welcome the minister. last fall epa administrator mccarthy met to discuss the proposed rule, and after that meeting kentucky center of framework to the epa with ways and develop rules that would reduce carbon pollution, while effectively offering our state of flexibility to meet new standards. my understanding is epa involved almost all of the commonwealth recommendations. is that correct? >> i believe so, congressman. >> and those included in allowing states to reduce emissions using measures such as energy efficiency, renewable energy, and fuel switching out of natural gas rather than forcing states to reduce emissions at any specific plans also recognizing differences among states resource potential, current generation portfolios, and allowing a variety of compliance options including energy efficiency and so forth, as you said. but here is another example of how that flexibility can help. the american recovery and beat -- reinvestment act established a rebate program to help spur development and adoption of energy-e

the epa promulgating bicameral 111d but under epa's own interpretation of the section you it cannot be used to regulate sources listed under section 112. epa bus concedes that remaining listed under section 112 of aconda regulations for existing sources must fall. epa promulgated the new sources under section 111d on that basis there would be no regulation of emissions a new source performance standards would be upcoming by national emissions cap involuntary cap-and-trade program end quote from the opinion that you just said were you people argue the opposite. the court seemed to argue what i think it matters you don't have an authority to regulate greenhouse gases under 112. not greenhouse gases that but regulate the existing coal-fired prior -- coal-fired plants how you recognize those two? now finding that your lawyers previously argued the opposite and least the court is not a stick in another case was appealed on other grounds. >> this decision was based on completely different basis. the decision to vacate the rule. >> i understand at the giga stated here today that this was not

under the epa rules. the clean power plant was reasonable and achievable and gives the states the flexibility how to achieve the reduction. the goal of state specific and cost-effective to show public support by a large majority it is time for this committee to stop the partisan obstruction my republican colleagues of they have the better idea to protect our clinic for children and grandchildren they should speak up. to just say no to change ingenuity to condemn the next generation through droughts and wildfires and extreme storms is not an option. if you have another idea let's hear it. there is no problem we should not do anything at all. >> your time is expired but i may respectfully say we did present of a bill that passed the house of representatives with of large margin. >> mr. chairman if you will yield but that said the epa may not act. >> no. said they could set the standard of existing plans in congress said the effective date also set a standard for new plants but we did submit a proposal it is

or the epa. can't even make a dent. although while seniors on fixed income families and children suffer higher electricity bills, joblessness and poor health. this is all paid -- pain and little game with what the president is proposing. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you senator brosseau -- barrasso. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. thank you for your tireless efforts on this issue in organizing this very important hearing today. let me begin by expressing and i say this to somebody who may have the highest prolabor fat fate -- voting record in the united states congress. i delight in hearing some of my friends express on the other side their interest about the needs of low-income people and working people and senior citizens but i would remind everybody many of these same people are folks who have fought to cut social security, medicare, medicaid, oppose raising the minimum wage opposed the jobs program we need to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and put millions of people back to work, oppose lowering colleg

trumpet to the public. does epa give this carbon rule credit for what it is already doing? are you double counting? >> there are two answers to that, congressman. one is that the pm rule just finalized is the standard. it's not the path to get there. so states will need to implement measures in order to reduce pm to meet that standard, and this proposed plan would be one way for them to do that. so it could be a critical element of a state's pm compliance plan. the second answer to your question, congressman, is scientists show that there are health benefits from reductions of pm, even below the standard. we set the standards to protect from a public health perspective at the national level, but there continue to be health benefits, real health benefits that are experienced by people when those particle pollution levels go down. so it is appropriate, in our view, to reflect the benefits that will accrue from those further reducks. >> i have a memo you put out in december 2012, january 2013. a fax sheet on the pm sta

