an eo of 95% reduction including an estimated 1.7 million tons of methanes. my first question is the voc and nsps were supposed to be implementing a two-step process. is this accurate that the nsps won't be implemented until the end of 2015? >> my understanding is -- i'm sorry, congressman i may be counting wrong, but i think that's right for the full implementation. we did recognize in that rule that there was equipment that needed to be manufactured and installed and we work with the

industry to make sure we weren't being overly aggressive about the ability to have the technologies available for full implementation. >> has epa actually quantified how much of the voc reduction the nsps has actually yielded to this point? >> we do have a good signal from our greenhouse gas reporting program that it's already been tremendously effective at reducing carbon pollution because carbon pollution is reduced as you're catching those volatile organic compounds. so we do have a very good sense that this is being effective already. >> i understand it's already about 190 to 290,000 tons. >> that's right. >> is the estimate. has epa quantified methane reductions as a co-benefit? >> we have and i can provide those numbers. i don't have them at the tip of -- >> i think i have them. it's about 73% decrease? >> excellent. >> so in january this year the white house released a strategy

of reducing oil pollution. they released pro terrible resources like oil wells pumps leaks as well as well sites and compression stations. anybody who is on a rig knows if you pate hole in the ground and find hole you're most likely to find natural gas. and the energy commission states that the epa produces both oil and gas. does the epa believe there is an overlap of these two rules. >> we believe there are synergies between the two rules, and we're going to make sure we don't reproduce efforts but we provide a good signal for both producing oil and natural gas as to what their regulatory obligations are. >> in 2014, the epa estimates indicated almost $200 million in additional gas could be captured and sold from the natural gas sector. recently producers in west texas have started using modular equipment to capture the methane, separate the gas into

the various components and either sell as a product or power back to the producer. this approach is an effective, economically efficient way to encourage change. methane is a product we need to use. aside from using it on side captures, it's going to require additional pipelines. in the budget, the doe set aside some but not enough to encourage additional investment in modular applications and pipeline infrastructure. has epa done anything similar? >> epa is working with the doe to take a look at what pipe lines need to be constructed in order to make sure that we can still continue to enjoy the natural -- the inexpensive natural gas and the oil that's making us solid domestically. >> recently the white house council and environment of equality released a revised draft guide covering how federal departments and agents should consider the effects of the greenhouse gas emissions and climate change in their nepa

studies. what are your views on how this guideline will affect what epa is already doing to affect major impacts? specifically, how will epa measure climates from nepa stemming from natural gas pipe pipelines? >> i think it provides us an opportunity to be clear that nepa is a flexible tool, and that greenhouse gases should be looked at when it's appropriate to do so and when the impacts are significant enough to warrant it and it provides us good guidance moving forward so everybody will know the data that's necessary to move these projects forward. >> ms. chairman, i have one more question. i just will submit it on the superfund budgets for this year. we have some superfund sites in my area and the budget cuts may impact us being able to clean those up but i thank you for your time. >> thank you. at this time recognizing the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> welcome, ms. mccarthy. >> good to see you as well.

>> as you know, your epa is taking comments on mass new standard for ozone, otherwise known as smog. >> uh-huh. >> in houston, we've been fighting this issue for decades. we've made huge strides in cleaning up our air. but the proposal eps leased will land like a ton of bricks, a ton of foreign smog, on most of the country. can i have a slide, please the first slide? if you can't read the slides, i'll give you a hard copy. come up here if you can't read the slides. this first slide is your estimate of things that will violate the proposals you have out there. any shade of blue is bad. blue counties will have a hard time getting permits for new factories or energy exploration,

even highway construction. the department of transportation predicting an infrastructure mess in your proposal. i'd like to introduce that for the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. i'd like to tackle this ozone issue with some questions that require yes or no answers. next slide please. this slide is from page 209 of your regulatory impact analysis. you can't see that,-- if you can't see that, ma'am, i have something for you. >> i am having a hard time reading it. and i can't say i recognize it specifically on that exact page. >> 209. yes or no? does this slide show that half

the technology needed to meet the 65 park standard doesn't yet exist in the eastern part of america? yes or no? >> i'm sorry i don't understand the question. >> the question ma'am is if we go to 65 parts per billion you can't achieve that with current technology. doesn't that slide show this? look at that slide. >> actually, this slide doesn't indicate -- the numbers we look at on ozone are based from 2014 to 2016. that's how this rule would work -- >> i'm sorry, ma'am the question is yes or no. >> i can't answer it the way you phrased it sir, but i do know with the national rules we're doing and the reductions we're achieving in knox and vocs, almost all counties will achieve an ozone standard at 70 with the exception of about nine. the state of california will continue to be challenged -- >> i'm sorry, ma'am. i have to move on here. next slide, please. another major issue is background ozone.

>> yes. smog occurrences can be natural like forest fires, but they can be foreign too, like from crop burning annually. i show you the slide of chinese smog pouring into our country. i want to focus on another slide. next slide, please. this is your map. it shows how much ozone in our country comes from, quote unquote, background sources compared to american sources. anywhere from over 50 to 80% of ozone is outside of our control. you're asking us to do the impossible. control, but we can't control. look at that map. again, yes or no? am i correct that there are almost no parts of the country where americans are contributing

more than half the ozone? >> i don't know the answer to that question sir. >> okay. yes or no? am i correct that chinese emissions have increased in recent years gone up? >> that's true. that i am aware of. >> no states are being asked to reduce emissions that are background levels coming from another country, so we will be working -- >> high budget addresses foreign sources of ozone. can i get that from you sometime in the future? i have 40 seconds left. i want to talk about the impacts rule. the epa released mass resources of ozone from its calculations. yes or no. do you rely on this rule to make your efforts achievable? is that a weapon you have to make new standards viable? can that make new standards

viable, because right now they're not viable. >> i think you're referring to exceptional events which have been part of our program since day one, and we're trying to make sure states can easily access the ability to have events documented so they can make sure they don't interfere with the state's plans for implementing the rule. >> one final thing the chairman gave consent to release a document from the texas council of environmental equality that goes in great detail about the acception of this process. seven have not been answered. that's not viable to control ozone. in texas we are 0 for 10. >> without objection, at this time i recognize the gentleman from new jersey mr. pallone, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam administrator with just a small fraction of the epa budget, the epa tackles the task

of protecting communities across the country, ensuring clean air to breathe and safe water to drink. and they do this by partnering with states and localities providing federal funds for environmental protection at all levels. i just wanted to highlight a few of these important activities. first i want to discuss the work the epa does to protect land and communities. what might that funding be for minority communities and low-income communities living around superfund sites? are there other resources included in the budget for vulnerable and overburdened communities also beyond the superfund? >> yeah i think there are significant resources in this budget to help communities that have been underserved or have been left behind in some of our national efforts to reduce pollution. this will help us get at potentially another 25 sites moving forward to clean-ups that are going to be ready for the clean-up stage in the coming year, so it is an increase in our superfund budget that's going to be significant, and we

already know many of the communities surrounding superfund sites actually are low-income areas, the communities of color that deserve to have the same protections as everybody in this country enjoys. and that's what this is all about. >> i appreciate that. i think this funding is so important for health safety and the economies of these communities. and i would suggest to the chairman that the committee at some point hold a hearing on environmental justice to learn more about the risks that these communities face. another source of risk for people in these communities in all communities, are unsafe and untested chemicals in our products and our environmentnonmentenvironment, and that's why i believe strengthening tosca should be a priority. this budget includes risk assessment and management and computational toxicology. can you briefly describe how funding for computational toxicology and chemical risk assessment will protect human health and the environment?

>> yes i can. in fiscal year 2016, the epa is requesting an increase of 4.4 million for computational toxicology research. i think you know this is an important step forward because it really strengthens our ability to get more chemicals assessed in a quick way. it has the potential to significantly eliminate animal testing, which takes a very long time to actually reap the benefits we need to ensure we can do these chemical assessments quickly. it is a significant step forward and it is cutting edge science being done at epa. and it's a wonderful opportunity for us to address the cox isty tyoxicity in chemicals and make sure our public health is being protected. >> well, thank you, and again i would suggest to the chairman and the committee that there be a hearing on computational toxicology to better understand these techniques and their potential to change the debate on tosca reform. last, i just wanted to touch on

one of the greatest challenge of our time. the epa has provided tremendous leadership to understand and mitigate the effects of climate change and congress has not been a partner in those efforts. instead, congressional republicans have taken every opportunity to undermine them. ms. mccarthy we're hearing a lot about the ozone standards but both of these rules are in the proposal stage, and at every turn i hear about how you have an open door policy and a great listener. i also know that industry claims about costs and economic effects are frequently overstated and the benefits of acting are usually understated. i think we need to act on climate change and the clean power plant is a key part of that, but some just want to criticize. i just want to put you on the spot here and ask you if you're fully committed to developing a workable plan with states and industry that ensures reliability of the grid, and will you work with members on that and would you be willing to testify before the committee

about your plan? >> yes, i am, mr. chairman. >> all right. i appreciate that. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield that. >> the gentleman yields back. at this time it's the gentleman from pennsylvania mr. pitts, for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. madam administrator, when epa wrote the rules for rfs-2 in 2010, it acknowledged that the reasons for placing the compliance obligation on refiners who don't blend renewable fuel instead of on blenders who do was an outdated holdover from the 2007 rsf-1 rules. changing the definition of obligated party could help to advance the goals of the program and correct some of the problems we're seeing with the current program. epa did a significant amount of work on this issue in 2009 and 2010. my question is do you agree it would be timely and useful to include and accept public comment on a proposal to shift the compliance obligation as

