epa is taking into account the concerns of states like illinois who might be negatively impacted of nuclear power is not fully credited in the state's plan to meet its targeted carbon reductions? >> i would certainly agree that nuclear power is zero carbon and it is an important part of the base load for many of the states and it should be considered by those states carefully in the development of their plans. >> want to thank you. also would like to continue to engage your office on this issue to make sure that nuclear power is appropriately valued due to its carbon neutral emissions in any final ruling that is proposed. moving along, another keen priority for me is the issue of environmental justice and making sure that states are provided adequate direction in order to

achieve the interests of local income -- local low income and minority communities. in cases where states may not be sure how to conduct environmental justice analysis or how to define an environmental justice community then i believe it would be helpful if the epa provided states with guidance and resources to help protect their most vulnerable communities which we all know have the least amount of influence to help themselves. can you speak to this issue and assure me that one, epa is listening and working with the environmental justice as the agency prepares to finalize the rule skprks two, the agency will provide states with guidance data, tools and resources to help identify and protect these communities? >> i can assure you of that

ranking member and i would also point out that our environmental justice budget is given an increase of $7.3 million this year which will go a long way to helping us provide those tools. >> gentleman's time is expired. gentleman from texas, mr. barton for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i could really have some fun with you today, but you're too nice a person. >> for a short period of time, anyway. >> yeah. you have always been responsive professionally and at least accommodateing to take my phone calls and visit with me. so i'm not going to grand stand. but i do have a question that's -- or several. but the first one the president made this big announcement about china and a major breakthrough in a major agreement.

but i'm told there's actually no written agreement no signed document. is that true? >> i'm not aware that that's the case. i don't know. i have not verified that. >> okay. well i have it on good authority from the professional staff of the majority of this committee that in reality all it was was a press release. now, if that's true, and i want to say if but we can't find any copy nor can we obtain a copy of any document that was officially signed. can you check that out and let us know? it's one thing to have a disagreement about policy. it's another thing to have a disagreement over what are in these documents when our president signs things. the accord as you well remember was signed by the vice president on behalf of president clinton,

but it never was ratified by the senate. in this case we don't even have something that we can debate, the pros and cons of and given the fact that this is a fairly visible issue, i think it's a fair question if there's assigned agreement, let's see it. do you agree with that? >> my understanding is it was a commitment at the highest levels in both countries and that the decisions was made to ensure that it -- that the actions that are commence rate with those obligations are captured in already existing agreements that we have with the country and that we will have an action plan moving forward developed through the formal negotiation process. >> is that a long answer to say there's no signed agreement? >> no there's very much a commitment. >> a commitment. >> we have agreements to work

towards that commitment -- >> whatever -- i mean when the president of the united states or the secretary ofr you represent the united states in international exchanges if agreements are made something is signed. something is signed. you don't just stand up and say, you know, we have this agreement and hug and everybody just loves each other. you actually have a document that at least -- if the senate, if it needs to be ratified by the senate or the house is a commitment. what you have here, i am told is a press release, a photo op, which is not unusual for this president, i'll grant you. but in this case a 30-year agreement should actually be documented. that's all. so if you'll -- if there is something that's signed, you'll get it to the committee. >> i'm sure that there was an agreement that was announced and

i've seen those document skbrs you've seen document -- obama and whoever the chinese official is? you've actually seen a signed document? >> i've seen the documents expressing both of their commitments to this goal -- >> but you haven't -- >> -- action items can be documented and tracked. >> i can show you the signed declaration of independence. i can show you lots of documents that have signatures on them. i can -- you and i can agree that i'm not going to go out and rob a bank. and you can agree that you're not going to rob a bank. we can hold a press conference. >> i don't think this has been discussed as this type of a binding agreement. i think it has been discussed as a path forward -- >> i got 30 seconds left. so i'm going to switch gears. renewable fuel standards. we have mandates that simply can't be met.

you have said publicly and privately that you want to fix it. you have promised the chairman of the committee even in a hearing that you would have a program to fix it. we have yet to see that. when can we expect to see something that -- that gives some real relief to this rfs mandate that simply can't be met? >> i think congressman, you know i have a real commitment to moving this issue forward. i wished it could have happened last year. the approach that epa took received considerable comment. you'll see something very soon, in the spring that will address that issue and hopefully move us forward -- >> can you give us a date? very soon this spring? i mean by the end of march? >> i don't have a particular timeline, senator. >> don't profane me now. >> i was giving you a little boost. i just want to make sure that we

cross our ts and dot our is. i know we were not successful last year and i really want to get this out in a strong way and make sure it movesds forward. >> this time, i recognize the gentleman from new york mr. tomko for five minutes. >> thank you. welcome, and thank you for your leadership and joining us this morning. i want to focus on drinking water programs. pleased to see this year's budget includes a modest increase over the current year's funding level for the drinking water state revolving low fund. it seems every week i hear about significant water main breaks across our country. a few weeks ago or over the last few weeks, several have hit my district including my hometown of amsterdam. while i am pleased the administration is asking for

more funding, i'm concerned that we are continuing to fall further and further behind on the maintenance and upkeep of these systems. it costs far more to deal with a wipe once it has burst than it is to have a systematic program of repair and replacement of infrastructure that takes care of our systems. also we have many communities unablg to take on more debt. so a loan program isn't going to do it for them. they do need grants. in this agency's budget there is mention of new technologies and financing mechanisms that the agency will be exploring. the new water infrastructure and resill yans finance center won't provide funding. is that correct? is my interpretation of that budget correct? >> for this year, we're standing up the program itself, yes. but we're a little looking at

what other states and localities are doing and see if we can't duplicate some of those parts that are happening already. >> that's leading us in the right direction. i've seen estimates of water leakage that rain nl from 30 to 50%. this is treated water that's leaking so it represents both lost revenues because that water's never delivered to a customer and it is lost investment because utility paid to pure fie that water. so water in dollars are flowing out of these pipes. programs like water cents that encourage water conservation is good. does the agency have some options for helping utilities to identify the leaks and address them? >> well, we are actually have a fairly comprehensive program. it begins with our office of research and development that conducts research on what types of technologies are available to

identify where those leaks are happening. and then we try to provide technical assistance to help identify opportunities for reducing those leaks. we will be looking at this. you're absolutely right that as the climate changes, our water challenges get considerable. if you look at what's happening in the western part of the u.s. there's a desperate need for water conservation. the last thing any of us would want to do was see water suitable for drinking being leaked out of the system. >> right. it's indeed a precious commodity. we need to have a good collaborative effort to reduce those issues. the best in my opinion is to ensure the source water is as clean as possible to begin with. i support the waters of the u.s. rule because i believe it is critical to efforts at source water protection. what other initiatives is the agency putting forth considering to assist communities with

preventing water pollution and protecting source waters? >> in a number of different directions. one of our biggest concerns is that we see a lot of spills near source waters that are -- and in source waters that are challenging us from a distincting water percent spective. we are looking for states to ensure they get the guidance they need and that we do our job in terms offsetting national standards so that the states that have their own water quality standards and identifying and categorizing their own waters have the information they need to protect themselves. we know we've had recent spills that indicate it's not enough. we're trying to identify what other assistance we can give to states and get them to think a little bit more creatively about how they plan their water

infrastructure needs. plus we get an opportunity to move forward with some of the challenging storm water issues that are contributing to some of the pollution entering into our drinking water spies. >> we appreciate the partnership the agency has with the states when you ask for those dollars in the budget, when the budget increases somewhat, we know that a lot of those efforts go towards our states. thank you for your input here this morning. i yield back. >> this time recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus for five minutes. >> welcome. do you agree that there's 84000 chemicals listed approximately in the inventory. >> yes. >> how many do you think are currently in commerce? out of the 84 lists, how many are actually used in commerce? >> i'm sorry. i don't have the exact number.

