U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

92–469 PDF 2015

EPA’S PROPOSED CARBON DIOXIDE REGULATIONS 

FOR POWER PLANTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 19, 2014 

Serial No. 113–155 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

Vice Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 4 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 10 

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 11 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 70 

WITNESSES

Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, 

Environmental Protection Agency ...................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 81 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Report of June 2014, ‘‘The Clean Air Act’s Track Record: Clean Air and 

Economic Growth,’’ committee Democratic staff, submitted by Mr. Waxman 6 

Letter of June 18, 2014, from American Lung Association, et al., to Senators 

and Representatives, submitted by Mrs. Capps ................................................ 40 

Statement of June 19, 2014, American Forest & Paper Association and American Wood Council, submitted by Mr. Griffith ................................................... 72 

Report, ‘‘A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 

Volume I, Book 2, Chapter 2 excerpts, submitted by Mr. Whitfield ................ 75 

(1) 

EPA’S PROPOSED CARBON DIOXIDE 

REGULATIONS FOR POWER PLANTS 

THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:31 a.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Shimkus, Pitts, 

Terry, Burgess, Latta, Cassidy, Olson, McKinley, Gardner, Pompeo, 

Kinzinger, Griffith, Barton, Upton (ex officio), Rush, McNerney, 

Tonko, Yarmuth, Engel, Green, Capps, Doyle, Barrow, Matsui, Castor and Waxman (ex officio). 

Staff present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Gary Andres, 

Staff Director; Charlotte Baker, Deputy Communications Director; 

Leighton Brown, Press Assistant; Allison Busbee, Policy Coordinator, Energy and Power; Annie Caputo, Professional Staff Member; Patrick Currier, Counsel, Energy and Power; Tom 

Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, Energy and Power; Ben Lieberman, 

Counsel, Energy and Power; Brandon Mooney, Professional Staff 

Member; Mary Neumayr, Senior Energy Counsel; Graham Pittman, Staff Assistant; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment and the Economy; Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member, 

Oversight; Tom Wilbur, Digital Media Advisor; Jean Woodrow, Director of Information Technology; Jeff Baran, Democratic Staff Director, Energy and the Environment; Phil Barnett, Democratic 

Staff Director; Caitlin Haberman, Democratic Policy Analyst; Bruce 

Ho, Democratic Counsel; Elizabeth Letter, Democratic Press Secretary; Karen Lightfoot, Democratic Communications Director and 

Senior Policy Advisor; and Alexandra Teitz, Democratic Chief 

Counsel, Environment and Energy. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to call the hearing to order this 

morning, and today we will be discussing EPA’s proposed regulations targeting carbon dioxide emissions from existing electric 

power plants, which was proposed on June 2nd. 

Before I recognize myself for an opening statement, I want to 

welcome Ms. McCabe. We appreciate her being with us this morning. 

It is also my understanding that we have a number of interns 

here today, some from offices here in the Congress, but I know we 

have quite a few also from EPA, so we welcome the EPA interns 

2 

as well as the interns from Capitol Hill. And with that, I will recognize myself for a 5-minute opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

Ms. McCabe, we are delighted that you are here today. All of us 

view this as a significant, in many ways unprecedented, regulation, 

and pursuant to the Constitution, I can assure you that Congress 

is going to do its role and look very closely at this over 600-page 

regulation that would dramatically change the way electricity is 

produced in America. 

And it is certainly a lot more than about coal. This is one of 

those regulations that will affect every person in America, whether 

it be a manufacturing plant, electric generator, a consumer of electricity, or whatever it might be, so we—and this will be the first 

of many hearings on this regulation. 

Now, this proposal looks similar to the cap-and-trade legislation 

that the Obama administration advocated for a long, long time. 

They attempted to pass it in 2009. It passed the House, but it was 

not successful in passing the Senate. Now, the President, as he has 

said, is going to act unilaterally, and he has directed EPA to set 

rules and regulations that are essentially, and many of us believe, 

the majority of us believe on this committee, at least, they are unworkable and will not even have an impact on our future emissions 

of greenhouse gases or affect global temperatures. 

Former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson confirmed this when 

she testified before this subcommittee: We will not ultimately be 

able to change the amount of CO2 that is accumulating in the atmosphere alone. And then the EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy 

summed up the views of this administration when she testified before this subcommittee, saying that EPA does not measure whether 

its regulations and the tens of billions of dollars spent by the administration will actually affect future climate change. It is simply 

part of an overall strategy to demonstrate the President’s global 

leadership. So these actions appear to be about removing coal as 

an energy source in America and promoting President Obama’s 

leadership perception in the international community. 

Now, beyond the President’s unwillingness to listen to the American people, this proposal raises serious policy and legal questions. 

EPA has never been this extreme under 111(d) before. Instead of 

the States establishing a performance standard for units within the 

source category, EPA is now dictating to the States the level of 

emission reductions that each State must make, so statewide rather than individual units. In essence, they are requiring the States 

to alter the way in which electricity utility systems make power, 

and in our experience with oversight of this agency, the proposed 

rule rarely changes significantly before it is finalized, so we are 

talking about a proposed rule that was just introduced a few—a 

couple of weeks ago, but our experience is that even after the comment period, that rule really becomes final. 

Now, the original Clean Air Act respected the appropriate role 

for States and local governments. In fact, the statute begins with 

the congressional finding that air pollution prevention is the priVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:23 Feb 19, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-155 EPA’S CO2 REGS READY FOR PDF\113-155 EPA’S CO2 REGS PENDING W
3 

mary responsibility of State and local governments. This policy is 

also reflected in the language of section 111(d), which has previously been used by EPA in a very limited and very deferential 

manner. But with this proposed rule, as I said earlier, EPA appears to be casting aside all precedent and expansively interpreting 

its authority under this section as a justification to force States to 

redesign their electricity-generating systems even though two previous EPA Administrators have said it will not have any impact on 

global warming. 

So, is this a power grab? It seems to demonstrate once again that 

this administration is getting the reputation that we hear repeatedly of being a unilateralist; that the President will decide what is 

best for America as he did when he went to the Copenhagen conference in 2009 and unilaterally committed America to certain 

emissions without discussing it with the Congress, without discussing it with job creators. 

So we welcome this opportunity to talk to you in depth about this 

proposal, and thank you again for being with us. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD

This morning we will be discussing EPA’s proposed regulations targeting carbon 

dioxide emissions from existing electric power plants. On June 2nd the long-anticipated carbon dioxide regulations for existing power plants were proposed. 

This is the first opportunity Congress has had to hear directly from the agency 

exactly why it thinks it can issue this proposal, what it thinks the proposal should 

do, how the proposal will be implemented, and what it will accomplish. And I welcome our witness, Janet McCabe, EPA Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, who has come to explain the rule and answer our initial questions today. 

This will not be our only opportunity to take testimony on the proposal or to hear 

from the agency. This is just the beginning of what we can assure to be a deliberate, 

careful oversight of the agency’s regulatory action. 

I have strong concerns at the outset that this proposal looks very similar to the 

cap-and-trade legislation the Obama administration tried to ram through Congress 

in 2009. Now, the President is acting unilaterally in directing the EPA to set rules 

and regulations that are essentially unworkable and will not even have an impact 

on our future emissions of greenhouse gases or global temperatures. Former EPA 

Administrator Lisa Jackson confirmed this when she testified before this subcommittee and said ‘‘We will not ultimately be able to change the amount of CO2

that is accumulating in the atmosphere alone.’’ 

And, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy also summed up the views of this administration when she testified before this subcommittee saying, that her agency (EPA) 

does not measure whether its regulations and the tens of billions of dollars spent 

by the administration will actually affect future climate change, it is simply part 

of an ‘‘overall strategy’’ to demonstrate global leadership. These actions are all in 

an effort to destroy coal as an energy source in America and become a ‘‘leader’’ in 

the international community. 

Beyond the President’s unwillingness to listen to the American people, this proposal raises serious policy and legal questions. This proposal is like nothing EPA 

has ever proposed before as a performance standard—even more so than any of the 

agency’s controversial actions targeting the Nation’s coal-based electricity generators. Instead of calling on the States to establish a performance standard for units 

within the source category, it appears that EPA is dictating to the States the levels 

of emissions reductions that each State must make, in essence proposing to require 

States to alter the way in which their electric utility systems make power. And, in 

our experience with oversight of this agency, the proposed rule rarely changes significantly before it is finalized. 

In its rollout of this proposal, the EPA has repeatedly emphasized the rule’s ‘‘flexibility.’’ What EPA describes as flexibility is really the agency giving itself arbitrary 

authority to regulate electricity generation and use as it sees fit. We don’t know for 

certain what this proposal would require of Kentucky and other States, but we do 

know that EPA will make the final decisions in approving or denying each State’s 

4 

implementation plans. Further, EPA has made clear in their proposal that ‘‘[o]nce 

the final goals have been promulgated, a State would no longer have an opportunity 

to request that the EPA adjust its CO2 goal.’’ And all of this regulatory control 

would be coming from an agency that has no energy policy-setting authority whatsoever, no energy-planning expertise, and no real accountability should things go 

badly for the citizens of these States. 

The original Clean Air Act respected the appropriate role for State and local governments. In fact, the statute begins with the Congressional finding that air pollution prevention is the primary responsibility of State and local governments. This 

philosophy is also reflected in the language of section 111(d), which has previously 

been used by EPA in a very limited and deferential manner. But with this proposed 

rule, EPA appears to be casting aside all precedent and expansively interpreting its 

authority under this section as a justification to force States to redesign their electricity systems. 

Coal faces a devastating one-two punch from EPA. First, the proposed New Source 

Performance Standards for electric generating units have all but outlawed new and 

more efficient, state-of-the-art coal-fired capacity. And with this new proposed rule, 

the agency can begin shuttering existing coal facilities. EPA implies that a coal unit 

can become 6 percent more efficient, but there are many doubts about the real world 

achievability of this figure. There are also doubts about EPA’s assumptions that 

States can simply shift away from using that coal plant to using natural gas, nuclear or renewables, because many States such as Kentucky rely on coal to generate 

over 90 percent of our electricity and do not have an abundance of resources to rely 

on. But, if coal can no longer be a significant part of a diverse energy supply, it 

will be the customers and the business community who will feel the very serious 

implications that these regulations will have for electricity affordability and reliability. 

There are a great many questions and concerns about this proposed rule. And, I 

said, today is only the subcommittee’s first step in its examination of EPA’s actions 

and of potential consequences of this administration’s plans. We look forward to the 

testimony of the Acting Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe and we hope to learn 

more about what this rule really means for our country. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And at this time I would like to recognize the 

gentleman from California for his 5-minute opening statement. Mr. 

Waxman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

On June 2nd, Administrator McCarthy released a central piece 

of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan: proposed carbon pollution limits on power plants. In time historians may identify this as 

the moment that America got serious about tackling climate 

change. 

We know that carbon pollution from fossil fuels is accumulating 

in the atmosphere, trapping more heat and warming the climate. 

We are experiencing the result all around us in every part of the 

country. We also know that power plants are our largest source of 

carbon pollution, yet today there are no limits at all on the amount 

of carbon pollution they can emit. 

The good news is that there are many cost-effective ways to reduce the pollution. As the proposed rule demonstrates, the power 

plants can operate more efficiently, production can shift from the 

dirtiest and oldest coal-fired plants to modern natural gas plants, 

retirements of nuclear power plants can be postponed, investments 

can be made in clean renewable energy, and we can all contribute 

by becoming more energy efficient. The path outlined in the proposal is the path to cleaner air, better health, a safer climate, and 

a stronger economy. If we make these investments in cleaner enVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:23 Feb 19, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-155 EPA’S CO2 REGS READY FOR PDF\113-155 EPA’S CO2 REGS PENDING W
5 

ergy, the United States can be the world leader in the industries 

of the future. That is not just a perception; that can be a reality. 

But you would never know that from the House Republicans. 

They are using the same scare tactics that opponents of clean air 

have always used. The fossil fuel industry and House Republicans 

have a credibility problem when it comes to claims about the economic impacts of the Clean Air Act. I have been in Congress for 

almost 40 years, and for 40 years industry has made doomsday 

claims that clean air regulations would shut down businesses, destroy jobs, drive prices skyward, and cripple economic growth, and 

they have been wrong every time. This morning I released a fact 

sheet that documents some of these inaccurate claims, and, Mr. 

Chairman, I ask that this be made part of the record. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Mr. WAXMAN. In 1990, when Congress last amended the Clean 

Air Act, electric utilities widely overestimated the cost of acid rain 

controls under a cap-and-trade program that we adopted, and 

which has been tremendously successful. They projected allowance 

prices of 1,000 to $1,500 per ton. The actual prices were less than 

$150 per ton. 

Ford Motor Company testified that, quote, ‘‘we just do not have 

the technology to comply,’’ end quote. Not even with technology, 

quote, ‘‘on the horizon,’’ end quote. In fact, the industry began making vehicles that met the new standards in just 3 years. Dupont 

testified that the provisions to protect the ozone layer would cause, 

quote, ‘‘severe economic and social disruption,’’ end quote, while 

Mobil Corporation predicted that the requirements for reformulated gasoline would cause, quote, ‘‘major supply disruptions,’’ end 

quote. 

Well, these dire predictions never happened. Today House Republicans claim that the Clean Power Plan will cause a surge in 

electricity bills and effectively end coal use in America. This is just 

the same old scare tactic. We heard that it is not enough to deal 

with the climate change problem. Well, it is not in and of itself, but 

you don’t take the—you don’t refuse to take a step in that direction 

because you haven’t taken all the steps yet. 

We have air pollution reductions at the State and local level. 

That is the way the Clean Air Act has always worked under the 

EPA rules. The Clean Power Plan is eminently reasonable and 

achievable. It gives the States the flexibility to choose how to 

achieve the reductions. The goals are State-specific and cost-effective. Polls show the public supports proposals by large majorities. 

It is time for this committee to stop its partisan obstruction. If 

my Republican colleagues have a better idea for protecting our 

planet for our children and grandchildren, they should speak up, 

but just saying no, shortchanging American ingenuity and condemning the next generation to a world wrecked by heat waves, 

droughts, wildfires, and extreme storms is not an option. If you 

have another idea, let us hear it, but all we hear from Republicans 

is, there is no problem, this is not enough to solve it, we shouldn’t 

do anything at all, and that is why I am supporting the President’s 

plan. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

I might respectfully say to the gentleman that we did present 

what we viewed as a better plan, the Manchin-Whitfield bill, that 

passed the House of Representatives with a large margin of victory. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, if you would yield to me, that plan 

simply said EPA may not act. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. No, it did not say that. It said EPA could set the 

standard for existing plants, that Congress would set the effective 

date, and it also set a standard for now coal-powered plants. But 

anyway, we did submit a proposal. It is waiting in the U.S. Senate 

for action now and—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you think that will solve the problem of greenhouse gases? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. You said we are not submitting a proposal. That 

was one of our proposals. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Did your proposal accomplish solving the problem? 

10 

Mr. WHITFIELD. We feel quite confident—by the way, our energy 

emissions are the lowest today they have been in 20 years, and our 

Manchin-Whitfield bill would even be—make it even better. 

At this time I would like to—the gentleman from Michigan Mr. 

Upton, chairman of the full committee, is not here, so I am going 

to recognize Mr. Barton of Texas, and if he does not utilize all of 

his time, if he wants to yield to someone else, that would be great. 

Mr. BARTON. Does the chairman know if there are other Members on our side that wish time? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Is there anyone that would like time? You want 

any time, Mr. Shimkus? 

OK. All right. Then I will recognize the gentleman from Texas, 

Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BARTON. Well, thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, members of committee, and our witness and folks 

in the audience, one could argue that the audacity of this proposal 

is so breathtaking that—in and of itself, it is a health hazard because it literally takes my breath away that—what they have proposed. 

In the case of my State, Texas, if Texas were to implement this 

in its entirety between 2012 and 2030, we would have to reduce 

CO2 emissions by 41 percent. Forty-one percent. We would also, in 

terms of the national total, have to reduce CO2 emissions—our CO2

emissions would be 25 percent of the national total in one State. 

Now, I understand that Texas is somewhat unique because we 

still are creating jobs in our State. We still have an economy that 

is growing. In fact, over half of all the net new jobs created in the 

country in the last 10 years have been created in Texas. Most people think that is a good thing, but apparently the Obama administration thinks that is a bad thing, so it is punitive in its nature. 

As Chairman Whitfield has pointed out, there are no health 

claims. There is nobody claiming that this actually improves the 

public health, which is the number one goal of the Clean Air Act. 

There is no net environmental benefit. Even if one were to be a 

global warming believer, which I am not, this doesn’t allege or— 

that there are any net benefits to changing global warming. 

What it is is an exercise in political arrogance that the EPA has 

the power, I believe, and that is debatable, under the Clean Air 

Act. All these power plants that are currently in operation are regulated under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. This claims that we 

can now regulate those same power plants that are already regulated under section 111(d). That is a questionable legal standing, 

and I believe that the courts will overturn this proposed regulation, 

if it comes to that, on that basis alone. 