part of the current 2014-2015-2016 rule makings? >> i do know that that is a comment that we received on the 2014 proposal we put out last year. it's my interest to make sure that we move forward with the 2014 rule as quickly as we can. i think it's important for the stability of the mobile fuel industry, but i'm sure we'll be looking at those comments seriously as we move forward. >> one of the comments of this program is it requires epa to make predictions each year on two highly uncertain things. first, how much transportation and fuel will be consumed in the following year and second, how much renewable fuel will be used. when epa gets these predictions wrong, as it did in 2013, the result is exhorbitant prices for economic hardships for merchant

refiners and windshield profits for blenders. they have told us that mandates will lead to higher gas prices at the pump. epa's decision to delay the 2014 rule until 2015 created unnecessary uncertainty for all stakeholders, but there may be a silver lining. for 2014 epa won't have to guess how much transportation or renewable fuel was used. the year will be over and epa can set the standard based on what actually happened. so my questions are, will epa set the 2014 mandates based on actual consumption of transportation and renewable fuels? >> actually, sir i'm not able to answer that question because we are not yet through an interagency review and able to release it finally. but we will be addressing that question clearly. i guess -- let me just say that

the courts have been very clear to us that we need to follow the direction of the eia in terms of our projections and we have been true to doing that. and we'll make sure that we continue to do that. and we'll also move forward with 2014 recognizing that it wasn't completed as a final rule in time to generate the incentive to go beyond what was already generated, and i recognize that. >> will epa combine the 2014-2015-2016 mandate? if so, do you believe epa has a statutory authority to do so? if you do i'd like to have you cite the authority. >> we do know the statute requires us to put out annual levels. but there is a great interest in making sure that we send signals to the market in a way that allows all of the participants to be prepared for the numbers that might come forward. >> earlier this year epa tied the 2013 compliance deadline to the issuance of the final 2014

rule. and this allowed obligated parties to make informed decisions about using 2013 rents for 2014 or 2015 compliance. the rationale for delaying the 2013 compliance deadline is equally applicable to 2014 and each year following. will epa tie the 2014 compliance deadline to the issuance of a final 2015 rule? and what about subsequent compliance deadlines? >> as you indicate congressman when we know this is an issue that's important we've addressed it before we'll continue to address that issue moving forward in our proposed rules. >> well, how will the compliance deadline be impacted if epa combines the 2014-2015 rules? >> those are issues we need to resolve if we intend to do that. i didn't indicate that. but certainly we know in a market as large as this and for

research and investment purposes it's difficult to always wait for an annual rule to come out and be finalized. and we want to make sure that we're providing as much signal as we can moving forward. >> thank you. my time has expired. >> this time we recognize the gentlelady from california ms. capps, for five minutes. >> thank you for recognizing me and before i begin it's always a pleasure to have former colleagues join us. we're pleased to have you with us today. administrator mccarthy thank you for your testimony and being here today. i want to address several topics mostly around climate change, the effects of which are far-reaching, interconnecting environment on our economy, and i'm pleased you made the epa such an important priority. i want to address the fact that there are both large-scale and smaller scale efforts in the community level, which are important in addressing a climate change.

in your fiscal year 2016 budget for epa, budget request you propose implementing a locally targeted effort with regional coordinators and the so-called circuit writers to ensure the communities have the resources. in other words, being there on the site to see. will you please briefly describe this proposal and how will it help our local communities? >> i will. this is an effort to try to work with communities and states, frankly, at the community level to look at climate resilience. we are learning a lot as we go across the country and talk about these issues, and we have identified having circuit writers which are trained individuals in this particular field and have them available to go out to communities moving forward that are considering issues that would have the wealth of tools at their fingertips that epa and others have provided. we think it's a real opportunity to stretch our resources and make them accessible to local

communities in a way that will be much more productive than we have before. and we're requesting resources to support that. >> thank you. epa's clean power plan is a recommendable effort to address both air quality and climate change, and you know there are numerous studies now through epa, but other sources too showing that the clean power plan will be able to significantly address public health through reducing carbon pollution and from the co-benefits of improved air quality. can you elaborate, give us a comparison here? what are the expected human health benefits from such a clean power plan? >> the human health benefits relate to a number of things. one is that we know that vectors of disease are changing in terms of their territories. we know that allergy seasons are getting larger we know that ozone is going to be a more difficult issue moving forward

as the weather gets warmer and there's moreau ozone being produced. all of these things directly relate to people's health. so climate change is a significant public health problem, it should not be looked at as simply a natural resource issue, and it also is clearly an economic challenge, particularly for those families that are struggling with their kids that have asthma. we have significant responsibility to protect those children and give them a future that we can be proud of. >> agreed. and now to address the concerns that many of my colleagues have raised regarding the costs of implementation and the costs of energy that they believe will affect lower and middle class families income families. we, of course want to keep energy affordable, so could you give us a comparison of the costs and benefits of the clean

power plan? >> in 2030 the benefits of the clean power plan will range anywhere from 55 to $93 billion in benefits compared to costs of 7.3 to 8.3 billion. it is a significant benefit. and the one thing i want to make clear of again is that i consider these to be investments in the future. i consider these to be investments in clean economy and job growth. >> once the investments are made they keep giving. >> they certainly do. >> they keep benefitting. one final question. these are important priorities, but also important is clean drinking water. and in a way it relates but there are so many challenges today to the availability of safe drinking water, and i think of the lack of it in california where drought is such a problem. how does this budget provide for the enhanced resiliency that our water infrastructure needs and for various needs across this

nation? again, highlighting the local communities. >> again we are working with local communities to help coordinate their response to climate change and we're also significantly boosting our contribution to drinking water srf funds. because we know it's not just about thinking of these things, it's about actually supporting it, bringing dollars to the table. and we're really excited about the new finance center as well and our ability to bring private dollars to the table. this is an economic challenge that isn't just the responsibility of the federal or local or state governments. this is a responsibility of the business community as well. >> ladies, time has expired. >> sorry. thank you. >> it's all right. i also want to welcome our former colleague kenny holchof. i might say since he's left i don't think the republicans have won one baseball game, but we're delighted he's back today. this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania,

mr. murphy for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. welcome here ma'am. >> thank you. >> when epa came out with their rule on new source performance standards, you cited a number of examples to show the epa standards are feasible. i want to run over some of these examples and may you just respond with a yes or no if you're aware of them. yes or no, are you aware that the partially funded kemper project is $3 billion over budget? >> i am aware it is over budget yes. >> and you're aware that the future project in illinois was discontinued? >> i am aware of that. >> and you're aware that the texas clean energy project hasn't broken ground yet? >> i'm not exactly up to speed on that one. >> but something that was cited in your report. you're aware that the highway energy california project doesn't use coal but actually uses petroleum? are you aware of that? >> no, sir.

>> are you aware the epa cited for using electric for coal fired plants in canada is not a new plant at all but actually a retrofit? are you aware of that? >> i am aware it's a good example of one that's up and operating pretty effectively. >> it's a retrofit and it's not the united states. and the kennedy center which supports the cca mandates issued a report today saying the project was twice as expensive which will make it significantly more expensive for families and may jeopardize the owners' viability to even complete it. have you seen that? >> i'm not aware of it, sir. >> in this 2015 policy act behind me demonstrates that it has to be actively demonstrated. you have to use the effective

emissions reduction and receive assistance. one hasn't been completed, one hasn't been started, one is discontinued, one isn't even in this country, and none of them are large scale. one, for example only captures 13% of the carbon. so my concern is, and you've said you want to stay true to the rule and the courts et cetera, but i'm not sure that epa is actually following the law on this, and so i want to know, are you reviewing anything to withdraw the rule and start over so you can really adhere to projects which are viable and can work us toward this goal? >> i think the projects you identified are a number of projects that have been moving forward, and we can talk about each one that i'm familiar with which are most. but the record that epa produced in our proposed rule went well beyond data from those facilities. we feel very confident that this

technology is available. we feel very confident that the use of ccs technology at the levels that we're proposing it will be a viable option for coal to continue to be part of the future of this and other countries and that we are supporting investment in ccs through our department of energy -- >> mr. griffith could you slide -- this is where you refer to this investment opportunity. i'm not sure what does investment opportunity translate to? states putting money into it? >> mainly our pollutants are captured by end of pipe pollution controls which are often direct costs for facilities. we have designed our clean power plan in a way that allows you to invest in renewable energy invest in energy efficiency, make decisions at the state level that are consistent with your energy economy -- >> the cap word is you invest, but we want to make sure these things are viable, that people can actually do them.

