with backup epa authority. they used that authority in issuing this rule but the epa determined if cannot. we are left with a rule that cannot be delegated to states in which the epa has nor enforcement role. it is self implement and relegated and the facilities must comply irrespective if it is adopted by the state. the federal rule remains in place with the independent set of criteria. the epa's koran this point. the state program cannot operate in lieu of a federal program. this will result in dual the potentially inconsistent federal estate requirements. most troubling, we are hearing that some states not not even attempt to -- the new rule. we believe this is the only federal environmental law that is implemented and enforced in that. this means legal disputes regarding compliance with any aspect with the rule determined on a case-by-case basis. that all judges will be making complex decisions about federal revelatory compliance. this is likely to different decisions in terms of the scope and applicability

who's at the epa? who's sitting down at the table to really come up with the methodology to come forward with that standard? or what that should be set at? >> we've engages the beneficial users in the development of the methodology. this is a methodology to be used by users, by manufacturer's or by states to confirm that a product that uses coal ash as opposed to a product that doesn't use coal ash are comparable. and, so, therefore it can be safely used to replace virgin products. we think that the methodology has been well received in the marketplace, and on application of the methodology to these specific uses like concrete and wallboard has been received. >> thank you, mr. chairman in the interest of the second panel, i'm going to yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank you for that. the chair recognizes the other gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you mr. director for being with us this morning. let me -- i want to get a clarification on

epa is clear on this point.tate program cannot anticipatory in lieu of a federal program. this will result in dual and potentially inconsistent federal and state requirements. most troubling, we're hearing some states might not even attempt to adopt the new rule, which will guarantee dual regulation. in addition, the rule's only compliance mechanism is for a state or citizen group to bring a citizen suit in federal district court. this means legal disputes regarding compliance with any aspect of the rule be determined on a case-by-case basis around the country. federal judges will be making complex technical decisions regarding regulatory compliance instead of allowing these issues to be resolved by regulatory agencies that have the technical expertise and experience necessary to answer such questions. this is likely to produce differing and inconsistent decisions regarding the scope and applicability of the rule depending on where a citizen suit is brought and will undermine the uniform application of the rule.

you don't see that in any testimony to the epa. the enforcement action the state took, and i don't want this to get lost came after the citizens filed a notice of their intent to sue the company. pennsylvania if they tell you that, that's great. we didn't get that feeling. >> unfortunately, 17 left. the great state of the commonwealth of pennsylvania to respond. >> yes. i'm very familiar with little blue run. this is familiar to me in pennsylvania. signed a consent decree going through the procedures to close this facility. we actually this had been looking at the site long before the suit was filed. if nnganything that's the beauty. all these factors in place constantly looking at a facility. constantly looking at the compliance of that. therefore, it's a moving target. at one point maybe one thing and another in the future, we have those monitoring places that can tell that. we started enforcement procedures before that. because of this, the issues that we found, they are closing largest coal combustion empowerment in the united

if we don't legislation, how will epa be enforced? will there be one for each state, one federal and state based? can we expect a dramatic increase in citizens' disputes. it could lead a path to all sized for greater uncertainty and expense. mr. mckinley's bipartisan bill in the last congress went a long way with solving challenges of coal ash management. states like michigan were already running successful disposal program and allowed states to continue to use their localized regulatory expertise. i appreciate the epa's input and asked for changes many of which we made to the bill. our goal is to get the job done right and willing to address further legislation to ensure we have a workable bill in place. we want to continue to work with both bodies and both parties to achieve the best outcome. we continue to work with the stakeholders co-ops and other advocates. our goals are three fold put the right protections in place. put coal ash generators and users straightforward, standards and procedures to follow and grant states the author

i'm glad that epa agrees. but there's no authority in the law that allows for a state-based permitting program for non-hazardous waste. when the federal court set a december 2014 deadline for epa to publish a final rule for coal ash, we looked at the legal constraints and questioned whether epa's rule would be the last word on the subject. we, along with some of the witnesses who we'll hear from today, are still asking the same thing and are left with even more questions. if we don't legislate, how will epa's rule be implemented and enforced? will there be a dual program in each state one federal and one state-based? can we expect a dramatic increase? in citizen suits? the current path leads to risks on both sides and could lead to greater uncertainty and expense. mr. mckinley's bipartisan bill in the last congress went a long way to solving the cal lengthshallenges with coal ash management. states like michigan were already running successful disposal programs and it allowed states to continue to use their lo