while we heard the epa administrator talk about an all of the above strategy that includes coal. >> this is an epa regulation. these regulations are announced as one thing and they'll continually evolve, change and likely expand as you go through court cases, go through future administrations. if this is allowed to be implemented, and the next president goes through with it, whatever we're talking about today won't be relevant. they're going to change all these goals, these standards. the argument here that $50 billion and a quarter million jobs lost because of these standards. it's hard to have an accurate number because we don't know the future. plus each state may have energy mixes. every state is going to be u uneven. ultimately this is a time planned by the united states government at a time when spain is walking away. at a time when germany is pore dependent on power, and australia weakened away from these reductions. so the united states is committing itself to something that the rest of the world is probably scratching their head at this point. again, it's not going to achieve an

simply, let me say that we have great respect for the epa. i voted for the clean air act amendments in the early '90s. this proposal does not comport with my understanding of what the clean air act amendments were when we passed them in this committee over 20 years ago. with that, i would yield back to the chairman. >> the gentleman yields back, and at this time recognize the gentleman from chicago, ranking member mr. rush, for his five-minute opening >> i want to thank you, mr. chairman, for this important hearing on the epa's clean power rules. as part of president obama's climate action plan to cut carbon pollution and help mitigate the disastrous effects of climate change, this rule will allow epa to use this existing authority under the clean air act to control carbon pollution from existing fossil fuel, fire and power plants. i must say this rule could not be more timely as these power plants account for the largest source of greenhouse gases, from stationary sources, in this country. and they are responsible for about one-third of the t

chairman for this important hearing on the epa clean power rule. as a part of the climate action plan to cut carbon pollution and help mitigate the investment and the effect of climate change this would allow them to use the existing authority under the clean air act to control from the existing fossil fuel fired power plants. now i'm going to say this rule could not be more timely. as these power plants account for the largest source of greenhouse gases from the stationary sources in this country in the greenhouse gas is emission with no current federal amendment when their emissions of the carbon pollution. this new proposal seeks to cut emissions by 30% compared with an 2005 levels not 2030 and the flexibility when implementing new rules based on their existing infrastructure polici policies. why do we hear from some industry groups and opponents of any type of regulation the rules are being costly and overburdened some into the office of management contradicts that claim from the annual reports to the congress we know that's more than 34 major e

that is what the epa is trying to do. there is honest disagreement about aspects of the agency's powerplant proposal. itsher it is stretching authority to far. i am sure ebay will be made aware during the comment piano. my hope is that the primary focus will be on the substance. -- i am sure the epa will be made aware during the comment period. it is clear that the clean air act is an imperfect too. l. since congress has declined to act, the epa must and that is the law. it will not come without cost. soughthe nixon, it has -- mutuallyy is not a goalt exclusive . from 1980-2012, the total 67%.ions, it dropped our population grew by 38%. our consumption grew and our gdp constant doubled in dollars. more people consuming more much lesstted pollution without sacrificing economic growth. that is clear evidence of the balance of the epa has been able to strike in the past. further reductions are achievable and affordable. mr. chairman, my hope is that congress will at long last acknowledge climate change is real and the potenti

the epa's proposal romping a backlash. is is going to be a leading the midterm elections, especially in louisiana, kentucky, north carolina and alaska. host: these are all states with a democratic senator who is running for reelection who is now faced with a decision about whether or not they will support their president and the administration on a significant climate change initiative. all of those states require -- rely heavily on oil production. running inrs are very conservative states. if members like that can support this step, that's a significant blow to the administration. we are seeing hesitant see from others who are not even up for reelection. including tim kaine from virginia. which has produced a lot of: the past. -- a lot of coal in the past. republicans are very staunchly opposed to this right now. host: thank you for him with us and sharing insights on the president's travels and the epa ruling yesterday. number of editorials related to this. obama's war on electricity. the times says that coal is mined mos