what you're citing here are what people saying are either going to bankrupt the company or are stopped, so i'm not sure when you say investment opportunity. when it's somebody else's money, it's a problem. >> there is no other investment in new coal other than investing -- >> but you have to invest in things so they work. are you aware in 2013, the national technology labs alerted the epa in writing that your estimates are outdated? nettle commented, we believe the epa costs are not adequately represented. they found the cca would cost an average of $170 per megawatt and at the high end, $213 per megawatt. that's about 60% higher than the cost the epa put out there. so i'm wondering why you are ignoring what this other federal agency out there is saying would be facts out there that you should be paying attention to? >> sir, you're citing a document

that was prior to our putting out the proposal. we work very closely with nettle back and forth on how we would best represent the costs associated with these technologies, and i believe we included our best judgment in our technology folks are very good, and we align very well with d.o.e and put the best proposal forward. we're looking at all those comments. you're citing a proposal not a final, and we'll certainly take consideration of all those issues as we move ahead. >> i hope you'll pay attention to the law that has to be adequately dmon stlatd.emonstrateddemonstrated. >> your time has expired. i'll see ms. castro for five minutes. >> administrator mccarthy, thank you for joining us today and thank you for your important work in protecting america's public health and our natural environment. america's families and businesses continue to save money at the gas pump in part

because of the improvement in vehicles, in the fuel economy and the vehicles that we drive. i found this good infragraphic from energy.gov that provides a historic look at the standards, because they're set periodically to ensure that vehicles are keeping up with the times and this is a nice little snapshot that says, "1978 the standard was 18 miles per gallon." boy, that seems outdated now. 1985 27.5 miles per gallon. then 2011 up to 30.2 miles per gallon, and 2016, 35.5 miles per gallon. now, i really appreciate that the administration has continued to push here because what we've seen is revolutionary in the types of vehicles that are available to consumers right now. so you have the benefits that when you get better gas mileage, you're reducing carbon pollution, the transportation

sector is almost 50% of carbon pollution. cars -- you're putting money right back into the pockets of american families because they're getting more miles per gallon, and then it's reducing fuel costs for businesses. do you have any recent hard data on the savings for american families and businesses? and then i want to talk about what the future goals are. >> well, we certainly can talk about what the projections are relative to the rules that we have done in the first term of this administration. but i think the proof in the pudding, if you will, is that you can't see a car commercial where they don't talk about energy efficiency. because the car companies now know that everyone wants fuel-efficient vehicles, and that we have designed our rules that allow even suvs to become more fuel efficient and remain part of the fleet if people need the sort of characteristics that those vehicles provide.

so we know that people are already going further on a dollar driving their vehicles and we know that by the end of 2025, we will have doubled the ability to actually make that dollar go far, to provide essential services to our families. >> because the goal for 2025 is 54.5, and i know the administration has set the first ever fuel economy standards for medium and heavy trucks. just last week the president called on epa to develop and finalize the next phase of these standards, building on the success of the initial fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles. what are the expected benefits of the new standards? what cost savings will consumers see? >> on the heavy-duty vehicles, we put forth a first phase, if you will recognizing there was a lot of ongoing work to make our heavy-duty vehicles more efficient. i think it might surprise people

to know that the long-term truckers get about 6 miles per gallon. so they are dying for more efficiency in the system as well. i do not have those exact figures yet but we know we can make a significant leap forward, but we're working with the industry now to put together a proposal that recognizes that the challenge in this industry is to try to take advantage of the new technologies that are available that can increase fuel efficiency, but we also recognize that there are commercial businesses that need to remain viable and affordable, and we're trying to make sure that we recognize that balance as we work with d.o.t. to put these rules forward. >> thank you very much. i have another quick question on your new proposed incentive fund under the clean power plan. you know coming from the state of florida the cost of the changing climate are kind of scary as we look out in future decades. and i wanted to ask you

particularly about water infrastructure and wastewater infrastructure, because think of all the coastal areas and local governments in florida. they are looking at having to do very significant retrofits. i'm not sure that your new incentive fund would allow us to go to that pot of money for those kind of water infrastructure, wastewater infrastructure updates and retrofits. is that a possibility or do we need to look at the more traditional revolving loan programs? >> there are actually climate resiliency funds set aside in part of the budget. the incentive fund i was referring to was to try to make it attractive and encourage states to go further or faster than the rules require because we still want to make sure that they're reasonable for everybody, but some states are prepared and ready to move forward faster, and we want to make sure those states are

rewarded for that. >> would that include things like smartmeters? my state has been very slow in trying to empower the consumers to control their thermostat and things like that. >> we haven't yet defined fully because we want to make sure we work with states about what the best way to do it is but what you have to articulate is that's an opportunity to reduce demand, not for electricity or in other words, get more efficient which that clearly withould. but there's lots of flexibility to use it for direct infrastructure improvements as well. it all has to be tied back to that carbon solution standard. >> ladies your time has expired. i recognize the gentleman from ohio for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. madam administrator, thank you for being with us today. i'm going to kind of go back to our former chair man emeritus dingle.

i think you've been here when he's asked the yes or no question. >> i've tried. >> under the proposed clean power plan if a state does not file a sip, does the epa claim authority to regulate the following under a fip. the first question is does the epa mandate that coal-fired generators run less and that existing gas generators run more? and that's under building block 2. >> i'm sorry, i certainly can answer those after giving that some thought, but it's hard to do aier yes or no answer to that question. >> do fossil fuel generators run less and manmade generators run more? >> how they choose to address

that -- >> would that be a yes to the question? >> we have the authority to sat standard. -- set a standard. the facility itself decides how to meet that standard. >> let me ask finally, then, sdt does the epa conduct using less electricity? >> we certainly do not set the behavior of the public sector. >> going back to the first one, mr. chairman ms. chairman, if we could get that in writing. and approximately 70% of the electricity in general in my home state of ohio, under the clean power plan will the epa grant a waiver or exception if there is a high cost to the issue that will happen? >> epa does not propose to have an impact on reliability but as we've done in the past, we will

ensure that the tools are available to us should anything arise. >> so that would be a yes, that there would be waivers or exceptions granted? >> we would be able to work with them regardless of whether it's a waiver. >> the tools are especially important to my state because of the high uses of coal that there would be the waivers necessary, so if you could get back to us on that. existing ozone standards were issued in 2008 but are just now being implemented by states as guidance was just administered last week. i have a fear you'll propose stricter standards before the current rule is even implemented. and again, am i correct that states have not fully complied with those standards from 2008? >> that is correct. there is quite a long horizon for states to be able to work on these issues. >> what percentage or how many states would have complied by now? >> i'm sorry, sir, i don't have that at my fingertips, but

states go through a designation process, which we have done. there is an i ammplementation rule put out as well. so we'll be working on that, and it does not conflict to continue to keep looking as the standard requires, the standard itself and whether it's sufficiently protected. >> if you could get back to the committee. specifically what states have not complied and which states have would be very useful to the committee. epa has also stated they do not know the cost or reached the current standards and will not know until the state's claimed airplanes are submitted in 2016. the question is, how can we have any confidence in the agency or estimates of the cost to implement new proposed standards. >> we actually do estimate the costs associated with strategies where we can't particularly identify it but we do work very closely with our economists to make a good faith effort. but again what we're doing here

is illustrating what states might do but the rule itself, the rule that we're doing to set a standard, is only about what we believe is necessary to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. >> and finally, i'd like to say back to the clean power plan. assistant administrator mccabe has stated that transmission and distribution efficiency are other opportunities to reduce co2 emissions beyond the building blocks. does the epa claim authority to require owners of distribution facilities to increase their operating efficiency, and if so, by what authority? >> no i think that assistant administrator mccabe was mentioning the fact that we provided flexibility in the clean power plan so that even if it's not the building blocks that are achieving the reductions in which those are setting the standard, there are many ways in which states can achieve those standard outside the boundaries of those building blocks, and we're encouraging

that flexibility to be considered. we are not encouraging any state to do anything that they don't consider that's right and cost-effective and reasonable for them to do. there's just lots of choices and it's maximum flexibility on what states want to do. >> thank you. and mr. chairman, my time has expired and i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. this time is the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmouth, for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. welcome, administrator mccarthy. i want to ask you about mining which is a process that poses very serious risks to the health and welfare of appalachian communities. i was pleased to note in your epa budget justification you mentioned two recent court victories concerning mt. topi mining, but there's still a lot to be done. what resources will be available under this budget to help communities endangered by mountain top removal mining? >> i'm sorry, i don't have it broken down that way but i'm

happy to take a look at this for you and work with your staff on getting more efficient numbers. but it is an issue and a concern, and we're working through these issues. >> earlier today, chairman whitfield mentioned the cap and trade bill, mr. markey who indicates being rejected by the congress. in fact, it did receive a majority of votes in the house and senate. it was only killed because of republicans in the senate who filibustered that bill. is it fair to say that if markey had not been interrupted by the senate, we would not be impacted by clean air rules right now? >> in some situations, that would be the case but i don't know that, sir, because the clean air act is really our responsibility to implement. it might have impacted the choice considerably and the requirements to move forward. >> i want to talk a little more about the clean power plan and

kentucky, my home state and the home state of the chairman. i was really pleased to see the chairman of the environment in kentucky praising your work the agency's work, in reaching out to the states on the clean power plan. he said, i'm from kentucky and i'm not a climate science denyer, but what epa has done with that region leading up to the proposed legislation the outreach they've done, i think, is incredible. he talked about your open door policy. he said, you could call them talk to them meet with them and we did take advantage. he went on to say we've already started the process of determining what a compliance plan would look like. i truly appreciate the efforts that epa has made to kentucky and other states, and obviously states face very different challenges in cutting carbon pollution. we in kentucky are increasing our use of cleaner and less expensive fuel such as natural gas, but we still generate most

of our power from coal. i know that epa recognizes this is not a one size fits all solution. can you discuss how the funding in your 2016 budget request will be used to assist states with implementing the clean power plan? >> sure. we have actually a $25 million request in our budget to work directly with the states on the implementation of this rule, and we have an overall request too ensure that we have the staff available to be able to work with the states and to take a look at the plans to make sure there is no delay in moving these plans forward. can i just say len peterson is a very reliable man. we look at environmental issues together, and i think it provides an advantage for the state to see that these plans can be done and actually will provide benefits to the state in terms of the utilization of energy supplies that are both