My good friend from California in his opening statement referred 

to carbon pollution. Well, actually what this is, what we are regulating, is CO2, carbon dioxide, which I am creating as I speak, and 

which every person in this room is creating as you breathe in and 

out. Now, I don’t know about the rest of the people, but I don’t believe everybody that is alive and breathing is a CO2 mobile source 

11 

polluter. That may be the stance of the Obama administration, but 

it is certainly not my stance. 

So, calling CO2 to be pollution doesn’t make it so. I could call Mr. 

Waxman a conservative, but that would not make him a conservative; or he could call me a liberal, but that would not make me 

a liberal. 

Mr. Chairman, we need to seriously review this proposal, and I 

think, as the subcommittee does, and, if necessary, the full committee does, we will come to the conclusion that this is more of a 

political proposal than it is an environmental proposal. And again, 

I pointed out Texas has to reduce its CO2 emissions from the baseline of 2012 by 41 percent; Louisiana, 50 percent; Florida, 28 percent; Pennsylvania, 25 percent; Arizona, 45 percent; Oklahoma, 40 

percent; Illinois, 20 percent; New York, 49 percent; Alabama, 24 

percent; Arkansas, 46 percent. 

What is glaring about this list, and that is the top 10 States, the 

State with the greatest population base and the State with the 

largest environmental problems, at least in the Los Angeles Basin, 

the Golden Gate State of California is not even on the top 10 list, 

and they are the number one State in terms of population. 

So I could go on and on, Mr. Chairman, but I have only got 29 

seconds. Simply let me say that we have great respect for the EPA. 

I voted for the Clean Air Act amendments in the early 1990s. 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. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back, and at this time recognize the gentleman from Chicago, Ranking Member Mr. Rush, 

for his 5-minute opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this important 

hearing on the EPA’s clean power rule. As part of President 

Obama’s climate action plan to cut carbon pollution and help mitigate the disastrous effects of climate change, this rule would allow 

EPA to use its existing authority under the Clean Air Act to control 

carbon pollution from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I must say that this rule cannot 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 total U.S. greenhouse gas 

emissions with no current Federal limits on their emissions of carbon pollution. 

This new proposal seeks to cut emissions by 30 percent compared 

with the 2005 levels by 2030, and it gives States great flexibility 

with implementing the rule based on their existing utility infrastructure and policies. 

Mr. Chairman, while we hear from some industry groups and opponents of any type of regulation that these new rules will be costly and overburdensome, the newly released report by the Office of 

Management and Budget contradicts that claim. From the annual 

OMB reports to Congress, we know that for the 34 major EPA 

12 

rules issued between 2003 and 2013, the benefits have greatly exceeded the cost. 

In fact, Mr. Chairman, it was two rules issued under the George 

W. Bush administration, the clean air interstate rule issued in 

2005 and the particle pollution rule issued in 2007, that brought 

about the highest estimated benefits. 

More importantly, the science, Mr. Chairman, is settled. Climate 

change is real, and it is negatively impacting the lives and livelihoods of the American people. You see this in extreme weather 

events and everything from extensive flooding on our coasts to relentless wildfires in the West, to costly drought and crop loss in the 

plains and in my beloved Midwest. 

That is why, Mr. Chairman, four former Republican U.S. EPA 

Administrators who served under Presidents Nixon, and Reagan, 

and George H.W. And George W. Bush all praised the agency’s climate change rule in a Senate hearing just yesterday. As George W. 

Bush’s first EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman told the 

Senate Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, and I quote, 

‘‘The issue has been settled. EPA does have the authority. The law 

says so; the Supreme Court has said so twice. That matter, I now 

believe, should be put to rest, Mr. Chairman,’’ end of quote. 

The American people expect their legislators to address this serious threat not only to our environment, but to our national security. Even President Reagan’s former EPA Administrator Lee 

Thomas agreed that the science is settled on this matter, telling 

the same panel just on yesterday, I quote, ‘‘We know that carbon 

dioxide and other greenhouse gases are warming the atmosphere. 

We know they have contributed to a more than 1.5 degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature,’’ end of quote. 

Mr. Chairman, if Congress refuses to address this issue as the 

American people demand, at the very least we should allow EPA 

to do its rule, do its job, and act accordingly, then this rule will go 

a long way in helping us to begin to address this dire issue. 

I look forward to hearing from our witness today, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Rush. 

The gentleman yields back, his time is expired, and at this time 

I am going to recognize Ms. McCabe, because we are going to give 

her 5 minutes to give her views on this issue. 

And as I said in the beginning, we do look forward to your testimony and the opportunity to ask you questions. So, Ms. McCabe, 

you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JANET MCCABE, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. MCCABE. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield and Ranking 

Member Rush. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I am not positive that your microphone is on. 

Ms. MCCABE. There we go. 

Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today on EPA’s recently issued Clean Power Plan proposal. 

13 

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. It 

already threatens human health and welfare and economic wellbeing, and if left unchecked, it will have devastating impacts on 

the United States and on the planet. The science is clear, the risks 

are clear, and the high costs of inaction are clear. We must act. 

That is why President Obama laid out a Climate Action Plan, and 

why on June 2nd the Administrator signed the proposed Clean 

Power Plan to cut carbon pollution, build a more resilient Nation, 

and lead the world in our global climate fight. 

Power plants are the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions 

in the United States, accounting for roughly one-third of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions. While the United States has limits 

in place for the level of arsenic, mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 

oxides, and particle pollution that power plants can emit, there are 

currently no national limits on carbon pollution levels. 

EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan will cut hundreds of millions 

of tons of carbon pollution and hundreds of thousands of tons of 

other harmful air pollutants from existing power plants. Together 

these reductions will provide important health benefits to our most 

vulnerable citizens, including our children. 

The Clean Power Plan is a critical step forward. Our plan is built 

on advice and information from States, cities, businesses, utilities 

and thousands of people about the actions they are already taking 

to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. 

The plan aims to cut energy waste and leverage cleaner energy 

sources by doing two things. First, it uses a national framework to 

set achievable State-specific goals to cut carbon pollution per megawatt hour of electricity generated; and second, it empowers the 

States to chart their own customized path to meet their goals. 

We know that coal and natural gas play a significant role in a 

diverse national energy mix. This plan does not change that. It 

builds on action already under way to modernize aging plants, increase efficiency, and lower pollution, and paves a more certain 

path for conventional fuels in a clean energy economy. 

The EPA’s stakeholder outreach and public engagement in preparation for this rule was unprecedented. Starting last summer, we 

held 11 public listening sessions around the country. We participated in hundreds of meetings with a broad range of stakeholders 

across the country and talked with every single State. 

Now, the second phase of our public engagement has begun. We 

have already had dozens of calls with States and other stakeholders, and the more formal public process, both a public comment 

period and public hearings, will provide further opportunity for 

stakeholders and the general public to provide input. These are not 

mere words. That is a proposal, and we want and need input from 

the public. That is why we have already engaged States, utilities, 

and other stakeholders to get their feedback. 

To craft State goals, we looked at where States are today, and 

we followed where they are going. Each State is different, so each 

goal and each path can be different. The goals spring from smart 

and sensible opportunities that States and businesses are taking 

advantage of right now. 

Under the proposal, the States have a flexible compliance path 

that allows them to design plans sensitive to their needs, including 

14 

considering jobs and communities in a transitioning energy world. 

It allows them enough time, 15 years from when the rule is final 

until compliance with the final target, to consider and make the 

right investments, ensure reliability, and avoid stranded assets. 

Our plan doesn’t just give States more options, it gives entrepreneurs and investors more options, too, by unleashing the market 

forces that drive innovation and investment in cleaner power and 

low-carbon technologies. 

All told, in 2030, when States meet their goals, there will be 

about 30 percent less carbon pollution from the power sector across 

the U.S. when compared to 2005 levels, 730 million metric tons of 

carbon dioxide out of the air. In addition, we will cut pollution that 

causes smog and soot by 25 percent. The first year that these 

standards go into effect will avoid up to 100,000 asthma attacks 

and 2,100 heart attacks, and the numbers go up from there. 

In 2030, the Clean Power Plan will deliver climate and health 

benefits of up to $90 billion, and for soot and smog reductions 

alone, that means for every dollar we invest in the plan, families 

will see $7 in health benefits. And because energy efficiency is such 

a smart, cost-effective strategy, we predict that in 2030, average 

electricity bills for American families will be 8 percent cheaper. 

President Obama’s Climate Action Plan provides a roadmap for 

Federal action to meet the pressing challenge of a changing climate, promoting clean energy solutions that capitalize on American 

innovation and drive economic growth in providing a role for a 

range of fuels, including coal and natural gas. The proposal sets 

targets and a reasonable schedule that can be achieved by every 

State using measures they choose themselves to suit their own 

needs. 

The EPA looks forward to discussion of the proposal over the 

next several months, and I look forward to your questions. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCabe follows:] 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, Ms. McCabe, thank you so much again. 

And I neglected to mention that she is the Acting Assistant Administrator over at EPA, and so we do appreciate your being here. 

At this time I would like to recognize myself for 5 minutes of 

questions and statements. I have noticed, Ms. McCabe, that sometimes when we have our question period, we oftentimes make 

statements, so I will probably do a little bit of both. 

The first thing I wanted to do, I want to read a statement by a 

former IPCC coordinating lead article coordinator. His name is Dr. 

Stephen Schneider. Of course, that is the International Panel on 

Climate Change, which I think is recognized as the world leader 

in this issue of climate change. But Dr. Schneider made this statement. He said, on one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound 

to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, which 

means we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, and the 

buts. On the other hand, we are human beings, and we want a better world, and to do that, we must have media support, so we must 

offer up scary scenarios, make dramatic statements, and do not 

mention any scientific doubt. And then he concluded by saying, so 

we decide what must be done to be most effective in getting our 

message out. 

And I say that because you were really positive in your statement, and it is our responsibility to raise doubts about these kinds 

of regulations that have such an impact everywhere. And so I just 

wanted—Dr. Schneider is not the only lead coordinator that has 

made these statements. Others have said we have to make them 

dramatic to put political pressure on political leaders. Others have 

said we use the worst-case model scenarios. 

So, as I said in the beginning, our responsibility is to try to focus 

in and see really what is going on here. And so the first question 

I would like to ask you this morning, I touched on it in my opening 

statement, EPA’s carbon dioxide regulations for power plants are 

being pursued under section 111(d), and it is my understanding 

that you all issued regulations under that section on five occasions. 

And now section 111(d) has traditionally focused, and, in fact, of 

those five times it has always focused, on emissions standards for 

specific sources, specific units, and it has never been attempted to 

do it in a statewide way, and that is what your recent proposal 

does. It sets a standard that can be achieved only statewide. 

What precedent under section 111(d) is there for this type of 

standard setting which has never been done before? 

Ms. MCCABE. There actually have been six regulations issued 

under 111(d), the last one being the clean air mercury rule in 2005, 

which addressed this sector, and that took an approach that allowed utilities to trade among themselves to reduce emissions. But 

the fact is that what we have done in this rule is completely within 

the four corners of 111(d), which directs us to identify the best system of emission reduction that has been adequately demonstrated 

for the particular sector that we are looking at. And in the case of 

the power sector, it is a fully integrated system that encompasses 

the kinds of technologies that we included in the rule, and we know 

that because that is what we heard from States and utilities. These 

are the things they are already doing to reduce carbon from fossil 

power plants. 

22 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But, you know, in this rule, you, for the first 

time—I mean, you basically are directing the States on setting up 

renewable mandates. You are setting the efficiency of the coal 

plants. You are determining the natural gas capacity, what percent 

of the capacity must be run. You are setting consumer demand. 

You are going further than you have ever done before, in my opinion. 

Ms. MCCABE. We are not actually setting any mandates in the 

rule. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But you set this out in the regulation. 

Ms. MCCABE. But they are not mandates. The States have absolute flexibility to use whatever method—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Don’t they have to meet those four standards? 

Ms. MCCABE. They do not have to meet those four standards. 

Those were the—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. You have to meet—they have to meet your target, though. 

Ms. MCCABE. They have to meet the overall carbon intensity target, but they have complete flexibility to get there however they 

choose, which is what they told us they wanted. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. We are going to explore it some more, but I have 

15 seconds left. I want to ask one other questions. One of the real 

concerns we have—now, this relates to the new power plant rule. 

We can’t build a new plant in America because the technology is 

not there that commercially makes it feasible. The Kemper plant 

in Mississippi is like a $5 billion cost overrun. In Europe, they are 

closing down natural gas plants. They are mothballing them because natural gas prices are so high coming out of Russia, so they 

are building new coal-powered plants, and last year they imported 

53 percent of our coal exports. 

So they have the flexibility, if gas prices go up, to build a new 

plant. We don’t have that flexibility. Do you think that that is fair 

to the American people? 

Ms. MCCABE. I actually disagree respectfully, Chairman. We 

think that new coal plants can be built under the new rule, and 

they are going forward. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, for his 5-minute opening statement. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend Ms. 

McCabe, I want to commend the EPA, I want to commend all your 

colleagues for the way you have approached this proposal. I think 

that you have been extremely open during this process of creating 

this proposal, and from what I hear today, that this process has not 

concluded, that there will be more and more opportunities for 

States and stakeholders to add their voices and to look at this proposal and to engage in positive commentaries with you on this proposal. You already reached out and asked for suggestions and been 

guided by that feedback. 

I am from the Midwest, and we get a lot of our electricity from 

coal. We have a higher climate pollution, rates are—at the beginning, starting out at the gate, but also means that we have more 

opportunities for cost-effective reductions. 

And I want you, if you would, explain to me and to others in 

more detail how you develop the States’ goals, particularly for the 

23 

Midwest, and how the different situations and the different States 

are reflected in the individual State goals. 

Ms. MCCABE. That is a very good question, Congressman Rush, 

and one that we have been getting a lot from people, and it really 

goes back to the fundamental approach that we took in this rule, 

which is to take every State from where it started. One of the loudest things that we heard from States was please don’t do a onesize-fits-all, every plant across the country has to meet a certain 

emission limit. Give us flexibility and recognize that States are in 

different places in terms of their energy mix, the age of their 

plants, and all that sort of thing. So that is the approach that we 

took. 

We looked across the whole country at the power sector, and we 

looked at the things that people were already doing, and there are 

many things that can be done to reduce carbon from the existing 

fleet, but we found four that were the most prominent and the 

most promising, we thought, to satisfy the standard of best system 

of emission reduction. And those things are let’s have the coal and 

gas plants be as absolutely efficient as they can be so that we get 

every—we get every electron, as many electrons as possible for 

every ton of coal that is burned, and we found that a lot of efficiency improvements are being made across the country. 

We then looked at what else are States and utilities doing to reduce their carbon intensity. Well, they are using their gas plants 

more than their coal plants, and that is due to a lot of reasons, but 

it results in less carbon, so that was number two. 

Number three was that States all across the country are looking 

at increasing the amount of energy they get from renewable 

sources, from zero-carbon-emitting sources, and that is a very positive trend being pursued by a lot of people. So that was our third 

element. 

And fourth was the great interest across the country, in almost 

every State, to employ energy efficiency or demand sites so that we 

are more efficient. We know there is many, many ways to waste 

less energy, and all of these things are important in order to bring 

carbon down, as well as other pollutants. 

So we came up with a national framework that set a reasonable 

and moderate expectation for each of those four, recognizing that 

those were not the only things that States could do. And we then 

looked at every State, and we took the most recent information 

that we had for the power sector, which was 2012, and we applied 

those four building blocks, we call them, to each State, and that 

generated a carbon intensity rate that, if those were applied, that 

is where that State would get. And these are things that we think 

are very reasonable to achieve. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

My constituents, when they heard about this proposed rule, the 

thing that was most important in their mind was the price of electricity. My friends on the other side here, they have been engaged 

in a lot of fear mongering about the cost of electricity is going to 

increase and be unaffordable by low-income constituents. And my 

question to you is how will the Clean Power Plan affect the electricity bills for my constituents? 

24 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, the first and most important thing to say is 

that each State will be in charge of designing its own plan, so that 

means two things. One is that they will have the opportunity to 

take those kind of considerations into—build those into their plan, 

but also that EPA at this moment can’t predict exactly what every 

State is going to do. 

We did do some illustrative examples of what States might do, 

and so in our regulatory impact assessment, we do include those 

numbers, and that we show that with the significant increase in 

energy efficiency that will be implemented as a result of the rule, 

that electricity bills in 2030, we predict, will go down because— 

electricity bills—because people will be using less energy. We also 

show that the price of electricity will go up a little bit, but overall, 

bills will come down. 