>> that's part of the problem. and why we're trying to move to get a handle on this. the -- if we work with industry on chemical data reporting, that should help us get a better idea of what that number is. do you agree? >> yes. >> so in your budget plan, you have originally 83 work plan chemical risk assessments that you want done by 2018. i look at the budget report. we've got like five completed, five to ten in '15. maybe ten in '16 which gives us 25. take that from 83. that's still 69 that budget-wise we don't seem to be able to get in a timely matter. i appreciate the effort. but, again, i want to use this opportunity as i think we can get there and this is a perfect example how we can work with you and my colleagues on the other

side to move this forward. so as i mentioned a couple times, the -- i want to move to 111d debate just a little bit. and this is where we appreciate some of the responsibility because there is a concern that under 111d, coal fire generation, there's going to be some qdecommissioning. they are major generators. they're a base load production. across the country, nuclear power is also stressed. and you can look at my own state, state of illinois where the state is trying to go through some gyrations to make sure nuclear power is still online. has the epa taken into consideration the base load loss of not just 111d but what could

happen if we lose nuclear power and what do you think can be used to sur plant that? >> we actually have looked at that issue and we've received a lot of comment on this as well. because we -- the way in which the 111d analysis looks at this issue is it indicates that there is likely to continue to be over 30% generation through coal, even in 2030 at the end of the target timeline under 111d. there's no question, that there are being investments made in that base load in order to make it cleaner from traditional pollutants. and we expect that base load to continue. one of the biggest challenges is to make sure we don't do this in a way that sends different signals to the communities we all care about. i want them, if they're investing in these facilities, to know that they can continue and that investment will not be

stranded. is and i think we're looking very closely at that issue. there are many ways in which we can achieve the goals that don't result in lower energy generation and base load from coal. >> and we've talked about the midterm standards before. and i know you've had a lot of input from the industry. i would just hope that you would really look at those because -- that could be a tipping point of moving things too fast where if the end goals can be reached without really upsetting the apple cart in the midterm. and you know we've talked about it -- >> we've put out some ideas for this and have great comments that will allow us to address this issue pretty effectively. >> i also want to weigh in on the rfs positively. hoping that we do get a standard. and i've already talked to the folks in my district who are concerned and say 14 15 and 16

will have something. i'm sure that will be highly fought and angered on both sides no matter what that is. it brings me to this debate on biodiesel and the epa's authorization of importation of biodiesel without really having the rvos established. is this is point of one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing? and how do we put that supply in for part of the calculation? >> rfs is going to be looking at the range of availability of fuel supplies of the biodiesel. fuel supplies are available domestically and internationally which is what the rule requires. that decision, i think was a little bit misunderstood and we can certainly talk about this, but there was -- there was already biodiesel coming in from

argentina. what we approved is a more stringent way of tracking that to ensure it was a renewable fuel consistent with the underlying rfs principles. it was not intended to open up a new market. it was intended to affect the way in which the companies were assuring their compliance in a way that was more stringent. and we think it's a model moving forward to make sure everybody is bringing into this country the kind of fuel that we are trying to support for production purposes. >> gentleman from texas, mr. green for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. administrator mccarthy thank you for being here today. it's always good to see you before our subcommittee. to say that the epa has a lot on its plate is an understatement. i'm happy to ask some questions about the balance we are trying to strike between protecting the

environment but helping our business industrial sector capitalize on what's required to be done. on april 12th epa released a new source performance standards for volatile organic chemicals from the oil and gas industry. the 2012 nsps targeted hydraulic fractured natural gas wells. the reductions through green completion and expected a yield of 95% reduction including an estimated 1.7 million tons of methanes. they were supposed to be implemented in a two-step process. is that accurate that the nsps won't be implemented until the end of 2015? >> my understanding is -- and i'm sorry congressman, i may be counting wrong. but i think that's right for the full implementation. we did recognize that there was

equipment that needed to be manufactured and installed. 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 enter have they quantified how much is actually yielded to this point? >> we do have a good signal from the greenhouse gas reporting program that it's already been tremendously effective at reducing carbon pollution because carbon pollution is reduced as you're capturing those volatile organic compounds. >> i understand it's already about 190 to 290,000 tons. >> that's right. >> is the estimate. has epa quantified methane reductions as a coal benefit? >> we have. i can get those numbers. >> i think i have them. it's about 73% decrease. >> excellent. >>? january this year, they released

a strategy for reducing methane and pollution from the oil and gas industries. it stated potential sources that would be regulated, pneumatic pumps, leaks from well sites and compressor stations. anyone that's been on a rigs knows you're also most likely to find natural gas. and the energy information agency states that more than half of all completed wells produce both oil and gas. does the epa believe there's an overlap between the two rules? >> we believe there are synergies and we're going to make sure we do not duplicate efforts. but we actually provide a good signal as to what their regulatory obligations are. >> in 2014, estimates indicated almost $200 million in additional gas could be captured and sold from the national gas

sector. they have started using mod due lar equipment to capture the methane and either sell the product or power back to the producer. this is an effective and efficient way to encourage change. aside from using it on site, additional capture is also going to require additional pipelines. in the budget doe has set aside some but not enough money. has epa done anything similar? >> epa has been working with d.o.e. to take a look at what pipelines need to be constructed in order to make sure 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 released a revised draft guide.