effective for reliable and cost-effective supply, but also can be designed to be effective in reducing pollution that impacts their health. >> so you obviously think that states like kentucky which are coal-dominated, can benefit from the funds that would be appropriate under this budget? >> they absolutely can, as well as the incentive fund that the president has proposed in this budget, which is $4 billion. and i think that we have designed this in a way to recognize that kentucky doesn't and shouldn't have the same standard that other states that aren't so heavily reliant on coal have. so we've designed it in a way that we think is achievable from the get-go but also was flexible enough to allow folks like len peters to get his arms around it and make it work. >> i appreciate the flexibility the epa has shown and the cooperation you've exhibited with kentucky and other states. i appreciate that very much. i yield back. >> this time it's the gentleman

from west virginia mr. mckinley, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, administrator mccarthy, for appearing before us. let me start way question perhaps directly. is has the epa ever made a mistake? >> i'm quite sure. >> do you think any of those mistakes have led to a job loss? >> i can't answer that question. we certainly do our best not to make mistakes in the first place, and in the data that we see shows that job loss is not a consequence of environmental rules. >> i want to make sure that you understand and the public understands, i don't think there is a will in congress to do away with epa. >> that's good to know. thank you. >> i don't think there is the will to do that. i think that many of us here recognize that the epa has

helped lead the way for clean air and clean water. but there is reaching a point someplace in this balance that we just want the epa to be more responsible and be more receptive to the impact your decisions are having on families. i think you're missing the point. two examples of that is the timing of your additional regulations, and second, the use of improper or flawed models that you're using. let me just touch on the timing issue. there is an adage that we use often, all of us have used in raising families is just because you can doesn't mean you should. and we know the epa has the ultimate power to issue any regulation, and you well know that congress doesn't quite have -- we don't have the votes here to be able to overturn

that. so whatever you're issuing, it's becoming the law of the land with your regulations. so there is a time and place for everything, and i'm just concerned concerned that maybe the epa has gotten a little bit more aggressive than they should be with it. i come from west virginia and that is part of rural america. wall street may be having great success, but rural america, main street, is still struggling and yet i keep seeing the epa putting another regulation on top of another regulation and the ozone, they barely achieved the first standard and they want to increase that standard again. i think what it's led by these overregulation in rural america, it's led to people -- their well-being their mental health, is all being affected by it. i think we're having some depression in areas around the country because of the threats

of the regulations, what it's doing to jobs. i think we're seeing more and more people working part-time. they're underemployed. i could go on and on and on. i really believe it's directly attributed to the regulatory body with it. i think all of us know a mill drid schmidt. she probably lives right next door to you. she lives next door to me. hill dread schmidt sits at her kitchen table. she wants clean air and clean water but her first and foremost request, i want a job for my son. i can't find a job because either the coal mines are pulled back or the steel companies or chemical -- something is shut down as a result of overregulation. and i'm struggling with that and i struggled with the second about your poor modeling. that i have heard the talk about it. here was the poor modeling is with the heavy trucks. back in 2010 you said there was going to be about $3,400.

but we're seeing three times that cost is what it is going to affect with it. we see the mercury and air toxic standards that your prediction said that there would only be 10 gigawatts of power shut down. but the department of energy and others say it could be six or ten times that amount is going to be shut down. but yet you continue to issue more regulations. even though the model is saying it doesn't work with it. you've had a model that talked about how co2 impacts the temperatures around the globe. we know from the standard that that does not work. so let me just close in the time i have with this, that there's a george mason university report, and they say regulations can affect job creation, wage growth, and the workforce skill mismatches can result in lower labor workforce

participation and higher unemployment rate in the long run. and so i am torn over the disconnect about how you continue to say that the epa is helping the economy when others are saying absolutely the opposite. we didn't come here to congress -- we didn't come here to congress to be bullied by radical environmentalist policies. you know, we came here i think to serve our nation. but we want to preserve our economy. and the regulatory environment that we are facing is very destructive. i hope you'll take that into organization. >> the gentleman's time has expired. at this time i recognize the gentleman from iowa for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. great to see you as always madam administrator. i do want to take this opportunity to invite you to the iowa state fair this summer if you can make it. >> terrific.

>> it would be wonderful for you to be there. i know there's a lot of folks not just in the ag sector but others who would love to see you there. i've been going back and forth between this and another subcommittee so the rfs probably did come up already and i hope i'm not repeating what was already asked and ask you to repeat what you've already said. but as you know, that's a really big issue in my state. we've talked about this in meetings till both of us were blue in our face, probably. especially just trying to figure out what we're going to be doing going forward. as you know, epa is required by law to set mandated levels for 2008 through 2022 for the different types of renewable fuels, blended into gasoline and diesel and had a big issue over 2014 and now i'm kind of a paint, a lot of folks are concerned about this we're reading different things in the media, there were some articles just yesterday or the day

before, that, and i don't know where they got there are their information, said the 2014 levels are going to be set retro actively based on what actually happened in 2014. and then '15 and '16 are yet to be determined. so can you give us some clarity as to where we are with respect to the rfs. i know there are others up here who want to know about this who may not agree with me necessarily. i'm not going to point out anyone in particular but we have our differences up on this panel about this as well. >> well, we're doing our best to take a look at how we can move forward with 2015, and you're right, we also are looking at how we can best send a longer-term market signal. because the biggest problem we had with not putting out the rule in 2014 was that we didn't have an opportunity to send that research signal. and i think that investments continued investments in the sector are going to be essential. we will get this rule done. we're also looking at what we

can do in the following years. we're already late in proposing 2015. we have to play some catch-up here, and do it in a way that sends a signal that we recognize the statutory levels that congress has set and we need a trajectory to move forward here. and i think we had problems in 2014 that we've all learned from, and we will not repeat those problems again. and we'll work with you. and i know how important it is to your state. i sat down with governor branson on friday who reminded me, again -- >> i'm sure he did. >> we'll work through these issues. because i know that there are challenges here that are difficult for all of us. >> you know, there's really the uncertainty attached to all this. we're not just talking about ethanol, obviously. that's the big one that folks talk about all the time. and it's not just that it's biodiesel, it's second generation ethanol, cellulostics. it's a lot of different things that we're talking about here and it does get complicated. there's no question.

but it's just so important, you know, for folks to have some kind of certainty down the road so they know what it's going to be so they can plan, you know, for their investments. and we've got a lot of folks, a lot of great people in iowa and beyond who are involved in this industry who are planning in spite of the uncertainty, and they're doing the best they can. biodiesel folks, that's a tough issue for them, as you might imagine, too. and there we get into the credit, as well as the rfs. but those are just really tough issues, and i'm just here to advocate, obviously, and push you as hard as i can to get this rule done and make sure that we have some kind of certainty for those folks. >> thank you. >> the second issue and thank you for your response, the second issue is the clean power plant and requires power plants reduce emissions by 25% by 2030 and iowa has already made some great strides. taking advantage of alternative energy. one of my colleagues the other day asked me well iowa, you get about 25% of your electricity from wind. i said, 27.3% as a matter of

fact. and i have a lot of wind-generating industries in my congressional district. and so iowa has gone really far in fact not only are we showing others how it's to be done, but we have cut emissions and we need to achieve 16% to meet the power plant's goal. the question is, is epa willing to work with individual states? are you willing to take into account as we go forward what individual states have done and how is that going to play out if that's the case? >> we will work with both individual states in terms of the analysis we've done in the state by state basis. we've also been challenged to look at the framework and whether or not we got it quite right. we're looking at both of those issues as you probably know we received a lot of comments on this. but we are going to take our responsibilities seriously both to look at the individual state name wores and the framework itself. >> there are a lot of folks out there doing good things. best practices. there's no question about that. i'm very proud of what we have

done in iowa as you imagine. >> i am amazed at the wind generation in iowa. it's quite a success story. >> thank you madam administrator. >> recognize the gentleman from illinois for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. hey, everybody, thank you for being out here. thanks for your service. thanks for taking the time with us today. you know, nuclear power plants throughout the country provide safe zero carbon emission. the power is amazingly reliable source of power. capacity factors running well into 90th percentile worldwide. unfortunately we've seen over 4,000 mega watts of nuclear generation retired with an additional 10,000 mega watts nationwide being targeted. i understand that there's a number of factors influencing this portion of the energy industry but what i don't understand is the initial emissions rate and goals set out by your administration through the clean power plan. for some reason only 6% of the states existing nuclear fleet is able to be utilized. and that leaves states with no

reason to work towards clean nuclear generation in order to comply with your order. i know that this was touched on a little earlier by my colleague from illinois but is the epa going to review and modify the treatment of nuclear in the final rule? >> we certainly have received a lot of comments, and we did tee up a proposal. i would characterize it a little differently than you may have. but it was an attempt to recognize that we realize nuclear base load that's operating today is a significant source of electricity that is zero carbon. we wanted to point that out to states. we've received a lot of comment on that. we'll be taking a very close look at this issue. >> okay. >> and i do know how important it is for your state. >> okay. do you have any idea why only 6% was included? >> that was an attempt to recognize that there are a number of vulnerable base loads that have not yet committed to permit renewal that would ensure that they remain a significant part of the base load capacity. and that was an attempt to try

to capture that, to indicate that we're building those into the standard setting process because we believe that they may be at risk but they should be staying in, all things being equal, because we're providing an incentive for a low-carbon future with this rule. people did not appreciate the way we handled it many of them. so we're relooking at it on the basis of the comments that came in. but it really was an attempt to recognize the value of nuclear in the current base load, and the danger of not recognizing that right now they are competitively challenged, but there is a need to look at that, if you really want to make sure that we are providing an opportunity for a transition to a low carbon future that is reliable and affordable. >> especially if you want to see the price of energy skyrocket. start watching nuclear power plants shut down. i appreciate that. also a couple quick ones. epa's budget documents state that the clean power plan will be implemented throughout state compliance plans that are submitted to the epa for review

and approval with initial submittals beginning in 2016. does the epa plan to require initial state plans in 2016? >> for many. we've also provided opportunities for longer periods of time if states are looking at doing things that require legislative approval like interstate agreements. we are trying to be flexible and we certainly need a signal in 2016 that the states are making a commitment to a path moving forward. and we've tried to define what that would look like in the plan itself. >> so under the unfunded mandates reform act you're required to estimate the burden on states to develop that plan. do you guys -- do you have an estimate of how much it will cost states to develop these plans? and can you supply those estimates? >> we actually have asked in this budget proposal for $25 million to support that activity to states. which is hopefully going to send a signal that if we want to get this done we need to work together and we also need to

support the efforts of the states in moving this forward. but states are pretty familiar with this type of a planning process, and i'm just hoping that the -- that congress will support that extra $25 million. but we certainly give support to the states for these types of efforts, and are hoping to expand that. >> so the $25 million will that go directly to states? >> yes, it would. in our state grants. >> so your estimate then that it's $25 million to develop state plans or is that just a piece of what you hopefully will determine is the overall cost? >> well we think that will provide them an opportunity to do this without weakening their ability to continue to do work in other air -- air challenges. >> okay. and if you get estimates you may be highlighting some there but if you get estimates if you could communicate that with our office that would be great. >> i would also point out the budget includes $10 million for us to support tools that the states would readily be able to use in their plan development.

