to be a

regulatory nightmare for electric providers, users and working families in the state of mississippi. and i hope we can avoid this with something more reasonable. >> if i may, senator. one of the issues that we have heard from many people in this area is the interim goal. and a lot of the anxiety is about meeting that interim goal in that time period. >> thank you, senator boxer? >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator workman and i usually agree on many issues. this is not one of them we agree on "the king's speech" being a great movie. i'm afraid he got his information from tobacco producers and not science at the time.

it seems if you look at the scientific information today, it is clear that carbon is a problem. it is official. thank you. we're in agreement then but carr bon, combined in our environment, causing climate change, is real. and it is causing serious risk, not only to the people in our country, but globally. and we have a responsibility to act. i would also like to point out that the clean air act has been widely hailed as being very successful. and many of us remember all of the red alert days that have been declining dramatically in los angeles and baltimore. we have seen incredible improvements to our younger people that suffer from respiratory problems are much

safer today, and the cost benefit ratios are very clear. so we're building on that. and i thank you very much. power plants are the largest single source of carbon, 40% of all carbon. so epa not only has the legal authority, you have the responsibility to act. to deal with that single largest source of carbon emissions. subject to comment of 30% reduction by 2030 of the 2005 limits, that was based upon your best judgment on science so it didn't just come out of think

air, it was scientifically based analysis of where we could achieve in regards to carbon reductions? >> correct. >> the cost benefit we talked about before. it is not by more efficient energy sources, but by conserving energy. >> that's correct. >> i heard about the cost to consumers, but as we become more efficient, consumers save, don't they? >> yes, they do, senator, if you useless electricity overtime your bills go down and that is what we predicted. >> so i just want to make that point. the cost benefit analysis looking at the epa rules, there is direct savings that senator boxer talked about, the number of premature deaths saved, and the number of workdays which

parents have to stay home because they're child can't breathe. or the days lost at summer camp because children can't go to camp. that is direct savings that we have as a result of implementing these laws. we also get more efficient use of energy that will save us money. >> correct. >> and then of course we had not even talked about it to the extend that we do reverse some of the trends that we have today displaced. the costs there is incredible. that builds into the fact that in maryland we have taken steps to deal with our power emissions through our power plant. we have done that and we have had a growing economy. it helped our economy. the clean air act since it's

enactment in the 1970s, we have seen tremendous growth in our country. so we believe that a healthy environment and a robust economy go side by side. as i understand it, that is the philosophy of the rule that you brought forward and the comments you're receiving because you have a dual objective. now i want to talk about local flexibility. in maryland, we're one of nine states part of an initiative that are part of the reggie proposal. we have taken some pretty extreme measures to reduce carbon emissions. we're downwind. we want other regions to do their share because it is not only important for our global

responsibilities, but important that we have clean air. we can only do so much in our own state. talk about the flexibility that we have in our state as part of a regional effort. how have you taken into consideration the numbers based on o states have that joined the regional? >> well, reggie, as we mentioned before, is a great impact of states coming together to find efficient ways to regional area to make reductions in a way that it is very helpful to the environmental goal and the economy. in our rule, we give the states flexibility to do a plan on their own or to join regionally, and our cost analysis shows that regional plans are more cost effective. you're getting nor choices for states to use different

strategies, more choices for utilities, many of whom operate across state lines and have the ability to make changes that are available to them and have a broader pool to choose from. that is an effective way to achieve the lower greenhouse gas emission goal. >> mr. chairman, let me comment on china. it has been a lot of responsibility, and i am the ranking democratic on east asia and the pacific sub committee. i have been to china. they're leading the word right now in renewable energies. they have $50 billion invested. this is not a country that has the same values as we do for the values. they do it because their people are demanding it.

when you go to china you see pollution. i was in beijing for about four days and i never saw the sun. so they recognize that cleaner energy sources is in their economic interest to invest in sources and to do this. i applaud the efforts of the administration to bring china into specific achievable goals as we all work towards our universal responsibilities to deal with climate change. where as maryland cannot deal with the unhealthy air, we cannot deal with climate change unless we have global cooperation, it requires u.s. leadership, and i applaud the obama administration for their leadership.