I also just want to note that low-income families are most at risk 

of the adverse effects of carbon pollution and climate change and 

can greatly—will greatly benefit from the health benefits that will 

be achieved by this rule. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the chairman of the full 

committee, Mr. Upton of Michigan, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. McCabe, I believe a number of us have concerns with this 

proposed rule. EPA, an agency with no energy policy authority or 

expertise, and under questionable statutory interpretation, has now 

placed itself above State Governments and public utility commissions on electric-generation issues, not to mention, DOE, FERC, or 

other Federal agencies. Last month the DC Circuit ruled that absent, and I quote, ‘‘clear and specific grant of jurisdiction,’’ end 

quote, the Federal Government cannot regulate areas of the electricity market left by the Federal Power Act to the States, like electricity generation and intrastate transmission. But what EPA calls 

flexibilities in its proposed reg, changing dispatch rules, mandating 

efficiency, utilizing other generation sources, are, in fact, the very 

intrastate generation transmission and distribution matters explicitly reserved by the Federal Power Act for the States. 

So where do you see specifically the clear and specific grant of 

jurisdiction over intrastate electricity matters? Where is the cite 

that you can refer to? 

Ms. MCCABE. Chairman Upton, this is not an energy plan. This 

is a rule done within the four corners of 111(d) that looks to the 

best system of emission reduction to reduce emission. No State is 

required to enter into any particular agreement or take interstate 

efforts. We are not controlling the power sectors through this. 

Mr. UPTON. So you don’t have a specific cite, right? Is that right? 

Ms. MCCABE. I can—— 

Mr. UPTON. Because neither DOE nor FERC has the authority 

to dictate how States plan and operate their energy systems, so if 

they can’t do it, what authority does EPA have to mandate that the 

States actually restructure their electric systems and subject State 

energy decisions to Federal oversight and control? 

25 

Ms. MCCABE. That is not what the rule does. The rule is a pollution control rule, as EPA has traditionally done under section 

111(d). 

Mr. UPTON. Well, assuming that you had the legal authority to 

go forward with the rule, have you identified all the Federal and 

State agencies that would have to play a role in the redesign of the 

State electricity systems under the proposed rule? 

Ms. MCCABE. We have been talking to many agencies at State 

and Federal level, but it is State Governments, as they always are 

with respect to 111(d) plans, that will be responsible for putting 

these plans together. 

Mr. UPTON. So, as we look in EPA’s budget, and this year EPA 

took a reduction in appropriation levels, an agreed-upon amount in 

a bipartisan way, from the CR that was passed 6 to 1 last January, 

have you identified more funding of personnel that is going to be 

required at the Federal level to conduct this review and oversight 

for existing plants? 

Ms. MCCABE. These are State plans. The States will put them together, and EPA will act in its traditional role with respect to State 

air quality planning. 

Mr. UPTON. But you still got—you know, you have got the hammer to go after them, so are you—is it going to be a new—new 

folks engaged in that? 

Ms. MCCABE. We think States will want to take a leadership role 

on this and—— 

Mr. UPTON. What if they don’t? I heard the West Virginia Governor saying that every utility in his State would be closed. Every 

coal-fired facility in his State was going to be closed. 

Ms. MCCABE. Again, I think that States are going to want to be 

in the lead on this plan. 

Mr. UPTON. I think I know where they want to be. 

Ms. MCCABE. I also would suggest that our plan certainly does 

not require that all coal plants be closed in that State or any State. 

Mr. UPTON. Well, I will leave that for Mr. McKinley to ask. I 

yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Doesn’t the EPA, under the Clean Air Act, set 

standards that States have to meet which affect their energy resources within that State? 

Ms. MCCABE. To the extent that it addresses pollution emissions, 

yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. So this is not unprecedented? 

Ms. MCCABE. It is not. 

Mr. WAXMAN. OK. I understand EPA asked a lot of stakeholders 

for input. Did the States ask for greater flexibility, or did they 

argue that EPA should just tell them what to do? 

Ms. MCCABE. They were very strenuously arguing for greater 

flexibility and, in fact, the ability to use some of the very tools that 

we have outlined in our proposal. 

Mr. WAXMAN. You indicated there are a number of ways that the 

States can meet the objective of reducing the carbon pollution comVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:23 Feb 19, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-155 EPA’S CO2 REGS READY FOR PDF\113-155 EPA’S CO2 REGS PENDING W
26 

ing from the power plants, and it is up to the States to design how 

to do it, but they have to achieve that goal. 

Ms. MCCABE. Uh-huh. 

Mr. WAXMAN. This isn’t a mandate from Washington, how to accomplish the goal. It sounds to me like a mandate from Washington to achieve the goal. 

Ms. MCCABE. That is correct. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Isn’t that the way the Clean Air Act has always 

worked since 1970? 

Ms. MCCABE. With respect to 111(d) and some other elements of 

the Clean Air Act, that is exactly right. 

Mr. WAXMAN. The arguments I hear from the other side is, one, 

they don’t believe the science; two, they don’t think there is anything to do; three, this is not good enough because it doesn’t 

achieve the goals; four, it tells the States what to do. Seems like 

every one of those points is incorrect, and then they come up with 

an argument that this is going to have a bad impact on the economy. Did you look at whether this will have a negative impact on 

the economy, or do you have people who make the claim that it is 

going to help the economy? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, we looked at the expected impacts on the 

power sector, and we also looked at and heard from a lot of States 

that are moving forward aggressively with some of the very measures that we outlined in the proposal, and indeed those States are 

enjoying job growth and additional investment in innovative strategies in the creation of jobs in pursuance of things like energy efficiency. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I ask that we put in the record a paper that we 

drafted of all the quotes over the last 40 years of the industries 

who said they couldn’t achieve what the EPA was asking them to 

achieve under the law passed by Congress on a bipartisan basis. 

They said they couldn’t achieve it without closing down their businesses or suffering dire economic consequences. 

We hear exaggerated claims about electricity costs, job losses, 

and even impaired electric reliability. These are doomsday claims. 

We have heard them before. And in the paper we put out, we 

showed how these claims were made and how inaccurate they 

were. What has been the history of the advances made under the 

Clean Air Act to give us some guidance as to whether we have to 

choose between clean air or a strong economy? 

Ms. MCCABE. We don’t have to make that choice between clean 

air and a strong economy, and, Congressman, I think as you have 

illustrated, the history of the Clean Air Act shows that we do not. 

Air has gotten cleaner, and the economy has grown, and the United 

States has been a global leader in pollution-control technology, energy-efficiency investments, and we expect that to continue with 

this program as well. 

Mr. WAXMAN. We heard a claim on the other side of the aisle 

that this EPA proposed rule would have no impact on public 

health. Can you give us your view of that? 

Ms. MCCABE. We disagree with that. In fact, as I noted, the rule 

will result in 25 percent reduction in soot and smog pollutants, as 

well as 30 percent reduction in climate carbon pollutants. All of 

27 

these issues affect public health, and reducing those emissions, taking them out of the air, will improve public health. 

Mr. WAXMAN. So this isn’t just to do with the global problem of 

a warming planet that leads to climate change, but it will have an 

impact on the health of people near some of these power plants? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is right. Those are important cobenefits of the 

rule. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I compliment you on the rule. I think it 

makes a lot of sense, it gives a lot of flexibility, and it achieves the 

goals, and it encourages entrepreneurship to develop the industry 

and technology that will make us the leader in the world to accomplish these goals. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

At this time recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to be here 

and—no? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I am sorry, Mr. Barton actually was on the list 

first. 

Mr. BARTON. No, no, I will yield to John, and then I will follow 

up later. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Mr. Shimkus is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I am glad Mr. Waxman is here because he and many of my 

friends on the other side have seen this poster before. These are 

the real live job losses from the last Clean Air Act. Kinkaid, Illinois, I have invited you all to come by there, 1,200 miners lost 

their job under a flexible system controlled by the State. The State 

made the decision, this mine closed, 1,200 miners. 

So those of us who talk about this debate, we are trying to save 

our coal miner jobs in this country, and the President promised to 

make electricity generation by coal so expensive that he would 

drive that out of our market. Promises—San Francisco Chronicle, 

well documented, he is just following up on his promise, so those 

of us in the coal region of this country are under attack, and we 

have to deal with this, with our constituency and the debate. So 

that is why there is a lot of emotion, as you can imagine. 

Also, part of my portfolio of areas, the nuclear portfolio, the nuclear side, and so there are some curious things about this rule 

that begs—that creates a problem based upon States that had 

clean-burning nuclear power or generators that have shut down, 

but still have a standard by which now they can’t meet because we 

are incentivizing the closing of nuclear power, which, if we are into 

clean air, climate change, we should be incentivized. 

Let me give you an example. 2013, four nuclear reactors prematurely to close. One of those reactors was Kewaunee plant in 

Wisconsin. When you all set the reduction target for Wisconsin, it 

did so based on electricity production in 2012, a year in which 

Kewaunee was still operating. So, you are calculating your reductions a year when you have got a nuclear plant operating, no carbon emissions, that facility closed, now that State and many States 

that have nuclear power—I have one of the largest nuclear powergenerating States in the country—is now disproportionately 

28 

harmed by these rules, extremely harmed. So, the result is that 

Wisconsin will be forced to compensate for the loss of this plant 

and reduces emissions even further than the EPA targeted; is that 

correct? Is that analysis all correct? 

Ms. MCCABE. So let me explain, Congressman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Quickly, please, as quickly as you can. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, yes. So this rule addresses the fossil fuel sector. That is our responsibility under 111(d), so that is where we 

start, and our job is to identify the best system of emission reduction for fossil-fired plants. That doesn’t include nuclear. So in 2012, 

we looked at emissions in each State from their fossil generation, 

and we then looked at what that best system of emission reduction, 

from a national basis, would result in in 2030. We recognize that 

there are States that rely on nuclear power that is zero carbon 

emitting. That is very good for carbon intensity. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But we are disenfranchising those States that 

have the nuclear option. 

Ms. MCCABE. We are, in fact, giving States credit for some portion of nuclear in their compliance plan so that—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But to meet the standard, they have to even have 

more cuts, especially when a plant is closed, because you are basing that off the emissions in 2012, but their generating portfolio 

was based upon a nuclear plant that was operating. 

Ms. MCCABE. This is not an energy plan for the State. This is 

a—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That is our problem. 

Ms. MCCABE. But that is not our job to—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But that is the problem for our ratepayers, and because if you—if a generating facility that has zero emissions drops 

off 1,200 megawatts, 800 megawatts, whatever the base load is, 

they have to make that up, otherwise their costs are going to go 

up. And so we are not taking into consideration, in this carbon debate, zero emittant. We should be incentivizing this; should we not? 

Ms. MCCABE. We are, and for any State that uses zero-emitting 

generation to replace coal-fired generation or to meet their needs, 

they absolutely will be able to count that in their compliance plan 

and move them towards their goal. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. Let me get to these final last few questions, 

and I appreciate that answer. 

What happens if the EPA doesn’t approve a State implementation plan? 

Ms. MCCABE. There is a provision—there is a little bit of language in 111(d) that says if we are not in a position to approve a 

State plan, then EPA is to move forward with a plan for that State. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You will have a Federal implementation plan? 

Ms. MCCABE. We are not focused on that right now because—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But that is what the law will be—I mean, the rule 

will be. 

Ms. MCCABE. That is what the law provides. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. What will that Federal implementation plan look 

like? 

Ms. MCCABE. We have not come anywhere near to proposing a 

Federal implementation plan. 

29 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I would suggest you start looking at that and be 

prepared to answer those questions on that. 

I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. 

Yarmuth, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Administrator. 

Last fall, EPA Administrator McCarthy met with our Governor, 

Steve Beshear, to discuss the proposed rule, and, after that meeting in Kentucky, sent a framework to EPA with recommendations 

on ways to develop a rule that would reduce carbon pollution costeffectively while offering our State the flexibility in meeting the 

new standards. My understanding is that EPA followed almost all 

of the Commonwealth’s recommendations; is that correct? 

Ms. MCCABE. I believe so, Congressman. 

Mr. YARMUTH. And those included, again, allowing States to reduce emissions; flexibly using measures such as energy efficiency, 

renewable energy, and fuel switching to natural gas, rather than 

forcing States to reduce emissions in any specific plant; 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 Reinvestment Act established a rebate program that helps spur development and adoption of energy-efficient 

appliances to replace older, less efficient appliances. General Electric has a major manufacturing facility in my district, and because 

of that program, they were able to bring a manufacturing line of 

refrigerators from Mexico back to Louisville and creating hundreds 

of jobs in the process. 

Does the proposed rule allow States to take credit for reductions 

achieved through energy-efficient initiatives like this one? 

Ms. MCCABE. Certainly any program that encourages, or 

incentivizes, or provides for ways for people to save energy, which 

means less carbon going up the stack, are completely creditable 

under the plan. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Well, we are happy that EPA agrees with that. 

That is a good example of how to create flexibility, and also create 

energy efficiency and help consumers save money and reduce emissions. 

And I am glad the chairman mentioned Waxman-Markey earlier 

in his opening remarks, because I was one of a group of 10 or 12 

or so Representatives from States that were heavily dependent on 

carbon, on coal-based energy, who went to our leadership at the 

time—Rick Boucher from Virginia led that effort—and we basically 

said to our leadership and to Mr. Waxman that we couldn’t support 

the bill as it was originally drafted, that it would have been devastating for our consumers and our businesses, and they made 

changes in that bill. 

And before I voted for that bill, I talked to all the major consumers of energy in my district, General Electric being one, Ford 

Motor Company has two major manufacturing facilities, the UniVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:23 Feb 19, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-155 EPA’S CO2 REGS READY FOR PDF\113-155 EPA’S CO2 REGS PENDING W
30 

versity of Louisville, the Jefferson County Public School System, 

Louisville metro government, UPS, we are the global hub of UPS. 

And not one of those users of electricity objected to that law, proposed law, and said they were either for it or neutral on it, saying, 

‘‘We could live with it.’’ I talked to our utility company and asked 

what the impact of that law would be on residential customers, and 

they said, ‘‘We think that after 10 years, the average residential 

user will have their rates go up 15 percent, if they do nothing else: 

They don’t adjust their thermostat, they don’t change light bulbs, 

they don’t insulate, so forth. So if they are paying $200 a month 

at the beginning of the period, 10 years from now they will be paying $230 a month.’’ 

So, I felt pretty comfortable that I could vote on that and knowing that there would be minimal negative impact on my constituents. So I am glad that the chairman compared what the EPA rule 

does now to that law back then, proposed law back then, which Republicans in the Senate killed. 

But I want to get to this whole scare tactic, with manufacturing 

businesses being affected and moving out of State and so forth, because, again, I haven’t heard from any of my major manufacturers 

and I have a lot of them in my district. They are not afraid of this 

proposed rule. 

So my question is to you, assuming—it is not easy to move a 

manufacturing company. Ford has almost a couple billion dollars 

invested in my district, in their two plants. They just can’t pick up 

and leave even if the energy went up. But you made an estimate 

at what the increased potential rates would be even in the short 

term of this, and I think it was about 3 percent. Is that correct? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is correct. 

Mr. YARMUTH. So it seems hard to logically predict that a 3-percent rise in a manufacturing company’s rates would be enough of 

a financial disincentive to force them to pick up a major investment 

and move somewhere else. Is that part of the calculation that you 

did when you were creating this rule? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, energy efficiency is good for everybody and 

good for business. I think we all know that, and as you say, the 

increases in electricity prices we see are modest in the short term 

and then go down over the long term. So I think businesses will 

take that into account. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Great. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, recognize the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Am I not correct, Administrator McCabe, when I say that this 

proposal that we are discussing today is not actually required by 

the Clean Air Act? Isn’t that a true statement? 

Ms. MCCABE. No. It is required when we issue a 111(b) standard 

for a sector to then go forward with a 111(d) standard. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, I think that is wrong. I think it is allowed, 

but I don’t see any statutory authority that demands these proposals. I do accept that there is a Supreme Court case and a Presidential finding of endangerment that allows the Clean Air Act to 

31 

be used. But I see nowhere in this statute that this has to happen. 

Do you agree with that? 

Ms. MCCABE. Respectfully, no. I believe we, the Clean Air Act 

does—— 

Mr. BARTON. If you believe that, I want the general counsel of 

the EPA to back that up. Will you do that? 

Ms. MCCABE. Sure. 

Mr. BARTON. Send it to the committee? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yep. 

Mr. BARTON. My understanding that what you are attempting to 

propose is directed by a Presidential speech dated June 25, 2013, 

that was called the climate action plan that has then been followed 

up by a Presidential memo where some of these requirements were 

directed towards the EPA to implement that. I would assume that 

you are aware of this memo. 

Ms. MCCABE. I am. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. Can you tell me what the legal force of the 

Presidential memo is? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, the President’s memo and climate action plan 

laid out a series of steps that are within the responsibility of the 

EPA and other agencies to move forward with. The President gave 

us a schedule on which to move forward with this rulemaking but 

directed that we undertake the rulemakings that are within our 

authority under the Clean Air Act to address environmental challenges. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, I accept that the President has the right to 

give speeches, and I even accept the fact that the President has the 

right to issue memos and, as the Chief Executive Officer of the 

Federal Government, to direct that the Executive Branch, in this 

case your agency, the EPA, to try to implement those Presidential 

memos, but I don’t accept that this is something that absolutely 

has to be done, and whatever documentation you can provide that 

shows that this is a forcing authority, I would like to have. 