and climate change in your studies whachlt are your views on how this guideline will effect what epa is already doing? specifically how will they measure climate impacts under nepa? >> i think that 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 provides us good guidance moving forward. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i have one more question. i 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. thank you for your time. >> thank you. recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. olson for five

minutes. >> it's good to see you. >> you as well. as you know your epa is taking comments on the new standard for ozone, otherwise known as smog. in houston we've been fighting this issue for decades. we've made huge strides in cleaning up our air. but the proposal epa released will land like a ton of bricks on most of the country. can i have a slide please? the first slide. if you don't have the slides, i can give you a copy if you can't read them when they come up here. this first slide is your estimate of what 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. even highway construction. the report, department of transportation predicting an infrastructure mess under 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. if you can't see that, ma'am, i have something for you here. >> i am having a little bit hard time reading it. >> there you go. >> 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 our communities need to impact to meet the 65 parts per billion 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? >> it doesn't indicate that the numbers that we look at on ozone are based on 2014 to 2016. that's how this rule would work. in fact, it shows -- >> i'm sorry, ma'am. the question's yes or no. >> i can't answer it the way you phrased it. with the national rules we're doing and the reductions we're achieving that almost all continues will achieve an ozone standard at 70 with the exception of about nine in the

state of california. >> next slide, please. another major issue is background ozone. >> yes. >> can't be natural like forest fires, but they can be foreign too like from mexican crop burning annually. last year, i showed you the slide of chinese smog pouring into our country. focus on another slide. next slide please. this is your -- 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 what 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 recrept years? >> that's true. that i am aware of. >> submit for the record whether epa's budget allows more petitions on foreign pollution. >> actually, no states are being asked to reduce emissions that are background levels coming from another country. so -- >> how your budget addresses foreign sources of ozone. can i get that from you? i have 14 seconds left here. want to talk about the impacts rule. allows the epa to remove natural resources of ozone from its calculations. yes or no, you make these rules achievable. is that what you have to make

your new standards viable. can that make these new standards viable? >> i think you're referring to exceptional events which has been part of our program since day one. we're trying to make sure states can easily access our ability to have exceptional events so they can make sure they don't interfere with the state plan. >> one final thing, mr. chairman, produce a document from the texas council of environmental quality that goes into great detail about the exceptional events process in my own state. the fact that we are 0-10 the past five years. seven have not been answered. again, that's not viable to control ozone. >> i'm happy -- >> without objection. at this time i recognize the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ma dad administrator with just

a small fraction of the federal budget, the epa tackles the task of protecting communities across the country and do all this by partnering with states and localities. i just wanted to highlight a few of these important activities. first, i'd like to discuss the work epa does to clean up land and protect vulnerable communities. what might that funding mean 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? >> there are significant resources in this budget to help communities that have been under served or left behind in some of our national efforts to reduce pollution. this will help us get at potentially another 25 sites moving forward to cleanups that are going to be ready for the

cleanup stage in the comeing year. we all know that many of the communities surrounding superfund sites actually are low income areas. they're communities of color that deserve to have the same protections as everybody in this country enjoys. that's what this is all about. >> i appreciate that. i think this funding is so forpt for health, safety, and the economies of these communities. i would suggest that we hold a hearing on environmental justice to learn more about the risks that these communities face. another source of risks for people in these communities and all communities are unsafe and untested chemicals in your products and environment. that's why i believe it should be a priority. this budget includes significant funding for chemical risk assessment and management and for toxology. can you briefly describe how funding for toxicology and a chemical risk assessment will

protect human health and the environment? >> yes i can. in fiscal year '16, epa is requesting an increase of 12.4 million for computation l 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 also has a 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 toxicity in chemicals and make sure our public health is being protected. >> thank you. i would again suggest that there be a hearing on toxicology to better understand these

techniques techniques. last, i just wanted to touch on one of the greatest if not the greatest environmental challenge of our time. the epa has provided tremendous leadersí;) to understand and mitigate the effects of climate change. congressional republicans have taken every opportunity to undermine them. we're hearing lots of negative claims about the clean power plan and the new ozone standards. but both of these rules are just in the proposal stage. i hear how you have an open door policy and are a great listening. and the benefits of acting are usually understated. i think we need to act on climate change in the clean power plan is a key part of that that 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. would you be willing to testify before the committee about your plan? >> yes, i am. >> gentleman yields back. recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania 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 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 renewable fuel industry. i'm sure we'll be looking at those comments closely as we move forward. >> one of the problems with this program is that it requires the 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 kpob tant prices for

economic hardships for merchant refiners and wind fall profits for blenders. they have told us escalating rfs mandates will lead to higher prices at the pump. epa's decision to delay the 2014 rule until 2015 created unnecessary uncertainty for all stake holders, 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 the 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. we will be addressing that

question clearly. i guess -- let me just say that the courts have been 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 the statutory authority to do so? if you do -- >> we do know that 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. this allowed obligated parties to make informed decisions about using 2013 for 2014 compliance. and the rachnal 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, we know that this is an issue that's important. we have addressed it before. we're going to continue to address that issue moving forward in our proposed rules. >> well, how will the compliance deadline be impacted if the epa combines the -- >> those are issues that we need to resolve if we intend to do that.

i did not indicate that. certainly we know in a market as large as this for research and investment purposes it's difficult to always wait for an annual rule to come out and be finalized. we want to make sure we're providing as much signal as we can moving forward. >> recognize the lady from california, mrs. caps. >> it's always have pleasure to have former colleagues join us. administrator mccarthy thank you for your testimony, for being here today. i want to address several topicsu! mostly around climate change. the effects of which are far reaching, interconnected, impacts on our environment, human health and the economy. i'm pleased that you've made this such an important priority. i have -- 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 resill yans. we are learning a lot across the country and talk about these issues and we have identified having circuit writers which are trained in this particular field and have them available to go out to communicates moving forward or 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 commendable effort to address air quality and climate change. and, you know, there are numerous studies now in -- through epa, but other sources too, showing that the clean power plant will be able to significantly address public health through reducing carbon pollution and from the co-benefits of improved air quality. can you -- give us a comparison here. what are the expected human health benefits from such a clean power plant? >> the human health benefits relate to a number of things. one is that we know that vectors of disease changing in terms of their territories. we know that allergy seasons are

getting larger. and tlths more ozone being produced. in all of these things directly relate to people's health. and 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 families struggling with 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 effect 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. the one thing i want to be 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. just one final question. these are important priorities. but also important is clean drinking water. and the way it relates. but there are so many challenges today to the availability of safe drinking water, 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 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 that it's not just about thinking of these things. it's about actually supporting it, bringing÷[cvñ 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 is expired. >> sorry. thank you. >> i also want to welcome our former colleague. i might say since he's left, i don't think the republicans have

won one baseball game. this time i like to recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania mr. murphy for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome here ma'am. >> thank you. >> when the 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. like you to just respond with a yes or no if you're aware of them. are you aware that the partially funded camper project is a $3 billion over budget? >> i am aware it's over budget, yes. >> and you're aware that the 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. >> you're aware the california project doesn't use coal but

petroleum coke? >> no, sir. >> are you aware that the final project the epa cited for new coal fired power plants was a facility in canada. it's not a new plant at all, but a retro fit? >> i'm aware it's a good example of one -- >> it's a retro fit and not the united states. and the canadian center for policy alternatives issued a report this month stating that the project was quite as expensive as alternate generating methods and will make it significantly more expensive for families and may jeopardize the owner's financial liability to complete it. are you aware of that? >> i haven't seen that, sir. >> in this policy behind me which talks about it has to be adequately demonstrated and references have been made before, you have to use the best