>> thank you, senator. for clarification butt that chart back up, could you? the senator was talking about greenhouse gases per capita, which, obviously, is not centralized in india and china as it is here and they have millions and millions and millions more people. i want to make sure that everyone understands that did not refute the accuracy. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you for your testimony today. i just want to make a few statements. there has been a lot of talk about the clean air act, the clean water act, and i think all of us think it has been very successful. i think we all love clean air and clean water. people are bragging about their states and i can talk a little bit about my state, cleanest and air water in the world, probably. highest standards for protecting the environment at the state

level probably in the world. one of the best records in the world for responsibly developing our resources and protecting our pristine environment. these are all very important. we all recognize that. but i also think that jobs are important. i also think affordable energy is very important. in my state, the citizens of alaska pay some of the highest energy costs in the country. in alaska. i think the rule of law is important. and i assume you do as well. and i certainly don't think there has been a lot of talk about china, this agreement, i don't think that relatively flimsy agreements between the president and china authorize the epa to do anything that congress has not authorized. do you think agreements with china can authorize in addition

that congress has not? we haven't really seem them and it seems to be you're almost taking action based on an agreement we have with china. last time i looked at the constitution that is not when the epa derives it's authority. >> absolutely not, we're taking action under the clean air act. >> let me get to another concern of mine. i just wanted to get that china agreement -- one of the things i had a concern about, i think one of the things america has had a concern about is what i call the obama administration two stepping. it goes something like this. the president, his administration want to get something done. the elected president can certainly lay out a vision.

a lot of these, though, require actions by congress under the constitution. the president will do a head nod to the constitution, to the statutes, with regard to what he wants to get done. if that doesn't work out, he takes executive action anyways. there is numerous examples. immigration is one. that's the way the system works. 22 times he says he can't take certain action and then he reverses and says i can take that action. there is no doubt that the 10-02 coastal area you're probably familiar with, to designate it wilderness, no doubt that has to be done by congress. the president supposedly is going to put forward a bill to do that. yet he said but i'm going to move forward and designate

through executive order. the waters of the united states. again, epa wanted to expand it's authority over the waters of the united states. put forward legislation in 2009. it did not go anywhere because congress and the people did not want you to expand that authority. so through regulatory action you expanded authority. and now you're doing this. and the chairman laid out that you're trying to move through congress, didn't pass, okay? that is the way our constitutional system works. but it doesn't work for agencies to say it didn't pass through congress, so i'm going to do it anyway. your agency in my view has been one of the biggest abusers. are you familiar with the

regulatory group versus epa decision? >> yes, i am. >> did you read that decision? >> yes, i did. >> it was a decision where the supreme court was chastising the epa for taking actions and authority that it clearly said it didn't have. let me read a provision of that recent supreme court decision. epa's interpretation is unreasonable because it would bring about an expansion of the epa's regulatory authority. do you think this rule brings about an expansion of your regulatory -- the rule that we're talking about here today? >> correct. >> senator, if i can respond -- >> just respond to that

question. >> i believe the rule we proposed and that we're going through comment on today is squarely based on our authority in the clean air act. >> what provision of the clean air act? >> sections 111 b and 111 d. >> have you read the analysis of your authority? >> i'm not sure -- >> the congressional research service, they did an analysis of your authority on this regulation and the questions that crs had with your authority, have you read that? >> i don't believe it suggests that we don't have the authority. >> it did. it looked at a number of areas. if the epa office can we response to this analysis of the regulation, and your sport under the clean area act to do that. >> we would be happy to do that.

>> now let me get back to what the supreme court mentioned. it mentioned when the epa under takes a regulation that has -- that is an enormous and transformative expansion in it's regulatory authority, they're very skeptical of their power. do you think this regulation dramatically expands your authority? >> i do not. >> you don't? >> i don't. i think we're following what the clean air act requires. this is a statute that congress enacted to protect public health from air pollution. on a very sound scientific record they made a determination that co 2 endangers health and welfare. that was upheld, and the epa has taken actions based on that finding of endangerment. >> i think you're doing exactly what you were reprimanded from doing in the recent supreme court case.

you're taking significant power under the clean air act, dramatically expanding it, without clear congressional authorization. congress is -- you tried to get this authorization before and congress has not passed it. you're not allowed to move forward with the regulation and do what congress will not allow. you talked a lot about the state's flexibility. 32 states have raised legal concerns with this. 12 have sued you. there was testimony by tony clark that stated, "the proposed rule on existing plants has the potential to comprehensively reorder the relationship between the federal government and the states dramatically altering the traditional lines of authority. states are seating ultimate authority to the epa."

do you think that shows flexibility toward the states? if. >> i don't agree with the way commissioner clark has characterized it, chairman. they have clear plans under the proposed rule. >> chairman, my time has expired and i have sever further questions that i will submit, particularly regarding alaska, and will be severely and negatively impacted by this rule if it goes through. i would like the epa to specifically answer questions as it relates to communities in alaska. >> thank you senator sullivan. let me give you an additional minute of my time, and it is because you're bringing up something they was going to bring up. the fact that 31 states oppose this power plan and more than half bereave it is not legal under the clean air act.

i would be asking her in my remaining time. how are you going to coerce these people to doing something they don't want to do. think about that, senator boxer? >> thank you, chairman. we always have an interesting discussion in which one side of the committee only looks at one side of the ledger, and that is the coal economy and the fossil fuel economy, many of us have economies paying the price for pollution. apply colleagues have heard plenty from me about this over the months and years. in late 2014, there would be no shrimp fishing because of global climate change. the lobster has also disappears from their regular habitat. it caused a subsequent price collapse.