In your statement, you went to some lengths to talk about all the 

flexibility that the States are going to have. I am told in the case 

of Texas, the decisions were made before the State of Texas even 

had an opportunity to comment that they received a memo or a 

checklist almost after the fact; are you aware of that? 

Ms. MCCABE. I am not sure what you are referring to, Congressman. We had many conversations with States, both individually 

and in groups, and of course, this is a proposal, so we are still taking comment from people. I have had at least multiple hours of 

conversation with States even since June 2. So there has been lots 

of opportunity to talk with the States. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, just as an example, are you aware of the fact 

that if Texas closed down every existing fossil fuel generation plant 

in the State, every one, every coal-fired plant, every natural gas 

plant in the State of Texas, that it would still not meet the new 

proposed ESPS; are you aware of that? 

Ms. MCCABE. The plan relies on States implementing a number—— 

Mr. BARTON. OK. I am asking if you are aware of that in the 

case of Texas. If we shut down every coal-fired plant and every natVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:23 Feb 19, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-155 EPA’S CO2 REGS READY FOR PDF\113-155 EPA’S CO2 REGS PENDING W
32 

ural gas plant in the State, every one, we can’t meet these suggested goals. 

Ms. MCCABE. I haven’t done that calculation, Congressman. 

Mr. BARTON. All right. Well, I suggest that you do it. Texas 

would end up with a new source performance standard that is 

below EPA’s own standard. The EPA standard is 1,000 pounds of 

CO2 per million megawatts, per megawatt of production, and for 

Texas to actually meet with the EPA as suggesting it should, we 

would have to go down to 791, which is about 21 percent below 

your own standard. 

I mean, you know, the renewable standard for Texas is based on 

the energy renewable portfolio standard for Kansas. Now, I am not 

anti-Kansas. I want Mr. Pompeo to know, but Kansas’ electricity 

demand and generation is 10 percent of the State of Texas. Texas 

leads the Nation in renewable generation, and Texas produces 

three times as much energy by renewable, as the next three States 

combined. 

Ms. MCCABE. Texas has immense opportunities when it comes 

to—— 

Mr. BARTON. And we get no credit for that in your proposal. 

None. 

Ms. MCCABE. Well—— 

Mr. BARTON. None. 

Ms. MCCABE [continuing]. The State does, actually, and—— 

Mr. BARTON. Well, the State of Texas tells me they don’t. 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, we are happy to have further conversations 

with the State of Texas about the goal. 

Mr. BARTON. My time has expired. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. BARTON. Put me down as extremely undecided on this proposal. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, I will. 

At this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you, Ms. 

McCabe, for coming here today. 

You mentioned that the EPA predicts a reduction in energy costs, 

family energy bills, I take it, by the year 2030? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Would you elaborate on that and maybe give us 

some idea of what the reduction estimates look like? 

Ms. MCCABE. Sure. Sure. So as the States implement their plans, 

we expect a large reliance on demand side and energy efficiency 

measures, that will reduce the number of kilowatts a family needs 

to consume over the course of a month, and so when we project 

that out, we show that it is about an 8 percent decrease in a bill, 

in a family’s bill. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So an American family might look to something 

almost like 10 percent of reduction in their monthly energy bills by 

2030 as a result of this rule, of the proposed rule? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is what the proposed rule predicts based on 

our forecast. Of course, each State, as I have said, will do its own 

plan. 

33 

Mr. MCNERNEY. That is not too bad. Would you please describe 

the outreach that the EPA conducted to the various States. Give 

us some idea of the magnitude of that effort? 

Ms. MCCABE. Sure. We started last August, well before we even 

put pen to paper on the rule. In my experience of decades in working, first, from the State side, most of my career from the State 

side, I am not aware of EPA ever doing this kind of outreach, and 

it was broad ranging with all stakeholders. 

But in particular, with respect to States, we met with States in 

groups, they have regional organizations. We met with those regional organizations. Our regional offices convene groups of State 

officials, both from the environmental and the energy side, as well 

as other stakeholders and utilities. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Were most States cooperative, or did they stand 

aside and give a, you know, a less cooperative stance? 

Ms. MCCABE. Oh, I would say that there was great interest and 

continues to be great interest from the State officials on talking 

with us about the program. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Would you describe the reduction of conventional pollution, its projected impact on health and the monetary 

impacts of those health benefits from these rules, if implemented? 

Ms. MCCABE. Sure. So as co-benefits of reducing carbon, there 

would also be reductions in particle pollution, nitrogen oxide, sulfur 

dioxide, which have very immediate and localized, as well as regional health benefits and we predict about a 25 percent in reduction of those pollutants compared to what they would otherwise be 

in 2030 without this rule. 

So that will result in reduced asthma attacks, reduced emergency 

room visits, reduced missed days of school in the billions of dollars 

of health benefits to the American people. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Is there any way to talk about the return on investment that might have to be made by the different States? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, we do show that for every dollar invested 

there’s a $7 return in public health benefits as a result of the program. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. And then would these investments be made by 

States or by the private entities involved? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, they would be made by the private entities, 

the businesses investing in technology, investing in new workers to 

employ energy efficiency around the State with all the benefits that 

those bring. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, you know, I understand the four pillars of 

this are increasing upbringing efficiency of the different plants. 

What could be more reasonable than that? Using gas-fired plants 

at 70 percent of their capacity, which is a good idea if you have a 

gas-powered plant. In fact, gas is more affordable now than many 

other forms, using renewable energy that the applicable locally to 

the State and using nuclear as long as possible, and it is encouraging user efficiency, end-user efficiency. 

So, these are all pretty reasonable, in my mind. I don’t see how 

that would be viewed, any of those, as too intrusive. Are there 

other measures that can be taken that would also help reduce pollution that are included in this rule, or—— 

34 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. Those are so reasonable that they are being 

done in a widespread manner, but there are other things that 

States or utilities can think about doing. There is other types of 

fuel switching they can do. They can look at their transmission systems and see whether there is leakage there that can be tightened 

up. So there are a number of other things that folks can do. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. And the last thing is the State flexibility. I 

mean, I understand there is a great deal of flexibility the States 

have adopted and it will make it a lot easier for the different 

States to implement these proposed rules. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, that is right. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. All right. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, recognize the gentleman from Ohio, 

Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thanks very much for being with us today. We greatly appreciate 

it. 

Last week, the Governor of Ohio signed a piece of legislation citing energy costs leading our growth concern, that put a 2-year 

freeze on Ohio’s renewable energy mandate that the State imposed 

on itself. I would like you to consider this hypothetical situation 

going into the future. 

Assume that the Ohio renewable energy standard was included 

in its State implementation plan, the SIP, and to comply with the 

EPA’s existing plant rule. Assume also that the EPA approved that 

SIP, OK. In that scenario, would the State of Ohio maintain its discretion to freeze the renewable energy program in order to protect 

the interest of Ohioans? 

Ms. MCCABE. The State would continue to have flexibility if circumstances change in the State to replace one particular measure 

with another, and the proposal lays out the process by which a 

State could do that. So there is opportunities for States to adjust 

their plans along the way. 

Mr. LATTA. Let me ask then, would the State have to get that 

approval from the EPA? 

Ms. MCCABE. If a State wants to replace one measure with another, they would come to EPA and say, this is what we are doing. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. And how did the process overall work, and how 

much time would it take for a State to get that implemented, then, 

if they want to make a change? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, we work with States all the time in circumstances where they wish to change their State implementation 

plans and so we work with the State to prioritize those actions and 

try to meet the State’s needs in terms of timing. 

Mr. LATTA. And then also, would Ohio be subject to Clean Air 

Act penalties if they didn’t first obtain any EPA approval before 

they make any implementation to a change at that time? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t believe so, Congressman. The provisions in 

the Clean Air Act for penalties are pretty clearly laid out and there 

is a pretty clear process for when those could be invoked. So I 

think in any circumstance like this, we would work with the State 

to make sure that they can do what they needed to do as long as 

it met the ultimate goal. 

35 

Mr. LATTA. Well, just to be on the safe side, if you can get that 

back to the committee, that they wouldn’t face penalties if that 

were to occur? 

Ms. MCCABE. Sure, we will answer further on that. 

Mr. LATTA. And also, just talking a little bit about Ohio, we get 

about 70 percent of our generation in the State of Ohio comes from 

coal. In my district, which I have about 60,000 manufacturing jobs, 

it is even higher than that—that we are a coal-based generating 

State, and up in my area of the State, I also have a very unique 

situation. I have a lot of electric co-ops. 

So how does the EPA’s Clean Power Plan avoid putting these 

small co-ops at a competitive disadvantage and especially the customers? Because, again, in my district, when you look who they are 

serving, you are talking about a lot of—I have 60,000 manufacturing jobs, I also have the largest numbers of farmers in the State 

of Ohio. 

How do you put them not at a competitive disadvantage under 

the Clean Power Plan? Because, again, you have got the farmers, 

you have got these small businesses out there, you have got a lot 

of retirees—— 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Mr. LATTA. What happens? How do we make sure they are not 

at a competitive disadvantage? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, this is where the design of Section 111(d) and 

the flexibility and the plan really shows its value. It is because it 

will be up to the State of Ohio to design a plan that works for the 

State of Ohio. I come from Indiana, and so it is very similar in 

terms of the types of sources—— 

Mr. LATTA. Well, if I could just interrupt, because you coming 

from Indiana, you know that just a few years ago, especially when 

the President was talking about his cap and tax plan, that when 

Ohio was at about 70 percent generation of coal, Indiana was at 

about 90 percent. So they are really in harm’s way when it comes 

to these new rules and standards. So excuse me for interrupting. 

Ms. MCCABE. No, I gave you the opening. I actually don’t think 

they are in harm’s way. I think that the way we have designed the 

plan is very respectful of the fact that States like Ohio and Indiana 

do rely heavily on coal. They have different opportunities than 

States with a different energy mix and they can design a plan that 

addresses concerns related to small rural co-ops, public power, particular concerns. 

This plan works. It doesn’t require any particular plant to meet 

any particular emission rate, and it looks at emissions over a long 

averaging period. So that is another way in which the plan gives 

lots of flexibility for the State to be able to adjust to its particular 

needs, its manufacturing community, its rural communities, cities, 

whatever the particular needs are. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My time has expired and I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I recognize the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

36 

And I have a little different Texas accent, and I’m sorry to my 

colleague from Texas, Joe Barton is a good friend and we work together on a lot of things. 

EPA does have the authority to regulate CO2 under the Clean 

Air Act. Supreme Court ruled it and the rule we are discussing will 

have significant impact for decades on industries in my area, in 

Houston. 

The issue of climate change is one of the most important issues 

we should face as a Congress. The EPA has constructed a framework that provides States with the flexibility and opportunity. It 

is important to remember those four building blocks proposed by 

the rules are not the exhaustive list. The four building blocks are 

a prescription for success. 

States are allowed to construct a plan that matches their needs 

and those in their affected communities and as I said before, the 

EPA is legally justified in regulating carbon, and I would prefer 

Congress take the lead in doing it. I believe as elected officials, we 

have the duty to act on behalf of our constituents to regulate these 

pollutants. 

Again, Ms. McCabe, I am sure you are aware EPA in my home 

State of Texas have had some issues in the past and for more than 

3 years, EPA was responsible for issuing GHG permits which 

caused significant problems for our industry looking to build and 

expand even new facilities. Just this last week, the Governor of 

Texas along with six other State Governors sent a letter to the 

President asking him to dispose of the carbon rule. It is my hope 

that we will not go down that path again. 

My first question, having said that, Ms. McCabe, can you explain 

to the committee what concerns your office receives from stakeholder groups, including States, as you prepared the rules, and 

what did EPA do to mitigate these concerns? 

And obviously, from my part of the country, I appreciate if Texas 

had some input in how you responded to it. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. We heard a number of very specific things 

from States and other stakeholders. We heard that States wanted 

to be able to, for example, do their own plans or they wanted the 

ability to perhaps join with other States and do a multi-State plan, 

and our proposal allows for that. 

States were very concerned about the time that they would have 

for two things: One, to develop a plan; and two, to actually achieve 

the carbon reductions, and so our proposal response to both of 

those, first, by giving an extended compliance time period all the 

way out to 2030 with a long glide path down to that, but also in 

response to their first concern, how long would they have to submit 

a plan. We have provided for either a 1- or a 2-year extension for 

States to get them some additional time to put their plans together 

if they need that. 

Another thing that we heard from States is to allow them the 

flexibility to either craft their plan around a rate-based approach 

or a mass-tons-of-carbon-emitted approach, if that is the way they 

wanted to manage their plan, and so our plan allows for both of 

those approaches. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. I have reviewed the rule and the four proposed 

building blocks. EPA has estimated that the majority of the carbon 

37 

reductions from the State of Texas would come from building 

blocks, two of them, utilize utilization of the existing natural gas, 

combined cycle power plants; however, there are other additional 

reductions calculated under building blocks three and four. 

And you may know, Texas has more wind generation than any 

other State. Texas is the first State in the Nation to pass legislation establishing energy efficiency resources standards. 

My concern is, EPA has proposed that Texas is capable of meeting higher renewable energy and energy efficiency demands. My 

next questions have to do with the studies conducted included by 

EPA to meet these demands. EPA states these estimates are subject to significant limitations and market barriers, including consumer behavior. 

My next question: Are EPA estimates in the proposed rule expected to overcome these limitations and barriers? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, the estimations that we use for each building 

block are based on a national framework. So they are not individualized to every State, but of course, the State, as I have said, has 

the ability to apply them in any way that it wishes and that it 

makes sense for them. So if there are market barriers, for example, 

to additional renewable energy efficiency, the State can look to 

other more reasonable, more appropriate measures for them to employ. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. I only have 30 seconds. 

The State EPA estimates that two building blocks are expected 

to raise prices. Further, EPA estimates that 90 percent of the efficiency, energy efficiency comes from the rate payers. What effect do 

you think these prices increase will have on consumer behavior? 

Will they actually be more efficient? And won’t consumers be more 

inclined to maintain the status quo as opposed to paying more for 

new programs? 

The last thing, though, the studies that EPA is relying on, are 

they available to the public before the close of the public comment 

period so that people can respond to? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, all of our technical support documents in the 

studies are available in the docket, which I believe opened yesterday when the rule was published. 

But the answer to your first question is that, we have seen in 

States that have very proactive and forward-looking energy efficiency programs that they are quite successful and that measures 

do get implemented and consumers do save money. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, we recognize the gentleman from 

Louisiana, Mr. Cassidy, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. McCabe, I will also first make a statement and then ask 

some questions. 

When you say that utility bills are going to go down by 8 percent, 

it reminds me of candidate Obama saying that, under his health 

care plan, insurance premiums would decrease by $2,500 per family without increased taxes and without a mandate. Of course, now 

they are up by $2,500 per family. When you say that you are going 

to give States flexibility, it reminds me of, ‘‘If you like your doctor, 

you can keep it.’’ 

38 

Now, I will tell you, I know of a family losing their home. They 

have refinanced their mortgage and so it is actually paying less for 

that. But their cost of food, gasoline, insurance is all going up. 

They have been denied the economic benefits of projects like Keystone XL pipeline, which now Canada is going to ship their oil to 

China to create Chinese jobs and you want to raise their utility 

prices. 

Now, you may say that conservation will not decrease, but let’s 

be clear, let’s not mislead. The reality is poor people, those who are 

lower income are less able to invest in those conservation measures. This is just going to be a bull’s eye on other families’ ability 

to do things such as keep their homes. 

Now, there has been a lot of, this administration has raised to 

an art level misleading the American people by doing certain 

things, manipulating statistics. But let’s at least be honest about 

it. Now, I will go to Mr. Yarmuth’s question earlier. If Ford has a 

decision to invest in Kentucky or to invest in Mexico, and we are 

raising their input cost of energy, we are going to tilt them towards 

investing elsewhere. Is that a fair statement? 

Ms. MCCABE. There are many things that go into people’s decisions. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Is it a fair statement? If one of your key inputs is 

energy costs and you are raising that cost, we can’t compete on 

labor. So our energy costs have been lower, so people have been reshoring jobs. Reality is now you wish to increase those energy 

costs. Now, that said, doesn’t it just make sense, we will tilt them 

towards doing further economic development elsewhere? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t think I can agree with that statement. 

Mr. CASSIDY. I have got to tell you. Somehow, at some point, we 

have to be honest with each other. Now, on the other hand, if you 

say this is not an energy plan, and you are not saying any State 

has to cut down their coal usage or decrease or eliminate coal 

usage, but the only way to achieve this goal, which, if they do not, 

you will come in with your own plan, is to eliminate coal-fired 

plants. 

