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

92–327PDF 2015

THE ADMINISTRATION’S CLIMATE PLAN: 

FAILURE BY DESIGN 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

September 17, 2014 

Serial No. 113–94 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

KATHERINE CLARK, Massachusetts 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

September 17, 2014 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 11 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 

Witnesses: 

The Honorable John Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology 

Policy, Executive Office of the President 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 15 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

Ms. Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 42 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 44 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 51 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

The Honorable John Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology 

Policy, Executive Office of the President ........................................................... 88 

Ms. Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ................................................... 98 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Article submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 106 

Article submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 113 

Articles submitted by Representative Eric Swalwell, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 118 

Letters submitted by Representative Donna F. Edwards, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 121 

(1) 

THE ADMINISTRATION’S CLIMATE PLAN: 

FAILURE BY DESIGN 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 

Chairman SMITH. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come to order. Welcome to today’s hearing titled ‘‘The 

Administration’s Climate Plan: Failure by Design.’’ I am going to 

recognize myself for an opening statement and then the Ranking 

Member. 

Today we look at one of the most aggressive new government 

programs in our country’s history. The Obama Administration calls 

it the Climate Action Plan. It empowers the Departments of Interior, Energy, Agriculture, Defense, Transportation, Housing and 

Urban Development, Health and Human Services, National Institute of Standards and Technologies, NOAA, FEMA, the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, and the EPA to implement broad climate policies and programs with great cost and little benefit to the American people. 

The cornerstone of the White House sweeping Climate Action 

Plan is EPA’s power plant regulation. Extending well beyond the 

power plants themselves, this rule will increase the cost of electricity and the cost of doing business. It will make it harder for the 

American people to make ends meet. In fact, EPA’s own data shows 

us that its power plant regulation would eliminate less than one 

percent of global carbon emissions. Analysis shows this would reduce sea-level rise by the thickness of a mere three sheets of paper, 

at best. EPA’s mandates will be difficult for states to meet even 

under ideal circumstances. If energy prices or energy demands escalate, the costs of meeting those mandates will soar and American 

families will be forced to pay the bill. 

Charles McConnell, a former Assistant Secretary for Energy appointed by President Obama, has taken the Administration to task 

for creating a plan doomed to fail. In a recent op-ed, Mr. McConnell 

asks, ‘‘Have we lost our minds? Has this administration convinced 

itself that it can mandate something that is fundamentally useless? 

Does the EPA think the American public and global community are 

not capable of seeing the illusion for what it is?’’ 

What is clear is that by eliminating affordable, reliable power options, the regulation will increase the energy prices for the majority 

of Americans. That means everything will cost more, from electricity to gasoline to food. Higher costs will drive companies out of 

business, kill good jobs, and leave even more Americans unemployed. 

Until this Administration can propose a detailed strategy, tell us 

the total cost, and show us exactly what we will get for the sacrifice, we are just asking the American people to waste their 

money. America cannot afford to drive its economy over a cliff with 

the hopes that the rest of the world will make the same mistake. 

The only economy the EPA’s plan will help is that of our competitors. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH

Today we look at one of the most aggressive new government programs in our 

country’s history. The Obama Administration calls it the Climate Action Plan. 

It empowers the Departments of Interior, Energy, Agriculture, Defense, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, National Institute of Standards and Technologies, NOAA, FEMA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
12 

neers, and the EPA to implement broad climate policies and programs with great 

cost and little benefit to the American people. 

The cornerstone of the White House sweeping Climate Action Plan is EPA’s power 

plant regulation. Extending well beyond the power plants themselves, this rule will 

increase the cost of electricity and the cost of doing business. It will make it harder 

for the American people to make ends meet. In fact, EPA’s own data show us that 

its power plant regulation would eliminate less than one percent of global carbon 

emissions. Analysis shows this would reduce sea level rise by the thickness of a 

mere three sheets of paper. 

EPA’s mandates will be difficult for states to meet even under ideal circumstances. If energy prices or energy demand escalate, the costs of meeting those 

mandates will soar and American families will be forced to pay the bill. 

Charles McConnell, a former Assistant Secretary for Energy appointed by President Obama, has taken the Administration to task for creating a plan doomed to 

fail. In a recent op-ed, Mr. McConnell asks, ‘‘Have we lost our minds? Has this administration convinced itself that it can . mandate something that is fundamentally 

useless? Does the EPA think the American public and global community are not capable of seeing the illusion for what it is?’’ 

What’s clear is that by eliminating affordable, reliable power options, the regulation will increase the energy prices for the majority of Americans. That means everything will cost more—from electricity to gasoline to food. Higher costs will drive 

companies out of business, kill good jobs, and leave even more Americans unemployed. 

Until this Administration can propose a detailed strategy, tell us the total cost, 

and show us exactly what we will get for the sacrifice—we are just asking the American people to waste their money. America cannot afford to drive its economy over 

a cliff with the hopes that the rest of the world will make the same mistake. The 

only economy the EPA’s plan will help is that of our competitors. 

Chairman SMITH. And that concludes my opening statement. The 

Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is 

recognized for hers. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good 

morning to all. 

I would like to extend a warm welcome to our witnesses, Dr. 

Holdren and Ms. McCabe, and thank both of you for being here 

this morning. It is nice to see you again, and I appreciate you taking time to appear before us today. 

This morning we are going to discuss the President’s Climate Action Plan and a part of that plan, a proposal by the Environmental 

Protection Agency to cut carbon emissions from the largest source 

of those emissions: power plants. 

I would like to begin by noting the title given to this morning’s 

hearing by my Republican colleagues, ‘‘The Administration’s Climate Plan: Failure by Design.’’ ‘‘Failure by design’’ is an ironic 

choice of words considering my colleagues’ preferred alternative appears to be doing nothing and hiding our collective heads in the 

sand. We all know that such inaction will not solve anything, and 

it doesn’t—it certainly won’t stop the Earth from warming, and in 

my opinion, the Majority’s ‘‘do nothing’’ plan is a real example of 

failure by design. 

I also know that some still question whether climate change is 

real, but surely we are now beyond debating that question. Reports 

based on the work of the world’s top scientists such as the U.S. National Climate Assessment and those from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have sent a stark message to our 

nation’s leaders and the international community, namely, the adverse effects of climate change are evident today and require immediate action or these adverse effects will grow dramatically worse. 
13 

To be fair, in trying to understand a phenomenon of this magnitude, the job of science will never be done. It will continue to 

evolve. We must always keep looking for new answers, replacing 

opinions with data, and projections with observations. We must 

continue to innovate in how we predict, measure, prevent, and 

adapt to climate change. That is the nature of science and of our 

stewardship to this planet. 

However, we in Congress have to acknowledge that we are not 

the experts and that allowing partisan politics to distort scientific 

understanding of climate change is cynical and shortsighted. We 

may not agree on where the uncertainties within climate science lie 

but we should all be able to understand that vast and avoidable 

uncertainties will remain if we stop the progress of climate research. 

Experts from industry, academia, and every level of government 

are calling on us to help prepare our communities for the threats 

they face due to climate change. We must answer their call and 

act. 

Cutting carbon emissions from the power sector is critical to any 

effort to address climate change, and that is why I am supportive 

of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. EPA’s proposal, like the rest of the 

President’s Climate Action Plan, is a bold step forward our Nation 

needs. It gives states the flexibility to develop innovative policies 

that cater to regional differences. It is based on strategies already 

in use such as improving energy efficiency and encouraging the development of renewables. 

Let us be clear: EPA is not imposing a specific set of measures. 

States will choose what goes into their plans and they can work 

alone or as part of a multi-state effort to achieve meaningful reductions. These are commonsense steps that will lead to a healthier 

environment, because acting on climate change is not only an environmental imperative, but a public health and economic one as 

well. 

Among the many health concerns, greater risk of asthma attacks, 

heat stroke, and respiratory disease are all consequences of a 

warming climate. Likewise, energy demand, agricultural production, labor productivity, and the risks to coastal properties are just 

a few of the economic areas where climate change has already 

taken, and will continue to take, its toll. 

We as a Nation must act today to address climate change if we 

are to preserve our quality of life for our children and grandchildren. The negative consequences of climate change are not abstract scientific predictions for the far-off future. We are facing 

some of these consequences now and they are affecting every American. 

I look forward to working with this Administration as it puts forward policies like the Clean Power Plan and the Climate Action 

Plan, which will ensure a vibrant future economy and a safe and 

healthy environment. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and before and I yield back, I want 

to share that there is an article from ThinkProgress.org that I 

would like to submit to the record. While some in Congress still 

refuse to admit that climate change is even happening, there is evidence here where this article describes how eight major food com-
14 

panies have accepted the reality of climate change and are prepared to address the threats posed to their products and financial 

interests: Chipotle, Green Mountain, Michael Foods, Big Hard Pit 

brands, Omega Protein, Marine Harvest ASA, and most notably, 

Heinz and Coca-Cola. To quote the beverage titan: ‘‘Changing 

weather patterns along with the increase frequency or duration of 

extreme weather conditions could impact the availability or increase the cost of key raw materials that the company uses to 

produce its products. In addition, the sales of these products can 

be impacted by weather conditions.’’ 

I ask unanimous consent that this article be included in the 

record. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to extend a warm welcome to our witnesses, 

Dr. Holdren and Ms. McCabe. Thank you both for being here this morning. It is 

nice to see you again and I appreciate you taking the time to appear before us 

today. This morning we are going to discuss the President’s Climate Action Plan 

and a part of that plan, a proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency to cut 

carbon emissions from the largest source of those emissions—power plants. 

I’d like to begin by noting the title given to this morning’s hearing by my Republican colleagues, ‘‘The Administration’s Climate Plan: Failure by Design.’’ ‘‘Failure 

by design,’’ is an ironic choice of words considering my colleagues’ preferred alternative appears to be doing nothing and hiding our collective heads in the sand. We 

all know that such inaction will not solve anything, and it certainly won’t stop the 

Earth from warming. In my opinion, the Majority’s ‘‘do nothing’’ plan is the real example of ‘‘failure by design.’’ 