the message here is clear, climate change is taking collars and jobs from new england's fishes communities. generally she says, fish species off the coast of the united states are moving to higher latitudes and deeper water looking for the temperatures they require to survive. we certainly see that in rhode island. she adds that potential for dramatic storm surge events were higher sea levels and more intense activity for flooding and storm damage and we experienced that with sandy. the author says what is needed is "honest fact based discussion, and a genuine bipartisan commitment to

solutions." and the author of that article is our former republican colleague in the senate olympia snow. another voice that came out recently comes from "the economist" magazine. it is very conservative. and here is a article they posted recently, i'll be quoting from it, the coal, electric power and automotive industries, if they had their way in the early 1970s, american cities would look like chinese cities today. the clean air act triggered same kind of denunciations we're seeing today to force the industry to reduce greenhouse emissions. they claimed in the 1970 act it

could lead to production cut off in five years, and do irreparable damage to the american economy. when they were asks to adopt cadalitic converters. in 1974 when we were acting on sulfer emissions, american electric power spent $3 million dollars to put scrubbers on coal plants. america's gdp has grown, and emissions fell by 68%. adult mortality would have increased by 160,000 in 2011, dead people. in 2011 alone. in the force of 20 years, the clean air act has saved millions of lives. the author goes on to talk about a fairly reliable pattern.

manufacturing emergency companies and industry associations put out studies that grossly overestimate the costs. it can be homicide, greedy, and pointing. he concludes here that the fact that the carbon which utility companies churn out, that is gradually cooking the climate,

one should keep in perspective that in the past they have been laughably wrong. the positions they advocated would have lead to the deaths of millions. in the struggle for clean air, executives and the power, mining, and automotive industries made fools of themselves at the time by cooking up regulations that turned out to be utterly wrong. it is infuriating to see them now cough up the same, tired, half baked arguments that they have been making wrongly for four decades against the environmental and safety regulations. the very regulations that made america the cleaner, safer

country we know it to be. and i take that statement from a conservative publication. this is "the economist" magazine. showing there is room for a principaled, conservative position that acknowledges the reality of climate change, that acknowledges the reality of what's happening in my state. i'm keenly aware of what economic damage could be if we get this wrong, and i'm willing to work with my colleagues to see what we can do to get that right. i cannot have a situation in which the other side refuses to acknowledge the reality of what is happening in rhode island, of what is happening in maine.

of what is happening in oregon, of what is happening around the world and around the country because carbon pollution is cooking our environment. that doesn't even get you into what it is in our oceans. you can measure sealevel rise. you can do it with a yardstick. you do that with a thermometer. you can measure the acidify indication. this is not complicated. you issue it and you see it happening. it is real, we're having the ocean acidify at a faster rate than hats ever occurred in the history of our species. if you never want to go to the ocean or eat anything from the ocean, and if you don't think it provides anything useful for oxygen and cooling for the planet, that may be a matter of no interest to you, but it is pretty significant.

when you go back to look for previous -- i support this rule whole heartedly. i ask my colleagues to look at both sides of the ledger. with any luck, we'll be able to do the job in congress that, if we had done it in the first place, you might not be here having to answer these questions. because of our failure, you had to proceed, and i don't think it is fair to blame you for having to proceed when we're the ones who have failed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you're aware the new source performance standard and the existing source performance standard rules for coal fired power plants as a result of the 2010 epa settle agreement with the defense counsel and others. documents say this agreement was reached in close coordination

above all other partitioners. one document in particular suggest these rules were crafted to please the rndc. they went so far to say that david doninger saying this success is yours as much as mine. that was on the day the settlement agreement was made public. it doesn't appear it is a success to any real effected parties. so do you believe these rules are a success of the nrdc? >> no, senator, these rules have come about because the epa made an endangerment finding that we were damaging public health and welfare and we have responsibility to move forward to set standards for new sources of carbon dioxide and as

appropriate for existing sources of carbon dioxide, and we have methodically looked at the most important sectors starting with transportation and fossil fired utilities. >> would you say that wyoming, west virginia, any other states in this committee had the same input and access to the officials? >> i speak with states all of the time. they have very good access to discussion all of these issues with us, they certainly know how to reach us and do. >> 32 states did sup mitt legal objections to the rule. and when a majority of states object to a rule i think you have done something wrong.