You may say you don’t demand something, but the inherent nature of the rule, the only way it can be reached without the Federal 

Government squeezing the State will be to shut down coal. Do you 

deny that? 

Ms. MCCABE. I do, actually, Congressman. The plan predicts that 

in 2030, coal will provide 30 percent of the energy—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. So we have something here which is based upon an 

analysis of Washington State, which has to have a 90 percent decrease in their use of carbon, and the only way they get it is to 

completely shut down coal. 

Now, you may say Washington State does not have this mandate 

to shut down the coal, but the only way they get there is to shut 

down the coal. So, again, I just feel like there is a lack of openness. 

Let me ask you something else. Has the EPA examined the ripple effects of this throughout the economy? 

Ms. MCCABE. The EPA has focused on the impacts in the power 

sector. 

Mr. CASSIDY. But throughout the economy, the users of that 

power, the Ford motor plant or Louisiana has $90 billion in anVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:23 Feb 19, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-155 EPA’S CO2 REGS READY FOR PDF\113-155 EPA’S CO2 REGS PENDING W
39 

nounced construction projects involving polymers, petrochemical, 

gas to liquids, industry that will create great paying jobs for working Americans. Have you analyzed the impact of this regulation 

upon that $90 billion of announced expansion to manufacturing 

base? 

Ms. MCCABE. No. No, we haven’t. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Yes. Yes. So these jobs are on the bubble. There are 

more families that will lose their homes, and you have not done the 

analysis. Now, if you call me skeptical, I will join Mr. Barton in 

being incredibly skeptical. 

Now, what else do I have here? I am sorry if I seem so aggravated, but I keep on thinking of that family losing their home. 

Their food is going up, their gasoline is going up, their insurance 

is going up after they were told it would decrease, and now we are 

told that their electricity bill will go down 8 percent. By the way, 

a coal-fired plant supplies their electricity. This administration is 

so busy saving the Earth they are willing to sacrifice the American 

family. 

Now, I am sorry to be so aggravated but I keep on thinking of 

them, and I can’t imagine the insensitivity of this President and 

this administration to their plight, but it is evident to see. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman yields back. 

At this time, we recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Capps, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And may I ask permission 

to include in the record a letter from several public health organizations in favor of this ruling by the—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

40 

41 

42 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

And I thank you, Ms. McCabe, for being here today and for your 

hard work on these clean power rules. 

I know climate change is a critical issue, and it demands action, 

and EPA’s clean power rules, I believe, are a major step forward. 

Climate change, as we know, is already having such a wide range 

of impacts on weather, on food and water supplies, ocean, health, 

air quality and so much more. My background as a public health 

nurse, I am particularly concerned about climate change’s impacts 

on public health. 

EPA’s analysis show that there will be significant health benefits 

from implementing these clean power rules, and as I understand 

it, these health benefits come on two levels; this is what I would 

like to ask your confirmation on. 

One, the primary benefit of reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that are driving climate change; and two, the coal benefits of 

reducing emissions of other harmful air pollutants like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. Do you affirm that this 

is accurate? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is correct. 

Ms. CAPPS. And some have criticized the methodology used to 

evaluate these coal benefits, and they accuse EPA of double counting. Can you respond at this point, how did EPA calculate the 

health benefits of this rule? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, when we look at the health benefits of any 

given proposal, we build those on top of the health benefits that 

have already accrued from rules that are already on the books. 

Ms. CAPPS. Right. 

Ms. MCCABE. So we don’t include those benefits. These are all 

additive on top of that, incremental. 

Ms. CAPPS. OK. Now opponents of these rules frequently cite the 

cost of compliance as a reason not to pursue them, and of course, 

we have to acknowledge, there will be compliance costs. There will 

also, though, however, be significant benefits and I would like to 

argue that the benefits are particularly there for children and for 

families. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Ms. CAPPS. Can you add to our discussion here about how the 

health benefits of these rules compare to the estimated compliance 

cost; in other words, what is that cost benefit ratio? 

Ms. MCCABE. Uh-huh, yes. So and, again, the costs that will be 

incurred by the rule ultimately will be decided by how the States 

choose to go forward with their plans. 

Ms. CAPPS. Right. 

Ms. MCCABE. But in our assessment, we estimate a $7 to $9 billion cost compared to up to $90 billion health benefits and in particular, with respect to the health code benefits, each dollar spent 

on the rule will generate $7 in health benefits. 

And I should note in response to that and in partial response to 

the previous question then, that State programs that will be used 

to implement these, many of them build in assistance to low income, rate payers and, again, those are the citizens and the families that are most at risk and most vulnerable to the health impacts that we see from air pollution and from climate change. 

43 

Ms. CAPPS. OK. It is clear that these clean power rules will have 

some significant benefits for the American people. I believe they deserve our support. I hope we can find a way to work together to 

get these rules implemented as soon as possible. I, for one, really 

don’t believe we can afford to wait any longer. 

You know, there are States like California, where I am from, 

that have seen some great economic benefits from renewables and 

energy efficiencies. As these are implemented, there are cost savings just in putting people to work on efficiencies and on developing new resources for renewables. 

There is a minute left, if you would like to use it to outline some 

of the economic benefits, as these could offset the cost of a change 

over. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. So California, clearly, has been a leader on renewables and investment in energy efficiency, and these create 

good jobs that are localized jobs, machining equipment, installing 

insulation, weatherizing homes, whether it is existing homes or 

new construction. So these are jobs that happen in our communities and result from these sorts of programs. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you. Just in the quarter of a minute that I 

have left, you remind me of some programs that went into effect 

with some of our low-skilled workforce during the recession to get 

them to weatherize and put in efficiency opportunities for some of 

our low-income housing, reducing energy costs for the occupants of 

the housing, putting people to work, learning some new skills that 

could continue, and this is, frankly, an ongoing process that as 

technology advances will never slow down or stop. 

And thank you for your answers. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. This time, recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. 

And I am humored by the argument that this is not a mandate. 

I mean, if the Federal agency said I live in Omaha but I have to 

make it to Lincoln at a certain time, and I can only take 45 minutes to get there, that is a mandate. Even if you left me up to my 

own imagination of how I would get there, it is still a mandate, and 

so it is interesting that we can play word games, but it is still a 

mandate and it will have cost. 

We are a State that is 72 percent reliant on coal. We are a State 

where you take 6 to 7 hours at 75 miles an hour to get across. So, 

some of this doesn’t make a lot of sense, but I have reached out 

to our major public power entities. We are an all-public-power 

State, so Omaha public power, Nebraska public power, as well as 

our, NDEQ, NPA, our National Power Association and some of our 

rules. They are all working together, that is the good news. Bad 

news is they are completely panicked in how to actually do the 

plan and how to actually meet the 26 percent mandated reduction. 

Because we are 72 percent relying upon coal. 

So in reaching out to them, they are frustrated in the lack of direction, what they see as conflicting information from the EPA on 

how to move forward. But one of the areas that they would like to 

have nailed down is the percentages for reductions are based on, 

is it 2012 numbers or 2005 numbers? 

44 

Ms. MCCABE. Where we look to start to see where States were 

was the data, most recent data, which is 2012 so—— 

Mr. TERRY. So that is the baseline, is 2012. Why would they get 

confused about 2005? 

Ms. MCCABE. There isn’t really a baseline, but 2012 is the—— 

Mr. TERRY. How is there no baseline? 

Ms. MCCABE [continuing]. Is the starting carbon intensity. The 

reason that people are confused about 2005 is because 2005 is a 

year that people have been using a lot to talk about our progress 

towards reducing greenhouse gases. 

And so in describing the impacts of the rule, EPA has compared 

the reductions that will be achieved into 2030 to that 2005 number. 

But the starting point for this rule is 2012. 

Mr. TERRY. So bottom line, then, just like you finished, 2012 is 

the date that the State of Nebraska has to use to calculate the 26 

percent reduction on, correct? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is the date that we used to calculate their 

goal that they need to meet in 2030. 

Mr. TERRY. So, again, if they are using 2012 as their baseline to 

reduce 26 percent, they are OK with the EPA? 

Ms. MCCABE. As long as their plan shows that they will get to 

the goal that is set forth in the rule. 

Mr. TERRY. For 26 percent? 

Ms. MCCABE. For 2030. 

Mr. TERRY. By 2030? 

Ms. MCCABE. And if that is 26 percent, I don’t know the Nebraska target off the—— 

Mr. TERRY. That is the stated reduction that was told to the 

State of Nebraska. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Mr. TERRY. So now, is there any flexibility in the States of using 

a different year as the baseline? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, no. 

Mr. TERRY. OK. 

Ms. MCCABE. We need to start the States at a—— 

Mr. TERRY. OK. 

Ms. MCCABE [continuing]. Where they are. 

Mr. TERRY. No is a solid answer. That is clear. Clear is sometimes good even if you disagree with it. 

Now, if States include a renewable portfolio standard in their 

State implementation, does that make it a Federally enforceable 

mandate? 

Ms. MCCABE. So the—— 

Mr. TERRY. De jure or de facto. 

Ms. MCCABE. Right. The plans will be Federally approved. We 

actually lay out an extensive discussion on this issue in the preamble that we are very interested in getting people’s feedback on 

because we heard this question a lot, and we are looking for feedback on how to design that. 

But the plan itself would be enforceable so that to make sure 

that the reductions would get done. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. I have got four pages of questions from our 

NDEQ in power districts, but we will submit those in writing to 

you. 

45 

Ms. MCCABE. Please do. And we have had a number of conversations with officials from your State and certainly would be happy 

to set up other opportunities. 

Mr. TERRY. Well, I will state for my last few seconds that I have 

talked to some of the board directors of OPPD and NPPD, and they 

said the only conclusion they have come to so far is it is going to 

cost them, quote, ‘‘a hell of a lot of money,’’ end quote. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And we are going to have more hearings, so you 

will have the opportunity to ask more questions, as well. 

At this time, recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the 

manager of the Democratic baseball team, Mr. Doyle, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Ms. McCabe. 

Ms. MCCABE. Thank you. 

Mr. DOYLE. As you know, Pennsylvania generates significant 

amount of our electricity from coal, and over the last few years, we 

have seen several coal plants retired in Pennsylvania to be in compliance with the MATS standard. I have heard this type of early 

action will be acknowledged, and EPA officials said on a recent conference call that it is their intent to credit plant retirements forced 

by the MATS rule. 

So I am curious, how will States and generators get credit for 

plants they retire or will retire between 2012 and the final rule? 

Ms. MCCABE. So anything that a State does that reduces the 

amount of the carbon intensity of the generation in the State, will 

be eligible to be part of their plan. So if a State is closing a coal 

plant, for whatever reason, and there are many reasons why coal 

plants are being closed around the country, if that power is replaced with either lower carbon natural gas, or zero carbon renewables, or not as much generation as needed because of energy efficiency, that will all work to the State’s advantage in building their 

glide path towards the goal that is required. 

Mr. DOYLE. But they will get credit for—I mean, basically we 

want to make sure that we are getting credit for doing the right 

thing in advance of the final ruling, whenever that final ruling 

comes out. 

Ms. MCCABE. Right. 

Mr. DOYLE. And you are saying that that will be the case? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Mr. DOYLE. OK. Can you talk specifically about some of the opportunities my State might have to reduce carbon pollution from 

our power sector? I mean, do you anticipate that coal will continue 

to be a big part of our power mix going forward? 

Ms. MCCABE. I do expect and, in fact, we show across the country that coal will continue to be about a 30 percent share of production, and although I don’t have the Pennsylvania figures in front 

of me right now, a coal intensive State like Pennsylvania, we presume, would continue to have a significant amount of its power 

generated from coal. 

And the targets that we calculated, in fact, very much took that 

existing energy mix into account and we think that Pennsylvania, 

like other coal intensive States, has things that they can do, and 

46 

the target was designed to capture the things that Pennsylvania 

can reasonably do. 

Mr. DOYLE. Uh-huh. I want to talk to you a little bit about the 

flexibility options in this in terms of the potential for increased 

flexibility. So my understanding is that State specific emission 

goals were derived from one calendar year of actual operations, 

2012—— 

Ms. MCCABE. That is right. 

Mr. DOYLE [continuing]. Which people are calling the baseline 

year. You know, in the past rules, an average of several years were 

used in order to smooth out any anomalies, and it seems that a 1- 

year snapshot might yield an inaccurate starting point, especially 

if the State had several plants on extended outages, for example, 

or some anomalies existed in 2012 that didn’t exist in other years. 

Would the EPA be willing to consider more flexibility of sorts, 

like averaging a few years to establish a more accurate starting 

point or baseline? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. I know we will get comment on that issue, 

and it is something we certainly would consider and talk with 

States about. 

Mr. DOYLE. And finally, let me ask you about nuclear, too. Several nuclear generating stations have closed recently, and it is common knowledge that others are on the bubble and I realize the 

main culprit is market conditions, but market rules in competitive 

markets disadvantage base load power including nuclear. 

Can we meet the greenhouse gas rules goals if more nuclear 

plants close? And since most nuclear plants operate in competitive 

deregulated markets, did you consider this in your analysis? 

Ms. MCCABE. So the nuclear question is an interesting and a 

complicated one, and we did recognize what you have just reflected 

going on in the market with respect to nuclear plants. So we actually have tried to send some signals in the proposal to encourage 

the retention of that nuclear generation that, as you say, is kind 

of on the bubble. So we definitely would like to work with States 

to see how the plan can help encourage the continued operation of 

those zero emitting carbon sources. 

Mr. DOYLE. And finally, let me ask you about reliability, too. I 

mean, one of the most important duties that State regulators have 

is to maintain a reliable electric system and that is vital to our 

economy, obviously. How does the EPA’s proposal ensure that 

States can achieve carbon pollution reductions while maintaining 

reliability? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, it is a very good question and one that was 

paramount in our minds as we worked through the proposal and 

also as we consulted with FERC and DOE and other agencies that 

have this as a chief responsibility. So there are a couple of things 

that we think make it clear that reliability will not be threatened. 

One is the length of time for implementation here. There is a 

long period of time for people to plan, and the utilities sector, this 

is what they do. They know how to do this, and if you give them 

enough time, they can plan accordingly. 

The flexibility in the plan, the fact that no particular plan is required to meet any particular emission rate over any particular 

time period is another way in which reliability will be protected, 

47 

because States have the flexibility to plan their resources accordingly, and the fact that we have an annual averaging periods and 

longer averaging periods, again, provides a lot of flexibility. If 

somebody needs to bring a plant up to deal with a short-term issue, 

an annual average allows them to do that without compromising 

their compliance with their own plan. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, recognize the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the Chair. 

Ms. McCabe, I hope you have the same concerns I hear back 

home about President Obama’s announcement on new regulations 

for coal power, carbon regulations. There is a common theme back 

home: Why does the EPA that works for me want to kill my job? 

Why does that same EPA that works for me want to hurt my family? Those questions can’t be answered here. They will be answered 

in November. 

I do have a few questions you can answer today. The first few 

follow the example of Chairman Emeritus Dingell that require a 

yes-or-no answer. 

Question one: EPA added a grid safety valve in the 2011 mercury 

rule as a way to slow implementation if reliability is threatened. 

Now America’s impartial grid operators, including the ones that 

keeps the lights on at your headquarters, have asked your staff 

about a similar valve here. My question is, Will you commit to including a reliability valve in the final carbon rule? Yes or no. 

Ms. MCCABE. I can’t commit to anything in the final rule. We 

haven’t even gotten the public comments yet, but it is something 

we will certainly consider if people comment on it. 

Mr. OLSON. It is important, ma’am. We will follow up later on 

this. 

Second question is: EPA has justified these new rules to the pub- lic with up to $90 billion in, quote, ‘‘climate and health benefits,’’ 

unquote. Health benefits is an important phrase. According to the 

EPA’s impact analysis, the vast majority of this rule’s benefits 

come from cutting traditional pollution, not carbon. Mostly microscopic dust, PM. We already regulate PM. In fact, you are just now 

starting to implement a brand new ambient air quality standard. 

My question, being yes or no, is, Do EPA’s national ambient air 

quality standards fully protect human health with, quote, ‘‘an adequate margin of safety,’’ unquote? Yes or no. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, they do. 

Mr. OLSON. That is what I thought. That complies with the law. 

The second question: The entire country would have to apply 

with the existing PM 2.5 standard in the coming years, yes or no? 

Ms. MCCABE. I am sorry. Can you repeat that? 

Mr. OLSON. The entire country, all of America, will have to comply with the existing 2.5 PM standards in the coming years, yes or 

no? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is the air quality standards that States need 

to meet, yes. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, ma’am. Many parts of the country already meet 

the new PM rule. Is that correct? Yes or no. 

48 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Mr. OLSON. OK. That begs the question, your scientists have just 

approved a rule designed to push us to perfectly safe levels of PM. 

Existing rules will protect America’s health and then some, and yet 

this new rule says that there will be billions in new PM protection 

benefits for EPA to trumpet to the public, and that begs the question, Is EPA giving this carbon rule credit for what it is already 

doing? Are you double counting? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, there are two answers to that, Congressman. 

