ms. mccarthy. he says that the clean air act section 111-d affirmatively prohibits epa from regulating any air pollutant emitted in an existing source category, which is regulated under the national emission regime of section 112 of the clean air act. so section 111-d says, if it's regulated under 112, you can't regulate it any other way. now, epa has imposed extensive regulations on existing coal-fired power plants under section 112. is that correct? >> i think the framing of the legal argument is incorrect, senator. >> well, but let me ask you this. i'm not asking you for that. i'm asking you, does epa impose regulations on existing coal-fired power plants under section 112? >> we certainly do. >> okay. well, thank you for that. so based on that, madam chair and members of the committee, the attorney general of west virginia says having been regulated under section 112, the epa lacks the legal authority to further regulate these emissions under section 111-d. now, let me ask you this also. time i

ms. mccarthy. iterou tell senator have that -- benefitthat your cost analysis was done entirely on a and was not -- >> no. >> please correct my understanding. >> the senator i think was me, and this is what i answered, as to whether or not of carbon cost benefits are looked at as benefit that are solely gained domestically or whether they are based on global benefits. >> so perhaps i did misunderstand it. you conducted a cost benefit correct? is that >> yes. >> and this was, was this conducted on a state by state basis? >> no, it was a national analysis. here sir is we've given so much state flexibility illustrated,nly be because it really is going to be up to the individual states how their strategies to achieve these reductions. >> so you didn't do it on a regional basis. >> we did the analysis of -- we canrstanding is and follow up with more specifics, it looks at, national impacts. although over time we'll get more specific. >> my type is expired. may submit a question for the record to you wit

ms. mccarthy, indicated that, over and over, the industry concerns were exaggerated. they did not prove true in the actual fact. whether that was because they were exaggerated for rhetorical purposes at the beginning or whether that was because innovation was brought to bear to reduce costs, both can be true, but let me ask you. you've been in this business for a long time, at the state level as well as at the federal level. you have worked for republican governors before. what is your view on what the track record has been of industry projections and warnings about the costs and consequences of environmental regulation by epa? >> it has, history tells us that it is, they always exaggerate the costs. they always project environmental benefits as somehow being contrary to economic goals, and it just simply has never come true. never. and i think one of the points that we haven't talked about a little bit, senator that you hit on is one of the great benefits of looking at, at setting a cost for climate change that is long term and flexible. is that what we're actually s

ms. mccarthy the proposal is built on the unprecedented out of reach by a the epa involving utilities and elected officials and of whole ride of wray of stakeholders how prominent in your conversations outside of the united states capitol is this outright denial climate change is real? >> it is not a prominent issue. we have gone too many states with a fast concern over the changes of the climate they already see. we are no longer talking about projections but adapting to the change that is already happening and that devastation it is causing. there is very little doubt the question is right on all of the table what do we do about it? we have the responsibility to take action or do we not? we took to heart when the state's utilities were not arguing that science but instead that actions we saw it was prudent to look at what the science told us under the clean air act to allow each state to get the target from the individual states as is the most disrespectful rule i have never been involved in either as a recipient as a designer to recognize the of leadership of states to allow them to co

ms. mccarthy the proposal is built on the unprecedented out of reach by a the epa involving utilities and elected officials and of whole ride of wray of stakeholders how prominent in your conversations outside of the united states capitol is this outright denial climate change is real? >> it is not a prominent issue. we have gone too many states with a fast concern over the changes of the climate they already see. we are no longer talking about projections but adapting to the change that is already happening and that devastation it is causing. there is very little doubt the question is right on all of the table what do we do about it? we have the responsibility to take action or do we not? we took to heart when the state's utilities were not arguing that science but instead that actions we saw it was prudent to look at what the science told us under the clean air act to allow each state to get the target from the individual states as is the most disrespectful rule i have never been involved in either as a recipient as a designer to recognize the of leadership of states to allow them to co

ms. mccarthy, i don't think there's any doubt about it. hings that are cost effective. i think they do need to make america a stronger economy. one of the common grounds is nuclear pow we were and we need to consider that more. last month, you talked about our regulatory group. the supreme court said this -- when an agency claims to statue an un long heralded power in an american economy, we usually treat that announcement with a feesh of skepticism. >> we know the congress has never voted especially to regulate co2. and would not vote today if given the opportunity. t through old statutes and interpretations as an official, with the impact and the economy -- forget that. t to co2 targs for alabama are at a reduction of 27%. but states like arkansas and georgia with 44% rejections are hammered even hard. -- that we th a don't get to vote on. the american people aren't given a voice in soifment want you to know we're concerned about the problem that you're concerned about and try fog make this environment healthy and positive. but we have to ask what is the real world im

ms. mccarthy. >> thank you, and i would like to remind my colleagues with the poll numbers that are out there, we're not liked by anybody, so maybe we should all retire. barney, welcome back. it is good to see you. you know, i think a lot of people here, especially some of the new members don't remember that we were having meetings almost every day. it took us over a year to come up with the -- i call it the frank bill. i still don't like putting dodd on there mainly because of all the headaches. and an awful lot of the headaches that we have had have come because of the dodd part of it. with that being said, there are many things in the dodd-frank that we had wanted. we couldn't get it in. then things had changed. certainly, you know, i'm one that was fighting for the community bankers. barney knows that, many of us here were trying to do that. we also felt with the business model of the insurance companies that really had nothing to assert the logic of the collapse. but i think that one of the things we have to keep reminding people, not only was the financial industry -- had nothing absolu