i want to move on to the way you evaluate benefits. most claimed by the epa, in the 111 d, come from conventional pollutants like pm 25. where is the epa justifying a carbon rule -- >> there are significant benefits associated with the climate effects of reducing carbon, and those are all laid out in our ria. >> is seems once again most of the benefits claimed comes from reducing conventional pollutants and not from carbon. i wonder if the epa is double counting benefits here and also taking credit for in other rules. i ask how you justify counting the health credits that misleds the american people to the real benefits of the rule. >> we're certainly not double

counts. we're very careful to make sure we don't do that. in addition, it is a standard and accepted approach to acknowledge when there are cowith benefits with the reductions happening as the result of a rule. it would not make sense to not acknowledge those benefits and they have value to the american people. are you counting them both here and there? >> no, okay. >> the doa said after ten years of work, they were cancelling the future ccs project to best protect taxpayer interests. howe can the federal government require the private sector to build plants under the proposed rule when it can't build a ccs plant on it's own. >> it does not require anyone to build anything in particular. >> d.o.e. advisors requested a study that concluded that ccs is not adequately demonstrated and should not be required under 111 b of the new sources.

they're says that it is not adequately demonstrated and i'm asking is the epa really listening? >> we're paying attention to all of the input we have gotten. i will note that since last fall, there has been a plant operating using ccs at 90% capture. it is moving along like everybody expected. that is certainly not the only example, but we are, as i said, we will of course pay attention to all of the input we get on this issue. >> on november 12th, the u.s. announced a u.s.-china joint climate change agreement. they stated their 2020 actions. the agreement states that the united states will achieve a economy-wide target of reducing

emissions by 26 to 28% below its 2005 level. and the same agreement says that china will achieve the peaking achieve the peaking of co2 emissions by 2030 and the peaking is by 2030 and to make the peaking early to stop the nonfossil fuels and energy consumption by 2030. so the state department has stated in capitol hill meetings that epa actions for new and existing power plants will achieve the reductions of 26% to 28%. what role did the epa play in re-setting the target agreements for china and the u.s. and what role do you see in congress playing a role in the policy and the economic impact is sweeping. >> i may have misheard you senator, but to the extent you

suggested the clean power plan was to achieve the 26% to the 28% peak is not correct. >> it is not a big part of it. >> as are the sweeping clean car agreement. >> and what role did the epa play in setting the targets in the u.s.-china agreement. >> we have many agencies participated in conversations and discussions about what type of approaches would be feasible within our authorities to reduce carbon dioxide. >> and what role do you see congress playing. >> this is a matter for the president as he's discussing in the international community, these targets and i'm sure that he's paying attention. >> so it is the administration position that congress has no role or responsibility or obligation or opportunity in all of these things. >> senator, i don't want to speak to that today that is not

my responsibility so i would defer that to others to speak about. i'm focused on the clean air act and our authorities under that. >> that is interesting, senator white house who left and regarding this deal between the u.s. and china and the costs to the united states are much more real and the costs to the united states are more much real than to china and it is something we will try to dismantle. >> i want to put in the record that when mitch mcconnell said u.s.-china deal means china won't have anything to do for 16 years, we found that mostly false. i want to put that in the record. to my colleagues and friends

this isn't personal. we are hearing scare tactics about the results of continuing to implement the filter act and i want to compliment you administrator for your calm presentation this is a situation where the filter act requires you to act, it doesn't require us to act, it requires you to implement the act unless you repeal the filter act. i haven't anyone say they want to repeal the clean air act. if they do, bring it on. but since richard nixon signed the modern filter act, the u.s. gpd has grown by 219% and private sector jobs have grown by 101% and common air pollutants have dropped by 72%. is that what you -- >> that is my understanding. >> senator sullivan and i think in a very aggressive way and

good for him he says that obama is abusing his authority. and i want to place into the record the last three presidents and how many executive actions they took. clinton, 364. george w. bush 291 and barack obama, 200. now, i think -- maybe i'm wrong, i have not really heard anyone ever say that george -- on the other side complain about george w. bush's 291 executive orders, nixon's 346, reagan 841, but barack obama, 200, but oh, my god, the sky is falling, isn't this awful. but the record just disproves your point. i believe this is not an administration gone rogue this is an administration following the filter act. don't you agree that is what you are doing? >> that is what we are doing

senator. >> and don't you agree there were three supreme court decisions tell you you need to proceed. the first case was massachusetts versus epa. the second case was the american electric power v. connecticut and the third was utility air asources versus epa. is that correct. >> yes. >> and don't you have to follow the supreme court. >> we do. >> and the supreme court in the last case which senator sullivan quoted said they confirmed the filter act covered carbon pollution, isn't that correct? >> correct. >> so if you didn't do your work you would be sued for not doing it am i right? >> in all likelihood. >> i think so. because i know some of the folks that would do it. including me if i had the chance. we have a lot of people at home who care about filter. we have the largest number of people. we're up to 38 million people. and cleaning up the air is a

primary focus. so i also -- with due respect and admiration and we just get along so well i have to say, my chairmen miss construes the votes in the record and i'm going to put in the votes in the record. so here is what they are in. in 2003, mccain leiberman went down that was called as mccain's bill the mcklein stewardship act of 2003. it went down. three republicans. 34-55. on june 22nd 2005. the mccain amendment 826 went down in a worse way. 38-60. okay. then we had chaffee collins, greg luger mccain and snow republicans. on june 6th 2008, this is the one i remember the leiberman