One is that the PM rule that was just finalized is the standard. 

It is not the path to get there, and 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 that the 

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, and so it is appropriate, in our view, to reflect the benefits that will accrue from 

those further reductions. 

Mr. OLSON. I have a letter here that you put out in December 

2012 and January of 2013, a fact sheet on the PM standard. I want 

you to square your comments with this language. It says, and this 

is your document: ‘‘Emission reductions from EPA and States rules 

already on the books will help 99 percent of counties with monitors 

meet their revised PM 2.5 standards without additional emission 

reductions.’’ You are already there. Why do the standards? You 

have said it. You are there. 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, these standards are not driven by PM reductions. These standards are driven in order to reduce carbon, which 

is a climate change pollutant causing significant health and welfare and economic impacts in this country. The benefits that we reflected in terms of PM are additional health benefits that will be 

achieved as a result of implementing this carbon pollution rule and 

but will be real health benefits that Americans will experience. 

Mr. OLSON. My time is expired. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

At this time, recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for having this hearing today. 

Ms. McCabe, I want to applaud the administration in the EPA 

for the release of this critically important proposed rule to cut carbon emissions from existing plants. Now, we already set limits for 

other air pollutants, but we let power plants release as much carbon pollution as they want, yet the effects of climate change are already being felt across the Nation. Droughts are becoming more severe, which is putting an incredible strain on water supply in California, and specifically my district in Sacramento, where we have 

experienced historic drought. In addition, extreme weather from 

hurricanes to heat waves is hitting communities across the country. 

We can’t wait any longer. We have to do something. 

49 

In California, as you know, we have made great strides with a 

cap-and-trade program, energy efficiency programs and renewable 

energy portfolio standards. Nationally, we have already made 

progress by moving to cleaner sources of energy and improving the 

energy efficiency of our cars, trucks and buildings. Now, EPA is 

setting carbon standards for power plants to protect public health 

and welfare, and I support these efforts in making our communities 

and planet a cleaner and safer place. 

Now, my State has a lot of companies who have invested in other 

States. How will EPA determine who gets credit towards compliance when one State or company has invested in renewable energy, 

and clean energy production in other States? I know that EPA has 

asked for comment, but we are hoping that the EPA encourages a 

fair way of assigning credit. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, we look forward to the public comment on this 

and to discussions with people. Basically, we start from the perspective of States being responsible for the carbon emissions in 

their States, but we recognize that there are programs like renewable energy programs where systems are set up so that States or 

companies will invest in renewable resources that are outside State 

boundaries. So the proposal does contemplate letting those States 

take account of those investments as part of their plan. 

Ms. MATSUI. So does California get credit, then, for energy efficiency programs that deal with imported electricity? 

Ms. MCCABE. The energy efficiency is a little bit different from 

renewable energy. So we are focused there in the proposal on energy efficiency that takes place in the States that reflects reductions in use in that State. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. 

Ms. MCCABE. But, again, I am sure we will get lots of comment 

on this issue because it is a complicated one, and you want to make 

sure that, both, you are not double counting, but also that all energy efficiency is being counted somewhere in the right place. 

Ms. MATSUI. Absolutely. Now, will the EPA have ongoing oversight of State plans or multi-State plans? 

Ms. MCCABE. Like we do throughout the Clean Air Act, we will 

provide oversight to the State implementation of approval and implementation of plans as we normally do with State implementation plans for other pollutants. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Now, California would have to convert EPA’s 

rate-base standard to a mass-based standard due to programs it 

has in place. Will this conversion affect this reduction target? 

Ms. MCCABE. It should work out to be just exactly the same; that 

is the whole point. And we have a technical support document that 

walks States and others through how you would do that conversion. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Now, would California get credit towards compliance for its new Pacific coast collaborative with Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. The leaders of all four jurisdictions 

have agreed to account for the cost of carbon pollution and that 

where appropriate and feasible make programs to create consistency and predictability across the rejudge of 53 million people? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. So if States choose to join with other States 

in a plan, they would be able to pool their resources and pool their 

50 

targets and be able to put in a joint plan that we could review and 

approve. That provides a lot more flexibility, those can be very attractive arrangements. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Great. Now, did EPA find any parts of the 

country that don’t have the potential to boost their use of cleaner 

energy? 

Ms. MCCABE. No, every State has many opportunities. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. If a State does not comply or create a plan, can 

it affect a neighboring State’s reduction target? 

Ms. MCCABE. No, I don’t believe so. Each State is responsible for 

its own target, and as I said, if they go in on a joint plan with others, then we would look at that as a joint plan, but each State is 

responsible for itself. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. There is an interim reduction goal that must 

be met by 2020. What happens if the State does not meet the interim standard? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, actually the interim standard needs to be 

met on average over the decade between 2020 and 2029, so they 

can kind of plan that out. 

Ms. MATSUI. All right. 

Ms. MCCABE. They don’t have to have a straight trajectory. 

There can—there is some States, for example, that know they are 

going to have plant closures later in the decade so they can do less 

in the first part. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. 

Ms. MCCABE. So, each State’s plan will lay out what it expects 

to do over that 2020 to 2029 period and show how it is getting that 

average. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. 

Ms. MCCABE. And then we will work with the States to help 

them along the way. 

Ms. MATSUI. Great. Well, thank you, Ms. McCabe. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

At this time recognize the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Pompeo, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to follow up on a question from Mr. Whitfield. He asked 

you for precedent about going beyond the source under 111(d), and 

you cited the Clean Air Mercury Rule. Are there other precedents 

that EPA has for going beyond regulating existing sources? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, we actually don’t think this is going beyond 

existing sources because it is focused on the fossil generation, and 

all—— 

Mr. POMPEO. But you gave that example where you have gone 

beyond the actual source, and you cited the Clean Air Mercury 

Rule. Do you have other examples like the Clean Air Mercury Rule, 

yes or no? 

Ms. MCCABE. No. The other examples, though, are industry specific like this one is. 

Mr. POMPEO. Right. And under the Clean Air Mercury Rule, 

there is nothing outside of regulated sources that you attempt to 

regulate. You could trade among the regulatories. 

Ms. MCCABE. Correct. 

51 

Mr. POMPEO. But you couldn’t go beyond that to appliances as 

you are proposing here; is that correct? It is a yes or no question. 

Ms. MCCABE. That is right. 

Mr. POMPEO. And my recollection is the Clean Air Mercury rule 

was overturned. 

Ms. MCCABE. But not on that basis. 

Mr. POMPEO. But it is no longer in effect. 

Ms. MCCABE. It is no longer. 

Mr. POMPEO. Right. So, it is gone. It was unlawful, it was lawless, much like you are proposing here. Yes. 

Let me talk about—but have you met with John Podesta in the 

course of developing these regulations? 

Ms. MCCABE. I have. 

Mr. POMPEO. How many times? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t recall. 

Mr. POMPEO. One time, three times, five times, do you have an 

estimate? 

Ms. MCCABE. Not that—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Do you have a parking—— 

Ms. MCCABE. Not—— 

Mr. POMPEO [continuing]. Spot at that building? Is it infrequent? 

Ms. MCCABE. It is infrequent. 

Mr. POMPEO. OK. How many times has your staff met with him 

or someone else at the White House on this set of regulations? 

Ms. MCCABE. Not to my knowledge, or infrequently. 

Mr. POMPEO. And Ms. McCarthy, has she met with Mr. Podesta 

as well on this set of regulations? 

Ms. MCCABE. I expect that she has. 

Mr. POMPEO. Can you give me the information about the frequency of those meetings, the location of the meetings, and the 

subject matter of those meetings? 

Ms. MCCABE. I will take that back. 

Mr. POMPEO. No, that is not the question. The question is can 

you get me the information? 

Ms. MCCABE. I know. I will take the question back. 

Mr. POMPEO. Great. I mean, this is about politics, right? That is 

why Mr. Podesta is over at EPA working on this. This isn’t about 

law, we talked about that. It is about politics. It is also not about 

science, and I want to turn to science now. 

I talked with Ms. McCarthy about this. I want to make sure 

nothing has changed in your view. So you have now 30 indicators. 

You have gone from 26 to 30 indicators on your Web site about how 

you measure impact of what you all call climate change today. 

So I want to ask you a series of yes-or-no questions about this 

set of regulations, these carbon regulations, and what you think 

they will do to the indicators that EPA uses. 

So, yes or no, will this set of rules, when fully implemented, reduce sea surface temperatures. 

Ms. MCCABE. I can’t answer that. I don’t know. 

Mr. POMPEO. Will this reduce ocean acidity? 

Ms. MCCABE. It will contribute to reducing ocean acidity. 

Mr. POMPEO. Do you have the data to support that, and can you 

tell how much and when we will see reduced ocean acidity as a result of these regulations? 

52 

Ms. MCCABE. You can’t predict the climate this way. 

Mr. POMPEO. I will take that as you have no idea. Is that a fair 

statement? You don’t know. You have no data. Do you have any 

science to support the reduction in ocean acidity connected to these 

rules? 

Ms. MCCABE. We have science to show that increased carbon in 

the atmosphere leads to things like ocean acidity, and if you have 

less carbon in the atmosphere, you will—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Decreases in the lake ice. How much—how much 

less lake ice will there be as a result of this set of rules? 

Ms. MCCABE. Same answer I gave you before. 

Mr. POMPEO. Right. You don’t know. The answer is you can’t 

show me how much less lake ice. I would just like to see the data. 

If you are proposing a set of rules and you have indicators, it would 

seem reasonable for the citizens of America to demand that you 

say, ‘‘Hey, we think this is the impact, and so we will—this is what 

you are going to get in exchange for all the costs that we have all 

talked about this morning, this is what you are going to get. You 

are going to get this much less—or this much more of something 

that is really good.’’ 

Ms. MCCABE. But that is not the way climate science works. 

Mr. POMPEO. Right. Yes. Science used loosely. 

Have you met with FERC in connection with electrical reliability 

and talked to them about the impact? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Mr. POMPEO. And tell me about those discussions. Did you—were 

there memos? Are there written materials where FERC provided 

you information about what they thought the impact of these rules 

would be on electricity reliability? 

Ms. MCCABE. So, I or my staff have consulted with staff at 

FERC. They are part of the interagency review process that we always go through, and so they have given us their input on electric 

reliability. 

Mr. POMPEO. And do you have—when you say their input, is 

there a memo? Do you have a document? Or did you just pass in 

the hallway and talk? There has got to be a written document. 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t believe there are written documents, but it 

was more than passing in the hallway. We had discussions with 

them. 

Mr. POMPEO. They were just discussions about something that is 

critical as electrical reliability. We have such a radical rule, and 

you didn’t ask them to put anything in writing or you didn’t demand and say, hey, tell us what you think in a formal scientific 

manner. You just said, hey, let’s sit at a table and talk about it? 

Ms. MCCABE. We had substantive discussions with them. 

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Administrator 

McCabe, welcome, and thank you for your work on EPA’s Clean 

Power Plan. 

The President and EPA are doing exactly the right thing by placing the limits on the amount of carbon pollution that can be emitVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:23 Feb 19, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-155 EPA’S CO2 REGS READY FOR PDF\113-155 EPA’S CO2 REGS PENDING W
53 

ted from power plants. Climate change is a serious threat, as we 

all know, and we cannot address it without addressing the biggest 

source of carbon pollution in the United States. 

In the 2 weeks since the release of EPA’s proposed rule, we have 

heard a lot of attacks on the Clean Power Plan, so I want to give 

you a chance, Administrator, to clear up some of these misunderstandings. One of the claims is that no one goes to the hospital for 

breathing in carbon pollution so there can’t be any real public 

health benefits from limiting carbon pollution. Could you please explain how this rule will help protect the public health from the effects of both conventional air pollution and carbon pollution? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, thank you. People do go to the hospital for 

breathing issues and for other ailments that are caused or exacerbated by air pollution, so this rule will—by reducing both carbon 

but also other ancillary pollutants that are emitted by coal-fired 

and other fossil fuel-fired power plants, will reduce the amount of 

air pollution in the air, that means fewer asthma attacks, fewer 

visits to the emergency rooms, fewer premature deaths, and fewer 

heart attacks resulting from exposure to those pollutants. 

Mr. TONKO. Right. There is also talk about the impact on modest 

income households. I can tell you representing households that saw 

their life savings washed away when their homes were totally destroyed is an effect that is never totally recovered, and so, the inaction here can be very expensive. 

We have also heard repeatedly that the Clean Power Plan is a 

heavy-handed attempt by EPA to regulate the power system and 

to tell States exactly how much efficiency in renewable energy they 

must achieve. This charge must particularly be—must be particularly frustrating for you. As I understand it, the proposal is designed to offer flexibility, as you have mentioned here today. The 

proposal sets a target, but it is left, is it not, to individual States 

to choose how to achieve it? Can you respond to this misrepresentation of the proposal? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, it is absolutely left to States, and we know 

that States will pick and choose the things that make the most 

sense for them, and if energy efficiency is where they want to put 

their investment, then they have the ability to do that. If investing 

in their existing coal-fired generation can make it just as efficient 

as possible is where they want to put their investment, then the 

plan allows them to do that. 

Mr. TONKO. Right. Thank you. And then, Administrator McCabe, 

I am sure that you are aware that New York is a member of the 

nine State compact of Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI 

in the Northeast. Our nine State coalition has agreed to a cap on 

carbon pollution, and we have a regional trading market for carbon 

pollution credits. 

The revenue from the sale of those credits has allowed us to fund 

a wide variety of initiatives, including efficiency and renewable energy, investment in education and training for jobs, new jobs in 

clean energy, transitioning of jobs, and support businesses and initiate plans for climate adaptation. In short, the RGGI States have 

accomplished much already. 

In fact, since 2009, the nine member State compact has had an 

emission reduction by 18 percent, while our economies grew by 9.2 

54 

percent. By comparison, the emission in the remaining 41 States 

of our Nation, saw that emission reduced by 4 percent while their 

economies grew by 8.8 percent. So the track record is not intimidating. It is actually quite rewarding. 

It appears to me that what States are doing under RGGI is consistent with EPA’s proposal. So the States in our coalition are already on their way to meeting your proposed target. Is that the 

case, or are we going to have to rework our initiatives? 

Ms. MCCABE. No, that is the case, and the approach that these 

States have taken is certainly one approach that States can choose 

to take, and as you say, has been very beneficial to those States 

and very workable. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. Well, I appreciate that because I was involved 

in the early discussions about the formation and implementation of 

RGGI from my seat at NICERTA. I heard many of the States 

claim—the same claims about threats to reliability and affordability of electricity, job losses, and predictions of everything short 

of returning to the days of reading by candlelight. It didn’t happen. 

I won’t say these aren’t challenges. There are challenges, but they 

are manageable, and the effort is yielding significant benefits for 

public health and the economy. 

Ms. McCabe, proponents of action to address climate change say 

that requiring coal-fired power plants to control their carbon pollution is a part of a war on coal. Is the Clean Power Plan going to 

eliminate the use of coal? 

Ms. MCCABE. Absolutely not. In fact, coal will remain roughly a 

third of our power supply in this country in 2030 under this proposed plan. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. Well, my time has been exhausted, so I will 

yield back, and I thank you for, again, appearing before us today 

and offering clarification. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I have to just say, representing a coal district 

where lots of jobs have been lost and more expected to be lost because of these rules, we certainly feel like we are under attack 

from Washington, DC, and if it is not a war, it sure is something 

that is pretty close to hell. Thank you. 

That being said, it is my understanding—and if I could get yes 

or no answers, I would appreciate it. It is my understanding that 

you are a lawyer by training; is that correct? 

Ms. MCCABE. I am. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And it is also my understanding that the Attorney 

General of West Virginia, Patrick Morrisey, wrote a letter to Gina 

McCarthy on June 6, 2014, regarding these new rules. In there, I 

understand the EPA agrees in its technical documents filed with 

this proposal that under the plain reading of the statutory language of section 111(d) found in the U.S. Code, EPA has no legal 

authority to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants under section 111(d). In particular, section 111(d) of the U.S. Code provides 

that if the EPA is already regulating a source under section 112 

of the Clean Air Act, the EPA cannot also establish standards 

under section 111(d) for those same sources. 

55 

Isn’t it true, that in 2012, EPA started regulating power plants 

under section 112 under its Mercury and Air Toxics Rule? Yes or 

no. 

Ms. MCCABE. We did issue a regulation under section 112. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Under section 112. So, under the plain reading of 

the U.S. Code, and by the way, a plain reading of the legislation 

reported from this committee and the substantive provisions of law 

enacted by the House and the Senate, this decision by the EPA 

foreclosed, the decision to regulate under 112 foreclosed the agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases under section 111. Isn’t 

that correct? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is not correct. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And you base that upon your new understanding 

that the EPA takes the position that they don’t read the provisions 

of the U.S. Code literally because there was a technical conforming 

amendment included in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments that 

you all assert, you and the EPA assert creates ambiguity in what 

is the law or about what the law is; is that your position, ma’am? 