system of emission reduction to limit pollution. but it appears in all the projects i just went over they haven't been completed, some haven't been started one's been discontinued, one isn't even in this country. and none of them are large scale. one of them for example only captures 13% of the epa -- excuse me of the carbon. you said you want to stay true to the rule and the courts et cetera. >> yes. >> i'm not sure the epa is actually following the law on this. are you reviewing anything to withdraw the rule and start over so you can really adhere to projects which are viable and work us towards 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 your -- >> this is where you -- could you slide a little bit. this is where you refer to this investment opportunity issue. what does that translate to? >> 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 -- >> well, the word is here you invest. we want to make sure these are

viable, that people can actually do them. what you're citing here are projects that are either going to bankrupt the company or when someone else's money it is a problem. >> in new coal own than investing in this type of -- >> but have you to make investments that work. we can make up alice in wonderland but we need to make sure. a aware that the technology labs said your estimates are out dated dated. they even included update data that found ccs would found $170 for megawatt and that is about 30-60% higher than the cost estimate epa put out there. so i'm wondering why you are ignoring what this other federal agency is saying would be facts out there that you would be

paying attention to. >> sir, you are citing a document that was prior to our putting out the proposal. we worked very closely with nettle back and forth on how we would best represent the costs associated with these technologies and i believe we included the our best judgment. and our technology folks are good and we align very well with doe and put the best thing forward. you are citing a proposal and not a final and we'll take consideration of those as we move forward. >> and i have you propose that it is best foot fort. >> i understand. [ overlapping speakers ] >> mrs. caster from florida. >> thank you for joining us today and your important work in protecting america's public health and our natural environment.

american 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 have this -- i found this good info graphic from energy.gov that provides a historic look at the standards because they are set periodically to ensure that vehicles with keeping up with the times. and this is a nice little snapshot and it says 1978 the standard was 18 miles per gallon. boy, that seems out dated now. 1975 and then 2011 up to 30.2 and 2016 35.5 miles per gallon. now, i really appreciate the administration has continued to push here because what we've seen is rell lugsary in the -- revolutionary in the types of vehicles available to consumers now so you have the benefits

when you get better gas mileage and you are reducing carbon pollution and it is almost 15% carbon pollution and putting pockets into american families because they are getting more miles per gal gone -- gallon and do you have any recent 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 -- 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 efficience because the car companies now know everyone wants fuel-efficient vehicles and we described our rules -- designed our rules that allow even suvs to become part of the

fleet and become fuel efficient if people need the characteristics that those vehicles provide. so we know 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 standars for medium and heavy trucks. the president last week called on epa to finalize the next standards building on the success the initial fuel economy standards for vehicles. what are the new effects of the new stand and -- standards and what will the consumers see. >> we put forward a first-phase

if you will, recognizing there was ongoing work to make our heavy duty vehicles more efficient. i think it might be surprise to know the long-term truckers get 6 miles per gallon so they are dying for more efficiency in the system as well. i don't know have those exact figures yet and we know we can make a significant leap forward but we are working with the industry to put forward a significant proposal to recognize that the challenge in this industry is to try to take advantage of the new technologies that aa -- that are available to increase fuel efficience and recognize that the commercial businesses 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 the rules forward. >> thank you very much. and i have another quick question on your new proposed incentive fund on the new clean power plan. coming from 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 what are infrastructure and wastewater infrastructure. because think of the coastal areas and local governments in florida, and they are looking at having to do cigarette row fits. 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 program? >> there are climate resiliency funds set aside in other parts of the budget. and i'll make sure i provide you the information. the incentive fund i was referring to was to try to make it attractive and encourage states to go further and faster than the rules require because we still want to make sure that they are reasonable for everybody but some states are

prepared and ready to move forward faster and we want to sure those states are rewarded for that. >> would that include things like smart meters. my state is very slow-going in trying to empower the consumers to control their thermometer and-- thermostat and things like that. >> we haven't defined fully because we want to make sure with states about the best way to do it. but you have to articulate that is an opportunity to reduce demand for electricity and other words get more efficience which that clearly would or else -- but there is a lot of flexibility to use it for direct infrastructure improvements as well. so it all has to be tied bark back to the carbon plugs. >> your time is expired. and we recognize mr. latta for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and madam administrator thank you for being with us today. i'm going to go back to our former chairman emeritus dingle

and if i could ask you some questions and i think you've been here when he's asked you yes and no questions. >> i've tried. >> under the proposed clean power plan, if the state doesn't file a sip, does the epa claim the priority under a fip, does the epa mandate that coal fire jennors rub -- generators run more and [ inaudible ] run less. >> it is hard to do a yes or no answer to that question. >> okay. number two. does epa mandate that fossil fuels run more and coal runs less and under block three. >> the epa has the authority to establish standards for carbon pollution for those individual sources. how they choose to address those

reductions are -- >> would that be saying that would be a yes, then, to the question. >> we have the authority to set a standard. the facility itself decides how to meet that standard. >> let me ask this finally then. does the epa claim authority to make the general public use less electricity and that is assumed under building block number four. >> we do not regulate the behavior of the public under this sector. >> and going back to the first question, mr. chairman, if we could get those in righting for more of an explanation. >> i'm happy to do it. >> in 2013 coal fueled approximately 70% of electricity in my home state of ohio. under the clean power plan, will epa grande waiver exception if there is a grid reliability risk or a high cost to the rate payer issue to happen? >> epa does not see the rule as it has been currently proposed

to have an impact on reliability, but as we have done in the past we will ensure the tools are available to us should anything arise soirks. >> so that would be a yes? >> we would work through the issues whether it is a waiver or another process. the tools are available to us. >> and again with those tools because it is really important especially to my state because of the high usage of coal, that there would be the waivers necessary. so if you could get back to us on that. the existing ozone standards were issued in 2008 but are just now being implemented by states as guidance was just released last week. i have major concerns that you are going to provideo stricter standards -- impose stricter standards before those and am i correct states have not fully flied with those standards from 2008? >> that is correct. there is quite a long horizon for states to work on these issues. >> what percentage or how many

states would have complied with that. >> i'm sorry sir, i don't have that at my finger tips. states go through a designation process and which is done and there is an implementation rule put out and we'll work on that and it does not inflict and does not continue to keep working as the standard requires and whether it is sufficiently protected. >> if you could also get back to the committee especially on what states have not complied and which ones have, that would be very useful to the committee. epa has stated they do not know the cost to reach the current standards and will not know until the state filter planes are committed in 2016. and the question is how can we have any confidence in the agency and estimates of the cost to implement a new proposed standards? >> well we actually do estimate the costs associated with these -- with strategies where we can't particularly identify it but we do work 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, 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 require owners of the distribution facilities to increase operating efficiency and if so, by what authority? >> no i think that assistant administrator mccabe was mentioning the fact that we've provided flexibility in the clean power plan so even if it is 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

standards outside of the boundaries of the building blocks and we're encouraging the flexibility to be considered. we are not encouraging any state to do anything they don't consider is right and cost effective for them to do. there is a lot of choice and it is maximum flexibility of what they want to do. >> thank you. mr. chairman, my time is expired and i yield back. >> and the gentleman from kentucky mr. yarmouth. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to ask you about mountain top removal mining which is a process that poses serious risk to health and welfare of appalachian community. and i mentioned two recent victors about mount top. and what resources are available under this budget to help communities endangered by