warner climate security act of 2008 lost because there was a filibuster. six people were absent and ask their intentions to vote yes be entered into the record and we had 54 votes at that time. we didn't have the 60. but we had a majority. and then what i want to say is, in this recent debate on keystone. here is what happened. 99-1 the whitehouse amendment declaring the climate change is not a hoax passed with the support of the chairman and 59-40 the hoven amendment that said climate change is caused by human activity won the day, 59-40 but it was filibustered so it never got where it should have gotten and then the shots amendment that said climate change is significantly caused by human activity passed 50-49. so let's get those in the

record. so now my colleague from mississippi went into this whole thing about that great movie the king's speech. i didn't get the connection but it was cleverly put forward. but the bottom line is he's saying that these two newspapers are confusing the matter. so i'm going to put into the record all of the news outlets that reported this story. i have 40. there are many more. let me tell you who is included and said the same thing. the christian science monitor, upi, chicago sun time reuters, a.p. testimony times politico. national journal, pollity cal pilot. news week. kansas first news, national geographic. bloomberg, smithsonian magazine. salt lake city tribune and no question that all of these

outlets reported this. not because they reported for any particular reason other than this is the truth. unless my colleague from mississippi has a right to say that he doesn't believe in noaa and doesn't believe in nasa this is a fact. you can't make this stuff up. would you agree this is accurate reporting? >> that is certainly what i've understood from the -- from those agencies that you mentioned. >> okay. thank you very much, joe. you're okay. now, climate change is projected to harm human health. and my colleague from mississippi, i wish he was here because i would really love to get into a debate with him but he's not here because we all have so many obligations and i understand. we know that climate change increases ground level ozone, particulate matter in some locations. is that accurate? >> that is accurate. >> so that when you clean up

this carbon, you are really helping the health of the people, is that not true? >> that is correct. >> now relying again upon substantial scientific evidence epa determined that man-made climate change effects public health and public welfare. is that correct? my understanding is that was put forward in d.c. in coalition for regular regulation versus epa. >> that was the endangerment finding? >> endangerment finding. >> yes correct. >> and you found that extreme weather events and change in air quality and increase in food and water born pathogens and we know that happens because it happened in the lake in ohio which was devastating, that these increases in temperature are likely to have adverse effects is that correct? >> that is correct. >> so isn't it wrong -- i don't want you to put you on the spot.

i don't want to put you on the spot. isn't it clear that those of us who believe that carbon pollution does in fact, increase the likelihood that people will have breathing difficulties sand hart attacks, isn't that in your mind a proven fact. >> yes it is senator. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> let's see here. senator rounds. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your time this morning. i'd like to just read a little bit of a summary of what has happened in my state of south dakota and the challenge we face and then i would like your response, please. in the year 2012, which was the base year south dakota's native electricity production was approximately 74% renewable energy, and 26% from fossil fuels. we have one coal-fired power plant that employed 70% and one combined gas plant and that is the dear creek station and even

dispatches power into a different regional area and in your plan you calculated dear creek capacity at 1%, despite the fact that the deer creek station was not commercially operational until august of that year. had the epa considered deer creek under construction in 2012, the plan would have asiped deer creek an assumed capacity factor of 55% in the year 2012. because of these allegations in your -- calculations in your plan it would require that the big stone plant, the coal-fired plant which now approximately operated at 8,000 hours a year to operate at between 2,000 and 2500 hours per year in order to comply with your targets for the state of south dakota. the results of this coal plant running less than half of the time it runs now doesn't work.

the big stone plant employees approximately 80 people and under your preferred plan we simply have to wonder whether or not those jobs would remain in the state or if whether or not the plant would continue to operate. further, let's go into that a little bit operating a base load coal unit 2,000 hours per year is uneconomical and it basically in infeasible to do because big stone power plant and the big state operate in separate rto's and one cannot be transferred to another rto who depend on the plants to keep their lights on. and adding in the complexity is the big stone is in the middle of a $500 million to comply with the hayes rule in the south dakota state implementation to comply with that rule and this project isn't completed yet and after a $400 million investment

the largest private investment our state has ever seen you are telling this plant they may not be able to operate at all in order to comply with your latest regulations. my question is this: we have a limited number of electric generating resources in south dakota, each facility is absolutely vital to meeting the energy needs of my state and our sour runding states -- surrounding states and what is built into your rule and what flexibility is built in for the states in the midst of an upgrade at your direction and being told they need to do even more to meet the additional regulations that you plan on implementing? >> thank you senator for your question. and we certainly are welcoming conversations at this level of detail from states and we're having many of them. and i trust and hope that your state has provided that input to us in their comments and that we're having those conversations.