Ms. MCCABE. This is not a new interpretation. This is the interpretation that the agency took in 2005 also in the Clean Air Mercury Rule, that reading of the statute. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And do any of the following still work for the EPA: 

Carol Holmes, Howard J. Hoffman, or Wendy L. Blake? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, some of them. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. So then the court, in its ruling, made an error 

when it said that your position was the opposite of what you have 

said just. I read from the opinion that you referenced, that would 

be New Jersey versus EPA, 2008 opinion. For all the lawyers listening in, 517 F.3d 574, quote, ‘‘This requires vacation of CAMRs 

regulations, for both new and existing EGUs. EPA promulgated the 

CAMR regulations for existing EGUs under section 111(d), but 

under EPA’s own interpretation of the section, it cannot be used to 

regulate sources listed under section 112. EPA thus concedes that 

if EGUs remain listed under section 112, as we hold, then the 

CAMR regulations for existing sources must fall. EPA promulgated 

the CAMR regulations for new sources under section 111(b) on the 

basis that there would be no section 112 regulation of the EGU 

emissions and that new source performance standards would be accompanied by a national emissions cap and voluntary cap-andtrade program,’’ end quote. 

From the opinion that you just said where your people argued 

the opposite, the courts seem to think they argued what I think, 

and that is, you don’t have authority if you regulated greenhouse 

gases under 112, you don’t have the authority—not greenhouse 

gases, but regulated the existing coal-fired power plants, you don’t 

have the authority under 111. How do you reconcile those two, your 

thought that this was your position before and now finding that 

your lawyers had previously argued the opposite, at least if the 

court is not mistaken,and I note that the case was appealed on 

other grounds but cert was not granted? 

Ms. MCCABE. The CAMR decision was based on a completely different basis, the decision to vacate the rule. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I understand that, but you just stated here today 

that your position—this was not a new position for the EPA beVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:23 Feb 19, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-155 EPA’S CO2 REGS READY FOR PDF\113-155 EPA’S CO2 REGS PENDING W
56 

cause of this case. This case says the opposite. How do you reconcile that? 

Ms. MCCABE. I am not intimately familiar with the court decision that you are reading. I will be happy to respond to this, and 

I am sure we will. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I appreciate that. Let’s just talk about good basic 

lawyering then. You know what a scrivener’s error is. You have 

been around the process for a long time, you have gone to law 

school, you understand that when a bill passes, and this committee 

does it all the time, when we say at the end, our chairman will say 

that, you know, closes by saying the staff can make technical conforming amendments, what the EPA is hanging their hat on is a 

scrivener’s error that was a confirming amendment, and you are 

saying that a scrivener’s error and the conforming amendment 

should trump the law of the United States? Really. With your background and your education, I would expect a better argument. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time I recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, 

for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome. 

I think it is very heartening that America is moving forward to 

tackle the challenges of the changing climate and carbon pollution. 

We are already making great progress when it comes to the cars 

we drive and fuel efficiency. We have reduced emissions substantially and put money back into the pockets of American families. 

That has been very positive. 

Then look at what has happened with the appliances in our 

homes. They are more efficient than ever, and we can do even better, the building codes are better. New technology is out there so 

you can control with your smart phone what is going on in your 

own home and save money that way. Again, the new technology is 

improved by leaps and bounds, and this is part of American ingenuity, and we are going to bring that same ingenuity to tackling 

carbon pollution from the largest emitters. 

Back home, all I have to do is look around the Tampa Bay area 

on top of the huge Ikea store, we have got large solar arrays, they 

are saving on their electric bills, the largest beer distributor in the 

area has a major warehouse. They said this makes sense for us 

now to put solar panels on the roof. Our local governments have 

done it at courthouses, and there is a corresponding benefit that we 

have created jobs and clean energy, and we have created new businesses, and we are boosting small businesses all across my community and all across America. 

So now comes another important piece in the climate action plan 

focused on the largest sources of carbon pollution, and when you 

review the proposed rule by EPA, I think the hallmark of it is the 

flexibility granted to the States. So, by the year 2030, it is almost 

hard to imagine where we will be at 2030, but by 2030, States will 

have to meet these overall pollution reduction goals. 

Now, some people expressed to me, Madam Administrator, that 

the rule grants too much flexibility. A State like mine in the State 

of Florida at the State level, we don’t have much State leadership 

right now, surprisingly. The State, I would argue, that could be the 

57 

most impacted by the changing climate, the leaders at the State 

level had receded from energy efficiency standards. We don’t have 

any renewable goal at all, so some folks say, gosh, couldn’t have 

EPA done a little bit better by setting some targets on energy efficiency and renewables? But I mean, Mr. Barrow, Georgia is producing more solar power than the Sunshine State. That is pretty 

ridiculous. So—— 

Mr. BARROW. It is a point of pride. 

Ms. CASTOR. Point of pride for you in the Peach State but not so 

much from the Sunshine State, but there is progress at the local 

level. Like in my home county in Hillsborough County, they have 

a waste energy plant that has been expanded, they are getting 

greenhouse gas credits. The city of St. Petersburg is a leader nationally in what they are doing in lighting and solar power and 

eliminating methane and waste energy, so here is a question. 

What will States be able to do to harness the improvements at 

the local level? And it is not just local governments. It is nonprofits 

and it is businesses. How will that count towards our goal, our 

State goal of reducing overall carbon pollution? 

Ms. MCCABE. This is a great point. I think there is something 

like a thousand mayors across the country that have pledged to address carbon emissions in their cities, and it is just so encouraging 

and so positive, and the way these programs will fit into a State’s 

plan is that any measure that helps the State reduce the amount 

of energy it needs to produce from its high carbon sources will be 

able to be counted in the State’s progress towards their goal. So, 

all these local programs, weatherization programs, building efficiency programs, they all will be able to count. 

Ms. CASTOR. But you all have a State organization that will able 

to bring all of that data together; isn’t that right? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, the State Government is responsible for the 

plan under the Clean Air Act, as they always are, and they know 

how to do these things, and so we are working with the State agencies that are definitely thinking about how they will do this and 

asking lots of questions, and I think they have the opportunity to 

work with their mayors and their utilities and their local businesses and utilities to make sure they know what is going on 

and—— 

Ms. CASTOR. It is really a call to action to everyone. We all have 

a responsibility to do this, and I think there is a great potential 

for cost savings for consumers. It is interesting that you have identified a potential for reduced electric bills because of energy efficiency. If you can save, you save money, but one of the problems, 

though, is the State incentives, do not encourage energy efficiency 

and conservation. Hopefully we can do better there, don’t you 

think? 

Ms. MCCABE. We think States will find that energy efficiency is 

a very positive program for them to invest in as some other States 

that are further along that path have found. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, recognize the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Burgess, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you having 

the hearing. 

58 

I appreciate our witness being here so long with us this morning 

and your forbearance through our questions. 

I want to go back, I think it was Mr. Barton or maybe it was 

Mr. Shimkus who asked the question to which you responded that 

there would be an 8 percent reduction in electricity prices in Texas; 

did I hear that correctly? 

Ms. MCCABE. Electricity bills. We predict that electricity bills 

will go down. This is a national average, not—— 

Mr. BURGESS. Can you provide us with the formula and the data 

that you put into the formula to come up with that answer? 

Ms. MCCABE. Sure. That is all laid out in our regulatory impact 

assessment, and the attachment is in the record, so we will be 

happy to point you to where that is. 

Mr. BURGESS. You also said in your opening statement, that we 

will avoid 100,000 asthma attacks under these rules. Can you tell 

us, since the passage of the Clean Air Act, when I wasn’t here 

then—I mean, that was before the earth cooled the first time, it 

has been so long ago—but how many asthma attacks have been 

prevented under the Clean Air Act? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t know that figure, but we will be glad to get 

you some more information on that. 

Mr. BURGESS. Does this figure of 100,000 include those asthma 

attacks that would have been avoided simply because of the passage of the Clean Air Act? 

Ms. MCCABE. The health benefits that we predict from this rule 

are associated with the pollution reductions that are required by 

this proposal. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, now you say pollution reduction, but of 

course, this all was predicated on the endangerment finding for 

carbon dioxide, and now carbon dioxide has become a regulated pollutant; is that correct? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is correct. 

Mr. BURGESS. So is regulation or reduction of carbon dioxide in 

the atmosphere going to result in 100,000 fewer asthma attacks? 

Ms. MCCABE. The asthma attacks that we associate with this 

rule in our analysis are due to reductions in other pollutants that 

will happen as the carbon is also reduced. 

Mr. BURGESS. Can you provide us with the journals that back up 

the 100,000 figure as well as the reductions that you are asserting. 

Ms. MCCABE. We will be happy to point you to where in the 

record we lay out our expectations on the benefits. 

Mr. BURGESS. I am really not interested, but what I really would 

like to see are, are there publications in refereed journals that will 

attest to this fact? The ones that I have been able to find really 

are rather nebulous about the finding that reduction of carbon dioxide means a lower number of asthma attacks. 

Ms. MCCABE. We will be glad to follow up with you. 

Mr. BURGESS. And in note planning, I brought my Harrison’s 

Principles of Internal Medicine with me this morning just in case 

we wanted to look at it. I don’t see carbon dioxide listed as a trigger for inciting reactive airway disease. 

Ms. MCCABE. So, let me clarify because I think I didn’t quite see 

where you were going. So, there are certain airborne pollutants 

that are very clearly associated with exacerbation of asthma atVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:23 Feb 19, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-155 EPA’S CO2 REGS READY FOR PDF\113-155 EPA’S CO2 REGS PENDING W
59 

tacks. The impacts that we are seeing from climate change also can 

create conditions in which asthma can be exacerbated, so—— 

Mr. BURGESS. May I stop you there for just a moment because 

you seem to conflate climate change with carbon dioxide. My understanding of the purpose of this rule was because of an 

endangerment finding from carbon dioxide, and the asthma reductions that you are asserting in your testimony this morning are as 

a result of reductions in carbon dioxide. 

Ms. MCCABE. No, that is not correct, so let me be really clear. 

The endangerment finding found that emissions of greenhouse 

gases, including carbon dioxide, created adverse impacts to public 

health and welfare, and that is through a variety of impacts that 

a changing climate has, increasing heat, increasing bouts of—— 

Mr. BURGESS. Again, I need to stop you because of time considerations, but those are relatively nebulous. And when I review the 

literature, I don’t see the—I mean, this is a fairly assertive statement that you have made for the record here in your opening statement, and I don’t see the data to back that up. 

But I would just ask that you be careful about the language because the language—I think I see why that language is being used, 

but I don’t think it is fair to use that, and I think, you know, we 

are oftentimes accused of using fear to motivate people to be 

against some of these principles, but here, I believe you are using 

fear, who wants more asthma attacks? No one. But your assertion 

that asthma will be reduced by 100,000 because of reductions of 

carbon dioxide in the rule that you promulgated as a result of a 

court opinion, I am sorry, it just doesn’t follow. 

Ms. MCCABE. If I could be really clear then. The health benefits 

that we describe as a result of this rule, the asthma attacks, in 

particular, are the result of the reductions in other pollutants that 

will happen accompanying the reductions in carbon. 

Mr. BURGESS. So, I would just simply ask, what have you been 

doing? Why haven’t you reduced those other pollutants? Why did 

it take this activity to motivate the EPA to reduce those other pollutants if it was within their power to do so all along under the 

Clean Air Act? 

Ms. MCCABE. EPA and the States have been working for many 

years to reduce air pollution that results in asthma attacks and 

other health effects and has made a lot of success along the way. 

This is an additional program that will result in additional pollution reductions, and there are real health benefits associated with 

those. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I have some additional questions. 

I will submit those for the record. I appreciate your indulgence. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Absolutely, yes, we do have some other questions, and we are going to have some more hearings. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barrow, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Ms. McCabe, for being here. 

I am sort of in a lonely place in this committee, you know. Sometimes I think a lonely place is the only honest place to be in this 

town, but you be the judge. 

60 

I accept the scientific evidence of a climate change. I accept the 

scientific evidence and the common sense that tells me if you take 

all the carbon that God put down in the ground and belch it in the 

air, we are going to have an impact on climate sooner or later. I 

accept that. 

But I reject previous legislative attempts to address this problem, 

and I don’t accept and don’t agree with the current administration’s efforts to do this by regulation, mainly because I don’t think 

that it will work, but they will definitely hurt. They won’t work, 

especially when you consider it in isolation or when you consider 

it against the backdrop of what is taking place in the rest of the 

world, and so I think we need to take another approach in this basically. 

And the debate between those folks that say we need to put mandates out that in the hopes that technology will arrive, you know, 

on time, to the rescue, and those who think you ought to invest in 

technology, I am firmly in the technology first camp, and I don’t 

think we are doing that with these regulations. 

But, you talk about a number of things that we are doing that 

some folks are doing someplace, everybody ought to try and use 

those tools to try and get where we need to be. You talk about 

things like making coal plants more efficient, talk about shifting 

from coal to natural gas, talk about more renewables, you talk 

about consumer efficiency in a variety of different ways. Nowhere 

in there did I hear you talk about shifting from coal to nuclear. 

Of the existing technologies that are on the shelf, nuclear is the 

only one that can provide significant base load capacity with zero 

emissions. My question is, does shifting from coal to nuclear count? 

Should it count? 

Ms. MCCABE. It should and it does. 

Mr. BARROW. All right. In Georgia and in South Carolina, we are 

the only ratepayers I know of in the Nation making significant investments in shifting from coal to nuclear. In my district at Plant 

Vogtle, we are adding the two next nuclear power generators to 

come online in this county. Vogtle 3 is going to come online in 

2017. Vogtle 4 is going to come on in 2018. How are they going to 

get counted toward the goals they are going to be held to in 2020 

of getting down to 891 pounds per kilowatt hour? 

Ms. MCCABE. So when those megawatts are produced by a nuclear plant with zero carbon and they replace megawatts that were 

produced by a plant that emitted carbon, those will be counted for 

the State, and they will help it get towards its final goal. 

Mr. BARROW. So, you are telling me the time between these come 

online in 2017 and 2018, the reductions that take place then will 

be counted toward the goal that you set for us of getting 891 as 

the adjusted average? 

Ms. MCCABE. They will, and with those plants as part of Georgia’s—— 

Mr. BARROW. Base. 

Ms. MCCABE [continuing]. Base and how they produce their 

power, that it will help address, or achieve the carbon intensity 

goal, absolutely. 

Mr. BARROW. Well, let me put this in context. In 2005, Georgia 

utilities were belching about 2,000 pounds per kilowatt hour into 

61 

the atmosphere, and we have already achieved a 25 percent reduction in that amount, getting down to about 1,500 as of 2012. So in 

the 7 years between 2005 and 2012, we have already achieved a 

25 percent reduction. 

Now, against the President’s goal of achieving a 30 percent reduction for 2005 to 2030, how come we haven’t already gotten 

there? Why are we still being required to cut it from 1,500 down 

to 891 in 2020 and 834 in 2030? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, each State is in a different place and they 

have made different progress, but what we did in our rule was we 

looked at these reasonable and existing technologies that people 

can use and how much more is reasonably able to be done. 

Mr. BARROW. My point is, though, we are already achieving a 25 

percent reduction and are shifting from coal to natural gas. One of 

tools in the toolbox you say we have got, and we have got plans 

to shift even more from coal to nuclear in 2017 and 2018. We have 

already achieved 25 percent of the starting goal of reducing what 

we were producing in 2005 to 2030 by 30 percent. We are most of 

the way there. Why do we have to cut it in half even further? 

Ms. MCCABE. This rule was not set up to achieve a specific goal 

of reduction. That is not the way it works. It was set up to look 

at what the available technologies are, and for each State, that results in a different trajectory and a different ultimate goal. 

Mr. BARROW. But we are utilizing two technologies, one you specifically list and one you haven’t listed, need to add it to the mix, 

shifting from coal to nuclear, and we are already most of the way 

there. 

Let me put it another way. Let me put it another way. It makes 

no sense to me that a little old itty bitty State like Wyoming is 

going to be held to producing, belching, 1,700 pounds per kilowatt 

hour into the atmosphere while a big old State like Georgia is 

going to be required to belch out no more than 834 pounds of CO2

per kilowatt hour. 

Makes even less sense to allow a little old itty bitty State like 

North Dakota to do 1,783 pounds in 2030, whereas a big old State 

like Texas has got to do no more than 700-and-something. That 

makes no sense to me in terms of whatever you want to do, whatever the existing technologies are, and that is a problem I have got 

with this whole approach. 

Ms. MCCABE. We would be glad to spend more time with you, 

Congressman, and explain how those targets got—— 

Mr. BARROW. This will take a lot explaining. Thank you, ma’am. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. 