I also know that some still question whether climate change is real, but surely 

we are now beyond debating that question. Reports based on the work of the world’s 

top scientists such as the U.S. National Climate Assessment and those from the 

U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have sent a stark message to our 

nation’s leaders and the international community, namely: the adverse effects of climate change are evident today and require immediate action or these adverse effects will grow dramatically worse. 

To be fair, in trying to understand a phenomenon of this magnitude, the job of 

science will never be done. It will continue to evolve. We must always keep looking 

for new answers, replacing opinions with data, and projections with observations. 

We must continue to innovate in how we predict, measure, prevent, and adapt to 

climate change. That is the nature of science and of our stewardship of the planet. 

However, we in Congress have to acknowledge that we are not the experts, and 

that allowing partisan politics to distort the scientific understanding of climate 

change is cynical and shortsighted. We may not agree on where the uncertainties 

within climate science lie, but we should all be able to understand that vast and 

avoidable uncertainties will remain if we stop the progress of climate research. 

Experts from industry, academia, and every level of government are calling on us 

to help prepare our communities for the threats they face due to climate change. 

We must answer their call and act. 

Cutting carbon emissions from the power sector is critical to any effort to address 

climate change, and that is why I am supportive of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. 

EPA’s proposal, like the rest of the President’s Climate Action Plan, is the bold step 

forward our nation needs. It gives states the flexibility to develop innovative policies 

that cater to regional differences. It is based on strategies already in use such as 

improving energy efficiency and encouraging thedevelopment of renewables. 

Let us be clear: EPA is not imposing a specific set of measures. States will choose 

what goes into their plans and they can work alone or as part of a multi-state effort 

to achieve meaningful reductions. These are common-sense steps that will lead to 

a healthier environment, because acting on climate change is not only an environmental imperative, but a public health and economic one as well. 

Among the many health concerns, greater risk of asthma attacks, heat stroke, and 

respiratory disease are all consequences of a warming climate. Likewise, energy demand, agricultural production, labor productivity, and the risks to coastal properties 
15 

are just a few of the economic areas where climate change has already taken, and 

will continue to take, its toll. 

We as a nation must act today to address climate change if we are to preserve 

our quality of life for our children and grandchildren. The negative consequences of 

climate change are not abstract scientific predictions for the far-off future. We are 

facing some of these consequences now and they are affecting every American. I look 

forward to working with this Administration as it puts forward policies like the 

Clean Power Plan and the Climate Action Plan, which will ensure a vibrant future 

economy and a safe and healthy environment. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson, and without objection, those materials will be a part of the record, though I think 

you have just succeeding in reading almost all of it into the record 

already. 

Ms. JOHNSON. That is okay. 

Chairman SMITH. We will get a double dip on that. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Chairman SMITH. I will now proceed to introduce our witnesses, 

and we do appreciate their being here today. 

Our first witness is the Honorable John Holdren. Dr. Holdren 

serves as the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House, where he is both the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Co-Chair of the President’s 

Council of Advisors on Science and Technology called PCAST. Prior 

to his current appointment by President Obama, Dr. Holdren was 

a Professor in both the Kennedy School of Government and the Department of Earth Science at Harvard. Before that, he was a member of the faculty at the University of California Berkeley, where 

he found and led a graduate degree program in energy and resources. Dr. Holdren graduated from MIT with degrees in aerospace engineering and theoretical plasma physics. 

Our second witness is Ms. Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation at the Environmental Protection Agency. Previously, she was the Office of Air and 

Radiation’s Principal Deputy to the Assistant Administrator. Prior 

to joining the EPA, Ms. McCabe was the Executive Director of Improving Kids’ Environment Inc., a children’s environmental health 

advocacy organization. She also previously served in several leadership positions in the Indiana Department of Environmental Management’s Office of Air Quality. Ms. McCabe received both her undergraduate degree and law degree from Harvard. 

Again, we thank you for being here today, and Dr. Holdren, we 

will begin with you. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN HOLDREN, 

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

Dr. HOLDREN. Thank you very much, Chairman Smith, Ranking 

Member Johnson, Members of the Committee. I am genuinely 

pleased to be here today to discuss the ways that the Federal Government has incorporated and continues to incorporate scientific information from the most authoritative sources into the formulation 

and implementation of all three components of President Obama’s 

Climate Action Plan, cutting carbon pollution in America, preparing the United States for the impacts of climate change and 
16 

leading international efforts to address the global climate change 

challenge. 

Given the thrust of my testimony and noting Ranking Member 

Johnson’s comments on the title of the hearing, I would like to propose respectfully an alternative one: The Administration’s Climate 

Plan: Success through Science. 

That plan rests primarily on scientific and technological understandings in three categories: first, the natural science of anthropogenic climate change and its impacts on human well-being; second, 

technological analysis of the options for climate change mitigation 

and for increasing preparedness for and resilience against the 

changes in climate that mitigation fails to avoid; and third, the economics associated with estimating both the costs of action and the 

costs of inaction on the climate change challenge. 

There is an immense amount of peer-reviewed research in all 

three categories. An assessment summarizing the state of knowledge in all three have been carried out by a wide variety of respected national and international bodies. Examples include the reviews by the U.S. National Academies and the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change, the second and third U.S. National Climate Assessments, the annual State of the Climate reports of 

NOAA, the periodic assessment reports of the U.S. Global Change 

Research Program, and the first Quadrennial Energy Technology 

Review of the U.S. Department of Energy. These assessments and 

many more were drawn up in the interagency effort led by the Executive Office of the President, which developed the elements of the 

Climate Action Plan for the President’s consideration. 

A particularly accessible digest of the relevant state of knowledge 

as of early 2013 and a set of recommendations based on that 

knowledge was provided to the President and the interagency 

group in March of that year by the President’s Council of Advisors 

on Science and Technology. That report’s influence on the Climate 

Action Plan was considerable. 

My written statement discusses in some detail those conclusions 

from the indicated scientific assessments that were and are most 

germane to the formulation of the Climate Action Plan and to its 

implementation. Given President Obama’s Commitment from the 

beginning of his Administration to the rigorous use of the best 

available scientific and technical information in formulating policy, 

it should not be surprising that the scientific conclusions summarized in my written statement are reflected across all elements of 

the Climate Action Plan and continue to underpin its implementation. 

Specifically, an up-to-date understanding of the natural science 

of anthropogenic climate change and its impacts on human wellbeing provides first, the motivation for seeking to develop a costeffective plan to reduce those impacts; second, the sense of urgency 

for doing so at once rather than waiting; third, the understanding 

that such a plan must include not only measures to reduce the 

emissions that are driving global climate change but also measures 

to increase preparedness for and resilience against the climate 

changes that can no longer be avoided; fourth, the detailed knowledge of the sources of the offending emission and the character of 

society’s vulnerabilities that allows appropriate specificity in de-
17 

signing a plan; and fifth, the recognition that any U.S. plan must 

include a component designed to bring other countries along. These 

are the most basic underpinnings of the Climate Action Plan. 

Further, an up-to-date understanding of technological possibilities for both mitigation and preparedness and resilience reveals 

that there indeed exists a wide range of options for cutting the carbon pollution that is driving climate change and for better preparing society to deal with the changes that materialize. The available technical insights about these options have enabled the Climate Action Plan to focus specifically on enabling and incentivizing 

progress on the implementation and, where necessary, the further 

development of the most promising options. 

Finally, an up-to-date understanding of the results of economic 

assessments of the cost of taking actions of these kinds versus the 

cost of inaction provides the confidence that moving ahead now is 

the right thing to do, and more specifically, has provided the basis 

for the Climate Action Plan’s focus on those options that are most 

clearly cost-effective and that bring significant co-benefits. 

Because the Climate Action Plan focuses only on the low-hanging 

fruit that is within reach without action by Congress, the costs of 

implementing it will be relatively low and indeed might well be 

completely repaid by the co-benefits. 

Of course, there is still more that could and should be done beyond the Climate Action Plan that would require the support of the 

Congress. I hope that that support will be forthcoming. 

I thank the Committee for its interest in this critically important 

issue, and I will be pleased to take any questions the Members 

may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Holdren follows:] 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Holdren. 

Ms. McCabe. 

TESTIMONY OF MS. JANET MCCABE, 

ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, 

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. MCCABE. Thank you, Chairman Smith, good morning, and 

Ranking Member Johnson and Members of the Committee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today. I am very pleased to be 

here with Dr. Holdren. 

The science is clear, the risks are clear, and the high costs of climate inaction are clear. We must act. That is why President 

Obama laid out a Climate Action Plan and why on June 2nd of this 

year, Administrator McCarthy 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 emission in 

the United States. While the United States has limits in place for 

the level of arsenic, mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and 

particle pollution that power plants can emit, there are currently—— 

Chairman SMITH. There we go. Well, we are getting there. There 

we go. 

Ms. McCabe, if you will proceed? I hope that this is fixed permanently. Thank you. 

Ms. MCCABE. American know-how at work. 

As I was saying, while the United States currently has standards 

in place for a range of harmful pollutants that are emitted by 

power plants, there are currently no national limits on carbon pollution from these sources. 

The Power 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. Second, it empowers 

the states to chart their own customized path to meeting 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 actions already underway to modernize aging plants, increase efficiency and lower pollution, and it paves a more certain 

path for conventional fuels in a clean energy economy. 

The EPA stakeholder outreach and public engagement in preparation for this rulemaking was and continues to be 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 

state. Now the second phase of our public engagement is underway. 

We have already held four public hearings in Atlanta, Denver, 

Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C., at which over 1,300 people testified. We have had hundreds of calls and meetings with states and 

other stakeholders, and we have already received more than threequarters of a million comments. Through meetings, phone calls and 

other outreach, we are proactively seeking input, and many states, 
43 

utilities and other stakeholders are bringing us suggestions that reflect the significant and thoughtful work they are putting into responding to this proposal. Because of this strong interest, in fact, 

we announced yesterday that we are extending the comment period 

for an additional 45 days to December 1st. 

These are just the sort of discussions we need to have, and these 

are not mere words: this is a proposal we want and need input 

from the public. 

To craft the proposed 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 

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. 

All told, in 2030 when states meet their goals, our proposal will 

result in about 30 percent less carbon pollution from the power sector across the United States when compared with 2005 levels. In 

addition, we will cut pollution that causes smog and soot by more 

than 25 percent. Together, these reductions will provide important 

health benefits to our most vulnerable citizens including our children. 