they are going to see from the epa rules. also lower incomes and fixed income families suffer even more disproportionately. >> guest: this is a classic line with statistics. i believe paul's number -- the price of gasoline which had nothing to do with electricity. electricity has been stable and cheap and cheaper in most parts of the country over this period of time. natural gas and the low price of natural gas is driving prices down and that's the reason colas having so much trouble. he can't compete. in renewable energy is cheaper than it ever was before. energy efficiency investments leave you better off. if a homeowner, if you can get all you want out of electricity with a lower monthly bill the savings rack up month after month. >> host: this is a study by the way from harvard university printed in the "washington post" to give you an indication of the areas of the country that would be impacted the most through the pollution output by 2020. you can see the eastern seaboard and the seaboard of the central part of the coun

why can't we take the same approach for epa take the same approach here? 250 tons or more and we apply that all over the place except it doesn't make sense here so we read an exception into into it and on britain for places where it made no sense. >> i don't know if there's a president in which it says you can take an express command that doesn't delegate to the agency that determination threshold. >> i'm a little confused because there have to be pollutants where it doesn't aim at just 250 but where it emits 1 million the best available control technology won't get it down to below 250. the psd program is in effect when they i get down below 250 on any of the six criteria. so it can't be your view that the statute was written only to get to measurable pollutants that are at 250 were can be brought below 250. >> that's right your honor. to bring facilities down below the 250 level. it's our position that 250 is the trigger that a facility -. >> ghd is something that is above that and it's never going to be brought down below it. >> that's right but it's ab

the epa does have the authority bill in. the supreme court has said so twice. that matter believe should now be put to rest. given that fact the agency has decided properly in my view that it should act now to reduce carbon emissions improve the quality of our air protect the health of our people and is part of an effort to address global climate change. the united states climate change is not just environmental issue or an economic issue. climate change also has very real implications for our national security and those concerns must be an important part of any discussion that takes place. .. my hope, however, is that the primary focus will be on the substance of the proposed rule and not epa brought authority to promulgate. that being said, it is clear that the act as it now stands is an imperfect tool to address the unique challenges that climate change presents. congressional action and leaders would be a preferable approach, but since congress has declined to act, the epa must. that is the law. actual -- since president nixon created the -- epa in 1970 it

with the president -- the epa administrator under george h.w. bush who helped write those acid rain regulations in the 1990s. thanks for being with us. pleasure to have you here. >> pleasure to be here and to listen to your history. brought back a lot of memories of environmental victories. >> thanks. i'm glad it sounds that way to you because it implies i didn't screw anything up, but i guess i should ask you about whether in hindsight, now looking back at it, i feel like the objections that were made, the sky is falling stuff, specifically about the economy, it all seems so disproven and so clearly wrong in terms of the implications of those arguments of your critics at the time, did it feel that way at the time or was it a harder fight than it looks like in hindsight? >> they were all hard fights. there were always critics and there were always economic arguments. one interesting facet of virtually every one of those statutes that twrou mentioned -- you mentioned, the epa itself overestimated the cost of accommodations. those rules including t

it was largely in favor of the epa. stices did find the agency had overstepped its authority in some ways by interpreting the clean air act in a way that was not allowed, but they also said that the epa does have the authority to regulate these greenhouse gases for facilities that are already regulated for other kinds of air pollution. antonin scalia said this . . . and the epa added a quick victory note of its own, saying the supreme court is a win for our efforts to reduce carbon pollution, because it's louse the epa and other permitting authorities to continue to require carbon solution limiting permits for the largest pollution sources. the court did rebuke the epa, it did say you are trying to go too far here. but those who feel the epa might then lose out in future cases probably aren't correct. the epa feels pretty strongly that it will win when new cases come before the court. and you can expect carbon emissions from coal-fired plants. but for today, anyway, a victory for the epa. it moves forward on continuing t

it was a mixed ruling but largely in favor of the epa. the justices did find that the agency had overstepped its authorities overstepped its bounds in some ways by interpreting the clean air act in a way that was not allowed but at the same time a majority of the justices also said that the epa does have the authority to regulate these greenhouse gases for the facilities that are already regulated for other kinds of air pollution. here's what antonin scalia said writing for the majority. he says it bears mention that the epa is getting almost everything it wanted in this case. it wanted to regulate sources that it said were responsible for 86% of greenhouse gases, emitted from stationary sources nationwide. regulate sources responsible for 83% of those emissions. and the epa added a quick victory note of its own, saying the association are are carbon pollution limits and permits for the largest pollution sources. now, those on the other side like to point out that the court did rebuke the epa, did say you're trying to go too far here and y