i start with some questions related to the epa. epa has appeared to have held only a handful of meetings with ferc's staff about the clean power plan or 111d rule. given epa's extraordinary outreach effort when it was developing the rule and the huge changes it will require to the grid, were you disappointed to have not had more input? >> well, recently in a letter that i sent to the hill on december 3rd i really listed all of the meetings we had which i think are more than a handful. i was not disappointed. i think we actually had quite a lot of opportunity for input. i actually wish we had seen the rule a lot earlier, but that would have required that they had written it a lot earlier. but now we're in a whole different scene where we have a whole year or more before they finalize it so we're still having input. >> do you think that aggressively implementing the clean power plan on epa's proposed timeline might cause difficulties for reliability? >> well as i said, i think that we need to build the infrastructure and adapt the ma

starting with some questions related to the epa. epa appears to have held only a handful of meetings with ferc staff about the clean power plan or 111-d rule. given epa's extraordinary outreach effort when it was developing the rule and the huge changes it will require to the grid were you disappointed to have not had more input. >> well, recently, in a letter that i sent to the hill on december 3rd i really listed all of the meetings that we had, which i think are more than a handful. i was not disappointed. i think we had quite a lot of opportunity for input. i actually which we'd seen the rule a lot earlier. but that would have required that they'd written it a lot earlier. but now we're in a whole different scene where we have a year or more before they finalize it. so we're still having input. >> do you think that aggressively implementing the clean power plan on epa's proposed timeline might cause difficulties for reliability? >> well, as i said i think that we need to build the infrastructure and adapt the markets to be able

so they need approval from the epa.ssue the permits it directly but if epa finds a sip is inadequate than it may issue a fip. what's important about that are federalism is that -- when i ws in law school pretty much how it's been taught has been well epa has that fip authority but they never really use it. there's always talk by the reluctance of epa to use this power but they don't really want to take over these programs. and yet if you look in a number of these controversies of late epa has been using its kind of the power. so texas for instance, so texas for instance, with the peaking at over 13 states they were no longer in compliance because of their sip did no properly regulate greenhouse gases, 12 of them got together and established a schedule and texas said no utah of authority. so epa comes back at this point here's my fip and now i'm taking over. can you imagine anything worse for texas? having the federal government committed to you cannot permit any stationary sources without the federal government. we have

good work epa! but now i think epa should stand for enough protection already! is cleaner than it's been in 60 years. but goliath never stops. the epa still has 16,000 bureaucrats who always want to do more! their biggest target is the coal industry. here's what candidate barack obama said to the editorial board of the newspaper. >> if somebody wants to build a coal powered plant, they can, it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum. john: and now that he's president, his epa has moved to do that. the davids in the story are people like darren old coyote leader of montana's crow nation. members dig coal out of ground? >> for the last 40 years, mining cole on the reservation. we own about 90 billion tons of coal and mining for the last 40 years. john: coal does produce lots of greenhouse gases if you worry that global warming is a real problem and it might be what you do is the biggest part of that problem, so maybe the president's right and you should just stop. >> well, if there's an alternative for us right now, you know, with 47% une

the schedule that you see before you, the epa brownsfield grant was submitted in december and submit on the submitted our resource grant. there is a citywide transportation study going on that will inform our park planning process that we're excited to participate in and we're currently participating in. the process will start in play. tight area testing will start this month and go through june. the designer selection process will happen over the summer and then we hope to submit our planning documents in the spring. if we receive the remediation funds we hope to begin working with hunter point family in october of 2016. lastly i would like to say this contract is supported by hunters point family and supervisor cohen's office and there are several folk here to speak to the issue. >> thank you, commissioners. that is where we were headed. >> okay. go ahead. >> good afternoon, here on behalf of supervisor cohen and to say a few words on award of the contract. we have done a lot of work with trust for public land and they have invested. they know how the community works and the commun

