working for. if you wants to see someone who is useless, she should look at her own front bench. the british house of commons is in recess. i minister's questions will not be life next week. it returns november 20 with live at 9 minister's questions p.m. eastern on c-span. usa today reports that as many as 10,000 people may have died as a result of a typhoon in the philippines earlier this weekend. it makes it the deadliest natural catastrophe on record. secretary hagel authorized a u.s. pacific command to help with the leaf efforts.

the department of defense will continue to monitor the effects of the typhoon and stands ready to help our ally recover from the storm. mrs. kennedy is well-known known as a style icon. admiration of her fashion sense. she put a lot of thought into her wardrobe when she was representing the country at the white house and while traveling abroad. colorsld take about what would mean something to the country i am about to visit. for her visits to canada, she chose this red suit by peer of respect gesture for the read of the canadian maple leaf. i really admire that thought mrs. kennedy put into her wardrobe. she knew the advantages of choosing a color or a style that would stand out in a crowd. >> first lady jacqueline kennedy monday night at nine eastern on

c-span and c-span 3, also on c- span radio and c-span.org. we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you. white house events, briefings and conferences and offering gavel to gavel t coverage of the house. by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. now you can watch us in hd. the environmental protection agency held a public meeting to discuss carbon emission regulations on existing power plants. that meeting is one of several scheduled by the -- epa to seek input from the public. this is a little more than an hour and a half.

>> thank you all very much for coming to participate in today's session, which is part of what is now an ongoing national to helption intended the environmental protection agency and the state determine promising approaches to reducing carbon pollution's from existing power plants. power plants are the nation's single largest source of carbon pollution, a source we must address as we work to address time -- climate change and one of the most significant health risks of our time. science tells us that climate change is real.

human activities are fueling that change and we must take action now to avoid most devastating consequences. in june, president obama called on agencies across the federal government, including epa, to take action to cut carbon pollution to protect our country from the impact of time and change and to lead the world in this effort. the president's call included a directive for epa "to work expeditiously to complete carbon illusion standards for both new and existing power plants." currently, there are no federal standards in place to reduce carbon pollution from the country's largest source of that pollution. , continuingonded our work that began under the resident's leadership a few

years ago when we established historic fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles that will save consumers thousands of dollars at the pump and will cut carbon pollution from our cars 2025.f by in september, we announced our proposal to set standards for carbon pollution emitted by power plants built in the future. these proposed standards are practical, flexible, and achievable and ensure power companies investing in new ed powerplants will use modern technologies that -- t emissions of harmful these standards ensure a clear path forward for a continuing diverse energy mix. how epa is beginning our work to

develop a post-carbon pollution guidelines for existing power plants, highlights that will be used by the states as required by the clean air act to develop and implement programs for reducing carbon illusion from the power plants operating in each state. to deliver clean air, clean water, and safe and healthy land to american families. we have done this job for more than four decades and we have done it by relying on the best available science, by being transparent in our decision- making and by working with everyone to develop common sense approaches to protecting and improving the environment across the country. the 40-year history has proved that we can reduce per pollution while creating jobs and strengthening the economy at the same time. it is this history that brings

us here today. to hear from you, as we consider the best, most flexible approaches to reducing carbon pollution from the existing power fleet. at today's meeting, and in 10 others like this around the country this fall, epa is reaching out to the public at large to get your input. we want to hear from everyone, including communities, industry leaders, environmental and public health groups, labor organizations. we want to hear about how epa should develop and implement carbon guidelines under the clean air act. in addition to listening sessions like this one, epa regional and headquarters staff and leadership, including administrator mccarthy, have been meeting with industry leaders and ceo's from the coal, oil, and natural gas sectors. a been working with everyone, including governors, mayors, and

present congress, state and local government officials, environmental advocacy groups, and many other stakeholders. we want to be open to any and all information about what is important to each state and each stakeholder. that is what this process is all about. we are also reaching out to leaders in all the states and tribes to hear their ideas as we develop our proposed guidelines. the clean air act calls on the states to play a key role in reducing carbon pollution from existing plants. we know we can learn a lot from ongoing efforts in the states and in cities and communities as well. all of which have been incubators for innovation. many already are leading the way to cleaner, more affordable,

more sustainable energy. for example, 10 states have already implemented or are implementing their own market- based programs to reduce carbon pollution. more than 35 states have renewable energy targets. more than 25 states have energy- efficiency targets to cut energy waste. and more than 1000 mayors across the country have signed agreements to cut carbon pollution. we want to learn more from their experience and ideas and yours, as we begin this important effort. today's listening session will focus on the best approaches to reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants and how those can help us develop guidelines under the clean air act. if you would like to comment on our proposed standards for future power plants, and i hope you will, there is information in the back of the room to get you started to submit those comments. the clean air act gives us separate frameworks for

addressing new sources and addressing existing sources. before i turn things over to my colleague john to give you more details about the existing framework, let me remind you why it is so important you are here today. climate change is a real threat to america, and not just a threat for the future. it is happening now. just think about 2012, the extreme weather events we saw first hand are the very types of events that climate change can make more likely to occur. no one can forget superstorm sandy, combined with the rising sea level, extreme storms like that one can cause more devastating storm surges in the

future. 2012 was the same year that was the hottest on record in the lower 48 states. with climate change, we can expect to see longer, more frequent heat waves in the future, along with increased heat-related deaths. wildfires in 2012 scorched more than 9 million acres across eight states. wildfires can put in tires communities at risk, damaging properties, costing lives, and producing dangerous levels of air pollution. and wildfires are projected to earn even larger areas in the future. at the same time, flooding caused by more frequent extreme weather events in the u.s. cancer and fish and wildlife habitats, along with threatening our clean, reliable sources of drinking water.