McKinley, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to try to keep this issue in perspective and maybe 

have to get at the 30,000-foot level to look at this, because you 

know, according to the EPA’s own Web site, it says that 82 percent 

of all manmade CO2 comes from areas outside the United States, 

and so, to me, it is kind of ludicrous, as we have this discussion, 

to think that we are going to improve—we are going to have health 

benefits to America and we are going to start reversing the climate 

62 

change when 82 percent of those contributing to CO2 are exempt 

around the world. 

It just—I can’t think of any other way that we are going to make 

this policy work than by engaging the rest of the world into this 

discussion. But this experiment that he wants at 30 percent is 

just—it doesn’t seem to be working. If we go back to the Kyoto protocol, it called for a 5.2 reduction in CO2 emissions, but by the end 

of that protocol, the globe had already, had increased by 10 percent 

and just ignored what was being documented. 

So, while we want to experiment, while this administration 

wants to experiment by reducing 30 percent, the International Energy Agency is already predicting that by 2030 the rest of the world 

is going to be producing 40 percent more CO2 around the world. 

While we are experimenting with reduction, the rest of the world 

is not following our lead, they are going to 40 percent. Just consider China and India alone. With this chart, you can see that, this 

is what they are going to be doing. Over this time period, China 

is going on the introducing 557,000 more gigawatts of coal-fired 

power house; India, 519,000. In that time period, by 2030, China 

is going to increase their CO2 output by 60 percent while we are 

decreasing 30 percent. India is going to increase by 50 percent 

their CO2 output while we are decreasing our 30 percent. 

This administration just seems to be ignoring that China burns 

more coal than the rest of the world combined, and no one is following this lead. We seem to be operating in a vacuum. 

Just recently the EPA Administrator, former Administrator— 

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels. Do you agree with that? 

Ms. MCCABE. I—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Yes or no. 

Ms. MCCABE. I take your word that she said it. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. She said that just yesterday. Former EPA Administrator William Riley said, absent action by China, Brazil, and 

India, what we do will not suffice. 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t think anybody disagrees that action is required by many countries to address climate change. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. So what we are doing—so, with these regulations, we are ignoring the global reality that the rest of the world 

is not following us. We are going to affect our American economy. 

We are going to put it at risk where already the numbers are predicting that anywhere from $9 to $40 billion annually we are going 

to pay for this experiment. 

We are going to be increasing our utility bills. We are going to 

be putting Americans out of work. We are going to disrupt our 

manufacturing base. We are ignoring the advice of the predecessors 

with EPA over this thing, so I am going ask you a quick—a year 

from now, if China and India and Japan have not reduced their 

CO2 emissions, will you withdraw this regulation? 

Ms. MCCABE. We are not—— 

Mr. MCKINELY. Just yes or no. 

Ms. MCCABE. No. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. How about 2 years from now? If no one is 

following, will you withdraw it? 

Ms. MCCABE. Congressman, this rule—— 

63 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Is that no? 

Ms. MCCABE. I can’t speak to what—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. So, I would say in the final rule then, since you 

mention it earlier, in the final rule, you said that it is not final. 

We have—final language has to be worked out, so will you agree 

to insert metrics into this? Engineers, we deal with metrics. We 

want to see how you measure success, so will you put into the final 

bill a metric that says that if America’s economy is tanking because 

of this or the world isn’t following and they are continuing to increase their CO2 emissions, that this will void this rule? Just a yes 

or no. 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t believe that would be an appropriate thing 

to do under a Clean Air Act rule, Congressman. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. So, again, trying to paint the final picture 

here as we go with this. This experiment in working separate from 

the rest of the Nation is kind of—and you yourself have mentioned, 

efficiency. As an engineer, I agree with you about efficiency, but 

when I think of it, what comes to mind is someone insulating their 

home and then opening all the windows. What have we accomplished with this? We are not working in concert with the rest of 

the world. They are not following us. 

So for us to expect to have health benefits from something while 

82 percent of the rest of the world are exempt from this is ludicrous. 

I have to—my time is expired. I am sorry. I hope we can have 

more of a dialogue and follow back up with this. Thank you. 

Ms. MCCABE. Happy to. Happy to. We are absolutely not ignoring other countries, and we have many activities focused on it. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. You and I both know they are not joining us. 

Mr. GRIFFITH [presiding]. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Engel, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome and 

thank you, Administrator McCabe, for joining us here and for your 

testimony. 

I want to give you a chance to perhaps answer some of the 

things—questions that Mr. McKinley asked because there are a 

couple of arguments that we hear over and over again from those 

who oppose U.S. action on climate change. 

First, they say this is a global problem so why should the U.S. 

act first, and secondly, they say even if America acts, it is not going 

to solve the problem anyway because other countries are going to 

ignore it, so why bother. As far as I am concerned, there is no question that climate change is a global problem, and it demands a 

global solution, and it doesn’t mean that we wait for other countries to act first. 

So, to the contrary, I would say progress on big global problems 

almost always requires United States’ leadership, and I don’t think 

anyone would claim that the world will meaningfully make a slow 

climate change without U.S. leadership and action. 

I wanted to give you a chance to answer some of the specifics because it is hard when you have to answer just yes or no to say 

what you really feel, so—— 

64 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. I appreciate it, Congressman, and I agree with 

the way you have characterized this. 

There is no question it is a global issue. There is no question that 

countries beyond the United States are going to have to take action. This has been the case with other environmental problems in 

the past. I also agree and the President agrees that the United 

States has a responsibility to act here both because we are a significant contributor. We are the second largest, I believe, contributor, and because we are a world leader, and we work in the international community with other countries, with China, with India, 

with other countries, and are working with them to get them to 

look at similar sorts of approaches so that we can together address 

this global environmental problem. 

Mr. ENGEL. So on the specific issue of climate change, can you 

tell us why American leadership is particularly critical on this particular issue? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, the global impacts of climate change affect us 

here in the United States, they affect our citizens and our families, 

and so we have a responsibility to do everything that we can to encourage and work with other countries to have them take the kinds 

of steps that we ourselves are showing we have the leadership to 

take here at home. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, and also, as you mentioned, the United States 

is one of the world’s top emitters of carbon pollution, and in order 

to be a credible negotiator, I think we need to be able to urge and 

approach other countries to do more. We need to take action ourselves, you know, walk the walk. 

Ms. MCCABE. That is correct. That is absolutely correct. 

Mr. ENGEL. Not just talk the talk. So how will EPA’s actions to 

cut carbon from power plants, in particular, strengthen the United 

States’ ability to influence the direction of international negotiations on climate change? 

Ms. MCCABE. It already is having an impact when we meet with 

other countries in these discussions to see that a major world leading economy is putting its money where its mouth is, so to speak, 

and taking affirmative steps to address carbon. And so that shows 

that it can be done, it shows that a country has moved forward in 

that regard, and that puts pressure on other countries to do similar 

or explain why they can’t. 

Mr. ENGEL. Now, power plants are the largest single source of 

our emissions and the source of huge emissions worldwide, and so 

obviously, to be credible, we need to address power plants, and by 

doing so, we can help other countries understand that it can be 

done. I would assume you agree with that statement? 

Ms. MCCABE. I do agree, and by moving forward with our power 

companies, we can be on the forefront of technologies and the types 

of methodologies that we can then help other countries with which 

will benefit our manufacturers and our innovators here at home. 

Mr. ENGEL. So let me ask you, you have talked about it, but I 

want to give you again you know, a chance to enhance your statement. When those who oppose action say that this rule won’t solve 

the problem so why should we bother, why should we bother? 

65 

Ms. MCCABE. It is an extremely important step to help solve the 

global problem for the United States to move forward with real 

meaningful reductions in carbon. 

Mr. ENGEL. So I would just like to say, and I assume you agree, 

and tell me if you do, no single action to reduce carbon pollution 

will ever stop climate change but we will never address this problem without many individual actions, so these actions do add up to 

a meaningful difference. 

Ms. MCCABE. That is absolutely correct. 

Mr. ENGEL. OK. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. The gentleman yields back. Thank you. 

And now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Administrator, many coal-fired power plants have spent 

millions of dollars to comply with the EPA’s final Mercury and Air 

Toxics rule MATS. Despite the retrofits, many of these plants 

would operate significantly less or potentially retire under EPA’s 

proposed rule which contemplates greater utilization of natural 

gas. My question is, how does the proposed rule prevent the problem of stranded assets? 

In other words, for coal plants that have made millions of dollars 

of investments to be compliant with MATS, but may not be able 

to meet the requirements of this rule, there are plants in my State 

that have spent hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars to 

comply with the Mercury and Air Toxics rule. Do generators and 

their customers and their investors just have to eat these costs? 

Ms. MCCABE. It is a good question, Congressman, and hopefully 

I can give you a couple of answers to it. So, one way in which we 

anticipated avoiding this kind of situation is providing a very 

lengthy trajectory for compliance. So, going all the way out into 

2030, that gives utilities the time to do two things. One is to plan 

carefully so that the plants in which they have made significant investments, they can get all the value out of those investments and 

also to plan to make sure that their fleet is being managed over 

time. 

The other thing is that where the coal-fired fleet in this country 

is aging, as I am sure you know right now half of the plants are 

in their 40s, I think, and 10 percent or so are 60 years old or older, 

so, so there is a transition going on in the industry already, quite 

apart from MATS and quite apart from this rule. 

And the flexibility that this rule provides will allow States to 

focus on and utilities to focus on investing in the plants that have 

a long life ahead of them and make the most sense in order to continue to be key parts of the portfolio and perhaps not to invest in 

the oldest plants, the ones where it doesn’t make as much sense 

economically to put investments into them. So that is how this rule 

helps avoid those kinds of situations, which we agree is a very important thing to do. 

Mr. PITTS. In your calculations in developing the rule, did you 

take into account the loss of jobs as a result? Did you quantify 

these as to the impact by State? 

66 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, again, as I said before, since the States will 

ultimately decide exactly what their plans are, all we could do was 

to do some illustrative examples, and in our regulatory impact assessment, we did look at the potential job losses and job gains associated with the rule. That is all laid out there. 

Mr. PITTS. Now, under the proposed rule for existing power 

plants, EPA is requiring of each State develop a State implementation plan and to submit it to EPA for approval. What if a State 

chooses not to participate? Would EPA impose a Federal implementation plan in that regard? 

Ms. MCCABE. The Clean Air Act does provide that if a State 

doesn’t submit a plan, that EPA would do one. I will tell you right 

now that we are not focused on that right now. We are focused on 

making sure that States understand the opportunity is here for 

them, and we are confident that States will want to be in the lead 

on this program. 

Mr. PITTS. Well, we saw that many States didn’t want to establish their own programs to implement Obamacare and trying to implement that at the State level. If EPA were to impose a Federal 

implementation plan in their State, what does EPA envision that 

plans would look like? 

Ms. MCCABE. We really haven’t thought that through, and any 

proposed Federal plan, we would go through a public process to get 

people’s views on that. 

Mr. PITTS. Would you take over energy planning for the States 

and decision making like about their electricity mix, would you 

take over planning that electric rates for consumers? 

Ms. MCCABE. No, Congressman. Our job is to look at the emitting facilities, the coal-fired power plants, and look at ways to reduce the emissions from those power plants, and any proposed plan 

would be squarely within our authority. 

Mr. PITTS. All right. Combined heat and power facilities are already inherently efficient. What has EPA done to prevent those facilities from being swept into the 111(d) rule? Will you take measures to ensure that those facilities are not adversely impacted by 

this proposal? 

Ms. MCCABE. Actually, combining power is a very efficient way 

of generating electricity, so those kinds of facilities will be very 

helpful to States in putting their plans together. 

Mr. PITTS. My time is expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. The gentleman’s yielded back. 

We now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

being here on a long day, and thanks for your service. 

The EPA has recognized in the past, and I believe they have 

tried to recognize in this current rule that retaining nuclear power 

generation is a cost effective means in reducing carbon, and I appreciate that. As we, unfortunately, witnessed in Wisconsin, 8 

years of carbon emission reductions brought about by the construction of renewable energy were wiped out with the closure of a single small nuclear reactor. 

I believe it is important to talk about this, given the fact that nuclear is the only base load power supply that runs around the clock 

67 

without producing carbon. Understanding the current outlook on 

the nuclear industry, I have some concerns with the direction our 

regulatory agencies have been taking in regards to allowing them 

to operate and would like to ask you a few questions on the EPA’s 

outlook for nuclear power going forward. 

In past models of climate change compiled by your agency, major 

questions surrounding the degree to which nuclear power is technically, politically, and socially feasible have been raised. Does the 

EPA still consider the use to be a major area of uncertainty? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t know that I can speak to that, Congressman. We do recognize that nuclear power is an important aspect 

of clean generation, and as I said before, we have tried to signal 

in a proposal and encouragement towards retaining existing, and 

we know that new is being planned and built, and that squarely 

will be advantageous to a plant, but we recognize that there are 

existing challenges beyond our control for the industry. 

Mr. KINZINGER. And I understand the proposed rule relies on an 

EIA study that shows 6 percent of the nuclear fleet being at risk, 

but they are still expected to continue their operations going forward. In addition to this, economic modeling of climate legislation 

by EPA, EIA, and others has consistently shown that dramatic 

growth in nuclear energy is necessary to reduce carbon emissions 

and that constrained development of nuclear energy dramatically 

increases the cost of compliance. 

What will happen if the EPA’s assumption that these plants currently at risk will continue to operate with that assumption is incorrect, what will happen? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, it depends on what a State would choose to 

do to replace the nuclear generation, so we hope and expect that 

there would be opportunities for States to go with lower or other 

zero emitting generation renewables and also rely significantly—— 

Mr. KINZINGER. Make a ton of windmills or something, right? 

Ms. MCCABE. There is a lot of wind power being built in the 

country, significantly a growth area, and energy sufficient—— 

Mr. KINZINGER. Takes a lot of wind, though, to replace a nuclear 

power plant. 

Ms. MCCABE. It does. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Does the EPA have the legal authority to compel 

those plants to continue their operations? 

Ms. MCCABE. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Do you know, does any agency currently have 

that authority? 

Ms. MCCABE. I couldn’t speak to that, Congressman. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK. And so a recent modeling done by EPA determined that 44 new reactors would be necessary to satisfy performance standards based on the Lieberman and Warner bill from 

2008, and another showed that an additional 96 gigawatts of new 

nuclear power capacity would be needed by 2030 to meet standards 

set out in another proposed piece of legislation from 2009. 

Does the EPA believe we can make meaningful reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from baseload power generation while still 

ensuring reliable and affordable power without substantial growth 

in nuclear power generation? 

68 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, I do, and I will note that the—that our proposal here is not legislation like you have described. It takes a very 

different approach, which is what is reasonable to expect the existing fossil plant to do and for States to do to reduce the carbon intensity, and it takes every State where it is. So if we see nuclear 

coming on the ground, we consider it. We are not counting it. We 

are not assuming other nuclear construction that is not already 

contemplated. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Do you know how many new—under the proposed rule, do you know how many new nuclear reactors would be 

needed to meet those standards? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, I think we are aware of maybe 5 that are 

under construction now, and so we took account of those, and we 

didn’t take account of others that aren’t yet built. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK. And currently there is eight licenses under 

review by the NRC right now. I just want to reiterate that 100 percent of nuclear power generation is carbon free, and not only will 

every plant be necessary to ensure compliance with any future 

mandates but many more will need to be brought on to ensure affordable and reliable energy is available throughout the country. 

And I think that the key is we want to talk about affordable and 

reliability, we need a lot of nuclear power plants to come online. 

I thank you for your time and your patience today, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. In closing, let me note that the committee has outstanding document requests relating to our investigation of EPA’s adherence to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and 

its rulemaking for new plants. It has been 4 months since we initiated these requests, but the EPA has been decidedly slow in its 

document production. Can you tell me who at the EPA ultimately 

is accountable to the committee for responding to its requests? 

Ms. MCCABE. The agency will respond, and we are working on 

them. We have responded to various requests, and responses are 

under way. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. And will you commit on behalf of the Administrator that the EPA will produce outstanding documents and 

fully comply with our requests? 

Ms. MCCABE. I won’t make a commitment on behalf of the Administrator, but we will certainly do what we need to do to be responsive. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Will you commit to have your staff work with our 

staff to ensure the committee has what it determines is necessary 

to fulfill its oversight obligations? 

Ms. MCCABE. Our staffs work very well together, and again, we 

will do what we need to do in order to be responsive. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you. We will have questions for the record 

forthcoming. I would ask that you provide your response in a timely fashion, particularly given this rule appears to be on a very fast 

track with the administration. Will you commit to providing us responses to these questions within 60 days? 

Ms. MCCABE. Right now I can’t commit to a timeframe because 

I don’t know how many questions there will be or what will be involved, but we will do our best to be as expeditious as possible. 

69 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. With that, I want to thank you for being 

here today and for the testimony that you have given us and the 

members for their devotion to this hearing, and that will conclude 

our hearing. 

[Whereupon at 12:23 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 

83 

84 

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

Æ