>> epa will come for. it has taken longer than it should, obviously. in terms of some of the things you are doing --for example, you mentioned the report on water in the u.s., it is no surprise for them to publish a report to justify what they have done. i have the votes to do that right now to defund and the authorize it which means 60 plus vote on the senate floor. we have a real shot. i talk to people who are involved in agriculture and we will get democrats with us on that. we made the authorize it. in terms of co2, that is a tough one. the effort they're would be to -- the effort there would be to go through an epa subcommittee or the energy and water subcommittee. i am on both of those. that will be more difficult to do. on methane, here's what i'm talking bout with the state of the union. we are putting legislation out there that will reduce flaring. my north american atlantic energy security act will help us build more gathering systems so we can reduce the flaring on federal lands in north dakota dramatically. even things like he's some provid

good work epa now i think epa should stand enough for enough protection already. stopped. the epa still has 16,000 bureaucrats who always want to do more. candidate barack obama says the editorial board at the newspaper. >> if someone wants to build the plant they can. it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum. >> now that he is president the epa moved to do that. the davis story is like coyote he's leader of montana's crow nation. your tribe members dig coal out of the ground? >> for the last 40er yaos we have been mining colon a reservation. we own 90 billion coal. >> coal produces lots of greenhouse gases. if you worry global warming is a problem it might be what you do is the biggest part of that problem. >> maybe the president is right and you guys should just stop. >> if there is an alternative for us right now, you know, with 47 percent unemployment rate on the reservation without coal in the picture in the mix we will be basically almost 100 percent unemployment rate on the reservation 13,000 on the reservation for the last 40 y

decision from the epa, and they get paid for it and then you cannot challenge it. the same way you could if it were a regulation. >> we think that kind of game needs to stop. the general counsel of epa has kind of agreed with us and has started to release that information. by the way, for years they would not release it or it part of the regulatory reform concerns we have had on the standard-setting where epa says, our analysis and science tells us and we say can we see it? the game is, the university did it, we not own it. the university says we did it for the epa and we are not permitted to give it to you or it we are like a ping-pong ball going back and forth. we are saying that in those instances, the epa should bring for those analyses and studies. we would like to see in them real cost-benefit analyses over all in terms of the entire impact on the economy. i think you guys know that we did a study over several years on the suit and settle game and identified more than 350 projects i the way interestingly, over half of which were for alternative and renewable

the other question about the epa epa, the epa has been reluctant to get involved especially in iowa wherehere has been sort of the biggest problem to date. but the epa has been threatening to step in and take control direct control of enforcement of the clean water act if the iowa department of natural resources does not do more to regulate itself. it seems impossible to believe but up until this year in a state that has nearly 10,000 can find -- concentrated animal feeding operations they have seven inspectors. and those inspectors are the ones who are responsible for going and making sure the management plan is being carried out properly. you can imagine with seven people are able to do with 10,000 confinement. essentially all that they do is a few random checks but mostly they are responding to citizen complaints. if you ever want to see a truly fascinating on line piece, the state of iowa became a database of the animal feed operations and you can pull up the individual histories of any confinement that is there. and you will see that in almost all of these cases there is an inspector

imagine if they had imposed today's epa rules or even 1970 epa rules. everyone would die of cold and staffer vegas, right? -- starvation right? there'd be something wrong with that. and the issue is pollution we think of it as a rights violation where you're doing physical harm to somebody, but it's not pollution if it's something that's completely essential and unavoidable in pursuing life. so at any given -- what's nice is at any given stage of technology you can set higher and higher bars for what -- or in a sense, lower bars for pollution because you have more technology. today we can say absolutely, it should be illegal to have the coal plants that they used to have right? because we have the technology. the point is that the threshold of what is and isn't pollution is an economic and technological phenomenon. the ultimate goal must be what is the full context of what improves human life. and that goes to something like fossil fuels. if -- fossil fuels are the only energy technology that could possibly scale in the near future next several decades

next he's going to move on oil and gas drilling through the epa. method is going to be the regulation of methane, a by-product of oil and gas drilling. and if they directly start to regulate that, it's going to raise cost for the oil and gas industry at a time when prices are down. now, i think the most interesting thing here, paul, will be the political implication that a lot of the country that depends on the energy sector but i think his calculation is, block the south. this is mainly texas and north dakota. they are not democratic states. so he doesn't care. i don't believe democrats in congress are going to agree with that. >> let me double-down with you. it is not just meth it'sane as they try to get into the regulation for that because they don't have the authority right now. and that's why they don't control it. the state's regulate it and have done so quite successfully. how are they going to get away with that given the record? >> i think they will be pushed back in congress and lawsuits will be filed. and this could slow the epa from act