the epa had a really good term this year before the supreme court. the initial case you mentioned, the clean air act case, was a big victory for the epa. the court upheld a majority of opinion that included conservative justices, as well, upheld the epa's ability to regulate pollution that traveled from one state, air pollution that traveled from one state to another. that was a big victory for the epa. the greenhouse gasses case that in some ways limited epa's ability to regulate greenhouse gasses, in one respect allowed the epa to basically, as justice scalia said when he was issuing the decision, get everything it wanted out of the case. the way i sort of described it was that it was a 97% victory for the epa. the difference between what the epa argued for entirety and what the supreme court gave it even though it limited a little bit of its authority, it was only a 3% difference in greenhouse gas emissions. it was basically a victory for the epa. it was a good term for them. going forward, if you look at president obama's promised regulations on

but a 2007 supreme court ruling allowed the epa to regulate carbon dioxide. ay for these rules. now the epa hopes to have a final rule by the middle of the next year, then states would have another year to come back to the epa and say, here is our plan for how to meet these emissions cuts, but this is going to be tied up in court, it could end up back at the supreme court. and moves on capitol hill to try to stop it as well. we are in to a long battle over this one. >> just the beginning of the bat. >>> jake ward is out in san francisco tonight, coal is not our only source of energy, but still important, right? >> well, that's right. i mean, the epa had to act here because coal is such a cheap and in such an incredibly dirty thing to burn in order to make electrics at this. and the country is just a varied place, you have california where i am where it's already pretty much illegal to build a coal plant you couldn't even if you wanted to. but you have states like virginia where the cost of electricity section tomorrowly low. no market pressure of any kind to m

the epa had a really good term this year before the supreme court. the initial case you mentioned, the clean air act case, was a big victory for the epa. the court upheld a majority of opinion that included conservative justices, as well, upheld the epa's ability to regulate pollution that traveled from one state, air pollution that traveled from one state to another. that was a big victory for the epa. the greenhouse gasses case that in some ways limited epa's ability to regulate greenhouse gasses, in one respect allowed the epa to basically, as justice scalia said when he was issuing the decision, get everything it wanted out of the case. the way i sort of described it was that it was a 97% victory for the epa. the difference between what the epa argued for entirety and what the supreme court gave it even though it limited a little bit of its authority, it was only a 3% difference in greenhouse gas emissions. it was basically a victory for the epa. it was a good term for them. going forward, if you look at president obama's promised regulations on

it's about the epa, or rather the epooha.re urging employees not to use the hallways as a place to do a do-do. the people in charge of fighting pollution are propagating poohlution. they discovered an e-mail to the staff that mentions incidents including clogging toilets with a paper towel and a hallway littered with human waste. the agency actually called a workplace violence expert who says, this is a health and safety risk. behold our government, a bureaucracy so burdened by idiocy, that they must call in an expert to tell you that defiling a hallway is bad. no wonder we went from number one to number two. why did they call it workplace violence? if the shooting at ft. hood is violence, why not pooping in the hallway? the va, epa, it's an eye chart of incompetence. everywhere you look. in the obama administration you realize so much is crap. in this case, you can even step in it. maybe they should appoint a poop czar. >> that was a good job. >> that would be a good job. i would be really good at it, dana. >> although i wou