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

benefits of up to $90 billion, and because energy efficiency is a costeffective strategy, we predict that in 2030, average electricity bills 

for American families will be eight percent cheaper. 

This proposal has started an active conversation about the steps 

that states, cities, utilities and others are already taking to reduce 

carbon pollution and how about the EPA can set 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:] 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. McCabe. 

The gentleman from Indiana, the chairman of the Research and 

Technology Subcommittee, has a markup in another Committee 

and has to leave immediately, so I am going to recognize himself 

for questions and then I will take his place when it is time for him 

to ask questions. 

Mr. Bucshon. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Over the last few years we have gone from global warming to 

now climate change since the temperature of the Earth hasn’t 

changed in many, many years. The temperature of the Earth has 

been changing for centuries. I fully believe that the temperature of 

the Earth is changing. But of course, now supporters of this new 

regulation are saying well, it is changing now at an unusual pace 

compared to the past because now the American public is getting 

it that the temperature of the Earth has been changing for centuries. 

Ms. McCabe, first of all, welcome from Indiana. This plan places 

a heavy burden on the states. Many state legislatures will need to 

approve enabling statutes to implement the rule. For example, we 

have heard from previous witnesses that have come before this 

Committee that states will need to devise institutional arrangements between state public utility commissions and state environmental regulators to implement carbon-driven resource planning. 

Further, states will need to consider legislation to implement energy efficiency measures to meet the goals under the plan and to 

grant additional authorities to state public utility commissions on 

such matters as stranded investment and cost allocation. 

It is quite possible that certain states, for whatever reason, will 

be unable to make these steps in which case the state plans will 

be inadequate under the proposal, thus mandating the EPA-issued 

Federal Implementation Plan, or FIP. 

Can you describe for me what an FIP would look like where a 

state has failed to enact the necessary laws to carryout EPA’s plan 

for them? For example, what would an EPA-imposed energy efficiency mandate look like and how would EPA allocate costs under 

such a mandate? 

Ms. MCCABE. Congressman, thank you for your question. Let me 

first emphasize that in the plan, the proposal, we certainly recognize that there are steps that states will need to take in order to 

put authorities in place and design their plans, and we provided 

several years for that work to take place, assuming that states will 

be going forward with that. Many states already have programs in 

place that they will be able to use or build upon, and we are confident that working with the states, as EPA always has in implementing Clean Air Act programs, that we will be/able to find time 

and work with each other to make sure that states have the time 

they need to put authorities in place, and that is what we are focused on at the moment is making sure that we understand one 

another, that we hear from the states about the timing challenges 

that they expect to have and the things that they need to do, and 

we are confident that we will be able to move forward with states 

in a productive way so that they can be successful in developing 

and implementing their own plans. 
52 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you. Is it true that this rule has no effect 

on the global temperature change? 

Ms. MCCABE. This rule is about cutting carbon pollution, and 

cutting carbon pollution will help address the contributions to the 

effects that we are seeing—— 

Mr. BUCSHON. Because we have heard previous Administrators 

from the EPA say that it won’t. It is not about affecting the global 

temperature and climate change. 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, I can—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Can I take that? 

Ms. MCCABE. Sure. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yeah, I would like to respond to that if I may. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Yeah. I mean, there are public comments out 

there that that question has been asked and answered saying no. 

Dr. HOLDREN. You should look at the scientific literature rather 

than the public comments. The fact is—— 

Mr. BUCSHON. Of all the climatologists whose career depends on 

the climate changing to keep themselves publishing articles, yes, I 

could read that but I don’t believe it. 

Dr. HOLDREN. If you would allow me to finish, the point is that 

the limitation on carbon emissions in the United States is a very 

important first step for us to take on a longer trajectory to meet 

the President’s goals of a 17 percent reduction from 2005 by 2020, 

and ultimately an 80-plus percent reduction by 2050. If the United 

States does not take that sort of action, it is unlikely that other 

major emitters in the world—China, India, Russia, Europe, 

Japan—will do so either, and the fact is, all of us need to reduce 

our carbon emissions if we are to avoid unmanageable degrees of 

climate change. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Okay. Fair enough. 

Ms. McCabe, there are some comments out there saying asthma 

attacks decrease, heart attacks decrease. Where do you get that information? Because I was a medical doctor before, and it says in 

the first year the plan will avoid 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 

heart attacks. I can tell you, as a medical doctor, you cannot say 

that. 

Ms. MCCABE. Well—— 

Mr. BUCSHON. That is just scare tactics. That is not factual. 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, all of our information is based on factual information that is developed and in the record and available for people to comment on. 

Mr. BUCSHON. And let me say I reviewed that from the American 

Lung Association. In fact, their medical director came down last 

year from New York and spoke to me about this. And is it true or 

not that it is based on actually modeling and not actually factual 

patient data? 

Ms. MCCABE. There is a large body of evidence that—— 

Mr. BUCSHON. Is it based on computer modeling or is it based on 

factual medical data? That is the question. Yes or no. 

Ms. MCCABE. EPA uses both modeling and—— 

Mr. BUCSHON. And is it true that the model that was created to 

do this, the EPA paid tens of thousands of dollars to the person to 

create the model to, in my view, after I have looked at all the 

science including people who funded the research—the funders of 
53 

this research that was done are all pretty far left global warming 

foundations and others that want this data to come out? I mean, 

I am just saying, it all depends. If you are a medical person and 

you look at who funds a study and the result of the study, I mean, 

I look at the first, who funded it, and if people that believe the result funded it, do you see where I am getting at? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, Congressman—— 

Mr. BUCSHON. And it is all based on modeling, not on factual information, so I would—I just—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Can I take a piece of this as well? 

Mr. BUCSHON. No, I am over my time so I will just say this and 

I yield back to the chairman, that scare tactics like that is really 

appalling to me to use medical information to scare parents that 

their children about asthma attacks and scare people saying they 

are going to have heart attacks and you are going to prevent that 

with this rule in the first year. That is just not factual. And I 

would argue that we should all on both sides of this discussion 

avoid scare tactics. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Bucshon. The gentlewoman 

from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is recognized. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

to both of our witnesses for appearing before us again to discuss 

this very important topic, and I am glad that my colleague, Mr. 

Bucshon, mentioned scare tactics because, Mr. Chairman, I have 

an article that I would like to submit for the record because we are 

likely to hear some arguments that the coal industry has used over 

the years to sway people against regulation designed to protect the 

environment, and so I would like to introduce this article, which 

chronicles the coal industry’s overreactions and some exaggerated 

claims over the last 40 years. 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, the article will be a part of 

the record. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. I hope the Committee Members read 

this article as well. 

Thank you again. I am going to begin my question in this hearing much the same way as I began when we held a similar hearing 

just over a month ago by briefly discussing the economic costs of 

failing to act to combat climate change for communities. For example, in my district in Oregon, the threat of climate change brings 

serious economic consequences to coastal communities with the 

fishing and seafood industries, for example, rely on a healthy ocean 

to support their livelihood. The agriculture sectors need freedom 

from concerns about drought. Changes in our climate brought on 

by record-high carbon emission causes economic concern. Many 

Fortune 500 companies are now building the economic realities of 

climate change into their long-term business plans. Insurance companies are starting to account for the increased frequency of severe 

weather events. These things are happening, and it is up to us as 

policymakers to act now to mitigate the damage. 

So Dr. Holdren, first of all, thank you for your very thorough testimony. I do encourage Members of the Committee to read your entire written testimony, which is very thorough and detailed. We are 
54 

here today to ostensibly discuss the science behind the EPA regulations, and because some people question whether the EPA is considering the economic impact of its regulations, can you please expand on the potential economic benefits of reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions through rules like the recently proposed rule limiting 

emissions from existing power plants? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Thank you. I am happy to do that. There is some 

considerable discussion of that in my rather lengthy written statement, but the fact is that we are facing under unabated continuation of global climate change large increases in damages from a 

wide variety of extreme weather events including, in some regions, 

floods, in other regions, droughts, in many regions, more extreme 

heat waves, in many regions, more wildfires, pest outbreaks, pathogen spread in terms of geographic range. We are looking at impacts 

on many sectors of the economy on the energy sector, the forestry 

sector, the agriculture sector, the fishery sector. We are looking at 

increases in ocean acidification that have the potential to dramatically change ocean food chains and fisheries possibilities, and we 

are looking, as already mentioned, at human health effects, and I 

would mention, although Dr. Bucshon has now left, that the models 

that are used in this domain are all based on data. They are based 

on patient data. They are based on epidemiological studies, and 

there is a wide range of models, not a single model. They have been 

funded by a wide range of sources, and the findings in the National 

Climate Assessment, which came out in May, on the impacts of climate change on health were thoroughly vetted by experts at the 

National Institutes of Health—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Doctor. I do want to have time for one 

quick question. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Sorry. 

Ms. BONAMICI. But thank you for that clarification. 

On a related note, I want to follow up on something that was discussed in our July hearing. Dr. Cash from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection stated that EPA’s latest action will ‘‘help the Nation develop an advanced energy infrastructure.’’ So can you please both comment briefly on the importance 

of having the United States lead the way in the development and 

implementation of the next generation of energy policies and talk 

about whether the existence of rules will foster innovation by creating demand for new technologies. 

Ms. MCCABE. I will take a start at it. This is another example 

of how regulations will spur innovation and development of new 

technologies. In particular, what we found when we looked at what 

the power sector and states were already doing to address carbon 

is that they were investing in renewable energy and moving that 

forward. They were investing in energy efficiency and moving that 

forward, and there is huge opportunities in addition to other sorts 

of technologies for this plan to spur even greater investment in 

those sorts of technologies and move them into all across the country and into the mainstream. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And I trust you would both agree with me that 

we would prefer that the United States be the leader in developing 

these technologies. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Absolutely. 
55 

Dr. HOLDREN. I would just add and emphasize that countries all 

around the world are buying renewable-energy technologies, they 

are buying energy-efficiency technologies, they are buying cleaner 

fossil-fuel technologies. They are going to be buying a lot more of 

them because it is recognized all around the world that climate 

change is real and we need to do something about it, and we will 

be far better off if the United States is the principal provider of 

those technologies in the decades ahead than if we allow other 

countries to take the lead in that domain. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. My time is expired. I yield back. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized 

for his questions. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, and thank you for 

being with us today. 