this isn't going to be done for free. >> hi, david with inside epa. i do couple of questions on the regulatory reform issue. first, you talked about a bill for crafting regulations are passed the house yesterday. are you looking at a particular legislation for the other prong of that agenda? and on the side of reforming enforcement of existing rules you talked about some practices you what's to stop. can you go into more details on what agencies are using those i guess you would call them underhanded enforcement tricks? >> do you want to go on the first -- >> the bills that tom mentioned are the regulatory account of act which is designed reform the administrative procedure act which is the single statute on the books from 1942 or 46 that guides the rulemaking and regulators in a regulated process. considering it's 2015 we think taking a good look at how you modernize that in today's world is probably appropriate. a bipartisan group of house and senate members agree with is based upon cosponsorship. the permit streamlining it shouldn't take 12, 15 or

not too unusual for an epa outcome. the structural stability requirement's could be helpful and prevent a catastrophic spills we have seen. the monitoring requirements are a bit star, especially if the data is put online and you don't have to put online. i have to say it has big loopholes. boron is one of the most pervasive pollutants. it is important to understand no one is going to get wind burn from complying with the deadlines in the rule, some of which stretch from here to eternity. it is not a fast-paced set of standards. i encourage you to look at these deadlines. i would respectfully ask you consider to actions. --t two actions. it's important to get an idea of the problem before a solution. here is what they said in 2009. we are confident each of the ash basins have structural integrity necessary to protect the environment. what the heck happened? how are you certain? duke supported the bill. you might ask why they are not in indiana? i would hope you consider giving citizens affected by coal ash a chance to sp

now, he's already had the epa crack down on the coal industry in this country.he's going to move on oil and gas drilling through the epa, the method is going to be the regulation of methane, a byproduct of oil and gas drilling. >> goes off when it drills. >> and if they directly start to regulate that it's going to raise cost for the gas and oil industry at a time when prices are down. the most interesting thing here will be the political implications, a lot of country that depends on the energy sector, his calculation is he's lost the south this is mainly texas and north dakota. he doesn't care. i don't believe democrats in congress will agree with that. >> let me double down with you, not just methane but try through water, claiming that there's water damage water pollution, water table through drilling and try to get into the regulation for that. they don't have the authority right now and that's why they don't control. the states regulate and have done so quite successfully without any real evidence of pollution. how are they going to get away with that give

and that is certainly true, according to the epa records, in data. and in the california resources board data for petroleum fuel and i think that it is important for us to realize that if we have a specific number in an ordinance like this, it probably should either identify it as pet trol um feel or if we drop a number it makes it broad enough there that it applies to any types of fuel, even some that are cleaner like compressed natural gas and electricity for the evs which have dramatically lower greenhouse gas emission component. the enforcement of the label and authorizes enforcement, i would app that there are other departments and agencies within the government, and the city government, that currently do have enforcement activists with gas stations and are, and they have processes of doing inspections and we might want to think about that as a place where actually placing the enforcement or the activity it is currently under 100 gas stations, and for the context for you somewhere between 70 and 90, and depending on which department records are

lindsey graham said he is going to push congress to backtrack these epa regulations. what has been the impact of the regulations that we've seen out of the epa to the industry? >> we have been adapting to regulation. not the same in the u.s. and china and europe. automakers have to adapt to the regulation which means they have to find technology that will allow us to meet the regulation. we know there will be a lot of pros and cons for regulation in the future and we can't control that. the only way we can try to face this is to make sure that we are fit enough to have technologies that allow us to make this regulation. u.s. regulation is important. we have to meet -- if you develop technology for the united states, you'll use it in china or europe and the other way around. what's important is not so much regulation in one country but overall trend you are seeing in major countries in the world. >> this is an important point. can you characterize what you see in terms of global market? what kind of 2015 are you expecting? >> i think 2015 should be good overall. i thin