we're doing the best we can to make sure they have both the flexibility and the resources to get this done. >> and you'll, with all the comments you're getting on this you know put that in especially made changes put that in to updating the estimates and whatnot, i would assume? >> yes. >> thank you. >> chairman, thank you so much i child back. >> thank you. at this time recognize the gentleman from oregon for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here madam administrator. >> great to be here, thank you. >> i'd like to talk a little bit about super fund site administration and funding. as you may or may not know, portland, portland harbor is designated a super fund site as of 2000. it's a little bit unusual, in that both the business community people that may have contributed to some of the problems there, as well as others in the community have stepped up a collaborative effort to try to deal with this. it's been almost 16 years now. we've gone through ten different administrators the goalposts have changed depending on which

administrator in our region comes in. the staff, there's been a tremendous turnover in staff and it's been difficult to deal with these moving goalposts. we now have somewhat unrealistic standards regarding fish consumption, which seems to be the indicator species. that you know we're trying to grapple with. trying to work with the agency on. but it's difficult, you know, as a scientist, veterinarian i look at these things through a scientific prism and i want to have the standards based on good science. even beyond that it would appear the current regional administration has their own mindset about what's going to be done regardless of what's being talked about by the collaborative partners in the region and we are having trouble getting this decision and i think it was the middle of 2013. there was a promise of additional help from folks here in d.c. to maybe move things along at an accelerated pace. and again in january, there was a discussion with our own

department of environmental quality working with folks in d.c. to help augment region 10's ability to get the job done. so i guess basic questions here, the decision was supposed to be coming here in 2016. we have heard it's going to be put off until 2017. we've been hearing this for a lot of years madam administrator, and the uncertainty creates big problems for economic development in our region. we are trying to get people back to work and trying to do the right thing for the environment. the sooner we can get this decision done the sooner we can decide whether or not it's economically feasible to work on the portland harbor. i would like to thank both of them are not mutually exclusive but what we're hearing from region 10 it would seem it is mutually exclusive going to the highest cost of alternative terms of remaid yags. is 2017 the best case scenario and can we hold with all due respect the agency's feet to the fire and get a record decision by 2016?

>> i know that portland harbor was an issue that came up during my confirmation process and the interests of this. and dense us mcdonough who is our regional administrator is actively involved in this issue in a way that tries to make sure that it's moving forward. and so i know that we're putting the resources to this. and we'll continue with this discussion. i think we have turned a better corner. i know we are not only looking at making sure we get the cleanup correct -- did i say done us mcdonough. he didn't take on added responsibility since my appointment. dennis mcclaren, i apologize. we have -- are looking at ways that while we may need more time to explore the final cleanup, the record of decision on this, that we will have sites ready and moving forward regardless of when that decision gets made. so we will get that decision made as quickly as possible, but

we are also getting all the preliminary steps ready so that we can continue to move forward, and not sequentially think about these issues. i think we are working really hard with oregon to make sure that that's the case so that we don't lose any time in this process. >> with all due respect we've lost a lot of time. i'm not convinced the current region 10 administrator shares your enthusiasm for getting this thing done in a timely manner. ed biggest concern i have is here you have a collaborative partnership willing to step up and yet they're getting what i would perceive beaten up on a regular basis with unrealistic requirements and expectation. here's a group that could be a shining example of how the process could actually work and your continued attention i appreciate. >> you will have it, thank you. >> another issue in my state of course is wood products. we're a big or well we'd like to be a big wood producing state. that doesn't seem to be possible anymore. that's another topic for discussion. but for the wood that does come out there's a wood composite industry that's pretty viable.

like to be more viable. and they've been waiting for the formaldehyde standards for composite wood products. the rule was supposed to be done in 2013. it's now two years later. again economic uncertainty is the enemy of business. most businesses can adapt as long as they know what the rules of engagement are. can you tell me what the status of the regulation is when it's going to be finished, and is the president aware of the final signoff yet? >> i certainly am aware of the challenge that we've been facing in getting this rule finalized. particularly as it has to do with laminates and our ability to be able to address what is potentially a significant source of emissions. but do it in a way that's viable and effective for the industry moving forward. we are looking very hard at how we resolve that issue so this rule can come out. and i do know that we need the certainty that you're discussing. and i'll go back and see if we can continue to address this issue and get it out across the finish line. it's been since 2013 but this has not been without its challenges.

we keep trying to develop a testing method that will work and be cost-effective but it remains a challenge for us. we will see if we can get it moving. >> thank you. i work with the industry and i think they are on your team in terms of wanting to get this done so thank you very much and i yield back. >> they have. >> the gentleman yields back. at this time recognize the gentleman from v mr. griffith for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you ms. mccarthy for being here today. today is toward february 25, 2015 and earlier you told chairman whitfield that you were confident of going forward with the clean power plan under 111-d, and i'm just wondering, your document, your budget document also states clean power plan is president obama's top priority for the epa and central element of the u.s. domestic climate mitigation agenda. has there, yes or no has there ever been a time since it was announced by the president in june of 2014 that the epa has considered not finalizing this rule? yes or no. >> no. >> has there have been a time

since it was announced by the president in june of 2014 that you have considered as the administrator of the epa have considered not finalizing this rule? >> no sir. >> so then in the case of murray energy versus epa and regina mccarthy, when your lawyer said that the epa may not adopt the proposal related to final action in the proposed section 111-d related to the clean power plan, your lawyers did not tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the court, isn't that accurate, yes or no? >> sir the proposal as proposed may not be what we move forward with, but there has never been an indication to me in comments that were received -- >> okay. but they say they may not move forward. that wouldn't be a complete statement of accuracy since june 2014 and today you're very confident you're moving forward. you're moving forward. that was the whole argument of the case. >> many things can happen. you asked about my confidence level and i'm confident that we can get this done.

>> all right. well let me move on then. because it's interesting that your lawyers have taken several positions on this, in the case of new jersey versus epa, excuse me 517-f 3 d 5742008 in regard to 111-d the epa promulgated camera regulations for existing electric generation units under section 111-d but, and i'm quitting now from the opinion, but under epa's own interpretation of the section it cannot be used to regulate sources listed under 112. epa thus concedes that the electric generation units remain listed under section 112, as we hold then the camera regulations for existing sources must fall, i would submit to you that the same is going there your lawyers have already conceded you don't have the authority to regulate under both 112 and 111-d and yet you say you're confident in moving forward. >> i don't agree -- >> let me read you the language of the actual code.

111-d 1 the administrator shall previbe regulations which would establish a procedure similar to that of sections 110 under which each state shall submit to the administrator a plan which "a" establishes standards of performance for any existing source for any air pollutant for one, for which air quality criteria have not been issued or which is not included on a list published under section 108-a or relevant section emitted from a source category which is regulated under section 112. so it would seem from the language, from prior court cases where the epa conceded the point, that there is not legal authority to move forward and i would have to submit and i know that you're not an attorney by training, but i would have to submit to you as an attorney by training, that if you are confident of going forward under 111-d and being upheld in the courts your confidence is misplaced and your lawyers are not telling you the truth the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. let me switch to another

subject. your budget question to implement the clean power plan because you all have indicated you need some expertise. i assume however, that you do work well with the safety of the department of energy. is that true yes or no? >> yes. >> i apologize. and so then i have to ask why are we going to spend tens of millions of dollars of the taxpayers to give you all new employees for evaluating and capturing these compliance strategies requires the agency to tap into technical and policy expertise not traditionally needed in the epa, for example nuclear, wind, solar, hydroelectric, et cetera. when the d.o.e. already possesses this expertise? why not work with them. i would submit that's what you ought to do and that would save the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. do you agree with me if we can use the d.o.e. as experts instead of having the epa open up a whole new branch that would be better for the taxpayers of the united states of america yes or no?