ultimately, and most importantly, climate change is about health. in addition to the extremes i just mentioned, carbon pollution and hotter weather can lead to longer allergy seasons, contribute to the spread of insect-borne diseases like west nile virus, and worse than small, which puts children and elderly and people with heart and lung diseases at risk. the good news is we can do something about this. we know that climate change cannot be solved overnight. it is going to take a broad, concerted effort from all levels of government, and the international community. but make no mistake about it, we cannot afford to delay. we can successfully face the challenge of climate change if we work together and if we act now.

the action we will discuss today is an important step in that process. again, i would like to thank you very much for being here today, and my colleagues and i look forward to hearing your comments. i'm going to wrap up by doing something i should have done at the beginning, and i apologize for delaying. i know you were thinking you were listening to a nameless bureaucrats, but in fact my name is joseph goffman, and i'm senior counsel to the assistant administrator for air and radiation. now i will turn it over to my colleague john millet. >> thank you, joe, and thanks again to all of you for joining us today. before we turn it over to the audience, i want to take a few minutes to walk through the clean air act that the epa will be using to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants. these are the nation's single

washers sources of carbon pollution. as we listen today, we will think about how this may fit under this section of the law. the president has directed epa to issue proposals by june of 2014, and take final action by june of 2015. greenhouse gases, including carbon pollution, air pollutants that are subject to regulation under the clean air act, epa has the authority to address that carbon elution plants under section 111 of that law. section 111 sets out separate approaches were addressing new and existing sources of pollution. for new sources, which are covered under section 111-b, epa sets standards of performance often called new source performance standards. this is the proposal that was signed on september 20 and is available on our website for review.

this type of standard reflected the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of what is known as the best system of emission reduction. new sources performance standards can address the six common pollutants known as criteria pollutants, but cannot address air toxicity. for existing sources, covert under section 111-d which is the subject of this session, epa does not set standards. you develop a mission guidelines which states then use set balance to set policy, while getting the necessary pollution reductions. section 111-d is reserved for addressing what you might call other pollutants, pollutants not covered on the regulation for criteria pollutions. greenhouse gases covered. most relations have been submitted for new or modified construction sources. few regulations have been

developed for existing sources. regulations are called guidelines, but get through all of the other roles. the guidelines established by the obligations on the states to address in this case carbon pollution from the power plants operating in their state. last month epa posted on our website a document setting out a number of key questions to guide the discussion that we will be having as we get ready to craft a proposal. there are two questions that will be fundamental to that proposal and good to keep in mind for today. they are, first, what should epa consider in setting standards and goals for states to reduce carbon pollution associated with fossil fuels by power plants?

second, because the guidelines could include a framework in which states could design plans to show how they will meet the goal, what should that framework the? we know many states already have programs that reduce carbon pollution from the power sector. their leadership shows that opportunities for election may range from actions taken at the power plants themselves to other programs like energy efficiency in our homes and businesses and removal of energy requirements. these other programs can directly affect electricity generation attic power plants which in turn can affect their emissions. we want to learn more about how these programs may be able to fit into epa's guidelines. we know there are a lot of ideas about how to get reductions from power plants, so today and in the coming weeks let us know what is important to you. what do you think eba should include in carbon pollution guidelines for existing power plants and why?

you have suggestions or ideas about what might work is to reduce greenhouse gas commissions from power plants? do you think those approaches could fit into our guidelines? we want to hear it from you about what programs to reduce carbon pollution epa should explore as part of a strategy to address existing power plants. we are interested in what could be done directly at the plants. we're interested in what could be done in other places throughout the power system that could potentially reduce pollution from these plants. how could we incorporate these different approaches, what would make sense? with energy efficiency and our renewable energy program, that might help reduce greenhouse gas illusion, please share with us what you have learned and tell us what we should keep in mind. we look forward from hearing from you today. you can share your thoughts in writing as well, and information to do that is at the registration tables out front. but before we get started, let me fill you in on some ground

rules and housekeeping for us here. i will be the one to call the speakers to the microphone in pairs. when it is your churches become a state your name and your affiliation before you begin your remarks. so that we have time to hear from everyone, limit your remarks to three minutes each and remain at the microphone until all speakers have finished. after you finish your remarks, epa staff may ask or find questions. if you would like this but your input in writing, give a copy of your document to the epa staff at the registration table out front as you came in. you may also e-mail your ideas and thoughts about reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants to carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov. the yellow light will come on with that two-minute mark, and if you see the red light, i will ask you to complete your remarks for it today cost session is going to continue until 8:00

p.m. this evening. we will take a break from noon until the clock as needed throughout the day. if you would like to make remarks but have not yet registered to do so, please see the registration table. we ask for your patience as we proceed through the speakers. we need to make adjustments, but we will do our best to fit you in. finally, if you need any help getting around this building or around the locale, please see any of the helpful folks out front at the registration table, jan, mary, andrea, alan, joe, any of them will be there to assist you and direct you in anything you need. so once again, thanks on behalf of myself and everyone here. and why don't we get started up. i will call the next two names.

first we would like to hear from gail bush and michael herd. please come up to the front table. ok, gail, why don't you begin. >> thank you for your time. i'm here as a volunteer of the american lung association and someone who has worked in the health-care care industry. i would like to thank you for the new guidelines you are trying to implement for the standards for the new power plants. i am here to implement the same standards for the existing power plants.

rookie in the health care industry, i see that our in- patient find increases whenever the air pollution is high and when that air quality standards are low. i see the impact that the air quality has on our patience. with new guidelines, we are impacted by having to implement changes within the hospitals because of our in-patient admissions. we can now be penalized for patients who have chronic lung diseases, cardiac diseases, because of their readmission into our facilities, and that is impacted by these standards. we can only do so much in the hospital for helping them to learn about how to take care of their disease and manage their disease, but we can not do anything to manage what they are exposed to outside in the environment. i encourage you to continue the work you are doing and to try to implement those same standards to the existing power plants to reduce the impact of carbon

pollution in existing power plants. >> thank you very much. >> good morning. i am a business manager for the boilermakers in baltimore. i represent a number of boilermakers in maryland and the district of columbia, and our colorization has over 60,000 members. our work is involved in fossil fuel plants. i would like to thank you guys for holding this hearing today so we can get a lot of stuff off our chests. i have been a business manager close to six years now. it first became a business editor, he had a lot of work. the boilermakers international worked with the epa to try to get the standards up so we could put quality pollution controls on the fossil plants, coal- burning plants, oil, whatever it may become a and there is a lot of technology out there that can reduce drastically the amount of emissions into the atmosphere, whatever it may be. we were going in that direction.