mountain top removal minding. >> i don't have it broken down that way but i'm happy to take a look at this and work with your staff about getting more specific numbers. that is an issue of concern and we're working through these issues. >> i appreciate that very much. earlier today chairman whitfield talked about the clean bill rejected by the congress and which is one way to characterize it and it was only killed because of republicans in the senate who filibustered that bill. if it is fill to say if waxman was enacted and not stopped by senate republicans we would not be involved with clean power rules right now? >> in some ways that might be the case but i don't know that for sure because the filter act really is our responsibility to implement. it might have impacted the choice considerably and the requirements to move forward. >> well, i want to talk more

about the clean power plan and kentucky, my home state and the the -- the home state of the chairman. i was please yd yesterday to see the secretary and the chairman praising your work and reaching out to states on the clean power plan and he said i'm from kentucky and i'm not a climate science denier but with what pa has done with reaching out to the proposed legislation and the outreach is ensen credible and talked about your open door policy and you could call them and meet with them and we did take advantage. and he went on to say we've already started the process of determining what a compliance plan would look like. i truly appreciate the outreach that epa has made to kentucky and other states and obviously state's face different challenges in cutting carbon pollution. we, in kentucky are increasing

our use of filter and less expensive fuels in natural gas but most generate our pow fresh coal. i know the pa this is not a one -- the epa recognized this is not a one side fits all. can you explain how the budget request will assist states with impleaing the -- implementing the clean power plan. >> sure. we have a $120 billion budget on the implementation of the rule and we have an overall request to be sure we have a staff available to work with states and to take a look quickly at the plans to make sure there is no delay in sending the signals about how to move this forward. can i say this, len peters is a very honorable man. his advantage in kentucky as he looks at both environmental and issues together and it provides an advantage for 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 and also can be designed to be effective for pollution that impacts their health. >> you obviously think that states like kentucky, which are coal-dominated, can benefit from the funds that would be appropriated under -- >> they absolutely can and as well as the incentive fund that the president has proposed in this budget which is 4 billion and i think we've 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 is achievable from the get-go and plexible enough to -- flexible enough that allow people like len peertz to get their arms around it. >> and i appreciate the flexibility and the cooperation you've exhibited with kentucky and other states. i appreciate that very much.

i yield back. >> and now the gentleman from w west virginia. mr. mckinney. >> thank you for appearing before usch and let me start with a question, perhaps. is the epa -- 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 day 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 -- i don't think there is a will in congress to do away with the epa. >> that is good. >> you hear that a lot. >> 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 filter and clean water. but there is reaching a point someplace in this balance that we just want them -- we want the epa to be more responsible and be more receptive to the impact your decisions are having on families. and i just don't -- i think you are missing the point. and just two examples with that is that i could is the timing of your additional regulations and the second the use of improper or flawed models that you are using. let me just touch on the timing issue. there is an adage that we use often in -- all of us have used in raising families. 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 the -- we don't have the votes to be able to overturn that. so whatever you are issuing, it is becoming the law of the land. with your regulations. so there is a time and place for everything and i'm just concerned that maybe the epa is -- 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. that is the main street. wall street may be having great success, but rural america -- main street is still struggling. but yet i keep seeing the epa putting another regulation on top of another regulation and the ozone rule and they have barely achieved the first standard and then they have another one again. and i think it is being led by overregulation in rural america it has led to people -- to their well being their mental health is being affected by it.

i think we're having some depression in areas around the country because of the threats of regulations, what it is doing to jobs. i think we're seeing more and more people working part-time, under employed and it could go on and on and i believe it is directly attributed to the regulatory body with it. i think all of us know a mildred schmidt and she lives next door to you and me and she sits at her kitchen table and she wants filter and clean water but her first and foremost request is i want a job for my son. i can't find a job either the coal mines are pulled back or the steel companies or the chemical industry, something is shut down as a result of over-regulation. and i'm struggling with that. i struggled with the second issue about your poor modeling. i've heard you talk about. here is the poor modeling with the heavy trucks.

back in 2010, you said there would be about $3,400 but we're seeing three times that cost. and we see the mercury and air toxic standards that your prediction said there will only be ten gigawatts of power shut down but the department of energy and others say it could be six or ten times that amount shut down. but yet you continue to issue more regulations even though the model is saying it doesn't work. you've had a model that talked about how co2 impacts the temperatures around the globe. we know that from the standards -- that doesn't work. so let me just close in the time i have with this, that there is a george mason university report, the group says that regulations can affect job creation, wage growth and the

work force skill mismatches can result in lower labor work force participation, and higher unemployment rate in the long run. miss madam administrator i'm attorney over the disconnect how you continue to say 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. we came here i think, to serve our nation. but we want to preserve our economy. and the regulatory environment that we're facing here is very destructive. i hope you'll take that into consideration. >> gentlemen's time is expired. at this time recognize the gentleman from iowa, mr. loebsack. >> thank you mr. chair.

and i want to take the chance to invite you back to the iowa state fair if you could make it. >> terrific. >> there would be folks not just in the ag sector but others that would love to see you there. i've been going back and forth between this and another sub-committee and so the rfs probably did come up already and i hope i'm not repeating what was already asked and asking you to repeat what you've already said. but as you know that is a really big issue in my state. we've talked about this in meetings until both of were blue in our face, probably. and 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 2008-2022 for the different types of renewable fuels blended in the gasoline and diesel and i had a big issue over 2014 and now i'm kind of at a point of a lot of folks concerned about

this, we're reading different things in the media, there were some article just yesterday or the day before that -- and i don't know where they got their information -- that the 214 lex levels -- levels are going to be set retroactively and 2015 and 16 will be set back. and can you give us a perspective and there are others up near who want to know about this and nobody -- and not everybody disagrees with me and i won't point out anybody out here but they have different examples. >> we're looking at how to move vy forward with 20 xv15. and you are right. we're looking at how to extend a long-term market signal. 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 this sector are going to be

essential. so we will be 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 recognizes the statutory levels that congress has set but we need a trajectory to move forward here and i think we had problems in 2014 that we've all learned from and 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 grofr branson on friday who reminded me. >> i'm sure he did. >> because i know there are challenges there that are difficult for all of us. >> and it has uncertainty attached to all of this. and we're not just talking about ethanol, obviously. that is the big one that folks talk about all of the time. and it is not just that, it is biodiesel, second generation