the epa obviously disagreed. they open a comment period and hope to have a final proposal in place by middle of next year. >> every really expecting this to be a tough fight. break down the clean power plant for us. what exactly is in it? >> well, here's what the proposal looks like. under this proposal what the epa is suggesting is that carbon pollution by existing plants would have to be put by 30% b by 2013. that's 30% from 2005 levels. there has been some progress made on that. the epa said the health benefits could prevent 6,000 premature death as year, and the epa said it will drop electricity bills by about 8%. epa said that the claims that it will hurt the economy are wrong. this will spur innovation and a lot of green technologies but already the first lawsuit is being threatened. this will be a very big fight to put this proposal in place. >> lisa stark. thank you. tonight president obama leaves for a trip to europe. he'll be making stops this weekend, poland, belgium and france. he'll meet with leaders

the epa claimed victory. it says the supreme court's are decision is a victory forking, permitting authorities to continue to require carbon pollution limits in permits for the largest pollution sources. now those on the other side taking some comfort from the fact that the epa did rebuke or that the court did rebuke the epa for trying to do that in a way that overstepped its bounds. hoping that may play out in later cases but right now the epa can go forward with what it planned for reducing these greenhouse gases 98. 98 i-- anyway. david. >> does this reduce what the white house was hoping for? >> the white house has to be pleased with some of this because it does indicate from the supporter that the clean air act can be used, what the administration wants to do is reduce carbon from coal fired plants. we'll have to see how that goes in a few years' time. >> least e-ah how many -- lisa how many cases are remaining. >> seven cases, three in particular that we're watching david. one is a challenge by two faith

then the court also said by a majority that the epa does have the right to regulate these greenhouse gases for facilities that already are under regulation for simple air pollutants. judge antonin scalia wrote the opinion and here is what he has to say, it bears mention that the epa is getting almost everything it wants in that case. for 86% of all greenhouse gases admitfrom stationary sources nationwide. under our holdings epa will be able to regulate sources responsible for 83% of these emissions. and the epa itself was quick to claim victory saying the supreme court's decision is a win for our efforts to reduce carbon pollution because it allows the epa states and other permitting authorities to continue to require carbon pollution limits in permits for the largest pollution sources. then those on the other side tony are cautioning that the court did say that the epa has to be careful not to overstep its bounds. it can't rewrite the clean air act for example, that's up to the legislature but still for most part it's being viewed as a win for the epa trying to tamp down those green

now, of course, the epa. hy they're not cooperating and what is you want to see. >> well, we have two days where we have had to federal agencies that have not followed the law and we have missing e-mail. really it is all about missing e-mails and the possibility of collusion with regard to some intervention that the epa did up in alaska. so we need to get those e-mails to make sure that we can get to the bottom of it. they have failed to produce them neil: what have they said, why they cannot produce them? >> well, miraculously we found another hard drive that had issues. neil: are you kidding me? >> another hard drive. and their council admitted this under questioning yesterday. and so they are still trying to recover them. to our knowledge, there was no backup, no printed out copy, as required by law. and so it is is very troubling for a transparent administration. neil: leaving what the administration has said it would do and be and is clearly not, and wondering, obviously they can say there would be afraid

the epa itself recognizes this and talks about the billions of dollars per year in cost.course they talk about what they think the expected benefits are. look, we've already seen natural gas pricing out coal in many markets. in my view, we should let the market work here. and again, but the obama administration is not willing to do that? gerri: that is interesting. so you let the market work. people opt for natural gas, cleaner of those two energies and everything is wonderful but washington wants to put in an edict and force everybody to do what they want to see done. my big question for interview really, what does it do to my electric bill over time? >> this is the key question, gerri. i can't answer that. the chamber of commerce came out with their own report on their estimates. epa has their estimates. here is my punch line, gerri. i worry we're simply repeating policy mistakes of the past. 1978 congress passed fuel use act and banned or restricted use of natural gas-fired electricity production. now we're going the other way and banning coal-fired electricity product