utilities were implementing network work into their existing power plants. my concern is in the past two years since 2011, the work has dropped off dramatically from my members. you're talking about -- everybody's talking about creating american jobs. they're losing american jobs at home by not putting these retrofits and controls on existing plants so that americans can continue to work in this country doing american work. as far as that is concerned, you're looking at the closure already of 50,000 megawatts of coal-fired generation in this country. that is a lot of power plants

being close already. with the rules being set for june, it will have more closures and more american jobs. my concern is it seems a little drastic the standards that they put on keeping a coal-fired plant is the same as gas-fired plants, what they admit into the atmosphere is, but if you put the right controls on the plants, you can get pretty close to that. also, with restrictions put on our country with all these closures of these plants, i think something needs to be looked at globally as far as what china and india and all the other countries -- they are polluting into the atmosphere with no quality control pollutant control equipment on their power plants whatsoever. it seems redundant to penalize

the workers of the united states while the other countries want shoot pollutants up into the atmosphere. a study said that the plants only contribute to 4% of the toxins going to the atmosphere. if you shut those down, what are we going to replace it with? there's a lot of coal in this country. there is a lot of jobs. when you close down a power plant, they think they only close down a power plant, and that is not true. you are looking at existing businesses that are also affected. the mom and pop shops that have the diners that cater to these people, and there's a lot of jobs that trickle down other than just those existing jobs at that power plant. i believe something needs to be done and as far as the

standards, the limits that were putting on coal, with the technology today and all the scrubbers and stuff that we could put on there, and you can look at carbon capture, which was about six or seven years ago we started talking about carbon capture. with that, i believe i am rambling, but it hits me deep it is they say i am looking at losing members. a lot of members are here, and something needs to be done so we can bring the fossil fuels back to keep them working in our place. >> thank you very much for both of your perspectives. >> thank you. >> our next two speakers, first we will hear from david scott and then next greg bertelson.

we are going to work with our timer this time. >> ok. has my time started? ok. my name is david scott. i am president of the national sierra club. good morning. i appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today about why the sierra club strongly supports the epa's effort to tackle carbon pollution from existing power plants. make no mistake, these standards are an important and historic first step towards addressing one of the most important and daunting challenges of our time, global climate disruption. climate disruption poses a growing threat to human communities and the natural ecosystems. we are already experiencing its effects through extreme weather

events, including heats waves, floods, wildfires, and droughts, sea levels are rising, oceans are becoming more acidic, glaciers and sea ice are melting before our eyes. climate change which science tells us is having because of ever-increasing amounts of carbon pollution and other greenhouse gases is affecting americans here and now and poses catastrophic risk to human health, agriculture, water supply, necessities of normal daily life. carbon pollution from power plants is the largest stationary source of u.s. carbon dioxide emissions and immediate action to ultimately end that pollution is the only way to ensure that future generations inherit a habitable planet. scientists and doctors for if the earth warms, unhealthy level of ozone will increasingly become more widespread. higher smog levels mean more

cases such as respiratory illness. according to the merrick in london association, 154 million americans already suffer from unsafe levels of air pollution. holding operators accountable will mean less disease, reducing health care costs, and a bitter quality of life. the fastest possible transition to a more energy efficient economy and to clean energy sources such as wind and solar will not only cut the risk of catastrophic climate disruption, but create incentives for innovation that will create new jobs in a clean energy economy. protecting workers' livelihood must be an urgent priority. we flatly reject the notion that protecting human health and the environment are incompatible with a healthy economy. poll after poll demonstrates the public supports implementation of clean air act protections him and wants epa to do its job,

protect public health, and young voters recognize this threat. a recent poll showed that 80% of young voters support the president taking action to address the threat of climate change. in closing, we strongly support the epa's efforts to clean up dangerous carbon pollution and applaud this important first step in the transition to a clean energy economy. thank you. >> good morning. my name is greg bertelson, and i am pleased to offer the following remarks to the environmental protection agency's plans. manufacturers are committed to protecting the environment through greater sustainability, conservation and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

make no mistake, the regulation we are discussing today is about energy. how we generate it, whether we can rely on a steady and secure supply of it. energy is the lifeblood of manufacturing. manufacturers consume 1/3 of the nation's energy. today, ingenuity of manufacturers and energy reduces and endeavors of makes of energy resources, energy is a bright spot for manufacturing. manufacturers are making big investments in energy. if done the wrong way, this revelation will threaten energy reliability, increase costs for manufacturers, and turn a competitive advantage into a disadvantage. as the epa develops this regulation, manufacturers encouraged to consider limits. first, there is a limit to what

the law permits. an attempt to expand beyond what the law allows will lead to delays in irrigation, per credit trade uncertainty that will stifle growth. we need to know the rules of the game. we urge the epa to consider what is legally permissible under the act to avoid years of regulatory uncertainty. we continue to believe the clean air act is the wrong tool for addressing greenhouse emissions. second, there are limits to what is achievable. technologies are remarkable. today's plants can generate more electricity with fewer resources than before, and do so in a friendly way.

like all technologies, there are limits. drafting a regulation that requires more than what technology allows leaves plants with only one choice, shutting down. let's not take any energy option off the table that would cut manufacturing jobs in the process. with the right policies and access to affordable energy, manufacturers will continue to develop sustainable solutions that will fuel job creation and drive economic growth. thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. >> thank you. our next two speakers are anneka whisker and james herbert nelson.