i want to emphasize again that the proposal we put out in not prescriptive. we do think that states can find ways to reduce carbon in order to meet the targets. we are looking very closely at all of the kinds of issues that you are raising with us in particular if states think we got something factually wrong, we've urged them to tell us and many of them have. and so i again presume that your state is -- >> we have. >> -- is having that conversation with us and then if we got something factually wrong then we'll address that because we want to make sure the final rule is appropriate and correct and still maintains flexibility. there are opportunities across the regions across the states to have investment in clean technologies and energy efficiency and renewables in your state i -- and your state i believe has been a leader in

some of those technologies and we applaud that. and that is why we think this can work. we also appreciate that there are complexities and especially in the west there are states who -- large states who are divided in terms of their energy markets, we're having conversations with states and with the energy regulators about those sorts of issues to make sure that the final clean power plan can accommodate all of those sorts of considerations. >> to the best of my knowledge, we've received no suggestions of how to fix the problem that we share with you today. this is a major proposal, clearly we would think there would be a significant amount of thought to be put into the rule to begin with. >> yes. >> we have no feedback that suggests there is an alternative at this stage of the game and i'm curious are you suggesting that -- that a final rule would be significantly different than what the proposed rule is based

upon the information we provided to you already? >> i'm suggesting as is usually the case with epa regulations that the comments we receive may lead to adjustments in the final rule. i don't have any experience with an epa rule where that has not happened. that is why the public comment process is so important. and i would emphasize that even beyond the formal public comment process, the tremendous relationship and discussions that we've had with states and stakeholders to make sure that we get this right. so, yes, to the extent that adjustments are appropriate within our authority, and needed to make sure that the rule can work right we certainly will be looking at those kinds of things. >> all of us want filter. the challenge is how do we get there and how do we maintain what we have already and how can we afford in the future to pick up the costs for making it better in the future?

the united states chamber of commerce last year in a report suggested and i'm going to paraphrase a little bit but the cost to the average american family would be approximately $1400 per year to comply with this particular rule. did you have or are you aware of what the costs or estimates costs were when the rule was proposed or what the estimated costs were when this rule was applied and would you share with us? >> sure, senator. for every rule, every significant rule we do a regulatory impact analysis with every proposed rule. and we did that here and is available for everybody to look at. i'm not sure about the specific stud you cited. we did do a forward look. i want to make sure that everybody knows because states will ultimately decide exactly what to do here, our projections

can only be illustrative and we are confident that states will make the best choices for the families within their borders and that will take into consideration costs. because of the -- this rule is all built on the things that are happening now in this industry. and things that are happening now is that utilities are using less carbon-intensive, more economic fuels investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency and those things together reduce carbon emissions and over all because of the tremendous impact of energy efficiency in the amount of energy we use, we expect bills to go down. >> my time is up. may i read one sentence into the record. the south dakota public utilities commission in july of this year said south dakota residents will see their rates double as a result of the cpp

disproportionately effecting the west. thank you. >> thank you. senator gillibrand. >> thank you very much mr. chairman for this very important hearing. thank you assistant administrator for testifying here about -- bless me -- the administration's act to enact free air and the climate air is real and the burning of fossil fuels burn to it significantly and it is an immediate threat to families in every corner of this country and the world. industrial activity is a major contributor to the carbon emissions over the years and our country is a leader in creating the problem but now thanks to the hard work of this administration we are on track to solving this problem. something that i think is often overlooked by many of the opponents of rules that limit

carbon pollution is the benefit families will see in terms of public health the rules are supported by health professionals. the academy of pediatrics and the lung association, thoracic society and other public health associations sent a letter to the epa said the climate changes the health of people alive now and future generations and there is a short window to act given those threats. and given these public health organizations can you elaborate on the public health risks american families will face if we fail to react to reduce emissions from power plants? >> sure. there are pretty immediate impacts. we see temperatures go up, these kind of conditions are conducive to ozone formation. ozone has demonstrated immediate impacts on families including

exacerbating asthma and bringing on asthma attacks, leading to all kinds of medical expenses as well as missed school missed work and that sort of thing. increases in -- there is drought, which is occurring, that has significant impacts on public health. the changes in temperatures are changing the seasons of various allergens, changing the patterns of various vectors that can lead to disease. so these are the kinds of things that scientists are seeing as a result of climate change impacts that are occurring. >> according to the clean power plant rule, your [ inaudible ] -- than any other region in the nation and sea level rise along the new york atlanta coast has exceeded 18

inches since 1850. recently the northeast is experiencing extreme weather events that are more intense and more frequent than we've seen before. and while there is much talk about the potential cost of emissions and there are significant costs to the economy in we decide to do nothing. has the epa looked at the costs to other areas of the economy of failing to enact strong carbon emissions reductions and would you agree that the cost of rebuilding the infrastructure and shorelines providing billions of dollars in disaster assistance from extreme weather and fishery productions far outweigh the costs of complying with the rules? >> i certainly would, senator. the greatest cost is to do nothing and the kind of impacts you are citing are ones that scientists are saying are happening and will happen more in the future and those are very, very costly events. and particularly implementing