[ inaudible ] and it does get complicated and there is no question but it is so important for folks to have some kind of certainty down the road so they know it is going to be so they can plan for their investments and we have a lot of great people in iowa and beyond who are involved in this industry who are planning in spite of the uncertainty and doing the best they k. biodiesel folks, that is a tough issue for them as you might imagine for them and then we get into the credit and the rfs. but those are really tough issues and i'm just here to advocate obviously and push as hard as can i to get this rule done and make sure we have some kind of certainty for those folks. >> thank you. >> and thank you for your response. second issue had to do with the clean power plan and as you know, requires power plants reduce emissions by 25% in 2030. and iowa has made great strides, taking advantage of alternative

energy. and iowa they said you get 25% from wind and i said 27.3% as a matter of fact. and i have a lot of wind-generating energy in my district. and iowa has gone far. not only are we showing others how it is to be done but we've cut emissions and i think we need to achieve 16% to make the power plan's goal. but is epa willing to work with individual states and take into account as we go forward what individual states have done and how is that going to play out if that is the case? >> we will work with both individual states in terms of the analysis we've done on a state by state basis and working with the framework and whether we got it quite right and we are looking at both of those issues. you probably know we've received a lot of comment and we are taking our responsibility seriously both to look at the individual state numbers and the framework itself. >> and there are folks out there

looking at best practices and i'm quite proud of iowa. >> i'm amazed at the wind power in iowa. it is amazing. >> thank you. i wield back. >> and now mr. kin singer. >> thank you, and thank you for saying my name correctly. and nuclear power plants around the country provide safe and zero carbon emissions. the power is amazingly reliable source of power. capacity factors run well into the 90 percent i'll but we've seen 90,000 megawatts retired and 20,000 megawatts nationwide being targeted. i understand there is a number of factors influenceing this portion of the energy but i don't understand the initial emissions rate and goals set out by your administration through the clean power plan.

some for reason 6% of the nuclear state existing fleet is being utilized and that leave those means to look to comply with your order. and know this was touched on early, but it the epa going to modify the rule of nuclear in the final rule. >> we've received a lot of comments and we did tee up a proposal. i would characterize it different than you may have. but it was an attempt to recognize that we really nuclear base-load operating today is a significant source of electricity that is zero carbon. we wanted to point that out to states who have received a lot of comment on that. we'll be taking a very close look at this issue. and i do know how important it is for your state. >> do you have any idea why the 6% is included -- >> 6% is an attempt to notify there is a number of states that

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 me may be at risk -- they may be staying as all things being equal because we're providing an incentive for a low carbon future with this rule. people did not appreciate the way they handled it many of them, so we're relooking at it based on the commenting coming in. but it was an attempt to value 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 viable and affordable. >> right. and if you want to see the price of energy sky rocket watch nuclear power plants shut down. i appreciate that. and a couple of quick ones. epa budget documents say it will

be implemented throughout state compliance plans submitted through paef with initial submitted in 2015. >> we've provided longer periods of time. if states are looking at things that require legislative approval like interstate agreements so, we're trying to be flexible but we need a signal in 2016 that the states are taking -- making a commitment to any path moving forward. and we've tried to define what would -- what that would look like in the future. >> so you are required to estimate the burden on the states to develop that plan. do you have an estimate of how much it will cost states to develop these plans and can you supply those estimates? >> we have asked in this budget proposal for $25 million to support that activity to states which is mopefully going to send

a signal that if we want to get this done, we need to work together and 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 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 go directly to states? >> yes it would, in the state grants. >> so is it your estimate that $25 million to develop state plans or just a piece of what you hopefully will determine is the overall cost? >> we think that will provide them an opportunity to do this without weakening their ability to continue to do work in other air pollution -- air challenges. >> and if you get estimates you might highlight them and if you get estimates, if you could communicate those with our office that would be great. >> and there is $10 million for

tools for states to use in their plan development. so we're doing our best to develop the flexibility and resources to get it done. >> and with all oiact comments you are getting, and making changes, put that into the estimates and what not, i would assume. >> yes. >> mr. chairman, thank you and i yield back. >> and at this time the gentleman from oregon mr. schrader for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you madam for being here. >> i would like to talk about super fund site and administration. as you know portland harbor is designated a super fun side and it is 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 collaborate effort to deal with this.

it has been almost 16 years. we've gone through different administrators and the goal has changed depending on the administrator and a turnover in staff and it is difficult to deal with the moving goalposts. we have somewhat unrealistic standards regarding fish consumption which is the indicator spaceys that we are trying to -- species that we are trying to grapple with. veterinarian and we want to have the standards based on good science. but beyond that, it would appear that the current regional administration, they have their own mindset being done by the collaborate partners in our region and we are having trouble getting this decision in -- i think it was middle 2013 there was a promise of additional help from the folks here in d.c. to maybe move things along at an

accelerated pace and again in january, there was a discussion with the department of environmental quality working with folks in d.c. to help augment region 10's abltd to get the job done. so i guess basic questions here, the decision was supposed to be coming here in 2016, we've heard it will be put off to 2017. we've been hearing this for a lot of years madam administrator, and the uncertainty creates a big problem for economic development. for trying to get people back to work and trying to do the right thing for the environment, the sooner we get this decision done, the sooner we can decide whether or not it is economically feasible to work along the portland harbor. would you like to think that both of them are not mutually skplousive -- exclusive but we are hearing from going from the highest cost alternative in terms of remediation other than the other remedial efforts out there so we basically want to know is 2017 the best case scenario and can we hold, with

all due respect, the agency's feet to the fire and get a -- feet to the fire and get a recognition by -- >> i know portland harbor was an issue that came up during my confirmation process and denis mcdonough who is a administrator is actively involved in trying to make sure this is moving forward. and i know that we are putting the resources to this and we'll continue with this discussion. i think we have turned a better corner. i know that we're not only making at sure that we get the clean-up correct -- did i make mcdonough. the chief of staff of the president. he didn't take on added responsibility during -- dennis mcclarion. i apologize. we are looking at ways that while we may need time to explore the final clean-up, the record of decision on this that we'll have sites ready and moving forward regardless of

when that decision gets made. so we'll get that decision made as quickly as possible. but we are also getting all of the preliminary steps ready so that we can continue to move forward and not sequentially think about these issues and i think we're working really hard with oregon to make sure that is the case so that we don't lose any time in this process. >> with all due respect, we've lost a lot of time and i'm not sure the administrator shares your enthusiasm forgetting this done in a timely matter. and the biggest concern i have is you have a clib taf partnership -- collaborate partnership trying to step up and getting beaten up with requirements and regulations and i appreciate your cooperation. >> you have. >> it and we would like to be a big wood-producing state. and that doesn't seem possible

any more. but that is another topic of conversation. but there is a wood composite possibility and would like to be more viable and we've been waiting for the formaldehyde and it was supposed to be done in '13 and economic uncertainty is the problem and can you tell me what the status of the regulation is, when it will be finished and is anyone aware of the final signoff yet. >> i'm certainly away of the challenge in getting the rule finalized as particularly as it has to do with laminates and our ability to address a potentially specific source of emissions but do it in a way that is 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 do know that we need the certainty you are discussing and i'll go back and see if we can't continue to see this issue and get it out