I—let me just note about the last point, yeah, we do have countries like Spain investing in other types of technology for producing 

energy and it is breaking their bank. It is putting them into bankruptcy. 

There is just a list of things that just—note that this is a matter 

of contention that I would think the public should look at, whether 

or not there actually has been 17 years where there has been no 

warming, although that was what was predicted. I keep seeing reports saying that there are no more hurricanes than there always 

have been or they are not more extreme than they ever were. 

We have climate models obviously that have been presented us 

that we were going to have a huge jump in our temperature that 

were clearly wrong. The Arctic ice volume now is increasing rather 

than decreasing, as is the population of the polar bears increasing 

rather than decreasing, and we have seen an increase in plant 

growth and crop yields. Let me—so those are just matters. 

Back-and-forth with those people who believe that humankind 

and our activities are changing the climate and those of us who 

don’t, we need to know whether those specific issues—what the 

facts show on those things because I keep hearing disagreement 

from those who would like to pass regulations like the ones we are 

talking about today. 

Ms. McCabe, at what point—you keep using the word carbon pollution—— 

Ms. MCCABE. Um-hum. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —at what point—level of CO2 does CO2 become damaging to human health? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, carbon—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right now, we have CO2 at about 400 parts 

per million. 

Ms. MCCABE. Um-hum. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. At what point does that actually become 

harmful to human beings? 

Ms. MCCABE. I will let Dr. Holdren amplify my answer, but it 

is clear that the amount of carbon that is being emitted—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No, no, I am asking for a specific number. 

You guys are the experts. You are here telling us to pass what we 

consider to be a draconian regulation. You should know at what 
56 

point it becomes harmful to human health. If it is now at 400 parts 

per million—Dr. Holdren, maybe you have the answer to that—at 

what level does it become harmful to human beings? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Vice Chairman Rohrabacher, I always enjoy my 

interactions with you. I have to say, with respect, that is a red herring. We are not interested in carbon dioxide concentrations because of their direct effect on human health. We are interested in 

them because their effect—of their affect—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. 

Dr. HOLDREN. —on the world’s climate, and climate change has 

effects—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So it is a red herring—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. —on human health. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. So it is a red herring to say that when 

people are talking about human health that there is no direct impact on human health, that this is something—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Not of CO2 concentration. There is a direct—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. All right. 

Dr. HOLDREN. —there are very strong and direct impacts—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Dr. HOLDREN. —and there is a strong direct effect—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Strong indirect, okay. 

Dr. HOLDREN. —and there is a strong direct effect—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So let’s go—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. —on the co-emitted pollutants—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So let’s go for the record—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. —like oxides or sulfur and black carbon—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So let’s go for the record that you have now 

agreed there is no direct impact on human health by CO2 concentration—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. And a huge indirect impact. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And at what time—I guess we will say you 

are not even going to go—because the next level higher is going to 

go to us—how long will it take us to get to the point where it does 

actually impact human health? 

And I will just put in for the record that it seems—it is at 400 

parts per million now and between 1,000 to 2,000 parts is what we 

pump into greenhouses and it is commonly accepted that it takes 

about 20,000 parts per million as differentiated from the 400 parts 

per million now that we have before it becomes harmful to human 

health, unless of course you want to say that those things that we 

just—that I just outlined are real, that there has actually been 

warming, that the models have been successful, that the Arctic ice 

now is not growing, and the population of the polar bears is continuing to diminish, and et cetera, et cetera. So, yeah—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. May I respond? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You certainly may. 

Dr. HOLDREN. First of all, there is a long section in my testimony 

explaining that the so-called hiatus in global warming is not what 

you have portrayed it to be. It is a slowdown in the rate of increase 

of the atmospheric surface temperature from what occurred in previous decades. The fact is, even by that index, the Earth is still 

warming. The 2000s were warmer than the ’90s, the 2010s so far 
57 

have been warmer than the 2000s, 13 of the 14 hottest years in the 

instrumental record going back 150 years—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Dr. HOLDREN. —have occurred since 2000. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. And let’s—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. And it is also true—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Dr. HOLDREN. —that in terms of the Arctic ice in volume and in 

area at any given time of year it continues to be on a shrinking 

trajectory, although of course there is natural variability that 

bounces it up and down a bit—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But you—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. —but the trend is unmistakable. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But you will acknowledge that there are 

many scientists—and by the way, I want to congratulate both of 

you because last time you were both here independently when we 

tried to pin down this fraud of 97 percent of all the scientists agree 

that manmade global warming is now upon us, you both refused 

to back up that fraudulent claim and I applaud you for that. 

Let me just note that when we are talking about these issues— 

the very issues that we brought up, there are legitimate scientists—this isn’t just a claim here at the hearing—there are legitimate scientists on both of these issues, on both sides of the various 

issues that you and I just brought up, and I think that it behooves 

us not to just suggest that, well, this is what the fact is. 

I think that what we should all do is compare the various scientific facts that are coming in and not just dismiss all of the scientists who are claiming that no, the polar bears are not disappearing and no, there are not more hurricanes, there are not 

more tornadoes, there are not more, say, critical weather situations 

going on. I think those issues need to be looked at with an open 

mind and that both sides can look at it scientifically. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

The gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms. Kelly, is recognized for her 

questions. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Ms. McCabe, as you likely are aware, critics of this and virtually 

any other EPA proposed rule often claim that the economy and the 

American consumer will suffer as a result of efforts to make our 

environment cleaner and safer. More ‘‘the sky is falling’’ attitude 

toward actions that will protect the health of Americans is contradicted by the fact that the U.S. economy has tripled in size since 

the adoption of the Clean Air Act in 1970, which you know. One 

of the concerns often raised is that the Clean Power Plan will cause 

residential electricity prices to increase dramatically. Can you comment on that? Is that the case? And can you please describe the 

estimated impact that the proposed rule will have on Americans’ 

electricity bills? 

Ms. MCCABE. Absolutely. Thank you for the question. 

Ms. KELLY. Coming from Illinois, it is very important. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, yes, for me, too. Yes, this is an issue that we 

look at in our regulatory impact assessment, which was put out 

with the proposed rule. We did take a look at the anticipated im-
58 

pacts on electricity bills, and because of the strong emphasis that 

we expect from states in looking at energy efficiency as a very clear 

and obvious and cost-effective approach, our analysis predicts that 

electricity bills for American families will go down by 2030 by 

about eight percent, and that is a good thing for all of us because 

you get the improved environment, you get the pollution reduction 

of other pollutants that come along with the carbon that will have 

immediate impacts on people in their neighborhoods and improve 

their health, and you also, through the increased use of energy efficiency, will get lower electric bills. 

Ms. KELLY. Where do you feel that your doubters or critics are 

getting their information from? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t know that I can speak to that, Congresswoman. People do the analyses that they choose to do. What we appreciate is the transparent and public process that we have during 

this proposal so that people can bring whatever analyses they have 

to us and everybody can take a look at that and we can work 

through it. 

Ms. KELLY. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Kelly. 

I now recognize myself for questions next. 

And, Dr. Holdren, let me direct my first question to you. The 

EPA says that its regulations will reduce carbon dioxide emissions 

by about 555 million tons per year in 2030. That same year, Department of Energy is projecting that China alone will emit about 

14 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year. That means that after 

this costly and in my view burdensome rule is implemented, it will 

offset only 13 days of Chinese carbon dioxide emissions and of 

course much less of the total world’s emissions. And I want to focus 

on the impact of the rule. We will get to the impact on other countries in a second. But would you agree that the impact of the rule 

when and if implemented would have a negligible impact on climate change? 

Dr. HOLDREN. As I have already said, this rule is a start. The 

Climate Action Plan is a start. If we do not make a start, we will 

never get to the kinds of reductions—— 

Chairman SMITH. Right. 

Dr. HOLDREN. —that we need. But by the way, we will never get 

there without the Congress’ help. 

Chairman SMITH. Right. 

Dr. HOLDREN. It is one of the reasons I feel happy to be here. 

Chairman SMITH. What impact would this rule have on global 

temperatures, for example? 

Dr. HOLDREN. A small impact if we neglect the leadership role 

that the United States plays in the world. 

Chairman SMITH. And—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. I have just been traveling around the world talking to leaders—— 

Chairman SMITH. I am going to get to the—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. —of other countries—— 

Chairman SMITH. I am going to get to the leadership question—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. —and they are appreciative—— 

Chairman SMITH. —in just—— 
59 

Dr. HOLDREN. —of what we are doing. 

Chairman SMITH. Dr. Holdren, let me finish. I am going to get 

the leadership question in a minute but I want to get to the impact 

of this rule on climate change. You said it would have a very small 

impact on global temperatures. What about its impact on the rise 

in sea levels? 

Dr. HOLDREN. That impact will also be small. And again, it is 

necessary to start or we will be cooked and flooded. 

Chairman SMITH. I understand. I just want to make sure that everybody understands the impact of the rule on climate change is 

going to be small, I would say negligible given what I have said. 

And as far as our leadership role goes, to me that is totally hypothetical and speculative. You have got China today building on the 

average I think of one new coal-fed power plant every week and I 

don’t think these other countries are going to have much of an incentive to follow anybody’s lead if it is going to cost them more 

money and damage their economy. But I am glad to have your answers on the small impact on climate change. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Can I answer the other point about our leadership—— 

Chairman SMITH. Well—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. —and about China—— 

Chairman SMITH. I think—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. —and about India? 

Chairman SMITH. I think you already have today a couple of 

times, but I would like to go to Ms. McCabe, and then if we have 

time come back to that. The question—as I say, to me the impact 

on other countries is hypothetical. 

Ms. McCabe, let me ask you some of these same questions, but 

on the way there you said a minute ago that the rule is about cutting out carbon pollution. The EPA Administrator, your boss, said 

when she testified before the Senate that this is not about pollution 

control. Why the contradiction in your statement and the Administrator’s statement? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, I am not familiar with exactly what statement you are referring to. She may have been talking about the 

fact that there are technologies that would not be considered the 

traditional pollution control—— 

Chairman SMITH. Right. 