the rule as we have proposed it here that provides flexibility for states to invest in their local communities, bring jobs, invest in energy efficiency which will reduce the need for electricity, these are positive economic benefits. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator vitter. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you my colleagues for jumping ahead and i have another commitment in a few minutes. and i'll be brief. and i submitted requests for documents on these rules and development of these rules last congress. now epa is still producing some of those documents, but from what has been produced, there is a really dramatic pattern of very frequent detailed meetings and phone calls between epa and

nrdc a leading outside environmental group. again, the number of these communications is pretty staggering and unprecedented as far as i can see. but in addition, there is some correspondence between epa and rdc that is not produced or posted to the docket. why is that sand will that -- and will that excluded correspondence and documentation be submitted? >> senator i'm not sure exactly of the answer to that question. i'll be glad to get back to you on that? >> if you could get back to us. and hopefully that will be corrected in terms of the docket but including that additional correspondence and documentation. again, some things have been produced by epa already and again it shows a level of communication and detail and consultation that i think is pretty staggering.

let me put up one e-mail june 2013, before the rule was proposed. and in this nrdc dave hawkins advised joe golfman, as long as the date for the fip 2010 is after the sip deadline it appears that epa can backstop fip limits even in advance of the june 2016 sip submission date closed quote. this is very detailed advice and direction before the rule was even proposed. do you think that sort of thing is appropriate? >> senator we get a lot of detailed advice from a lot of people. and have many meetings with a lot of different stakeholders who weigh in with us. and we take all of that input and we put it in a proposed rule which is fully open for

everybody to look at and if the rule is not grounded in science and the law, then people tell us that and that is how we proceed. >> prior to this e-mail had epa even considered issuing a model fip? >> i can't speak to exactly when we would have had those conversations but i can assure you that the notion of a federal implementation plan is fully laid out in the filter act and that is what motivating us to think about the need for a backstop federal plan. >> if you could follow up and answer that question directly whether epa considered issuing a model fip prior to the e-mail that would be useful. did nrdc's advice had advice on the model fip is now developing. >> we have not proposed a model fip. we are going through that process now. we have gotten a number of comments in the public comment

period from a variety of stakeholders urging us to consider doing a model fip and we're working our way through the process to figure out what the appropriate proposal is. >> and is epa planning to issue the model fip before the sip deadline? >> what we announced in january was that we intended to propose a fip in summer this summer around the same time that we finalize the 111 b and 111 d rules. >> so that would be before the deadline? >> it would be a proposal. i'm not sure which deadline you are talking about. for states to submit plans. >> that deadline is not finalized. it will be in the final rule. it will be -- what we propose is 13 months after the 111 d rule is finalized. so we'll have a proposed fip out in the summer and i would expect we would have that finalized

within a year. >> okay. i just want to point out that it is perfectly consistent with this direction and advice. final question mostly sunny mccabemc -- final question miss mccabe, i am concerned with this cost of estimates. i asked you previously for the names and titles of those under your supervision that have participated in the interagency working group. we haven't gotten that. can you provide that to us? >> senator, that has not been a secretive process at all. the gao has confirmed it was not an inappropriate process and agencies across the government participated in it. it is not a process the epa was in charge of and so i feel we've been responsive. >> can you provide me the names and titles of those folks under

your superviegs of the air and radiation that participated in the interagency working group. >> senator i'll take that question back and give you a response. >> so it is not a secretive process but you won't commit to that? >> it is not a secretive process. >> if it is not? >> i will commit to getting back to you. >> so you won't commit to that. >> thank you senator baasman and capito who have been flexible with their time to accommodate the others. senator carper. >> thank you for joining us today. thank you for your service. you have a tough job and thank you for your willingness to do it. and those of us who live in the states and those of us already seeing the impact of the climate change and the epa's attempt to regulate the carbon pollution has been frankly a long time

coming but with any substantial regulatory action there is always room for improvement. and while we strive for perfection we know it is hard to achieve. so i look forward to working with our colleagues on this committee and in the senate and in the house and working with the administration and other stake holders and trying to make sure this regulation as good as it is becomes even better before it is finalized. i hope to address the inequities in the state targets and we had discussions of this before but it is my understanding that different states will have different targets based on feasibility and other variabilities under the clean power act. as written, i've heard from stakeholders that the proposal requires more of states already making substantial carbon cuts and one of them is my states delaware and required more of states that have not yet acted.