so i want to ask you a couple things about epa's agenda, of course a very unambitious agenda. their plans to regulate methane from the oil and gas industry. what are some of the biggest things out of epa that you're looking at including the methane regulations and also the carbon regulations for power plants? and i would also like to specifically ask you about the renewable fuel standard, requiring increasingly large amounts of ethanol. of course, north dakota has lots of biodiesel, so can you comment on whether or not congress needs to step in and change this law that epa's a year behind in getting? >> it has taken longer than they should, obviously. but, you know, in terms of some of the things they're doing, for example, you mentioned the 400-plus-page report on waters of the u.s. well, it's no surprise to anybody that they produced a big report to justify what they've already done. and i think that you'll see their support in congress to either defund waters of the u.s., i think i have the votes to do that right now, but we may actually have the votes to deauthorize it. th

epa is reviewing their millions of comments and they will put out the final will. make no mistake, i think ferc will have an essential role to play. i believe that we as a nation can achieve real environmental progress including climate change. only if we are willing to build the infrastructure, both gas and electric and build the energy markets to make that possible. both infrastructure and market changes will be necessary if the values of reliability and cost are sustained. that is where ferc comes in. i think we will have responsibility across three areas. infrastructure markets and to be an honest broker for the discussion. starting with infrastructure, i think additions to both the gas and electric infrastructure will be needed to carry out the clean power plan. in the case of gas pipelines and gas compressor stations, ferc does the environmental review, permits them and decides the rate. a plan calls for substantially increasing the utilization of the natural gas plant that exists around the country. now, i believe based on everyone i've talked to, that meeti

epa now lists over 30 chemicals found in tire chrome which the epa finds to be cancer-causing target compounds. i believe that we all agree this commission needs to alter its course of action. i also believe that we would agree that we need to publicly address these new developments. the commission and rpd should take a stand, i believe, and speak up and restate its current position with regard to the use of the toxic chemical. i think we agree doing otherwise would be irresponsible to do the least and risk endangering the citizens of san francisco. thank you. >> next speaker. >> again, could we please get everyone to take a seat who is not speaking on this item? there are seats over here go ahead. >> hi. i am also speaking on the beach -- i'm a soccer coach and soccer player and soccer mom and i'm taking a few minutes away from my work to comment on the inprogress construction at the formerly glass facility where i was happily playing and coaching until last fall, with we removed the levee. i fear the city entrenched -- while other cities are looking to protect against the carcinoge

the epa proposed a clean power plant to -- it proposed state specific rate based goals for co2 emissions from politics and guidelines to follow developing plans to achieve specific goals. executive plans to seek political climate commitments effectively realized. he mentioned energy efficiency and renewables and would like to talk about that. the united states made progress on reducing energy consumption. united states has achieved the largest improvement in energy in recent days when -- from relatively high levels as energy performance standards for appliances, new buildings are implemented. since 2008 over 1 million low-income homes have improved energy efficiency for less well-off families and recovery after 2009 provided 12 billion usd of direct investment in energy efficiency notably low-income homes, public buildings and research and $20 billion of related investments in organizing buildings, and electric technologies. energy efficiency from building producing 30%, more than 30% improve in any she efficiency in new homes and buildings compared to the 2006 building energy code and e

the epa must continue its coordination with states in order to ensure that the epa does not overstep its bounds affecting states' jurisdiction and authority. speaking of water, which we have spoken of today, i would like to thank our congressional partners for strong bipartisan passage of the water resources reform and development bill. governors developed a set of guiding principals for the bill's reauthorization. we are pleased that many of these principals were included in the final bill. as the bill is implemented, governors are committed to ensuring that key provisions, such as the public private partnership for the corps of engineers of finance, are 2%s developed with input from the states. for more than a century, our governors have been working for the national governor's association, a bipartisan association in a partisan town. in order to discuss mutual concerns and act collectively for the betterment of our states, initiatives and policy recommendations we have worked together on have served as the catalyst for positive change in our country. as elected officials, we are e