Ms. MCCABE. —types of technologies that—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Ms. MCCABE. —are available to reduce—— 

Chairman SMITH. If—— 

Ms. MCCABE. —carbon—— 

Chairman SMITH. On the surface it looks like they are contradictory statements but we will look for another explanation. 

Let me go back and ask you some of the same questions I just 

asked Dr. Holdren. What impact will this rule have on global temperatures? Is it going to be small, is it going to be great, is it going 

to be—what? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, I certainly would defer to Dr. Holdren on the 

science questions. I would agree with him that the impacts of any 

single action will be small, but it takes many small actions to make 

a difference on this global problem. 
60 

Chairman SMITH. Right. And the impact would be small on global temperatures and the impact would be small on any sea level 

rise as well, would it not? 

Ms. MCCABE. Again, it takes many, many actions—— 

Chairman SMITH. I know but the answer—— 

Ms. MCCABE. —to make the difference. 

Chairman SMITH. —to my question is that it would be a small 

impact and you would agree with Dr. Holdren? 

Ms. MCCABE. I would agree. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you both very much. You have 

answered my questions. 

And we will now go to the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Swalwell, for his questions. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And first, I just want to start with Dr. Holdren. Dr. Holdren, we 

heard a little bit about scare tactics earlier, but I wasn’t around in 

1970 when the Clean Air Act was passed. I came on the scene 

about ten years later. But when the Clean Air Act was passed, everything I have read was that there were a number of scare tactics 

from industry around what it would do to our economy. Do you remember that? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I do. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. I do. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And one of the scare tactics was that we would 

see our economy, rather than move forward, that the economy 

would move backwards. Do you remember that? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I do. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And isn’t it true that in fact our economy has tripled in size since the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I think that is roughly right. I would have to double-check the figure. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And isn’t it true that pollutants have been reduced by 70 percent since the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970? 

Dr. HOLDREN. At least many of the important ones have. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Okay. Did you read the New York Times story 

over the weekend on Germany’s solar and wind investments? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I did. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Do you believe that the United States is any less 

capable than Germany in making investments in solar and wind? 

And what would it mean for reducing carbon emissions if we made 

investments that would have us have 30 percent of our energy supplied by renewables, as Germany is on track to do by the end of 

the year? 

Dr. HOLDREN. We are not technically less capable. We may be politically less capable of taking the necessary decisions. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And what would it do for our Climate Action 

Plan if, over the next 15 years, we achieved what Germany is going 

to achieve by the end of this year, which is having 30 percent of 

its energy provided by renewables? 

Dr. HOLDREN. It would obviously be a great help. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Okay. And, Ms. McCabe, do you have any 

thoughts on that? 
61 

Ms. MCCABE. No, I would just confirm that we think increased 

use of renewable energy is going to be a key portion of states’ plans 

that they can choose to develop. So I would agree. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Also, Dr. Holdren, many have mentioned that 

even if we do something, that other countries—some of the bigger 

countries, China and India, if they do nothing, that our efforts 

could be negligible. However, don’t we have some recourse to enforce or require other countries to take action? For example, can’t 

nations that are being responsible—that are not being responsible 

in addressing this global threat be slapped with a WTO complaint 

tariff? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Let me say that at this point I don’t—— 

Mr. SWALWELL. Sorry, WTO compliant tariff. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I think at this point we don’t need to talk about 

recourse because the fact is that both China and India, the second 

and third biggest emitters in the world, are both taking far more 

action than most Americans realize. The Chinese in their 12th fiveyear plan put a target for reducing the percentage—a target for increasing the percentage of non-fossil fuel in primary energy consumption. We, by the way, have not done that. We don’t have any 

non-carbon or low carbon energy standard. China has set specific 

national targets for the expansion of nuclear, wind, solar, and natural gas. They have a carbon intensity target, which they are on 

track to meet. They have minimum energy efficiency standards 

across a wide range of appliances and vehicles. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And, Dr. Holdren—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. And they have been shutting down their old coalburning power plants—— 

Mr. SWALWELL. I appreciate you bringing that up because—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. —and replacing them with more efficient ones. 

Mr. SWALWELL. —I want to put into the record if it is okay with 

the Chair two stories that backup what Dr. Holdren is saying, one, 

a September 12, 2014, story, ‘‘China Aims High for Carbon Market 

by 2020,’’ and also a May 7, 2014, story, ‘‘India Goes Green, Drafts 

Policy to Lower Carbon Emissions.’’ 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, those two articles will be 

made part of the record. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

So I think the question that we are tasked with today is do something or do nothing, and as far as I am concerned, plan always 

beats no plan, especially when the stakes are so high. And so I 

guess I would challenge my colleagues on the other side if they 

want to do nothing, why don’t we go ahead and build a do-nothing 

climate wall. We can put it somewhere out on the Washington Mall 

and we can put all the names of the people who think that we 

should do nothing, and then in 100 years we can let our children 

and grandchildren go to that wall and see who wanted to do nothing and who wanted to do something. And I hope we did something 

and we will let history be the judge of what happens next. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Will the gentleman yield for a question? 

Mr. SWALWELL. And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman yield for a question? 

Mr. SWALWELL. I yield back. 
62 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman has yielded back. 

Thank you, Mr. Swalwell, and we will now go to the gentleman 

from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for his questions. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, folks, for 

joining us today. 

Ms. McCabe, I would like to start out, you acknowledged in 

agreement with Dr. Holdren that the rule would have a small impact in the climate spectrum. Do you also view the thousands of 

jobs and the economic impacts of these rules on the American people as small impacts? 

Ms. MCCABE. We—Congressman, we take very seriously any expected impacts on the economy when we consider our rules—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, you know, the experts are saying, Ms. 

McCabe—you know, I represent a district in Ohio that has six coalfired power plants; I have got roughly 15,000 or so coal industryrelated jobs. If these rules go forward, those jobs are going to be 

forfeited. So my question to you is do you view those as small impacts? 

Ms. MCCABE. I think that any job concerns to a community are 

significant and need to be paid attention to. This rule is—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Are they acceptable to you? 

Ms. MCCABE. This rule is being written in the context of a 

transitioning energy system, and—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Let’s talk about that for a second. Transitioning 

energy position, you know, during this past winter the polar vortex, 

the cold snap, many coal-fired power plants that are slated to retire 

were running at over 90 percent capacity. In Ohio I have heard the 

experts say that we were one coal-fired power plant away from rolling brownouts and blackouts. And I am already getting manufacturers today that are being asked to idle their manufacturing 

plants because there is not enough energy on the grid. 

So how would the grid have performed this past winter and how 

high would have wholesale prices risen if the coal-base-load of 

power plants scheduled to close over the next two years, if they 

were not available this past winter? What does your analysis reveal 

about that? You take all that power off the grid, how would that 

have affected the price for energy this past winter? 

Ms. MCCABE. The Clean Power Plan envisions that in 2030, 30 

percent of—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am not talking about 2030; I am talking about 

last winter. How would it have affected the wholesale prices if that 

energy had not—that you are planning to take off the grid, if it had 

not been available? How would it have affected wholesale prices? 

Ms. MCCABE. EPA is not planning to take any power off the grid. 

This plan would allow states to develop plans and we see that energy reliability would not be compromised under the plan as we 

have devised it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. Well, the states have a different view of 

that I think. Let me ask you this, then, talking about the states. 

You know, explain it to me then how you intend to approve or disapprove of a state plan if the state submits a plan that has a different baseline than those that are set out in the proposed rule because the EPA’s generation mix for 2012 doesn’t include all the 
63 

utilities that usually operate, for example, they were shut down 

that year or they did not operate? 

Ms. MCCABE. Um-hum. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Will the EPA disapprove a state plan that sets a 

different reduction target than what the Agency requires in the 

proposed rule because it failed to include a utility that did not operate in 2012? 

Ms. MCCABE. This is why our rulemaking has a public process 

with opportunities for people to give us information. We want to 

make sure that the targets that we ultimately finalize are accurate 

and correct and based on correct information, and we are in those 

discussions with states every day now to make sure that we have 

that right information. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. Dr. Holdren, and—during—you talked 

about success through science in your opening statement this 

morning. Last July, Steve McConnell, the former Assistant Secretary for Energy until last year, now at Rice University, testified 

before this committee that the relationship between the DOE and 

the EPA was really disingenuous interagency collaboration and 

simply a box-checking exercise. Further, it was an awkward—he 

said it was an awkward dance because very often the inconvenient 

truths of technical evaluations didn’t fit the political agenda and 

that made it very difficult to actually have any collaboration, and 

in fact, as time went, on the communication became almost zero. 

Mr. McConnell gave an insightful example of where EPA’s idea 

of checking the box on a 650-page technical document to the Department of Energy at 3:00 p.m. on a Friday afternoon that EPA 

told him they had to respond back by 10:00 a.m. on Monday. 

So you are in charge of scientific and technical cooperation between departments and agencies. Is this how the Obama Administration makes technical decisions that will cost the American taxpayers billions of dollars? Is this what you call success through 

science? Or is it simply a political agenda to shut down coal-fired 

power plants across the country? 

Dr. HOLDREN. It is certainly not a political agenda to shut down 

coal-fired power plants, and as you know—as I believe you know, 

under the Climate Action Plan, coal would still be providing 30 percent of U.S. electricity at the end of—at the period in 2030. 

But in terms of interagency cooperation, of course we want and 

we encourage interagency cooperation. I am responsible for the 

oversight of activities and initiatives that involve the cooperation 

of multiple agencies. We work hard at getting that to happen. I 

think it is happening. I think both EPA and DOE currently have 

not only very capable but very collaborative leaders in Secretary 

Moniz and Administrator McCarthy. I have seen them working 

closely together. I have seen the process of collaboration. I am not 

sure what happened when—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. All right. Well, let me—my time is almost expired 

so let me ask Ms. McCabe then. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. [Presiding] There is—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Will you—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Your time has expired—more than expired. 

Thank you. 

And—— 
64 

Mr. JOHNSON. I yield back. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —now, Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Dr. Holdren, and to both of our witnesses, thank you very 

much for being here. 