>> good morning, and thank you for the opportunity. i'm here to speak on behalf of the mom's clean air force. as a member of the team, working primarily in special media channels, i have the privilege of interacting with members on a daily basis. hearing their stories and providing them with resources and feedback. i sit here today on behalf of our members. it is stories of children plagued with asthma that disturbed me the most. whether it is north carolina three teen sisters, both severe asthmatics, or a young person from massachusetts, whose pediatrician prescribes a five- day course of steroids

whenever mia experiences a major flare-up. mia calls these pills the crying medicine is they cause her to have nightmares. these people are the tip of the iceberg. over 7 million children suffer from asthma. june 2010 studies from the center for disease control show and increase in asthma for all ages from 2001 to 2009. how do we reverse these numbers? how do we stop this suffering of future generations when it comes to this disease? reducing carbon pollution is a critical first step. power plants are our nation's largest first of carbon pollution, with 40% of our nation is carbon dioxide emitted from power plants.

carbon pollution is causing global warming and hotter weather means more ozone. more ozone buses more lung damage. more locally, in d.c., the air received an f rating for ozone according to a 2013 report, putting the health of thousands of children at-risk. we know what he can and should do. the obvious place to start is power plants. setting standards for all power plants that exist in our country today. the support is evident. over the past few months, more than 13,000 members have commented in support of the proposed new source carbon pollution standards, a sign that our members are in favor of strong climate regulations. it would likely show additional enthusiasm for standards that

yield more results. on behalf of the over 180,000 you to seturge strong and meaningful carbon pollution standards for existing power plants. let's make the united states and easier place for future generations to breathe, generations we are counting on to run this country someday. these future generations and their lungs will thank you. thank you. >> thank you. >> i am the director of the presbyterian church usa office of public witness here in washington dc. i'm pleased to be here today representing a denomination, but also representing the work that we're doing with creation assist ministries, and

environmentalists and activists, and others who are in the same place of looking at reducing carbon pollution. the united states produces more greenhouse gases than any other country in the world. yesterday, the world meteorological organization announced the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reached a new record in 2012. according to the epa, 40% of the united states' carbon pollution and 67% of the direct admissions reported under the greenhouse gases program. a report approved by the general assembly of the presbyterian church, entitled "power to change u.s. energy policy and

global warming" states emphatically that we both have a spiritual and moral response ability to address the issues related to global warming in order to do this, we believe that repentance is required. repentance calls people and nations to stop the actions that are contrary to god's plan for the sustainability of human life, while turning to a new way of living. god can give us a power to change. we believe that. at the core of this understanding is the belief that the psalmist is right in the bible when he wrote, "the earth is the lord's and the fullness thereof, and those who live within it." therefore, we call upon this administration as well as the united states congress to look at the possibilities and encourage a decentralized and shifted power generation, the centralized and renewable energy systems and wind can relieve pressure on the power grid cannot create new jobs, and empower local communities.

we ask that a moratorium on all new coal-fired and nuclear power plants take place until related environmental concerns are addressed. thirdly, we ask the limits of exploitation of new fossil fuel supplies, where this can be done without adverse damage to people and the environment. today we believe this environmental action agency carbon rule listening session is a great first step. we believe all nations should share in the restoring the blessings the creator has given us in this world would live in. thank you. >> our next two commenters, bill bumpers and frank hartsoe.

>> good morning. i'm here on behalf of a coalition for innovative climate solutions. the coalition for innovative climate solutions is a group of forward-thinking electrical generating companies and electric service providers located across the country. our members reflect a diverse geography and widely varying energy resources and state delivery frameworks, and there are eight companies who represent all aspects of the electric industry, from the utilities, public power, electric co-ops, and businesses doing business in 15 states. as epa developed this relation to establish greenhouse gas standards for the power sector, our goal is to provide epa and the states with constructive input on how best to set such standards so as to achieve meaningful elections to a

process that is legally defendable, economically rational, and workable across the geographic and market land scapes. our members have experience of leading these measures that achieves certificate reductions. our guiding principles for you in developing these regulations for existing sources under section 111-d is that epa must recognize the primacy of the states in setting the standards and in implementing their programs. second, you must encourage the states to be flexible and promote innovation. you have to allow the states to utilize a wide range of measures to achieve the greenhouse gas emission reductions. many of our members have achieved dramatic reductions in the past 15 years to measures and policies in cooperation with their states. you have to recognize the borad regional diversity and the opportunities available to states and electric generating companies. amongst our coalition, we have

operations from oregon, kentucky, louisiana to north dakota, minnesota and new jersey. one size cannot fit all. fourth, you have to allow the states to benefit of the measures in the program they've undertaken to address climate change. we support an approach that builds on the years of hard work that leverages existing state programs by allowing and distaste of a portfolio of measures that are appropriate to each state. the existing source of greenhouse gas rules can't achieve gives reductions while minimizing this location. within the industry, some of the most reductions will occur in non-emitting generations sources. epa's authority is limited. epa cannot require the states to adopt programs such as renewable portfolio standards, energy efficient programs, or cap and trade programs. epa can recognize such measures and programs may be more effective and that the states can implement these programs.

we think these flexible programs will result in the greatest reductions at the lowest cost and can be achieved through a federal program. thank you. >> thank you. to remind the speakers, please talk into the mic as closely as you can. >> hi, my name is frank hartsoe. i am with the international local of boilermakers. we represent about a thousand workers in virginia and west virginia. a lot of our guys make livings repairing and maintaining power plants, also constructing these

devices that take out the pollutants. we recognize the need to keep the air clean, and we just feel like these are requirements that will be too strenuous on owners that have put billions of dollars into these plants to clean them up as much as they can to this point. technology is starting to catch up with the part of coal that we have not been able to figure out yet, the carbon capture and sequestration. we do know that it can be done, but right now we know that coal is our greatest natural resource, and we cannot just shove it off to the side at this point. we are the saudi arabia of coal and there are a lot of things that we can do, but we are going areed -- these owners

going to need more time to bring their plans into compliance, but they all will need to have help from you guys in allowing them to come up with these plans that brings sequestration into play and solve this issue with carbon. if we shut down all our coal- fired plants we will -- it is not going to be able to keep up with the 50,000 megawatts loss. the wind and solar projects are slow to bring us up to that amount, but nonetheless, we feel that this is a job-killing proposition for a lot of people, from us all away down to the coal industry, and i feel like there's a lot more jobs affected by this than what you guys realize. that is all. >> thank you. >> the next two on the panel will be seth heald and samantha.