>> how did the epa settle on the number? >> they tried to explain that in one of the rulemaking orders. . >> what epa did was say did to 85% of emissions by setting the standards were have set them. >> we haven't said anything about the title five problem which they said was 6.1 million ,ersons are individuals businesses coming into it. how do you get them out of that one? there would be a good reason for this. the bell that it rang is that agencies have tremendous authority about how they distribute their enforcement of resources. they don't have to reinforce everything against everything. that is the basic principle. they have to put their money where we'll do the most good. it's sort of like missing -- >> it would be a helpful point for us. you,s what they will tell so i think that's the reason. to --ecause it is subject >> in other words, you would be out of it totally and any citizen could say where is your permit. >> right. >> if there are no further questions -- >> thank you, general. five minutes. justice.you, mr. ch

with the epa's plan does, instead of saying, listen, we will have emission reduction plan that is ther every single state, this epa plan says, we all set targets for each state and the targets are different for every state. some of the most polluting states have lower targets or may not have to reduce their missions at all. but there are many different ways states can meet the emission reductions if they have them. things like renewable energy portfolio standards, demand-side energy efficiency. california has feel emission standards. there is a mechanism called cap and trade where a cap is placed on greenhouse gas emissions. but polluters are allowed to trade emission or pollution permits that allow them to meet the regulatory obligations and the cheapest way possible. that is a problem because while the atmosphere may not care were greenhouse gas emissions come from, the people who live in the shadow of the most polluting and dirtiest industries, the most spencer to clean up the most likely these cheaper mechanisms like buying credits, will still be breathing and the toxic emissions

by the way, that is despite the epa has moved the goalposts. in other words, the standards are tighter than they were. they are about 30% more difficult to reach as of late. if they had not moved the goalposts, we would have gone to zero in most of the country. this is really important. timeframeplace in a in which your economy is almost three times as big as it was in 1990. trillioneconomy was $6 in 1990. it is $17 trillion today. even as you just that for inflation, our population in that time is up 20%. the amount traveled is up 25%. theeconomy is bigger, population is bigger, people are driving more, but emissions are 65%-70% across-the-board. it is really quite remarkable. in addition to those six criteria and other things that had never been regulated before, there was a problem, something called air toxics. these were never actually controlled by the law. in 1974 and 1977, congress passed a law about a margin of safety. a u.s. court of appeals decision written by the late robert bork said it was zero so the epa could never figure out how

>> john podesta now on issues facing the obama administration -- the epa recently announced power plant emissions rule, the release of bergdahl, and hillary clinton. mr. podesta served as white house chief of staff from 1998 until 2001. his comments are an hour. >> our guest is john podesta, his fourth visit of the group. the last was in 2009 when he was president and chief executive officer for the center for american progress. he grew up in chicago, earned a bachelor's degree from knox college, and is an alumni from georgetown. he spent his early career on capitol hill. he worked with ted kennedy and later was chief counselor of the senate agriculture committee. in 1988 he founded the well-known government relations firm with his brother tony. he served president clinton as to be the chief of staff and then as white house chief of staff until 2001. he was co-chairman of obama's transition team in 2008. he is the proud father of air force captain gabe podesta. so much for prior review. now to the process portion of our program. anga a gas alliance is sponsoring today's breakfast. our t

. >>> plus, the epa's new climate rule puts many in jeopardy. >>> and republican nominees get set for a contender in iowa but set off a runoff elsewhere. we'll look at the race for november. >>> we had a prisoner of war whose health had deteriorated. and we were deeply concerned about it and saw an opportunity and we seized it. and i make no apologies for that. >> welcome to "the journal ed i'm paul gigot. that was president obama defending the swap for bowe bergdahl for five guantanamo detain niece. it started as a celebration last week in the rose garden and quickly turned into the latest political fiasco with lawmakers from both sides criticizing the decision and the white house insisting on damage control once again. joining the panel, the potomac columnist kim straszle, james freeman, and america's columnist, mary annesthesia. it is pretty obvious that the president miscalculated this at the very least, why do you think they did that? >> it's remarkable. i think they thought they were going to sweep the administration health official scandal from the front page and dlam foreign v