I think that we could not be dealing with any more important 

issue than this discussion right here and we need to get off the 

dime on the politics because we are losing ground every single day. 

And I would like to ask the Chairman, I have an article from the 

Washington Post that just appeared a couple of days ago that highlights the impact—the potential impact to flooding from storm 

surge that would threaten D.C.—the District of Columbia infrastructure. And I would note it is a shame that Mr. Swalwell is no 

longer here and he has left because I would tell him that if he were 

going to build that wall on the Mall, he should choose a different 

place because it will be underwater. 

And so with that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter this article 

from the Washington Post appearing September 16 into the record. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Without objection. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Dr. Holdren, as we have just indicated, you know that our coastal communities are a major contributor to the U.S. economy that 

supports maritime commerce and shipping ports, fishing, tourism. 

I know Maryland has a great benefit to our economy because of our 

coast and our Chesapeake Bay. And all of these areas are highly 

vulnerable to the threat of sea level rise. 

In addition, in the Maryland Chesapeake Bay, the five states 

that comprise the watershed, that there is a lot of farmland there, 

too, and so in addition to the economy that takes place on the 

water, there is the economy just bordering the water that really 

threatens us. The third National Climate Assessment asserts that 

more than a trillion dollars of coastal property and infrastructure 

is at risk of inundation from a sea level rise of 2 feet above the current level. Can you outline the potential impact a 2 foot rise in sea 

level would have on the American economy? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, let me say a couple of things about that. One 

is that is quite extensively analyzed in the National Climate Assessment that came out in May. The second point is that the first 

phase of the Climate Data Initiative, which is part of the President’s Climate Action Plan, and the first phase of the Climate Resilient Toolkit, which will be rolled out shortly, are both focused on 

providing more detailed data on the consequences of sea level rise 

of various levels on infrastructure and on the economy. 

And so while we already have rough accounts of how devastating 

sea level rise in that magnitude would be, we will soon have better 

ones and we will have tools that will enable people on the coast all 

around the country to understand, anticipate, prepare for, and plan 

for the amounts of sea level rise that are likely to occur in their 

areas. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Dr. Holdren, just to follow that up, I recall that 

just a couple of months ago there was another article—I think it 

was either in the New York Times or Washington Post—that 

talked about particular impacts in the Virginia Beach and Norfolk 
65 

area to our military facilities. And in fact, as part of our military 

readiness and planning, they have tried to accommodate for that 

kind of rise. We put billions of dollars into structuring and restructuring, rebuilding our ports to accommodate our military bases and 

facilities because our Department of Defense actually does believe 

that there is a tremendous impact of climate change contributing 

to sea level rise. 

Has there been an assessment of the threat to our defense—our 

national defense and military readiness? 

Dr. HOLDREN. There have been a number of reports by the Pentagon and by consultants to the Pentagon on the impacts of climate 

change on national security, and I would refer you to those. You 

are absolutely right, Congresswoman Edwards, that the Pentagon 

recognizes very clearly that climate change is a big challenge for 

our military and for our national security. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. And just to be clear, 

though, when we are thinking about the impact to the economy on 

our coastal communities, do we have a rough estimate—is there a 

rough estimate of how much of the population just on the two 

coasts, the Atlantic and the Pacific, that is attributed to—that 

would be impacted by sea level rises? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I am just in the process of looking up a number— 

excuse me. I am just in the process of looking up the number in 

the National Climate Assessment. There is an estimate in there of 

what fraction of the U.S. population lives at various heights above 

current sea level. I don’t recall it off the top of my head. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Let’s just say it is a boatload of people, right? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I would be happy to get back to you with a quantitative answer on that. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Great. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Bridenstine. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

When the President was campaigning in 2008 he was interviewing with the San Francisco Chronicle and they asked him— 

quite infamously they asked him, you know, are you going to shut 

down coal-fired power plants? And his response was, well, no, I am 

not going to shut them down; we will increase regulations to the 

point where it is so expensive, they won’t be able to stay in business. I would like to ask each of you, do you agree with the President’s philosophy on that? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, first of all, I am sure the Resident no longer 

agrees with it. Whatever he said in 2008, he—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So that is not the President’s philosophy? 

Dr. HOLDREN. It is not the President’s philosophy. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. That is good. 

Dr. HOLDREN. The President is not trying to—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So you don’t agree with it? Yes or no, you don’t 

agree with it? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I don’t agree with the statement as you just presented it—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. 

Dr. HOLDREN. —that the President—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Ms. McCabe? 
66 

Dr. HOLDREN. —apparently said in 2008, and he doesn’t either. 

Ms. MCCABE. Absolutely, we don’t agree. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. So has he recanted that or retracted it 

or apologized for suggesting that? 

Dr. HOLDREN. The National Climate Plan makes very clear—Climate Action Plan makes very clear that we do not intend to shut 

down coal-fired power plants, and it is the President’s plan. So I 

say he is absolutely clear on the record on that and he has said 

it in a number of recent speeches as well. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. Chuck McConnell is the Executive Director of the Energy and Environment Initiative at my alma mater, 

Rice University. He is a former Assistant Secretary of Energy and 

this Administration, and he testified before this committee about 

the environmental impacts of the Administration’s carbon plan that 

you have just mentioned, or rather the lack of the impact of the 

environmental plan. He says that the reductions in emissions resulting from these rules will account for less than 1/100th of 1 degree Celsius drop in temperatures. Do you guys agree with that? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I don’t agree with it for the reasons I have already 

stated, namely, we are beginning a process that is going to lead to 

further reductions. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. No, no, no, no, this rule—no, no—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. This rule alone—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Do you agree with that statement, 1/100th of 

1 degree Celsius? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I would have to look—have to review the number 

before I—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. These are your models. 

Dr. HOLDREN. —before I subscribe to a particular—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. These aren’t my models; these are your models 

and—now, he also suggested—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. I will be happy to review the number and get back 

to you—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Sir, this is my time—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. —but the point is this is a start. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Sir, I am asking the questions here. He also 

suggested that it would increase sea levels by 1/3 of the width of 

a dime over 30 years. Do you agree with that assessment? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Again, I will get back to on the specific numbers 

but the assessment is irrelevant. We are starting a process which 

is going to require larger emissions reductions going forward—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. By China? We need larger—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Oh, absolutely we do and China is already on that 

pathway as well. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Oh, I—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. And in some respects they are ahead of us. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. I am glad to hear that China is on board with 

our plan because they weren’t on board with our plan when we 

wanted to protect international waters in the South China Sea, 

were they? 

Dr. HOLDREN. We are not talking about the South China Sea; we 

are—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. No, we are because the South—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. —talking about climate change. 
67 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. —China Sea is their next move and they are 

doing it for energy purposes. And guess what? They didn’t consult 

the Philippines, they didn’t consult Vietnam, they didn’t consult 

Malaysia or Indonesia, they didn’t consult Taiwan. They just went 

ahead and said we now control the South China Sea. Now was that 

in the plan? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I am not defending what China has done in the 

South China Sea. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Well, let me ask you—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. What I am saying is China finds it—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. —I am going to ask you a very important 

question—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. —in its own interest—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Does China—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. —to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Does China do what is in our interest or do 

they do what is in their interest? Because what we have seen is 

they do what is in their interest and encourage us to do what is 

against our own interest. Do you agree with that? 

Dr. HOLDREN. No, I do not. In the case of climate change it is 

in both our countries’ interest to reduce both of our greenhouse 

gas—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Then why are they continuing to—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. —and that is why we are cooperating—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. —increase their emissions? 

Dr. HOLDREN. —in that domain. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. You recognize that they are continuing to increase their emissions, and the more we reduce ours, we hinder our 

economy while their economy is growing more rapidly, is that correct? 

Dr. HOLDREN. They are continuing to increase their emissions 

but at a declining rates, and they are aiming to peak and then decline at—currently, we expect that China will be announcing an intention to peak by 2030 and we—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Well, I am glad they are going to—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. —hope—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. —peak in 2030. 

Dr. HOLDREN. And we hope that they will move that forward as 

the technological capabilities to do it become available. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. I have got 30 seconds left. The Mayor of Tulsa 

was here today, Dewey Bartlett. He is a good friend of mine. He 

would like me to ask you guys if you are aware that 50 percent of 

the total electricity output for Oklahoma comes from coal. Are either of you aware of that, 57 percent of our electricity output comes 

from coal in the State of Oklahoma? 

Ms. MCCABE. There are a number of states where a significant 

portion comes from coal and we expect that to continue. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. In Oklahoma we have a 20 percent lower cost 

of electricity than the national average. Are you aware of that? 

Ms. MCCABE. Not specifically but I—it doesn’t surprise me. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So when these rules go into effect, do you 

know what happens? Manufacturing jobs that have a high cost of 

energy, manufacturing jobs leave Oklahoma. And guess what? It is 

a lot more difficult to attract jobs to Oklahoma. Are you guys 
68 

aware of that? So even though you suggest that this may grow the 

economy, right now, that is not how it is working in my State of 

Oklahoma. 

I am out of time but this is something you need to think about. 

Thank you so much. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. 

Mr. Posey from Florida. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Dr. Holdren and Ms. McCabe for coming here today. 

I know sometimes it is really not fun here and I hope it is not intended as a bunch of grouches. I mean I hope everybody is really 

trying to find common denominators and trying to make common 

sense meets science and get a good handle on this and I think that 

if there is enough debate, someday it will probably level out and 

most people will share the same opinion, but there is just a lot of 

digging to get there. 

And, for the hundredth time, I believe in climate change, never 

said I didn’t believe in climate change. Some people have claimed 

that I said I did—I never—I defy anybody to say I don’t believe in 

climate change. I think the last time Dr. Holdren was here we discussed climate change. I talked about the temperature of the Earth 

65 million years ago being significantly hotter than it is now and 

some lame-brained blogger willfully and wantonly distorted the fact 

to say I said it didn’t bother the dinosaurs, why should it bother 

us? So there is a lot of venom flowing on both sides of this issue, 

which I am afraid hinders more direct discussion of the fact, and 

that is real unfortunate. 