>> good morning. my name is seth heald. i live in virginia. i retired a month ago after a 35-year career in the department of justice. i did not work on environmental issues, and i never really thought of myself as an environmentalist until a few years ago, i became more informed about global warming, climate change, and i'm here today on my own initiative. no one is paying me. i do not resent anyone other than myself as a concerned citizens, a parent, and perhaps

someday a grandparent. i also, after i retired, enrolled in a program at johns hopkins university, studying for a masters degree in energy policy and climate. i'm in my first semester. i have homework. i was doing it the other day. i'm reading a book by david archer, who wrote an introductory textbook on global warming. he is an oceanologist from the university of chicago. i knew i was getting ready for coming here today, and i came across a sentence that just -- i had to bring up today. the future of the earth's climate depends mostly on what happens to coal. he might have well as said the future of human civilization depends on what happens to coal. we know that science tells us that coal burning and the carbon

dioxide emissions are causing enormous problems for the country and for the world and are going to cause even more. when i hear manufacturers, the electric power industry, the coal industry argue against taking any significant action, we hear a lot about jobs, we hear a lot about the economy, but they frequently fail to address the problems that are already happening and are going to happen even more seriously in the future from global warming caused in large part by carbon dioxide emissions. in august, the ceo of a group called the american coalition for clean coal electricity complained about epa standards. he said they are going to kill jobs. he talked about all the pollutants that have been cleaned up so far by the coal industry, but he did not mention carbon dioxide. you cannot just ignore the problem of carbon dioxide, and you cannot wish away the problem of global warming. these are serious issues.

the science tells us what needs to be done. the coal industry and the electric power industry have had lots of time to get ready for this. they have really not taken it seriously, and i urge the epa to take strong action to reduce carbon dioxide pollution. thank you. >> thank you. >> i am a pediatrician in alexandria. i am a fellow of the american academy of pediatrics. i'm here to express our support for the proposed carbon standards for existing power plants. thank you for giving the opportunity to speak out about children on the issue of carbon pollution and climate direction.

according to the world health organization, more than 80% of the health burden due to climate change occurs in children less than 5. this includes the broad effects of weather disasters, increases in allergic and asthmatic diseases, food and water insecurity, and increased heat- related deaths. there are several reasons for the unique vulnerability of children. their physiology is different. they breathe more air, the drink more water, and eat more food than adults. they experience greater exposure to environmental toxins. the behaviors of children are different. they spend more time outside. they are more vulnerable to changes in air quality. children are dependent on caregivers for their safety. children are still developing, and adverse impacts can have

effects that last a life. this can result in cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and cancer. i would like to talk about children who have been affected by conditions due to climate change. in 2005 hurricane katrina devastated new orleans and caused the largest displacement in our nation's history. children as young as 4 experienced separation from caregivers. they severed expected abuse in homeless shelters by strangers. approximately 40% of new orleans children developed significant mental health problems as result of this. as the weather disasters hit with greater frequency, or families and children will bear

the burden of experiences like this. climate change is influencing infectious disease patterns. west nile is now endemic, and lyme disease carrying ticks now survive in canada. another is caused by a fungus that is highly sensitive to heat and sensitivity. a young girl in california contracted valley fever in when she was six. she required treatment for over a year but remains at risk for relapse. rising atmospheric carbon is a major threat. the epa is applauded for taking this crucial step to protect the future of children by reducing carbon emissions of existing power plants. thank you. >> thank you. next. >> the next two, we have todd keller and earle mitchell.

>> good morning. thank you for allowing us to do this. i know you are in for a long day today. my name is todd keller. i'm with the advanced energy economy as their vice president of federal affairs. aee supports the u.s. epa standards. in developing these standards, aee urges the epa to provide maximum flexibility to incorporate advanced technology and services into their implementation plans. aee believes in establishing standards in this manner will move the united states towards a higher performing energy system for the 21st century.

thanks to technology innovation, we have more options for meeting energy needs than ever before in history. we call those new options advanced energy. as documented in a report, impacts of advanced energy is more than a $1 trillion energy industry worldwide, and they grew 19% by $157 billion. advanced energy represents an opportunity to create prosperity across the economy as we modernize our methods of producing managing and using energy. advanced energy provides a wide range of technologies and services that can reduce emissions. advanced energy includes energy efficiency, demand response, solar, wind, natural gas and electric generation, hydro nuclear, electric vehicles, and more.

these technologies and services provide the states with an array of options as they develop implementation plans to meet standards in covering omissions. in closing, aee believes designing the standards to allow the states the flexibility to incorporate these technologies is simply good politics. flexibility is the best approach to achieving reductions from power plants. thank you very much. >> good morning. my name is earle mitchell. let's start with what webster says about pollution -- "a discharge into the atmosphere," "to make unclean, corrupt," "contaminant," "dirty."