thank you to the folks at epa. the 1990's, critics cried wolf and said fighting acid rain will make electricity go up and our lights go out. they said industry would, i quote, die a quiet death. they were wrong again. industry is alive and well. our lights are still on and we have dramatically reduced acid rain. so time after time when science pointed to health risk, special interests cried wolf to protect their own agenda. not the agenda of the american people. time after time, we followed the science, we protected the american people and the doomsday prediction never came true. now climate change is calling our number. right on to the same critics, once again scare tactic -- tactics and to meet our moral obligation as stewards of our natural resources. their claims that scientific actions that protect families will somehow flies in the face of history and shows and decided lack of faith in american ingenuity and entrepreneurship. i don't accept that premise. the president of the united states doesn't accept that

. >>> and the epa's new climate rule puts the energy state in jeopardy and not to mention the careers of vulnerable democrats. and republican voters nominate a real contender in iowa, but set up a bitter runoff in mississippi. we'll tell you what tuesday's primaries mean for a gop senate takeback in november. >>> we had a prisoner of war whose health had deteriorated. and we were deeply concerned about. and we saw an opportunity and we seized it. and i make no apologies for that. >> welcome to "the journal editorial report" i'm paul gigot. that was president obama thursday defending the swap of bowe bergdahl for five high-level taliban detainees. what started as a celebratory announcement in the rose garden last weekend has quickly turned into the administration's latest political fiasco with lawmakers from both parties criticizing the decision, and the white house engaging in damage control once again. joining the panel this week, "wall street journal" columnist kim strassel, assistant editor, james freeman and america's columnist, mary anastasia o'grady. so kim, it's pretty clear, e

there's an effort to take it away from the epa. how likely is it that they succeed in doing that? power that the epa has comes through the clean air act passed by congress in the '70s and the supreme court has basically said you have to apply that to carbon dioxide if they find it endangers public health and well fare. they have to have repeal it through congress. it would probably take a super majority, 66 votes in the senate to overturn a presidential veto. so unless they get 66 or 67 votes in the senate, it's pretty unlikely. >> brian, when you get into the coalition management side, you've seen since 2008 a really sharp turn in the republican party. 2008 you had john mccain and sarah palin ran on a platform that included a cap and trade bill. it's fair to say in 2016 that would be absolute suicide in the republican party. i think the question given that while the epa rules are ambitious, they are not nearly enough whether there can be a sharp change in the republican party in the coming years. what are the conditions if you think any actually exist by which the republican party

>> i see it as a really a win and a loss for the epa. side, the court basically affirms their ability regulate greenhouse gas emissions. on the loss side, they're basically saying the epa overstepped their authority by tailoring the definition of the clean air act to suit their bureaucratic needs. i would say it is fairly small loss in that sense. david: certainly wasn't a loss for coal stocks. they did pare back today but all energy stocks were down today. but yesterday they did pop. i think the reason why, correct me if i'm wrong, because it clearly defined the legal limits for the epa. before yesterday nobody was sure how far they would go. this sets the limits. yes, it gives them, epa authority to do a lot of what they did but sets limits for them, right? >> sure thing. i think there will be more legal challenges down the road. you have the carbon emissions regulations that they're putting in place. that is going to be tested over the next few years on a state level. ore bums in theed by industry. road for epa. i don't think this is

the epa had a really good term this year before the supreme court. the initial case you mentioned, the clean air act case, was a big victory for the epa. the court upheld a majority of opinion that included conservative justices, as well, upheld the epa's ability to regulate pollution that traveled from one state, air pollution that traveled from one state to another. that was a big victory for the epa. the greenhouse gasses case that in some ways limited epa's ability to regulate greenhouse gasses, in one respect allowed the epa to basically, as justice scalia said when he was issuing the decision, get everything it wanted out of the case. the way i sort of described it was that it was a 97% victory for the epa. the difference between what the epa argued for entirety and what the supreme court gave it even though it limited a little bit of its authority, it was only a 3% difference in greenhouse gas emissions. it was basically a victory for the epa. it was a good term for them. going forward, if you look at president obama's promised regulations on