delaware has made substantial energy and coal plan clean up and if this is not addressed and they may be at a competitive disadvantage. have you heard similar concerns from other stake holders and if the answer is yes is the epa considering adjusting the state targets to address these inequities? if so, what are the possible actions? >> thank you, senator. this is an issue raised in comments from all different directions and from a number of different stakeholders. something we are paying attention to. in fact we paid so much attention to it in the fall we put out a notice of data availability identifying issues that people had raised so we can be sure to get as much input as possible on it. we are -- our final rule has to be founded in our authority under the filter act to determine the best system of

emission reduction for this sector and that is what we'll be striving to do but we'll be looking closely at all of these things. i can't speak to what any final decisions will be because the rule won't be final until june or mid-summer any way, i can assure you we're looking hard after those questions. we don't want a rule that will disincentivize states moving forward with actions and that is not good and we want to make sure we make as many adjustments as we can, as you say, to improve the rule while staying within the legal authority that we have. >> good. there is a precedent for this i think it is in medicaid, for states that act the early for increasing coverage under medicaid and under the fact they were put at a disadvantage and we were able to fix that and i hope we can do the same thing here. and i come at this situation before us with a unique

perspective. and i was born as the senator of west virginia, i come from a place called beckley, west virginia and i have background in beckley west virginia and the background that coal brings. and i now live in delaware, the lowest state in the world and i understand that a significant portion of my state will be lost of the sea. and some parts are being starting to be lost to the sea. can you take moments to talk about how this rule might address both concerns and how does this rule help keep and make sure my native state of west virginia doesn't end up in economic ruin or damaged

substantially while at the same time helping to make sure that my state remains on the map. >> sure. well let me address those things first, senator. as has been discussed this morning by many of the committee, co2 emissions need to be reduced globally in order to start addressing the kinds of impacts you are speaking about in delaware. and this is one step that the united states can take and the filter act authorizes us to take. along with others, that this country and others must take to address this. and we believe that that is the responsible and appropriate thing to do. we are very aware of the impacts that are occurring in the fossil -- in the electricity-generating sector today. there are many forces that go way beyond what epa might or might not do in this rule or any

other rule that is changing the way energy is produced in this country and as we talk with the industry, we understand that from them. that we understand also that that can have impacts on local communities that are built up around certain types of industries. this is not the first time that that has happened. and we must be very, very sensitive to those impacts as well. this rule, as we predict, looking to the future we see a significant portion of power in this country still being generated by coal about 30%. it will be clean and well-controlled coal and investments there are very important. we see another 30% being fueled by natural gas, another very important domestic industry that employs many, many people in this country. aptd then other -- and then other sources of energy including where there is tremendous opportunity for investment in our local communities and i'm thinking of

renewables and energy efficiency in particular and we are keeping those in mind and believe that the flexibility this program allows will allow for that range of types of operations and that is good and healthy. >> thank you. one of the major sources of electricity generation does not create any emissions of any harm that i'm aware of as nuclear and provides about 20% of the needs in our country for a long time and my staff and i continue your concerns that the epa is not treating all zero emission resources the same in this proposal and specifically we heard the proposal discounted nuclear generation in the state targets as compared to the nuclear energy putting it as an advantage to other filter technologies. why does the proposal discount nuclear energy and what is the

epa doing to address this issue? >> senator, this rule is about the fossil fuel fired electricity generation, the sector that emits the air pollutants we are authorized to address. so looking at the types of emission reduction approaches that the fossil fuel-fired generation fleet can adopt -- >> say that again. you don't have to. >> thank you. we identified some key approaches that those -- that that industry is now taking shifting to less carbon efficiency and renewable and that type of thing, this rule is not an energy plan and that should not be an energy plan and that is not administrator mccarthy's job. we understand the significant role that nuclear power plays in the country and it itself, is

suggest to various pressures and issues and we want to make sure that states that have invested in nuclear energy and wish to do so that could be a significant compliance option for states and it will be. we have receive aid lot of comment on the exact -- received a lot of comment on the exact question you asked on how we figure that into the targets and we are shorting through that -- sorting that there information and we take the point people with making seriously on that question. >> thank you. my time is expired. thank you for taking that seriously. >> thank you senator carper. to the last and arguably the most patient members of the environment and public works committee, i thank you very much your patience. and i think we're -- senator capito you are the next senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you administrator mccabe to come before us today and to discuss this very important role.

you know i represent the state of west virginia. >> i do. >> and we have just under 2 million hard-working americans who receive 95% of our electricity from roel-powered generation. the west virginia coal industry supports families, strengthens national security and powers not only my state but affordable energy to many of our neighbors. we export over half of the energy we produce. we could be keeping on the lights in this room. but i'm concerned about the cost to the taxpayer and also to the bill-payer. we've heard already today that 32 states have raised serious objections. a large percentage of our country's power comes from coal. yet you predict by eliminating one half of our energy we will reduce our prices by 8% and this doesn't add up. in our state, our monthly electric bills are 23% l