what we are discussing here is how dirty do we want to make our planet? the burning of coal actually harms both air and water. my remarks will be about water. case in point, the solid residue from burning coal is known as coal ash. it is stored in man-made ponds. in 2008, tva, the containment pond broke there and spilled more than one billion gallons of toxic waste. lead, arsenic, selenium, which polluted over 300 acres of private farmland and two rivers. the work is still ongoing. no one can state whether that will ever be fit for human use. i will tell you a history of something i have witnessed more than 50 years. this is no case study or computer model. these are my observations and experiences, starting in the

1950's and what i lived with. i'm talking about the bleachery. the pond was man-made as result of the company building a dam for the mill. the mill was constructed in the 1800's. the water was to be used in the bleaching and dyeing process. the water was pure upstream, but when it was dumped to the stream, after the mill finished with it, there was contamination of chemicals and dyes. you could look downstream to determine what cut of cloth they were producing that day. after about three quarters of a mile, the stream dumped into greenwich cove. the cove is an ideal anchorage for small boats, well protected on three sides with a narrow entrance, and not much title action. this time coincided with the day

having an abundance of hardshell clams. whenever you get clam chowder, it is mostly made with hardshell clams. as many as two dozen hardshell clam fishers kept their skiffs tied up in the cove. they had to travel in the main body to work. the cove had been declared off- limits during the 1940's to all fishing due to heavy pollution. all took place before the clean water act. i visited east greenwich the summer. while i was there i went to the cove. i stood on a hill high above the cove and gazed back and thought of those earlier times. i thought of the workers -- jim, nick, silent al, and the others and i became sad because the cove is still polluted.

the bleachery was closed in 1960. >> time to wrap up. >> the pollution remains. that is the end result of neglect. let's work to make this ruling as strong as we can. otherwise we will have many greenwich cove's all over the nation. it is in your power to make this happen. remember that clean air and water are necessary to sustain life. during the break i will be happy to explain that trade you. >> thank you. thank you very much, both of you. we will call the next two, please. patricia and ashley.

remember to speak into the mic. >> my name is tricia, and i am behalf of creation justice ministries, representing 37 christian denominations and their policies relating to creation care. our members exist on a wide range of spectrum, from methodist to baptists, and evangelicals to orthodox traditions. we do not agree on many things. what we do agree on is the necessity to care for god's creation and for god's people. this morning, the faith community held a blessing to bring thoughts and prayers to this process.

standing in the overcast, 28 people who care deeply about our planet and the health of all people gathered together. it was a time to reflect on the gifts god has given us, as well as the responsibilities that come with them. as stewards of the land, we are called to care for creation and to ensure we leave our planet better for future generations. the faith community has sought to address climate change for more than two decades, as we believe this is the greatest moral issue of our time. a sustainable and renewable practice must be implemented, because meeting our own president needs should not prevent our children and our children's children from meeting their needs. we are looking for cooperation between the epa, states, and utilities to protect god's planet and god's people in a way that makes sense and meets various needs. we need strict emissions

standards to reduce pollution, but the standards also need to recognize the diversity of u.s. cultures and economies. the epa should do all that it can to guarantee that prices do not skyrocket. we urge them to prioritize plans that will protect low income consumers from disproportionate and larger increases in utility bills. we have a responsibility to care for our neighbors. make sure they do not carry burdens from these unnecessary -- necessary changes. we need to keep the u.s. on pace with our international commitment. we urge you to require existing power plants to reduce their emissions by at least the necessary 35%-40%. we owe this change to our brothers and sisters around the world who are suffering at the hands of climate change.

the time for climate justice is now. >> my name is reverend ashley. i'm the pastor at a presbyterian church. 50,000 honeybees call the backyard of the church home. our honeybees pollinated vegetables and the fruits of our gardens, along with the forest oasis right next to us. the eggplants, green peppers, basil, carrots that we grow in

our urban gardens, goes to meals for open table, our lunch for hungry neighbors. on sundays, our gardens are alive. hungry neighbors nosh on casseroles and eggplants made of soft basil. our backyard is home to beings that many think are disposable. honeybees and hungry homeless folks. they are threatened by an ecological rice is created by humans and climate change. hungry people are the most socially vulnerable of humanity, starving due to lack of access to affordable and healthy food. we designed our backyard because our trust in the holy one and moral vision. we are to renew the faith of the planet. right now the planet is poor from climate pollution.

there is a greek word for house or household. it is the root for the word ecology and economics. for christians of the ancient church, it is not limited to the private home, but referring to the planet itself as the whole house. god's home. how to be a sacred neighbor? we are a share hall sold -- shared household where all who are born the long. where humans and all of life live in each other's lives and die into each other's deaths. there is no way out or around our interconnectedness. it is the way of god and of life. the role of the epa is to regulate. at the church of the pilgrim, we are doing that, tending to our ecolocation.

having no carbon limits for power plants suffocates god's planetary design. church of the pilgrim charges the epa to care for the household, the whole house, but regulating and reducing fossil fuel power plants. may it be so. >> good morning, epa leaders and staff. i am the treasurer and member of the board of directors of

the building materials reuse association. it is the leading voice of construction. we are a proud member of the american sustainable business council. they currently represent over 175,000 large and small triple bottom line businesses in america. it was extremely pleased to be able to host epa administrator gina mccarhty as a keynote speaker at its second annual keynote speaker. we are supportive of the epa's efforts to regulate read house gases from power plants. we have also urged the department to disapprove the keystone pipeline. up until mid-2012, i was also

the ceo of community forklift. it is a mile outside the district of columbia. community forklift is a net negative carbon emitter. it has been documented in a research by a professor who teaches at a catholic university of america. in 2011, there was prohibited the release of megatons of carbon equivalents in its annual operations due to the fact that raw materials were not extracted, nor energy used in manufacturing materials. i believe that building material reuse is a significant element of our future. in general, bmra is supportive of the proposal at hand. one problem troubles me greatly. i am against the inclusion of enhanced oil recovery and the