and i only have a couple seconds. >> i do not agree that there isn't a need for expertise at the epa. >> i think you all can smarp but we disagree on that. do you agree that health of people and employment are connected with each other that people who are employed generally have a better health standard that the employed sometimes don't enjoy you would agree with that i would think? and i would have to say to you that one of the concerns i have with you've heard about the wave after wave of regulation from mr. mckinley and how that's hurting employment. i picked up the unemployment statistics in some of my cocounties and buchanan county at the height of the recession had an 8.9 annual unemployment rate in '09. 8.9. in '13 at the end of '13 it's 9.8. because of regulations that are putting hundreds and thousands of coal miners and related industries, their jobs are gron. this is not even counting the folks who just have gone ahead and decided to retire or shut down their businesses and are no

longer looking for employment. that was buchanan county. dickinson county height of the recession 2009 annual number 9.0. today or 2013, 10.0. our economy is getting worse because of policies coming from your agency and i apologize i can't let you finish or answer that because i have to yield back. thank you, mr. chair. >> gentleman yields back. at this time recognize the gentleman from maryland mr. sarbanes for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you administrator mccarthy for being here. just on the last exchange i fear that your legal justification for the department's regulations of impugned. i have confidence, i want you to know, that there's a strong legal basis for the regulations, and the position that you're taking. and i want to thank you, generally, i want to thank you the epa, and i want to thank the obama administration, for picking up the slack on the issue of climate change and addressing the ravages of climate change. unfortunately despite the

efforts of many of us here to try to move forward with the statutory response to this issue, it hasn't happened. congress has not done the job that it should do. the epa again i think with sound legal authority has really taken a leadership role and i also want to salute your agency and the administration generally for the climate action plan which addresses climate change, the clean power plan, for these historic international agreements which are being undertaken which finally gets us in a position of momentum in terms of addressing the issue of climate change. in doing that you are reflecting where the public is increasingly increasingly. there is polling that indicates 70% of americans favor stronger limits on the amount of carbon that's emitted by power plants.

because they understand the health consequences of that and they understand the impact on climate change. over 80% of americans think that the united states should take action to address climate disruption based on a poll in 2013. this is becoming an emerging consensus on the part of the public. i think they are appreciative of the efforts that you and your agency and administration are taking to address this important concern. i understand the solutions are not simple. carbon emission reductions have to be rooted in science. aggressive goals must be set to avoid the harshest impacts of climate change. and reasonable intelligent folks can differ on how to deliver those results. we'll continue to have the discussion in this committee. but i think there's a false dichotomy that often gets put forward that somehow in addressing climate change we're

going to have to undermine our economy. i don't think that is a fair narrative. i think we need to look at the fact that investing in clean energy infrastructure can actually produce a terrific advances for our economy. we need to get on the cutting-edge of that because our peer nations around the world are beginning to make those investments. we can be in the position of being the leader which will actually help our economy but not if we are asleep at the switch. when we say why are we doing these things there is a lot of good answers, to protect the planet, to protect our health, the public health and to protect our national security and to protect our economy by getting on the front end of these emerging technologies. can you speak to what the clean power act plan, the clean power plan that you've put forward and the agency has put forward, what you see in terms of the

potential positive economic impact and job creation effect that that can have. because it's an important part of the dialogue. >> thank you for raising that. i know that we feel very strongly that the way in which we have proposed this rule to provide flexibility to use energy efficiency and renewable energy as part of not just our standard setting process but our compliance process allows tremendous flexibility. for states to take a look at where their energy universe is heading. where is the market? what is the transition we're seeing towards a clean energy future? regardless of this clean power plan. and how can we follow that? how can we allow every state to identify what is best for them in terms of job growth opportunities. ways to invest in their economy and grow jobs. and we believe that because of the flexibility we have provided, and because we know that the economy and the energy system is transitioning towards

a low carbon strategy, bases are transitioning already. government has to follow and recognize there are ways of addressing our climate challenge that can bring great economic benefit to this country and provide the spark and innovation that we need to retain international leadership. we see this as being a path to the future instead of continued investment in very old technologies that are not producing more jobs. that are not being invested in. the investment is in clean technologies. >> thank you very much and thank you for your outstanding testimony and your work. i yield back. >> at this time i recognize the gentleman from ohio mr. johnson for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and administrator mccarthy thank you for being here. i represent much of appalachia ohio. that's home to several coal mines, and coal fired power plants, and home to the hard-working, tax paying, men

and women who work in those facilities to provide for their families. these proud men and women produce the energy resources that are keeping the lights on and heating the homes of the majority of ohio homes during this very cold winter. so can you tell us why energy rich ohio was excluded from the hearings, the public hearings on epa's climate rules? >> as far as i know sir those hearings were strategically placed around the country to ensure that people could have access to attend those. they were very heavily -- >> yeah it's interesting that they were strategically placed in places where coal mining and coal operations don't exist. >> that's not correct. >> i have the list -- >> -- pittsburgh, pennsylvania is fifth -- >> how many coal mines are in pittsburgh? i can tell you how many coal mines are in eastern and southeastern ohio and there are a number of them.

we can fix this. i heard my colleague from iowa say that he invites you back to the iowa state fair. i'd like to invite you to come to ohio. sit down and talk, sit down and talk directly to the ohioans who work in those coal mines and in those power plants who are likely to lose their jobs, as a result of epa's actions. your actions, administrator mccarthy. you know they pay your salary. they pay my salary. so let me ask you will you meet with them? i'll arrange my schedule so that i can be there to be there with you, and we can have a dialogue with the people whose lives are being affected by the regulations coming out of your agency. >> we have been reaching out all across the country. >> i'm asking you will you come with me? because i'll help set it up. >> every state is asking me to come to their state. >> i'm asking you today. yes or no can i get with your team -- >> commitment to go to your state. >> i'm going to have my team reach out to your office and try to set up that meeting then because i'm going to take that as a yes.

is that what you just said? that you're willing to meet? >> no i'm always willing to talk to you sir, but -- >> i'm asking you will you come to ohio and meet with the men and women, reclaiming my time administrator mccarthy, it's a simple question. will you arrange your schedule to come and meet with the people that are being affected in ohio, by the actions of your administration? >> i'm happy to continue to talk to you, sir. if there is a stake holder that we've excluded from the process i will work hard -- >> will you come? you're not going to answer the question. so i'll move on. it's clear why you -- why you left those folks out. but i'll set up the meeting, and we'll reach out to your team and see if we can work that out. you know nuclear power is our only high capacity base load generation source that emits no carbon dioxide. and we've talked about that a little bit. but, we're in danger of losing some units in our existing fleet for a multiple of reasons. if any of them close overall carbon dioxide emissions increase.

that's a fact because even if intermittent renewable energy wind and solar were to be displaced or to displace the power it must be backed up by natural gas generation so therefore i'm concerned about how the rules treats our existing nuclear fleet. for example plants that choose to go through the rigorous rely sensing process will not be considered the same as new nuclear units for compliance, and it seems to me that they should be. so here are my questions. do you believe that the nrc will approve each and every nuclear re-licensing application it receives throughout the compliance period? and do you believe that every or even most operators will want to make the significant investment to pursue rely sensing, and before you answer that question, your new rule basically assumes a yes answer to both of those. >> i do not know of the success

of the nrc process in terms of re-licensing. i do know that we attempted to address nuclear energy and point out its value in current base load. and its value in a low carbon strategy in this rule making and we received a lot of comments -- >> but you've assumed that every nuclear re-licensing application is going to be approved. and you assumed that those nuclear facilities are going to actually go through that rigorous process, and investment to get there. and i'm going to tell you, i think that's a flaw in your rule making. and it's something that you folks ought to look very very closely at. and i apologize mr. chairman. but i've exhausted my time, as well and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. this time recognize the gentleman from indiana, for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for being here, we appreciate it. >> thank you. >> climate is changing it's

always been changing for centuries. we know that. i think reasonable people can continue to have a debate about the human impact on that. i think we can all agree that we should be working towards improving our emissions as we generate power. my position is that we should be68dt doing this their innovation and technology development and not through overreaching federal regulation. would you agree that in general a rule that is proposed on any subject really should be based on the availability of technology to comply with the rule or if the technology isn't available, would you agree that maybe that rule needs to be revisited? >> we certainly know that when we rely on technology as part of our standard setting process we have to do our due diligence on that technology. >> well that said, and i'm not going to repeat what one of my colleagues talked about on carbon capture, but the administration has taken a

position that no new coal plants should be built in the united states unless they're equipped with ccs technology, which were earlier pointed out but right now there's nothing that's demonstrable to be successful to accomplish that. and the one that you are quoting is not in the united states, and actually may very well not be financially successful. but you know right now are you aware that germany is building new coal plants without ccs as is other countries in europe and japan? does the epa object to that? >> well the epa certainly is looking to be able not just epa, but across the administration, to provide opportunities for continued advancement of the technology, and to ensure that coal gets cleaner over time so it's part of the clean energy future. >> because these countries are building state-of-the-art power plants without ccs shouldn't we allow them to be built in the united states? >> they have different energy strategies, sir. i know they're heavily investing

in a variety of things. >> they are investing in coal and getting out of other energy sources because their energy sources they can't afford them anymore. they are so subsidized by the government the government can't afford -- the citizens can't afford to pay for the power. so they're going back to lower cost energy. that's the truth. i want to switch gears though and talk about another subject. i was a medical doctor before i was in congress. and about medical incinerators. this has to do not with just ebola but other things. one of the methods recommended by the cdc for treating infectious medical waste such as ebola is incineration. and over the past two decades, really, the epa has regular lated hundreds of medical waste incinerators out of existence. thereby limiting options for hospitals to properly dispose of extremely dangerous material. so, my question is, is what are our options? the epa has limited the options, in the name of public health. what technologies are available for hospitals and first responders to deal with the

threat of medical waste, the ebola waste, for example but others, and what resources has the epa dedicated to determine such technologies comply with its standards before we have other problems potentially, other outbreaks? >> sir, i think epa standards have ensured that our medical waste facilities can actually properly manage waste. i think if you have been in the industry a long time you'll know that there are a lot of facilities out there that weren't properly managing normal medical waste, never mind the challenge of ebola contaminated waste. >> fair enough. >> and we are working very closely across the administration and with the cdc and others to ensure that there's a pathway forward to handle ebola waste, and waste incinerators today are capable of handling that waste very effectively. >> how many are there in the u.s. that can handle that? do you have a ballpark idea of? >> i don't. >> i don't off the top of my

head either. >> i certainly will follow up with you. >> this is something from the medical community standpoint that is an issue and it sounds like the epa takes that seriously. or wants to make sure that -- >> we have brought people together to talk about this during the crisis and we will continue to work with him on it. >> i would argue potentially with the threat of isis and other organizations in dealing with this potential type of outbreak is a national security issue, and we shouldn't just deal with it on the front end but on the back end. you know, if we have to start dealing with that. so i would implore you to look into that. >> we'll do that. >> so again you stated earlier but i wanted to say again does the epa plan to revise its proposed rule for new coal fired power plants to eliminate the ccs mandate based on the discussion we had previously about what other countries are doing, and about the the fact that there doesn't appear to be technology available currently to comply with that mandate?