You know, I think from my perspective the overarching interest 

in the issue and the common ground that I think everybody has is 

it is important that we have clean air and clean water for everybody. I mean every generation—everybody is healthier if we have 

clean air and clean water, and I think that is kind of where you 

are trying to go and I think that is where the so-called other side 

is trying to go, too, but there are just some things they want to 

quantify. And, you know, science should be questioned. Everybody’s 

opinions should be questioned. Mine should be questioned, yours 

should be—everybody’s should be—and that is what we do here. 

Sadly, like I say, sometimes it gets a little more acrimonious 

than it needs to be. Sometimes the people that come in here and 

say politics shouldn’t be involved in this are the most political people and politicize it the most, but that is unfortunate. 

But my interests, getting to the crux of it, is still trying to have 

some kind of quantification rather than just platitudes. They say, 

well, we do a bunch of little things and add up to a big thing. You 

know, I understand that and I think everybody understands how 

that might work, but it is still just trying to quantify it. And somebody talks about a dime-thin worth of coastal rise but what I am 

still kind of searching for is to quantify what man’s contribution in 

the United States of America is to climate change. I mean I know 

we are having it, you know, and everybody knows. I mean you 

learned as a young child the longer you stand in front of the fireplace, the warmer you get generally speaking unless there is extenuating circumstances. 
69 

But I just—and you don’t want—you don’t have to do it now. I 

am not trying to do a gotcha, but that is really what I am looking 

for, and if you can drop me a note on that, that is okay. I mean, 

you know, it doesn’t have to be a big arena question, just trying 

to quantify if we go—if we take these steps at the end of the day, 

you know, what really difference is it going to make? And I am not 

saying it is worth it or shouldn’t be worth it or whatever we do for 

clean air and clean water isn’t important. I think everything that 

we do is. But just to kind of start working on the equation, it would 

be good to know what we attribute to the natural heating of our 

planet and do we expect that to continually increase, and then to 

what extent mankind directly affects it, and then more particularly 

to what extent the United States of America directly affects it. And 

I think that will put a lot of questions of a lot of other people in 

perspective, too, if we ever reach that—if we ever get that point. 

And either one of you can respond. You know, I am not trying to 

be argumentative but—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, Congressman Posey, first of all, I appreciate 

your opening comment about the need for continuing discussion 

and the hope for ultimate convergence. That is an appropriate sentiment. 

I would note, first of all, that in my long statement there is a 

lot of quantitative information and there is reference to much 

more, and the facts as we understand them are that natural climate change, if it was the only thing that was happening, the 

world would be in a long-term cooling trend. So the fact that is embraced by the vast majority of the scientific community who study 

these matters is that virtually all of the warming trend we have 

seen in the last several decades has been caused by human activities and most specifically by emissions from fossil fuel combustion, 

secondarily from deforestation and land-use change. 

The second point I would make is although you are absolutely 

right that climate has been changing for the whole history of the 

Earth for a whole variety of reasons, it is changing many times 

faster now than it changed before. And the problem that poses is 

that the ability of society to adapt and ecosystems to adapt is 

stressed and potentially ultimately swamped. 

Sixty-five million years ago when it was 13 or 14 degrees centigrade above the current temperature, the sea level was probably 

about 70 meters above the current sea level. We believe that the 

polar caps were free of ice at that time. All that ice was in the 

ocean and that makes sea level 70 meters higher. Also, 65 million 

years ago we didn’t have 7 plus billion people to feed, house, and 

try to make prosperous. 

So while you are absolutely right the temperature has varied 

enormously over the millions of years, that should be no consolation in the current situation where we are driving the temperature 

up at an unprecedented pace. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Your time is up and the Chair will now be 

switching to Mr. Schweikert from Arizona. 

Let me just add as I leave for my next assignment that I personally thank the witnesses and where we have some fundamental differences or disagreements, we certainly should keep our minds 
70 

open and try to be—try to get to what really is the science. And 

let me say in other areas we agree. 

And, Mr. Holdren, I want to congratulate the White House on 

your recent decision to assign commercial contracts for space transportation and resupply of the space station, Debian, and Space 

Acts. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Let me just say that was NASA’s decision, but 

thank you for your approval. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You might have had something to do with it. 

If you did, thanks. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Okay. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And with that, Mr. Schweikert. 

And Mr. Stockman will be taking Mr. Schweikert’s position in 

line. Thank you. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Thank you. I have some of the statements that 

were passed around today was the investments in Europe and—in 

climate change, and I think what was left out of the record was 

that Spain sold climate change bonds to its populace and guaranteed by the government and the government now has rescinded 

that guarantee and they lost a tremendous amount of money. 

And so for the argument only point to Germany without pointing 

to Spain’s failure, we would be remiss in the record to leave that 

out. Many Spaniards lost their entire savings investing in climate 

change technology. 

Also, too, I hear repeatedly, you know, well, Obama is not going 

to close plants. I don’t think anybody suggested that Obama is 

going to close plants. I think what we are suggesting is the policies 

will close plants, and that seems to bear out with the predictions 

are coming true across the country and what plants have to be 

closed. 

In reference to China, I was just there. The embassy said that 

their level of measuring of pollution was so high that their equipment could not measure it and there is now a key factor in moving 

to Beijing that you are given compensation because you can’t even 

breathe the air there, and many people working there, including 

some of the embassy staff, are not willing to work in Beijing it is 

so bad. And I actually asked some of the Chinese officials if they 

thought they could meet their climate projections and they 

laughed. They don’t believe it and I don’t think we should either. 

And my colleague over here who said we are in a do-nothing caucus, may I remind the colleague by his own testimony that the EPA 

was created by a Republican and he, by his own admission, says 

that the pollution has gotten 70 percent better. So I would argue 

that that is not do-nothing; that is actually has done something. 

And I went to Maryland and asked repeatedly two things which 

I have never been able to get answers on. One was I said what 

ended the Ice Age? And the lead scientist at NASA said this: He 

said that what ended the Ice Age was global wobbling. That is 

what I was told. This is a lead scientist down in Maryland. You are 

welcome to go down there and ask him the same thing. 

So on my second question, which I thought was an intuitive 

question that should be followed up, is the wobbling of the Earth 

included in any of your modeling? And the answer was no. So how 

can you have wobbling of the Earth cooling the Earth and not be 
71 

included in any projections? That is one for the books that I am a 

little bit confused about. How can you take an element which you 

give to the credit for the collapse of global freezing and then to 

global warming but leave it out of your models? I am a little bit 

puzzled because we still don’t have any metrics I understand of 

how to determine global wobbling, which I didn’t know was part of 

the reason for the end of the Ice Age. 

The last thing I asked him which I can’t get answers to how long 

will it take for the sea level to rise 2 feet? I mean think about it, 

if your ice cube melts in your glass, it doesn’t overflow. It is displacement. I mean this is the thing, some of the things that they 

are talking about that mathematically and scientifically don’t make 

sense. 

But I just—I am wondering overall when you have a model and 

you say we are going to leave out the most important impact of 

that model out of our theory and not talk about global wobbling, 

how can you make projections? 

So I am concerned that while again you are saying Obama is not 

closing plants, you are correct on that note, which we here in Congress and other places take these words very seriously, but the 

policies will do exactly that. It will close plants and it has in Texas 

and it will around the country. And unfortunately, China I know 

firsthand is laughing at their own predictions. And with that, I will 

let you respond, but if you have a model with global wobbling, 

please let me know and let me know how long it takes the seas to 

rise 2 feet. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Congressman Stockman, I am not going to talk 

about the economy of Spain; that is not my expertise, but I am 

going to talk about the science and help you a little bit with global 

wobbling to start with. Global wobbling, which refers to changes in 

the Earth’s tilt and orbit, takes place on characteristic timescales 

of 22,000 years, 44,000 years, and 100,000 years. It is very slow. 

It brought us into ice ages; it brought us out of ice ages. When you 

take global wobbling into account, as I have already suggested, we 

would be in a cooling period now, but the warming inflicted by 

human activities has overwhelmed the effect of global wobbling. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. But I was told—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. You don’t have—— 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Wait a minute. None of the models have global 

wobbling in them. Is that true? 

Dr. HOLDREN. And I am about to explain why. The reason why 

is that global wobbling is a tiny effect on the timescale of 100 years 

in which we try to run these models to understand what is going 

on now and going on soon. It is so small—— 

Mr. STOCKMAN. No, with all due respect—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. —and it is so small that you don’t—— 

Mr. STOCKMAN. No. 

Dr. HOLDREN. —need to put it in. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. No, you can’t say it had a global impact and then 

is small both. Those are the kind of statements—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. It had a global impact over periods of tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands—— 

Mr. STOCKMAN. So you are saying the Ice Age—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. —of years. We are talking about decades—— 
72 

Mr. STOCKMAN. —took hundreds of thousands of years to end? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Ice ages—— 

Mr. STOCKMAN. How long did the Ice Age take to end? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Ice ages went on for hundreds of thousands of 

years—— 

Mr. STOCKMAN. That is not what I am asking you—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. —in some cases for millions—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. [Presiding] Mr. Stockman—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. —and they ended over long periods of time as well 

as a general matter. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Doctor, I would just ask you if you could give me 

your model—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. And sorry, I don’t mean to step on anyone. It 

is just as the chaos of today, everyone is going to be running on 

to other hearings. 

Mr. Weber. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you. Appreciate you all being here. Mr. 

Holdren, you just, in your exchange with Congressman Stockman, 

said that the economy of Spain is not your expertise, and I would 

probably venture to add that the economy of the United States is 

probably not your expertise either. Is that fair to say? 

Dr. HOLDREN. That is correct. In respect to the economy of the 

United States, I rely on folks like the Council of Economic Advisors 

and the National Economic Council—— 

Mr. WEBER. The reason I bring that up is because the last thing 

we want is an unintended consequence, which Congress seems to 

be good at I might add, whereby the policies coming out of the Administration, the EPA, or any of the other agencies have that unintended consequence of actually harming our economy. And so I try 

to be keenly in tune with that. I just want to make that point. 