across the finish line. tnd has been -- it has been since 2013 and it has not been without challenges and we are trying to test a path that is cost effective but we'll see if we can get it moving. >> i think the administration is on your team in getting this done. i thank you very much. and i yield back. >> and the chairman recognizes the gentleman from flad. >> earlier you told chairman whitfield you were confident with going forward under 111-d and i'm wondering your document -- your budget document said this is the president's top priority for the epa and the central development of the 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

not considered finalizing this rule? yes or no. >> no. >> and has there been a time since it was announced by the president in june of 2014 that you have considered as administrator of the epa not considered finalizing this rule? >> no, sir. >> so then in the case of murray energy versus epa and regina mccarthy, when your lawyers said the epa may not adopt the proposal related to final action in proposed section 111-d related to the clean power plan, your lawyers did not tell 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 we've received that we indicate we can't -- >> they did indicate they may not move forward that isn't a complete statement of accuracy since june 14th and today you are confident you are moving forward. that was the whole argument in

this -- >> no, you asked about my confidence and i'm confident we can get this done. >> all right. well, let me move on. it is interesting your lawyers have taken several positions on this. in the case of new jersey versus epa, f 1753rd the epa promulgated camera regulations for existing electric generation units under section 111 d and i'm quoting from the opinion, but under epa's own interpretation of the section, it cannot be used to regulate sources listed under 112 and epa consistents if the units listed under 112 as we hold the cameras of regulations for existing sources must fall i would submit that the same is going -- your lawyers have already conceded you don't have the authority to regulate under both 112 and 111-d and you say you are confident in moving forward.

>> i don't agree with that information, sir. >> and let me read you the language of the actual code. 111-d-1. the administrators shall prescribe rugss provide by section # 10 under which even state shall submit to the administrator each plan for an existing source for any air pollutant for one for which air quality criteria has not been listed or not publishes under section 111 ha or emitted from a source submitted under section 112. so from the language and 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 you are 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 requests tens of billions of dollars to implement the clean power plan and you say you need expertise but i do assume you work well with the secretary of the department of energy, is that true yes or no. >> yes, i do. >> i thought you do. and so then i have to ask, why are we spending tens of millions of dollars of the taxpayers to give you new employees for evaluating and capturing the compliance strategies to require the agency to tap into policy expertise not traditionally needed in the epa for example nuclear, wind, solar hydroelectric, et cetera when the d.o.e. possesses this expertise and why not submit with them and that is what you would do and that would save the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and if you could conclude with that and instead of the epa opening up a whole

new branch and that would be better for the taxpayers yes or no. i only have a few seconds. >> i do not agree that there would be -- >> okay. i think we all disagree but we'll leave it at. and you agree that health of people and employment are connected with each other. and people employed have a better health standard that those without employment and i have to agree with that. and you've heard about the wave after wave from mr. mckinley and i picked up some unemployment counties. by cannon county at the height of the recession had an 8.9 % annual unemployment rate. at the end of '13 it is 9.8% because of regulations putting hundreds and thousands of coalminers and related industries with jobs that are

gone. this is not counting the folks that decided to retire or shuft down businesses and are no longer looking for employment. that was buck county. dickinson county height of the recession, 2009, 9.0% and today 2013, 10.0%. our economy is getting worse because of the policies of your nation. i apologize i can't let you answer. because i have to yield back. >> yielding back. mr. sar bins recognized for five minutes. >> thank you administrator mccarthy for being here. just on the last exchange i think -- i fear that the legal justification for the department's regulations were impugned i have high confidence that there is a strong legal basis for the regulations and the base you are taking and generally i want to thank the epa and 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 a statutory response to this issue, it hasn't happen and 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 shuts your agency and the administration generally for the climate action plan, which addresses climate change for the clean power plan and the historic international agreements which are being undertaken which finally gets us into a position of momentum in terms of addressing the issue of climate change. in doing that, you are reflecting where the public is. and increasingly. there is polling that indicates that 70% of americans favor

stronger limits on the amount of carbon that is 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 public. i think they are appreciative of the efforts that you and your agency and the administration are taking to address this important concern. now 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 impact of climate change and reasonable intelligent folks can differ on how to deliver those results and we'll continue to have the discussion in this committee. but i think there is a false dichotomy that often gets put

forward that somehow in addressing climate change we're going to have to undermine our economy and 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 advance for our economy. and 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're asleep at the switch. so 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 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 forth and the agency has put forth, what you see in terms of the potential positive economic impact and job creation effect that that can have. because it is an important part of the dialogue. >> yeah. thank you for raising that. i know that we feel very strongly that the way in which we've proposed this rule to provide flexibility to use energy efficiency and renewable energy is part of not just our standard-setting prose but our compliance process to allow tremendous flexibilities 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 the clean power plan and how can we follow that and allow every state to identify what is best for them in terms of job opportunity growth and grow jobs and we believe because of the flexibility we provided and

because we know that the economy is -- and the energy system is transitioning towards a low carbon strategy businesses are transitioning already, government has to follow and recognize there are ways of addressing our climate challenge that can actually 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 and that are not being invested in. the investment is in clean technologies. >> thank you very much. thank you for your outstanding testimony and your work. i yield back. >> this time we recognize the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and administrator mccarthy thank you for being here today. i represent much of appalachia, ohio.

home to several coal mines and coal-fire power plants and home to the home, tax paying men and women who work in those facilities to provide for these families. these proud men and women are providing the energy resources that keep the lights on and heat the majority of the ohio homes during this very cold winter. so can you tell us why energy-rich ohio was excluded for the hearings the public hearings on epa's climate rules? >> well 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 heavily -- we've been working with ohio. >> they were strategically placed in place where coal mining operations don't exist. >> that is not correct. it was pittsburgh -- pittsburgh pennsylvania. >> how many coal mines are in pittsburgh? i can tell you how many are in

southeastern ohio and there are a number of them. i can -- but we can fix them. i heard my colleague say he invites you back to the iowa state fair. come to ohio and sit down and talk directly to the ohioans who work in the coal mines and the power plants who are likely to lose their jobs as a result of epa's actions, your actions, administrator mccarthy. they pay your salary, they pay my salary, so let me ask you, will you meet with them. i'll arrange my schedule so i can be there to be there with you, and we can have a dialogue with the people whose lives are being affected because the regulations coming out of your -- >> we have been reaching out all across the country. >> i'm asking you, will you come with me. >> every state is asking me to go to your state. >> i'm asking you today. that is a simple question. yes or no. >> i will not make a commitment to go to your state on specific i'm going to have my team reach

out to your office to try to set up that meeting because i'm going to take that as a yes. is that what you just said? you're willing to meet? >> no. i'm always willing to talk to you, sir -- >> no i'm asking will you come to ohio and meet with the men and women, reclaiming my time administrator, mccarthy. willa range your schedule to come and meet with the people that have being affected in ohio by the actions of your administration. >> i'm happy to continue to talk to you sir. if there is a state holder we've excluded from the process -- [ overlapping speakers ] >> will you come? you're not going to answer the question so i will move on. it is clear 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. nuclear power is our only high capacity energy generation that emits no carbon dioxide.

and if any of those close, carbon dioxide emissions increase, that is a fact, because if wind and solar were to be displaced -- were to displace the power it must be backed up by natural gas generation so i'm concerned about how the rules treated our existing nuclear fleet. so plants that choose to go through the rigorous releasencing process -- releasencing process is not considering the same as new nuclear plants for compliance and it seems they should be. so here are my questions. do you believe the nrc will approve every nuclear releasencing application and do you believe every and most operators will want to make the significant investment to pursue releasencing and before you answer that question your new rule basically assumes a yes answer to both of those.

