heinzerling, in addition to the acid rain program that i just mentioned, are there other examples of using energy efficiency renewable in the clean air act? >> yes. very early on, some 35 years ago, they included washing of coal before burned as compliance mechanism for dealing with the clean air act. it was something that wasn't within the source, wasn't a typical into the pipe kind of measure. in regulating interstate conventional air pollutant, eepz included renewables and energy efficiency as potential compliance if you look at section 202 to regulate mobile sources, you might if you looked at that quickly, you may think that's a classic end of the pipe measure. and yet if you look at epa's most recent rules on greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources, epa has in terms used today gone i think beyond the fence line. they included flexibilities in their rule that made the rule a marvel of modernization. they included the air conditioning refrig. rants used in the vehicle, flex fuel vehicles, and so if you look not just at the pollution regulation that we have been talking about

lisa heinzerling who is a professor at georgetown university. welcome. >> thank you, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today to discuss the legal obligations of epa's carbon dioxide rule. many dramatic legal arguments have been raised against epa's proposal. opponents have claimed the proposal is unconstitutional under any one of a number of novel theories. they also argued that the whole proposal or significant aspects of it are unlawful under the clean air act. you've heard several such arguments already this morning. in my view, the constitutional and statutory arguments that have been raised against epa's proposed rule collapse upon close inspection. for example, constitutional principles of federalism are not violated i epa's proposal. and epa's proposal states have a choice. they may devise their own plans to be a state specific targets epa will set forth in a that bp devise a plan for them. this is the very same choice states have had for 45 years under the air quality standards program of the clean air act. it is not an unco

heinzerling, think of that conversation and what that fellow said. how does it relate to what we are doing here, what dp is trying to accomplish? >> it fits it exactly, senator. that is this plan sets out what states are to do, gives them targets to meet, gives them the flexibility to choose the way they want to meet those targets. in this respect, it is strange and surprising to me that states are already saying that they prefer to have the federal government set their plans, but gives them that kind of flexibility to set their own plans to meet targets and gives them the times to do it. the timelines in this rule are notably long. we are looking out to 2030 for final compliance with the structure of this plan so your story fits this rule perfectly. >> good. miss backman i think you were saying maryland had a heavy reliance on coal in the generation for electricity, and what you said was you reduced over the last seven or eight years your co 2 emissions by roughly 40%. >> yes, sir. >> and part of this regional coalition was delaware and a bunch of o

miss heinzerling, is there any constitutional question about epa's approach on their legal authority to regulate carbon pollution under section 111 of the clean air act? >> no, i don't think so. i think constitutional issues have been a distraction. i think they have been used to make people worry that maybe there's lurking a constitutional issue, so we better interpret this narrowly but i think constitutional arguments i think are flimsy and the statutory authority under the clean air act as i said i think is clear. >> beautiful. thank you. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you very much, madam chairman. attorney general pruitt, good to see you. oklahoma is a fossil fuel energy producing state. attorney general morris see state of west virginia like wyoming is a coal state. all our states are hit by the slew of proposed epa rules aimed squarely at the fossil fuel industry and folks that work in that industry. i would like to highlight a letter from the governor of wyoming to the epa administrator on april 28th i ask that letter be entered into the record, madam chairman. in this lett

people say epa has endorsed it professor heinzerling said this is not materially different. but i think this is the answer to your question. in the program, congress has specifically authorized epa to regulate pollutants than i thought the red cpa to delegate the authority to this day. there's two things different there. at the outset, no doubt congress has delegated the authority to epa and congress has said you can get this to the state or take it back. the fundamental distinction with the clean power plant on the talk about blocks two three and four is a lot to implement renewable for folio dispatching system or efficiency system and the distinction is no debate that congress has never authorized epa to run a renewable portfolio standard in west virginia for a dispatching system in oklahoma for an energy-efficient program in rhode island. congress itself has never given the authority to epa. epa cannot delegate the authority further to the states. that brings together the proper federalism constitutional issues and the flexibility question that have come up so far today.

it's something that professor heinzerling said in her testimony. a lot of people make analogies to the esps and the nax program which is something the committee is familiar with. people say epa has always been able to implement the nax program. it is materially different and i think this is the answer to the question. in the nax program, congress has specifically authorized epa to regulaten ax poll lieu tants and it has authorized epa to delegate that authority to the states. so there's two things that are different there. at the outset there's no doubt that congress has delegated this authority to epa and congress has said you can give this authority to the states or you can take it back. the fundamental distinction with the clean power plan when we talk about blocks two three, and four is epa is saying we now want states to implement a renewable portfolio standard or a dispatching system or an energy efficiency system and the distinction here is there's no debate that congress has never authorized epa itself to run a are you aniable portfolio sta

>> miss heinzerling, think about that conversation and what that fellow said to me that day.t fits it exactly, senator. that is this plan sets out what states are to do, gives them targets to meet gives them the flexibility to choose the way they want to meet those targets. in this respect it is strange and surprising to me that states are already saying that they'd prefer to have the federal government set their plans, but it gives them that kind of flexibility to set their own plans to meet the targets and then it gives them the times to do it. the time lines in this rule are notably long. we're looking out to 2030 for a final compliance with the structure of this plan. so i think your story fits this rule perfectly. >> good. miss backman, i think you were saying maryland has had a fairly heavy reliance on coal, and i think what you said was that you reduced over the last, i don't know, seven or eight years your co2 emissions by roughly 40%. >> yes sir. >> and you're part of this regional coalition with delaware and a bunch of other states. in my last job that i had as gove