types of carbon storage proposed. i do not dispute the science of it. i am dubious of what many proponents claim of the advocacy of such storage. i object to its use as a mechanism to extract more fossil fuels from the earth for the more part will be burned for energy and contribute green gas into the hemisphere. it works against the epa efforts to reduce carbon pollution. i will quote from page 280 of the proposed standard. "the epa acknowledges that there can't he downstream losses of co2 after capture. a well selected and operated site is expected to contain co2

for the long-term. there is the potential for him potential that expected leakage. expected to be modest. due to the marked use of co2 as a purchased product. the epa wishes to encourage using than discourage eor captured co2 since the practice makes carbon storage itself more economic and promotes the use of the technology in which the proposed standard is based." i dispute this. market forces are a thin reed. in conclusion, i want to add -- as a resident of capitol hill, i urge the standard to serve federally run facilities like the capitol hill power plant not far from us today. i thank you for the opportunity

to share my views. [applause] >> my name is martin. i am the vice president for policy and legislation of earthjustice. thank you for holding today's listening session. we have an obligation to protect our children and future generations from the effect of climate change. speaking as a parent, it is a paramount opportunity. to meet this obligation, it is critical that we reduce carbon pollution from the units responsible for 40% of u.s. greenhouse gas emission. to meet the president's goal of a 17% reduction in climate

pollution by 2020, any rule for existing power plants must insure a 35%-40% reduction from 2005 levels, which is a funny five percent-30% reduction from 2012. to underscore the importance of achieving reductions, i point to california. according to the california resource board, between 2001 and 2011, and compared to an economy wide reduction of 6%. california's energy production increased during the same period. the epa's rule must set a very clear floor for the states with transparent guidance about what it will take for states to get their plans approved. it is important for both ensuring that the plants reflect the president's climate action

plan and to get legally sound state implementation plans as quickly as possible. the majority of the dirtiest coal plants in our nation are operating beyond the intended useful life. the clean air act contemplates the epa and the states consider remaining useful and setting performing standards. here that factor weighs in favor of the standards. clean air act is a successful law that are helped to reduce the levels of many air pollutants and has saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of americans. much of this progress has been the direct result of successful enforcement of the law by both agency and citizens. making progress on reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants will be dependent on the vigor and enforceability of the rules and the state or federal limitation lands that will implement them. therefore it is vital that the

implementation, the rule be measurable, verifiable, and enforceable in the subsequent plan. thank you. >> thank you. our next two will be jane and joel. >> my name is jane. i am here representing myself. thank you for hosting this session. your generosity is not lost on me. we like to add things up and evaluate the consequences. by my reckoning, you're going to

be sitting through one or 2000 of these 3-minute testimonials. i'm a mother of two with a busy job. i work on tuberculosis and a search for a market that will help us better diagnose this disease. it kills people, mostly outside the u.s., but it is a great threat given the advances of the drug resistance. i am up to my eyebrows with family and work and my community. every day i get up and wonder why else i should be doing to enhance my disability as a -- visibility as a climate activist. i have joined protests and media campaigns. i have hosted meeting and provided meals for young activists in town.

i have walked and engaged in actions, including one that got me arrested. to be here today takes me so far outside of my comfort zone, you would not believe it. i'm here because we all need to do more. without correction on carbon emission and climate disruption, curing tuberculosis will not matter. nothing will matter. i am scared. a couple years ago i arrived to the decision to be a climate activist. why was i shrinking from what i most feared? without a good answer, i faced it. i joined up. it has been better since. there are a lot of people like me who have engaged and many more who want to, but have not out of fear and uncertainty about what to do next. our capacity is huge.

it is largely untapped by government organizations who could lead on this issue. please lead. i support the carbon emission standards proposed and i support policies that drive toward conservation and alternative fossil fuels. we need to leave the carbon in the ground. i'm asking you to lead the likes of me and all of these people here. you can feel it. to engage, think, press, agitate, sacrifice, and demand results. >> thank you. >> through inner faith, power and light, congregations work together on energy and climate issues.

i am only one of over a dozen religious voices you will hear ofaking out in support safeguarding carbon pollution from existing power plants. we are joined by religious voices around the country who are participating in the epa's other listening sessions. the teaching that informs myself on carbon polltion comes from a rabbi comic 14th-century scholar of jewish law. he wrote, "one is forbidden from gaining a livelihood at the expense of another's health." "one is forbidden from gaining a livelihood at the expense of another's health." simple, ethical wisdom. not bad for the middle ages. for too long, here and now, those who operate our power have been permitted to gain their livelihoods at the expense of people's health. there have been limits on other

kinds of pollutants, but no limits at all on carbon pollution. here in d.c., we have one of the highest asthma rates, particularly among children. sometimes they struggle to breathe because of our dirty air. someone is making their living at the expense of their health. we'll be hearing a lot from polluters today, saying it will interfere with their job. they have every right to make an honorable living, but it should be for bid and read to make their livelihoods at the expense of people's health. in the religious communities with which i work, people are heartsick about the role of fossil fuels in producing the gas that is producing climate change. they are working to reduce electricity use in their homes. they're climbing up on ladders to chain to more efficient light bulbs. they're working together to support clean energy through the

energy bills. they have bought hard to bring wind power and they're willing to spend many hours and committee meetings vigor how to have solar panels. so often we are told that the changes we are trying to make is unrealistic and that clean energy is so expensive while dirty energy is cheap. who pays for dirty energy? who bears the cost of that air quality, seniors having heart attacks and pregnant mothers with mercury in their body. who bears the cost of extreme drought and devastating weather caused by climate change? any energy people pay for through the further destruction of our climate, is not cheap energy. it is intolerably expensive. on this morning, the epa stand poised to set national limits on our nation's single, largest source of carbon pollution. please proceed to issue and improve strong carbon pollution standards.