the time lauren for the epa goals -- the timeline for the epa goals, particularly the first set in 2020, has been one of the most controversial things we've been hearing about. what should be the period over which the ultimate 2030 goals kind of are phased in. and i think the epa has been hearing about that as well, because in their notice of data availability where they asked for more comments last fall that was one of the main things that we heard about. so i think we'll have to get started early and really put our shoulder to the wheel to get the things done that we need to do. >> some of your colleagues on the commission think ferc should sign off on state plans to comply with epa's rule. is that something that you can support? >> i'm not 100% sure that's how they would articulate their views. but putting that aside, i don't -- i'm looking right at the head of the state commissioner association -- [laughter] and i try to remember that our first name is federal. [laughter] so i think "sign off" is a bit strong. i think we should be engaged in the state plan because they all or not or

so i know we are trying to work with epa on many issues. we have air quality issues in the state of utah. the epa has brought authority because environmental impacts no no border. if you have bad air in one state, it will drift over to the next state. if you contaminate the water and the underwater aquifers and the water sources it can cross over border. so there's a need to have a broader spectrum when it comes to environmental impacts. but i would say this and i've mentioned this to the president yesterday. it is a concern for the environmental impact studies that we have to do ad nauseam. i understand we ought to study and make sure we are good stewards of the earth. i support that. now take three four, or five years to do an environmental impact study is just ridiculous and a waste of time. we can do them shorter than that. we can be effective and efficient. i'm making sure we're doing things that are appropriate for mother earth and protecting the environment which we all want to be as good stewards but the length of time that we have

we have most frequently done battle with the epa. the reason is epa rulemaking under hautboys administration has been troubling at best. it is opposing power plant rules as well as other epa actions and will continue to do so. precatory overreach will not stop. along with the support of the body we must continue fighting for wyoming. looking back there are other matters i will mention. we have undertaken in job initiatives including those with disabilities. we will continue our work in this area with the employment first concept for grab my direction it has appointed a homeless were later to create a kid your plan to address homelessness and we have renewed our focus on suicide prevention with a statewide initiative for:with worker safety i supported appreciate the safety alliance for by a real gas refinery and construction industry. at that state level we have created a $500,000 fine for matching grants him we have created a program for those were willing to participate in safety consultations and in addition workforce services has

the epa and health department both got up and said there are okay levels of asbestos exposures and there are not. so that's the kind of thing we need you to be vigilant with them about. thank you. >> thank you. >> on that note, the meeting is adjourned at 4:15 pm. >>

the epa must continue its coordination with states to ensure that the epa does not overstep its bounds affecting state aets jurisdiction and authority. speaking of water which we have spoken of today, i would like to thank our congressional partners for passage of the water resources reform and development bill. governors developed a set of guiding prince pals for the bill's reauthorization. we are pleased that many of these principals were included in the final bill. as the bill is implemented governors are committed to ensuring that key provisions such as the public private partnership for the corps of engineers are developed with input from the states. for more than a century, our governors have been working for the national governor's association, a bipartisan association with a partisan town. in order to discuss mutual concerns and act collectively for the betterment of our states initiatives and policy recommendations we have worked together on have served as the cat list for positive change in our country. as elected officials, we are expected to make government work. i look for

. >> how important, on a scale of 1 to 10, our public policies, such as epa's policy change rules? how important others policies to getting the shift to clean energy? >> wwell, i would say __ people do not get a sense of how big the energy industry as. >> can you pick a number? >> at the start of the phase, i would say that it does on an eight out of ten.

it's my distinct honor to welcome you to the panama pacific centennial epa 100. [ applause ] . we at chs are deeply honored to help lead this historical pivotal moment in san francisco and the state's past so together we can learn and inspire to create a more vibrant and equitable future. my gratitude to mr. mayor ed lee and ms. huggins, and stewards of this powerful place of fine arts and from at & t, our exhibition sponsor the hertz corporation, fred is here. centennial sponsors, wells fargo, ecology, town school and so many people have sponsored this organization. the may beck foundation, richard pet ler is here right over there in that lovely blue shirt and truly a genius and you will hear from dan shine, the ceo and curator of innovation and an additional sponsor is scott of sterling bank. there he is, thank you, sir. i also want to extend a very special welcome to the job corps, two incredible women of esteemed presses kristin shine and mary and all of you who braved the elements in joining us. we are bring together p pa 100.org. this went live a couple minutes ago look o