>> there's been no final decision made, sir. we will look really closely at the comments that have come in. i understand that many have come in on this very issue and we'll look closely at them. >> thank you very much. i yield back mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back. at this time recognize the gentleman from oklahoma mr. mullen for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ma'am, can you just quickly sum up what the epa's mission statement is for me? >> yes, it's to protect the public health and the environment. >> but not to raise revenue or to write fines or anything like that? it's just to protect the public health, right? >> yes. >> okay. can you tell me the total amount of fines that the epa assessed -- now this is off your website, i got this directly from you guys and fy-14. >> i do not have that. >> let me go through this. administrative penalty assessed last -- this is according to your website. fy-14, $44 million. judicial penalties assessed, $56

million. state local and judicial penalties assessed from joint federal state local enforcement actions, $7 million. supplemented penalties, $11 million. fy-12, according to your website, administrative penalties assessed $52,022,612. judicial penalties assessed, $155,539,269. state, local judicial penalties assess assessed, $49,000,231. supplemented penalties $4,658 million. i say all that because it seems like to me every time we're cutting -- i may make an assumption here so stay with me, your total budget for fy-14 was

$8.2 billion. is that not enough to operate the epa with? >> sir, it might help to know that those funds actually go to the treasury not the epa. >> well, then if that's the case then why was webco industry fined $39 -- or $387,369 for not filing a pra report, which is a one-page paper. now they had never been in problems or add any issues with the administration. they have had the facility for many many years but they failed to file it one time, yet on their other facilities they had filed it but this one was an oversight and you guys came in and fined them $387,000. which is astounding to me for a piece of paper but yet you said if they paid it in ten days, you would knock it down to $193,679.

when they asked if that could be paid, if that money could be used for an environmental project, which is historically what they allowed -- you guys allowed to do when it's a reporting issue, they were told by your agent, the epa's agent no, you all needed the funding. >> i don't know how that could be accurate sir. when we don't get the funding. >> well, but there is an exception to that rule. if you look at the bill that was -- that you're referring to that the money is supposed to be going to the treasurer, there is exceptions to that. do you know what those exceptions are? if you look at it, if you look at the statute that you're talking to there's areas in there that allows that money depending on how it is written, or what it is assessed for, for you guys to keep. now, so can you tell me that all this money was surrendered

back to the treasury? >> that is my understanding. and i know of no -- >> do you know that for a fact? >> i -- >> because we're going through it, too, ma'am, and i say this because we're going through this process, we're going through this process of trying to determine how these fines are even being assessed. how you come up with the dollars that you're fining individuals. all this money that i had stated was coming right out of the back pockets of business owners, coming straight out of the economy, going where? >> it's going -- >> and what did it do when year talking about protecting the health -- ma'am, hold on. what are we doing when we're talking about protecting the health of individuals. how does a $387,000 fine protect the health of somebody when it was a piece of paper? there was no -- there was nothing else. >> we are talking about enforcement that allows us to level the playing field for businesses that are doing what they're supposed to do. >> level the playing field?

>> -- and actually make sure that we're providing the health benefits that our rules are anticipating. >> how is this leveling the playing field? who is it leveling it for? other than punishing a company? >> the only thing i can think of, sir, to go back to your original question about the law, is that there may be an exception that you're citing that is for superfund money from responsibility parties that epa gets to collect and then disburse to pay for the cleanup. that is the only instance in which i know of that a fine would ever directly benefit our -- >> and why would you guys give them ten days and drop it by $200,000 if they paid it in ten days? ma'am this has happened to me, personally, too in my company. >> you have a company that has been fined? >> yes. yes, we have. >> well then i'm happy to sit down with you in your current position, or as the person who runs that company, to walk through that issue. >> what we're going at is trying to figure out why we can't even

get a sane and even understanding why the fines are being assessed the way they are. and yet you guys are willing to immediately knock it down by $200,000. now our fine wasn't nowhere near this. >> sir, i will not apologize for this agency strongly enforcing the rules that the american public needs to have -- >> no, you're making your own rules up as you go. >> no, sir. >> the gentleman's time expired. at this time i recognize the gentleman from north dakota mr. kramer, for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you adam administrator. it's nice to see you again. it's always nice to see you. >> you, too. >> i'm having a hard time knowing where to begin because i have so many issues. i think i'll start with the water rule because i think it's especially relevant to the budgets considering the appropriations we've provided some guidance, i think and most recent one. do you regret not utilizing a small business advocacy review

panel? and realize that you share this with the corps of engineers. but was that a mistake to not do a rfa? >> no i don't think so. because we actually have done tremendous amount of outreach to small businesses looking at this rule and i think we have the comments we need to have a successful final rule. >> but the law requires an rfa does it not, which you did -- but the law requires you to have done an rfa which you did not do. >> actually we went through the process of looking at whether or not we needed to stand up what we call a subbriefer panel. we consulted with omb, that is the final decisionmaker on this and they both agreed that we had done the necessary outreach. >> so have you responded then to the sba's office of advocacy when they of course disagree with your certification that it -- it hadn't insignificant enough impact on small entities? >> i have not directly spoken to them and certainly have had a

interagency discussions. it's important to remember that the clean water rule is a jurisdictional rule. it doesn't result in automatic permit decisions. it says they are certain waters that need to be protected for drinking water and other reasons and the permit decisions themselves are what actually will be the result of the impact and the further discussions. >> i think that the rule as i understand it is presumes to narrow the jurisdiction. but the sba office of advocacy concludes that it does, in fact, broaden it. in fact the economic analysis doesn't sync with i guess, your analysis, epa's analysis and i have to admit when it gets to the issue of the lack of clarity, which the courts have stated, in the definition of what navigable waters is, i understand that that should be clarified but it seems to me as i look at the seven categories in the rule, the definition gets cloudier, not more specific in

my view. and in fact, you know, if we end somewhere after like three out of the seven, that would be clear, too wouldn't it? wouldn't it be just as clear to say navigable waters are waters that are navigable for interstate commerce and leave it at that? >> the area that lacks clarity right now is not the issue of navigable waters. the supreme court spoke definitively that navigable waters need to be looked at in a way that isn't the traditional definition. we haven't been looking at navigable waters the same way. it's a recognition that navigable waters in their ability to provide the functions that we look for, are really severely impacted by the waters that flow in to them. so the challenge we tried to face in the clean water rule was to take a look at how do we identify those rivers streams tributaries, wetlands that feed into those navigable waters that we need to understand, and protect, so that they won't degrade those waters that are so

necessary. >> you just used some new terms new at least in this rule that weren't part of the previous ones and i'd add neighboring, flood plain, in addition. that is adding -- that is adding, not restricting jurisdiction in my view. it looks to me like you're reaching for more power as opposed to further defining. and i just am concerned that that's not the role of the epa. but rather the role of congress. >> i appreciate your asking that. i think we are actually looking at that as a way to be clearer, and to narrow this. because there's so much uncertainty that there are more case by case decisions being made than need to be made. we are trying to provide more clarity but we also know there are a lot of questions in terms of how people are reading the rules, whether we were clear in our intent and clear language and we will work through those issues moving forward so the final rule addresses some of those uncertainties. >> given little time i have left i just want to make a couple of

comments. one about i hope that the -- that the technical conferences are going well and that you're paying close attention to those. >> yeah, jenna mccabe my assistant administrator in the program has attended those and we think they're excellent opportunities for us to understand what the energy world -- >> i think that consultation earlier would have been better. i'm glad to see it's happening now. with regard to mr. sarbanes comments about the epa being more in sync with the growing population, if you will, or something to that effect i would just want to state that the absence of congress acting on say cap and trade, or choosing to not pass cap and trade should not be viewed as neutrality by the people's house, or by the people's representatives and somehow a license therefore to go ahead and catch up to the public, if you will. because if public support is increasing for whether it's climate action plan or clean power rule, i would also submit to you that the public is well ahead of the epa and more in

line with the congress with regard to, for example the keystone xl pipeline which so far the only agency that has even said anything remotely negative has been the epa. and by the way, it wasn't all that negative. >> thank you. >> referring to the -- that we have to now consider the lower price of oil. but i would just want to remind people that the price of oil was rufrly what it is today when transcanada applied for the keystone xl pipeline and i'm over time. thank you again. >> at this time recognize the gentleman from mississippi mr. harper for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you ms. mccarthy for being here and i think we are near the end so that's a good thing. >> that's a thank you, too. >> yes, yes. if i could talk to you specifically we've got -- we have a number of industries, number of groups in my home state of mississippi that are greatly impacted by the rules that are promulgated and enforced and one that i would