>> i do not know the success of the nrc process in terms of releasencing. i do know we attempted to address nuclear energy and point out the value in current base load and its value in a low-carbon strategy in this rule-making and we've received a lot of comments. >> but you've assumed that every nuclear license application is going to be approved and the nuclear facilities will go through the rigorous process and investment to get there and i'm going to tell you i think that is a flaw in your rule-making and it is 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. >> chairman yields back. at this time recognizing the

gentleman from indiana, dr. buck shon. >> and the climate is changing. and we continue to have a debate on the human impact on that. and we should be working toward improving our emissions as we generate power. but my position is that we should be doing this through innovation and technology development and not through over-reaching federal regulation. would you agree that in general a rural -- a rule that is proposed on any subject, really, should be base the on the ability of the technology to comply with the rule or if the technology isn't available, would you agree that maybe that rule needs to be revisited? >> well we certainly know that when we rely on a technology as part of our standard setting process that we have to do our due diligence on that technology. >> well, that said and i'm into going to -- i'm not going to

repeat what one of my colleagues talked about on carbon capture but the administration has taken a position no new coal plants should be built unless they are equipped with ccs technologies which were early pointed out but right now there is nothing demonstrable successful to accomplish that and the one you quoted is not in the united states and may not be financially successful. but you know that right now you are aware that germany is building new coal plants without ccs and other countries in europe and japan. does the epa object to that? >> well the epa certainly is looking to be able not -- not just epa but across the administration to provide opportunities for advancement of the technology and to ensure that coal gets cleaner over time so it is part of a clean energy future. >> and because these countries are building state-of-the-art new power plants without ccs,

shouldn't we be allowed in the united states. >> they have different energy standards and they are in vesting in a quite a different things. >> they are in vesting in coal and getting out of other energy sources because they can't afford any other energy sources. they are so subsidized by the government and the citizens can't afford to pay for the power so they are going back to lower cost energy. that is the truth. but i want to switch gears and talk about another subject. i was a medical doctor about in congress and about medical innocent raters and this has not just to do with ebola but recommended by cdc for treatment is such as incinerators and over the last few decades the epa has ruled many of in sin raters out of existence for medical material. so my question is what are our

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

>> i don't know. >> i don't off the top of my head either. >> i'll follow up with you. >> this is something that i think from the medical community standpoint and, you know, it is an issue and sounds like the epa is, you know, takes that seriously. and wants to -- >> we brought them all together to talk about this issue during the crisis and will continue to work with them on it. >> i would argue that potentially with the threat of isis and other organizations that, you know, 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 the back end, if we have to start dealing with that and so i would implore you it look into that. >> we'll do that. >> so, again, you stated earlier, does the epa plan to revise the proposed rule for new coal fire power plants to eliminate the ccs mandate based on the discussion we have previously about what other countries are doing and about the fact that there doesn't

appear to be technology available currently to comply with that mandate? >> there has been no final decision made. we'll 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. >> chairman yields back. i 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, to protect public health and the environment. >> but not to raise revenue or to write fines or anything like that? just to protect the public health right? >> yes. >> all right. can you tell me the total amount of fines that the epa assessed? 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, this is according to your website, fy '14, $44 million.

judicial penalties assessed $56 million. state, local 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, $52,220,612. judicial penalties acessy s aassessed, state local judicial penalties assessed, $49,231,000. supplemented penalties, $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 to epa. >> then if that's the case, why was web co industry fined 395 -- or $387,369 for not filing a tra report which is a one-page paper. now, they had never been in problems or had any issues with administrative, they had this facility for many, many years, but they failed to file it one time, yet on the other facilities they had filed it but this one was an oversight. and you guys came in and fined them $387,000, which astounding to me for a piece of paper, but yet you said that they paid it in ten days.

you would knock it down to $193,679. and 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 is a reporting issue, they were told by your agent the epa's agent, no you needed the funding. >> i don't know -- i don't know how that could be accurate, sir when we don't get the funding. >> there is an exception to that rule. if you look at the bill that was -- that you're referring to, 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 is areas in there that allows that money depending how it is written, or what is assessed for for you guys to keep.

now, so can you tell me that all this money was surrendered back to the treasurer? >> that is my understanding. and i know of no -- >> do you know that for a fact? because we're going through it too, ma'am. 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 a dollars that you're finding individuals. all the money i stated was coming right out of the back pockets of business owners. coming straight out of the economy, going where? and what did it do when we're 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 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 -- >> level the playing field? >> and that actually makes 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 the company. >> the only thing i can think of, sir, go back to your original question about the law, is there may be an exception that you're citing that is for super fund money from responsible parties that epa gets to collect and then disperse to pay for the cleanup. that is the only instance in which i know of that a fine would ever directly benefit our -- >> why would you guys give them ten days and drop it by $200,000 so they paid it in ten days? >> this is -- >> ma'am, this has happened to me personally too in my company. >> so you have a company that's 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 on 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. our fine wasn't nowhere near this. >> i will not apologize for this agency, strongly enforcing the rules that the american public needs to have -- >> you're making your own rules up as you go. >> no sir. >> gentleman's time has expired. at this time i would recognize the gentleman from north dakota mr. cramer for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, madam administrator. nice to see you again. always nice to see you. >> you too. >> i'm having a hard time knowing where to begin because i have so many issues but i think i'll start with the waters of the u.s. rule. because i think it is especially relevant to the budget considering the appropriations we have provided some guidance i think, and the most recent

one. do you regret not utilizing a small business advocacy review panel and realizing you share this with the core ofps of engineers, was that a mistake to not do an rfa? >> i don't think so. we have actually done a 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, but the law requires you to have done an rfa, which you did not do. >> we went through the process of looking at whether or not we needed to stand up what we call a subbrief panel. we consulted with omb, final decisionmaker on this and they both agreed we had done the necessary outreach. >> did you -- have you responded then to the sba's office of advocacy when they disagree with your certification that it hadn't -- insignificant enough impact on small entities.

>> i have not directly spoken to them, but certainly we have had interagency discussions on this. it is important to remember that the clean water rule is a jurisdictional rule. it doesn't result in automatic permit decisions, it says that there are certain waters that need to be protected for drinking water and other reasons and that the permit decisions themselves are what actually will be the result of the impact and the further discussion. >> i think that the rule, as i understand it is presumes to narrow the jurisdiction but the sba office of advocacy concludes it doesn't in fact broaden it. the economic analysis doesn't sync with, i guess your analysis epa and the corps' analysis. 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 should be clarified, but it seems to me as i look at the