mr. mccabe has reined for the last 10 years. when it was van taij yours for the permit holder to rent the unit and receive rental income, he did so now when it is advantageous to demolish the unit and sell the property as a single family home in this insane real estate market, he is trying to take advantage of the farting that he built an ill laoem unit and sell it as a single family unit and demolish it. this will result in the displacement of a long term permanently disabled tenant, it will change the nature of the property so it will not be rent controlled housing anymore, it's currently two unit, both units are covered by the rent ordinance and the rent control protections of the rent ordinance, if this eviction happens, the upper unit will be a single family home which is not subject to the rent control protections of the rent ordinance so we will be losing not only rental stock but rent controlled housing in san francisco, and that is in couldn't ra ensuing of the mayor's executive direction 1301 which asks the board and a

mr. mccabe to stay until this discretionary review, that would be valuable to him. >> thank you. mr. bornstein? >> mr. merchant had notification that we were going to be seeking permits as early as october 15 2014, at least three to four weeks before we pulled the permits while the city obviously has acknowledged there was an administrative error i find it in some respects surprising that mr. merchant would claim now in retrospect that he would be seeking a discretionary review. he could have done so at any point in time. most importantly the emphasis i want to sort of finalize is my client is simply trying to legalize a space. my client understands it does come with a trance advising pi client has complied with both the san francisco rent control rules lintels the relocation payment obligations and after we served the termination notice, we provided the first relocation payment, and then mr. merchant informed me in writing that his client was entitled to a second relocation paim. we provided that second relocation payment under the understanding that mr. mccabe would be using the re

mr. chairman. thanks, miss mccabe for being here. i want to thank my colleagues for letting me jump ahead because i have another commitment in a few minutes. and i'll be brief. miss mccabe, as you know i submit requests for documents on these rules last congress. epa is still producing some of those documents but from what has been produce edd there is a dramatic pattern of very frequent detailed meetings and calls and e-mails between epa and nrdc a leading outside environmental group. the number of these communicationsize pretty staggering and unprecedented as far as i can see. but in addition there's? correspondence between epa and nrdc that has not been produced or posted to the docket. why is that? and will that excluded correspondence and documentation be submitted? >> senator, i'm not exactly sure of the answer to that question. i'll be glad to get back to you on that. >> if you could get back to us, and hopefully that's going to be correct ed corrected in terms of the docket by including that additional correspondence and docu

mr. chairman for your courtesy and thank you ranking member. thank you, miss mccabe for being here today. i'm glad to have the opportunity to talk with you about the impacts of your power plant rules on my home state of nebraska. as you know nebraska is the only state in the nation with the wholly publically owned utility power sector. public power utilities are cost-based entities with no profit motivation or obligation to provide stakeholder dividends. that is vitally important i believe to keep in mind as epa considers these proposed rules. the compliance cost will be directly borne by nebraska residents through their electric rates. today i would like to touch on some of the concerns raised in the public comment period by my state's public power utilities and by the nebraska department of environmental quality regarding the mandates for carbon emission reductions from existing power plants. our state has written that the building blocks contain quote inaccurate assumptions and unrealistic expectations that will result in emissions goals that may be unattainable r

mr. chairman. and i would like to thank administrator mccabe for coming before us today to discuss this extremely important rule. you may know or i hope you know that i represent the state of west virginia. >> i do. >> thank you. and we have just under 2 million hard-working americans who receive 95% of our electricity from coal-powered generation. the west virginia coal industry supports families, strengthens national security, and affordably powers not only my state but provides affordable electricity to many of my neighbors. we export over half the electricity that we produce. we could be keeping the lights on in this room. but like many of the colleagues, i have serious concerns about the proposed regulations. item concerned about the cost to the taxpayer and also to the bill payer. we've heard already today that 32 states have raised serious objections. a large percentage of our country's power comes from coal. yet you predict by effectively eliminating one half of our energy generation we will reduce electricity prices by 8%. this to me doesn't add up. in our state our monthly electrical bills are 23