like to just touch on for a minute would be our wood and pellet heating unit manufacturers. their problems with the new performance standards for wood source that epa just finalized it's something that really impacts us. these are usually small businesses that don't have a lot of room in their budgets for r&d costs. in addition to testing lab fees and those things. i think with the first stage of this rule that most companies are going to be okay. they can probably get there but the second stage which i believe is scheduled to be implemented in 2020 that's going to be extremely costly. it sets very low emissions targets that i think are going to be almost impossible to achieve with the current technology that we have and the resources. so my question is what

budgetary support does the agency plan to provide the manufacturers as part of your goal to deal with the air quality issues that brought forth this? >> congressman i want to first say i believe your businesses were engaged in this but we worked really hard with the small business constituencies on this and the small business administrator's office for advocacy. we did make substantial changes in the final rule that actually sought to accommodate their interests in making sure that there was -- that there was fewer impacts in terms of existing stoves that are generated and out there for sale, so that they could have additional time to get those sales out, but also to extend the time line for compliance on these phases. i apologize i don't know the specific dates, so i can't confirm but we did make a lot of changes. i would be interested in hearing

from you and working with you to see if they actually address the issues of concern. >> we will make sure we communicate further on that because i believe it's something that would necessitate some additional discussion, and movement, in fairness. but what do i go back and tell those companies that are now looking at a large either lab testing fees, or r&d costs that they don't really have in their budget to be profitable? what do i go back and tell them? >> there was, i think we did a good job trying to make sure that the testing components of these were moderate enough that they didn't impose a significant cost to the manufacturers. the other thing to recognize and this is something maybe we can work on together is in the past epa and states and regions have had funds that actually support the distribution of these cleaner stoves. i know that there are states that will be looking at the stoves as being opportunities for them to meet some of the air quality standards they are facing particularly in the

particulate matter. if i can provide any opportunity for that dialogue to happen on how we can work to the it would be a pleasure for me to do that. >> all right. thank you for that offer. and i believe we'll follow up on that. >> that would be good. >> if i could take just, i believe the clock hit. i thought i had a little bit of time left. maybe a minute and a half. >> go ahead. >> i feel like the shot clock ran out. what i would like to do the follow-up is on the issue of how much implementing the proposed clean power plan will cost taxpayers. this is again is specific to my home state of mississippi. i checked with our mississippi development authority and they indicated the minimum incremental capital cost of mississippi to comply with the proposed rule would be $14.2 billion. which will primarily consist of constructing generating

facilities not likely to be built unless compelled by federal mandate and the rule will almost certainly cause the premature closure of existing coal plants in mississippi, which would of course place upward pressure on electricity prices. if the cost to mississippi to implement the clean power plan would be $14.2 billion, would you agree that this is too much to ask of mississippi consumers? would epa revise the state's targets? >> we certainly -- our economic analysis certainly didn't indicate that that was an amount that would be necessary for mississippi to spend. in fact i think it may even be lower than what we estimated on the lower range for the entire united states. so we should be sitting down and talking through what the options are that we think provided tremendous flexibility for every state to design a very cost-effective strategy. >> do you have a figure for mississippi? >> i do not believe we broke it down by individual state. but we certainly can have those

conversations with the state about what their underpinnings were that came up with that number. because clearly it seems like it's order of magnitude's larger than one would expect. >> thank you. and i think my time expired twice. than expected. >> thank you. i think my time expired twice. >> we welcome back -- recognize him for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate that and it's great to see you back here. thanks for coming to testify about your budget and of course, this is part of our oversight role to go through and look at the proposals that are going to be made throughout the department. i want to talk to you about some of the proposals that not only are being proposed and some of the impacts we're seeing and how they might have some devastating impacts in our local economies but also ask about some others in the past. as you make proposals, you also attach to them what types of

impacts it might have in certain ways and i want to take for example the mercury and air tokices rule. other federal agencies like fur said plant closures would be much higher than the epa estimates were going to be. seemed to me when epa got this information, you'll kind of scoffed at it but we can look back and see that the rule will shutter ten times more the amount of electricity generation than y'all originally anticipated. how do you respond to that when other sergeantagencies when the obama administration were saying what you were proposing was going to be devastating to electricity generation and even more than what y'all were anticipated. turned out you were way off. >> i'm not necessarily agree thag the mercury and air toxic standard was the presap tater. >> but fur made that warning,

too. you disputeing what fur claimed? >> there were concerns about closures, reliability and costs, which is why we work with doe and fur and frankly, none of those concerns have proven to be reality. >> so you're disputing that they had the shutterings of electricity generation, the ten times increase that's occurred since the match rule. >> no, i did not say that. i said there were a number of closures whether they were attributable to the rule or the simple fact that the energy world is is transitioning is is the question i'm raising. >> people need more electricity, then you come up with a rule that other agencies said we're going to have devastating effects and those things happen and you say, well, it happened, but maybe it isn't our fault. why would they shutter those plants? >> the shuttering of the plants was a market decision. >> based on unachievable standards. >> the compliance timeline the

this prescription and we have not received any requests to extend that timeline beyond what's affordable and facted in. >> then maybe you're not factoring in enough things because you factored in that the match rule would only have a minor impact on bills, yet midwest bills have skyrocketed over 340% largely due to mats. you said oh, it's not going to have an increase in rates and there's been a 3040 increase in race. you need to go back and look at this stuff. i know the president loves talking about global warming and they're canceling flights all over due to snow blizzards and people are trying to heat their homes and these rules are having dramatic impacts. i want you the answer some questions about a study that just came out, not sure if you're familiar. >> i am. >> they just came out with an

economic impact study on the effects of the new epa rules on the united states. i'd ask you now if we can submit this report. in this report, they go through and break down not only national faktss, which are devastating, so many any state of louisiana the pelican institute which looks at this information, they went and wrote this down and looked at the report and according to what they've seen you would have an impact in my state of louisiana alone of an increase in utility rates by 22%. electricity prices would go up 22% by 2030. the state of louisiana alone would lose over 16,000 jobs based on these rules. and you just have to ask, a quote from kevin cain, along with these significant costs is worth note thag the increases in

electricity prices would disproportionally affect lower income americans who spent 70% of their after tax income on energy. these costs need to be taken into consideration by state and federal policymakers. are y'all taking into consideration devastating impacts like this on rules that you're proposing? by 22% and over 16,000 jobs lost in one state alone. of course, this is national impact as we have. >> i don't know what study. what rules they're looking at. >> this is the suffolk university study that looks at the impact of -- >> i'm happy to take a look at it, but i know that congress has charged us to do exactly that. to take a look at costs and benefits. >> i'd urge you to look at this study and -- >> and we have done that and have not seen the damage that you're indicate inging.

we have seen that -- >> i just -- 340% increase in electricity prices in the midwest alone. it's happened. this isn't a study. that happened in the midwest. >> i'd be more than happy. let me do that. okay. that would be great. >> gentleman's time has expired and that concluded -- zpl mr. chair? >> if i might, i would just like to thank the administrateor for her presentation today and her dialogue with the committee. but i think there were a number of instances where members had asked the witness questions and then didn't give her the opportunity to respond to that, so, i think we should extend the opportunity if she so chooses to respond to any of those situations today. and would also make the plea to the committee that we interact with these witnesses in a much more courteous and substantive style so we can achieve what we're all hoping to achieve.

>> i think most people were pretty courteous today and i know there are questions that were submitted that you said you would be getting back to the committee are answers and if there is some response that you feel like you've not givenwlhj the opportunity to make, i'd be happy to give you that opportunity now to respond. >> first of all, you're always a gentleman and i appreciate that very much. and, the only issue that i didn't get a chance to talk about a little bit more specifically that i wish i would have is the issue that mr. griffith pointed out on this 11 112 issue and the only thing is that he was quoting from our defensive clean and mercury rule and the reason why we were defending that way is because the don flikt occurred in cameraer that does not occur in 111 d because that was about the same source category the same

pollutant being regulated under twro different sections. we do not have that conflict here, so we don't believe that issue is really going to impact the legal viability of the clean power plant. but i thank you very much for raising this and for allowing me the honor to testify before you today. >> well, i think one thing that's certain is is that courts are unpredictable and we never know precisely how they're going to side. >> we can all agree on that. >> but we do thank you for being with us today and taking the time to discuss the fy 16 budget and look forward to working with you as we move forward. that will conclude today's hearing. the record will remain open for ten days and we do look forward to getting the responses that you committed to giving back to the committee. >> thank you. >> thank you. meet meeting's adjourned.

a couple of live events later today. beginning at 3:00 p.m., a chair of the consumer products safety commission will testify before a house subcommittee about the commission's 2016 budget request. again, that's at 3:00 p.m. eastern here and the president's national security adviser, susan rice and the lead democrat in the senate foreign relations committee, robert mendez will be speaking before aipac's policy conference. that will be live at 6:00 p.m. eastern.

the cspan cities tour takes book tv and american history tv on the road traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their history and literal life. next week we partnered with comcast for a visit to galveston, texas. >> people throng to the beach. the rising tide, wind, certainly drew them. they watched in amazement as both of these factors battered the structures. at that time we had wooden bathhouses out over the gulf of mexico. and we also had piers and we would have a huge pavilion called lucky by the sea. as the storm increased in intensity, these beach struck structures literally were turned into match sticks. ♪ the 1900 storm struck at almost the saturday, september 8th, 1900.