>> thank you. next up, we have dustin and robin. >> good morning. my name is robin. i'm here wearing three hats. one of them is of a respite. community faith leader.

another is that of the west virginia ohio valley environmental coalition. the third is that of an eighth generation, southern west virginia resident. why do i feel the need to travel all the way from southwestern west virginia to attend this listening session? because i want you to hear that there are people in west virginia who support the epa's actions to established richter power plant regulations. desperately need this. as a member of the presbyterian faith community, i believe im called to be a steward of god's great creation and care for the most vulnerable population in all communities. as a member of an organization which actively seeks to preserve clean air and equal justice for all citizens in west virginia, i urge the epa to set strict standards for overall emission reduction while also working for states and utilities to prioritize shifting energy sources to truly renewable

sources by geothermal and micro power. instead of shifting to lower costs fossil fuels such as shale gas, which in fact has huge hidden costs. west virginia, by the way he is the only state in the country that hosted both gas fracking and coal mining going on. we are being ravaged. headwater streams of the eastern coast -- i urge the epa and the utilities to prioritize plans that will protect low income consumers for disproportionate and utility bills. i urge epa to move quickly with a final rule so that the u.s. can begin to adjust the increasingly urgent problems of climate change that threaten the mass extinction of many species in the health or well-being of existing human generations on

earth as well as futures -- to tour once. there has been a report titled a strategic plan for a dressing asthma in west virginia. 2010-2014. i want to mention a few highlights from that. the rate of asthma has more than doubled among seniors in west virginia since 1996. really we have over 31,000 children on over 100 23,000 adult in west virginia who have asthma. west virginia adult females are nearly twice as likely to have asthma. the study concludes that west virginia's with low economic status and adults without a high school diploma and an annual income of less than $25,000 are significantly more likely to have asthma. in short, it seems clear to me

that asthma related health effects are living near coal fire plants which we do through all our state, we have no other alternative. it can cost the people who can least afford it. children, seniors, women. please establish stricter rules. >> good morning. my name is dustin. i'm here to represent a community that i feel is often not mentioned when talking about reducing emissions. i'm speaking about the

communities where they mine the coal from these power plants. i'm from a community of the nomination to the basin national hope -- navajo nation to the basin. i'm from southern west virginia, i have been around coal mines my entire life. we had to talk about the human health impacts of carbon pollution. i support epa's efforts and leave me there are many more. i feel that you cannot realistically talk about emissions without discussing the extraction because they are indeed linked. the regulating the amount of coal that is produced by plants that are also helping the community's or the coal industry on a daily bases, let's call it what it is. whole pollution.

whether you're living with a power plant in your backyard or a mine site over to your -- your community, you and your neighbor are getting sick president impact to the air quality. the extraction process as well as pollution from power plants is poisoning our air, water, and land. i'm not a scientist. i'm a boy from west virginia. i cannot sit here" statistics. i do not deal with numbers or statistics. i deal with reality. the reality is that people are getting sick and dying from this pollution. we know this. and our numerous scientific studies that state this. i am however living witness to the death every day. i can spend hours telling you stories of people who suffer like in 19 old girl from my hometown who was diagnosed with multiple types of cancer and has been given two months to live. i'm now living people i played with as a child at 30 years old. this is all because they live

around coal. i am sure the residents near it living near coal power plant to can tell similar stories. many die of this pollution. they simply do not care about my people. they cater about rockets. politicians, especially the west virginia delegation, well continue the risk -- this is not true. even if that were true, let me be clear -- no one has a job that is more important than some else's life. contrary to what the politicians and industry say, we know that there are safer and cleaner ways to produce electricity. the must to come together and end the cycle of death. this starts with meaningful regulation. no one should have to live with us the tour issues and other

human issues, human health issues, that coal is responsible for. for the sake of future generations, stop talking. epa, do your job. thank you. >> thank you. next on the panel we have senator mcconnell. >> thank you. pleasure to be here. appreciate the chance to come here on behalf of my state. it is my understanding that these sessions are intended to gather stakeholder input on what people think about future carbon

regulations from existing power plants. i couldn't help but notice the sessions are scheduled only for states were coal does not have a large presence, like california and massachusetts. other regions of the country are well aware that coal provides nearly 40% of our nation's electricity. as such, to hold a hearing and hear the concerns -- since epa refuses to come i decided on the half of the kentucky coal miners and the families that i would bring their concerns to you myself. if the epa will not listen to us, we will come here to the epa. i know it is clear that this administration and your agency have declared war on coal. this means a war on jobs and on our state economy.

this is what he had to say -- if someone wants to build a coal power plant, they can. it will disregard them. they're going to be charged a huge sum for all of the greenhouse gas that is being emitted. that is direct quote from the president of the united states. one of the first things he did among taking office in 2009 was to push through congress bill -- try to push it through, i might add. back in 2009, the democratic party controlled both houses of congress. they held a super majority and a set of 60 votes. they could pass anything they wanted to. the bill only nearly passed the house i could never pass the senate. it ultimately did not pass in the senate. at his own party said no. what this president cannot get

enacted into law was trying to enact through the bureaucracy. he has unleashed the epa to fulfill the same extreme mandates that were part of his bill. before you do, you will hear from us. i think it is important to note that the beginning of this administration employed 18,000. we have gone from 18,000 down to 13,000. that is a depression and not a recession. for every cold job, there are additional jobs. this administration has declared war on coal. 90% of our electricity comes from coal-fired generation. we can anticipate our utility rates that has been one of the great ways we have been able to attract new industry. we are here to remind you that

coal keeps the lights on. for kentucky and for the nation. i wanted to do sue to a man who will speak for kentucky coal miners today. as a fifth-generation coal man, he truly understands the central role that coal place and in our economy and in our history and yes, in our future. his great-grandfather was a coal miner. his father managed large coal mines. today he is the president of service at a coal service company. he knows full well how kentucky coal miners work 14 hour days to bring affordable energy to the state and the country. youhe works just as hard himself. if you're truly interested in learning -- listening to the people whose lives youl