Very quickly, in January of this year, a very cold January I 

might add, you filmed a short video for the White House website 

entitled ‘‘The Polar Vortex.’’ In that video you said, ‘‘a growing body 

of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern that 

we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming 

continues.’’ And scientists on both sides of that issue quickly took 

issue with that. A complaint was filed with the agency seeking to 

correct it under the Federal Information Quality Act, yet your office 

claimed this was an expression of your personal opinion. Is that accurate? 

Dr. HOLDREN. It is accurate, and as the President’s Science Advisor, I express my personal opinion on the balance of science all the 

time. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. And if that was nothing more than a personal 

opinion, were White House resources spent on producing that 

video? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I stated in the video that it was my judgment that 

we would see more of this. I believe that to be true. 

Mr. WEBER. But my question was about the money. Who paid for 

the video? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I assume that the—— 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Dr. HOLDREN. —White House Digital Services paid for the video. 
73 

Mr. WEBER. You are contributing to the economy then, so maybe 

the economy is part of your forte because some production company 

made out on that deal. 

Let me go to the regulation that you are proposing here and let 

me—I want to jump over the ozone rule for just a minute and the 

EPA has a track record. I am from Texas. Texas has about 1,200 

people a day moving there. We have dropped our carbon emission 

four percent in the last almost ten years while we have gained 4 

million people to a population of 25 million, so that is a pretty 

hefty sum, a little over 20 percent I guess or about—not quite 1/ 

5. 

So the ozone proposal that you all put forward would cost $90 

billion, with a B, lowering the ozone standard, and yet earlier you 

said to Jim Bridenstine that the assessment was irrelevant that he 

was trying to make the connection on. So if $90 billion annually it 

is going to cost to business, are you still prepared to say here today 

that won’t cost any more for electricity, that the cost of energy that 

is going to go up because of these kind of regulations really—I realize we are not economy experts here, but do you really sit there 

and think that industry pays $90 billion a year or more to effect 

just that one ozone rule and nothing is going to go up? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, Congressman, if your question is about the 

Clean Power Plan, the economic analysis does show that electricity 

bills will go down in 2030 because of the effects of energy efficiency. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, listen, I applaud you for believing that. I have 

got some oceanfront property in Oklahoma I would like to sell, too, 

so I just—I can’t buy that. I mean I do—I own a business so I know 

how the economy works. 

Let me go to carbon for just a second. Texas, as I said, has done 

a great job, people moving there every day by the thousands, 1,200 

a day. And your carbon rule that you are proposing, with Texas 

cleaning up its air—and I will—and I believe that the EPA will 

admit that most of the ozone emissions, all right, noxious gas emissions, from non-stationary point sources, i.e., vehicles. Is that true? 

Ms. MCCABE. Point sources is a term that refers to stationary 

sources—— 

Mr. WEBER. Got that. 

Ms. MCCABE. —the emissions that contribute to ozone—— 

Mr. WEBER. They are coming—let me just short-circuit you. They 

are coming from cars. 

Ms. MCCABE. No—not—no, not predominately. Cars—— 

Mr. WEBER. Non-stationary point sources, how would you describe that? 

Ms. MCCABE. Cars make up about 1/3 of the emissions— 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Ms. MCCABE. —and utilities, power plants, make up another 1/ 

3. 

Mr. WEBER. Those plants seem to be pretty stationary to me but 

that is just me thinking. 

Ms. MCCABE. Right, but they are a significant—— 

Mr. WEBER. The—— 

Ms. MCCABE. —contributor to pollution—— 

Mr. WEBER. I am almost out of time. The point is that Texas has 

been really increasing their—I want clean air and clean water for 
74 

my kids and grandkids and for me and for you. Texas has been improving their air and water quality without the EPA’s oversight. 

We have got states that are doing a good job, and unfortunately, 

the rules that the EPA is proposing are going to put a lot of the 

country in non-attainment on ozone, going to cost a lot of jobs, so 

even though we are not economy experts, before we have that unintended consequence, we are going to have to really think long and 

hard about the data and the scientists—the science used behind 

this. 

And I am way out of time. I apologize but I just want to make 

that point. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Sorry about that. We were working on some of 

our calendar. 

Mr. Bucshon—or, excuse me, Mr. Cramer. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Ms. McCabe and Dr. Holdren, for being here. Good 

to see both of you again. 

I am a little conflicted because I want to focus on the one hand 

on the reliability issues that Mr. Johnson brought up earlier but 

I think I am going to start with the flexibility issues because both 

the Agency and the Administration—you are quite adamant about 

the flexibility that the rule provides states, and I am wondering 

how much flexibility was considered for states with regard to the 

rate of emissions themselves? I mean did states have much flexibility in determining the emission rates? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, under the Clean Air Act, it is EPA’s responsibility to determine the level of reductions to be achieved or the ultimate performance level, but then equally under the Clean Air Act 

the states have a responsibility but the opportunity to design a 

plan that achieves those goals using the best system that makes 

sense for them. 

Mr. CRAMER. Okay. So going to another area of flexibility, and 

this was a question that was raised by a constituent of mine who 

is in the room, Perry Schafer, who has a small business—a couple 

of small businesses in North Dakota called Environmental Services. He provides service and sells products to power plants largely. 

And how much analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act was 

put into this rule? First of all, I guess are you familiar with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act and what it does? 

Ms. MCCABE. I am. 

Mr. CRAMER. Okay. So how much—well, how much analysis was 

put in to consideration of that act and can you perhaps elaborate 

a bit on what the findings were and how it is applied in the proposed rule? 

Ms. MCCABE. So the industrial sector that is addressed by the 

rule is the power plant sector and those are primarily large businesses. And so the economic analysis that we do look at the impact 

that we expect from the types of choices that people will be making 

in order to comply with the rule given what we see happening in 

the economy right now. 

Mr. CRAMER. So when you are applying the analysis for the Regulatory Flexibility Act, you are considering the flexibility of the 

power plant but not all these small businesses that are affected by 
75 

the rule as they impact the power plant. Is that what I just heard 

you say? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, we look at the approaches that we see being 

used by states and companies around the country and the types of 

things that they are doing and look at the expected impacts of 

those on costs and—on the economy. 

Mr. CRAMER. So besides the precedent-setting piece of this, which 

we haven’t even begun to address what the impact will be if this 

rule goes forward, if it is accepted and becomes the tradition and 

culture of the land, what impact it is going to have on manufacturing and the rest of the industrial sector, is it not true that the 

industrial sector depends tremendously on electricity and that it 

fact whether small business, medium-sized business, or large business, there is a very direct—not just an indirect—but a very direct 

economic impact and did the—is the flexibility there to address 

small business? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, the analysis that we have done shows that 

the effect actually will be positive by reducing electric bills in 2030 

as a result of the energy efficiency, and the rule will lead to significant investment in the kinds of activities that support small businesses across our community and energy efficiency and renewable 

energy and other technologies. 

Mr. CRAMER. Since you brought up this lowering of rates or the 

lowering of the bills in 2030 due to efficiency, being a former regulator—economic regulator, utility regulator, I know full well that 

efficiency is not free. It is not even cheap. It may not even be the 

cheapest alternative, although I know that is commonly thought. 

But in a state where our retail rates today average about between 

eight and nine cents a kilowatt hour, the cost of compliance with 

efficiency standards is oftentimes greater than the cost of the electricity itself. 

And the other thing I would raise is the plants have to be paid 

for and they have to be paid for over the lifespan of the plant, and 

if you impose efficiency which costs people—and frankly I think is 

a greater burden on the poor than it is on the people that can afford the efficiency methods, doesn’t the cost of that plant—the 

stranded cost still have to be covered one way or another, and 

whether it is at 8 cents or 9 cents or 10 cents or 30 cents a kilowatt 

hour, I mean is that all factored in or is this a very static analysis, 

which I am afraid it is? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, there is a lot in your question, Congressman. 

Mr. CRAMER. Yes. 

Ms. MCCABE. But on the question of stranded assets, one of the 

advantages to the long trajectory that the proposal has in it, which 

is compliance by 2030—— 

Mr. CRAMER. Um-hum. 

Ms. MCCABE. —was exactly to address those sorts of issues. We 

recognize that that is a reality and we wanted have a plan that 

would allow states to make choices that would avoid stranded assets. 

Mr. CRAMER. And I think the other advantage is that when you 

go that far out, nobody is going to remember that we have promised that rates were going to come down in 2030. 

My time is expired. 
76 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Mr. Cramer. 

Mr. Neugebauer. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

holding this hearing. 

This is a question to both of you. The EPA I think calculates that this rule will cost between $7.3 and $8.8 billion, but the U.S. 

Chamber of Commerce recently published a study that said they 

think it will cost the economy $50 billion per year through 2030. 

The question we have heard a lot about how high energy costs can 

impact businesses and that causes unemployment, but the thing 

that I think sometimes goes unsaid is what does it do to American 

families? So does the Administration acknowledge that if, for example, you increase the cost to a family for energy of $500 a year, that 

what that does to low-income and senior citizens and how they are 

going to be able to cope with that? 

Ms. MCCABE. We recognize these are real impacts. That is why 

the rulemaking process requires the agencies to put forward an 

economic analysis so everybody can take a look at those things. I 

will note that we need to be careful when we compare different 

studies to make sure that people are looking at the same thing, 

and so the analysis that we have in our—that is in our proposed 

rule now is out for public comment and people can give us their 

views on what the EPA is actually proposing as opposed to perhaps 

other ideas that people might have. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. But you are making some assumptions here 

and you have a study, they have a study, there are a lot of numbers out there. Some of those numbers that I hear are even bigger 

numbers than that. But the real issue is is you say by 2030 that 

this will be cost neutral because of energy efficiency. Well, number 

one, we don’t know whether that efficiency will occur, but in the 

meantime, that senior citizen or that low-income family is going to 

be paying more for their utilities. 

Ms. MCCABE. If I may, Congressman, then I will defer to you— 

yes, certainly. One of the things that we did in developing this proposal was to look at the programs that are already out there and 

many states are very far along with very good and aggressive energy efficiency programs in which they are finding that it is good 

for their local economies. Utilities and utility regulatory systems 

are very aware of the impacts on low-income ratepayers and there 

are lots of programs that make sure that those impacts are mitigated or adjusted so that the benefits can be achieved without opposing those sorts of costs on people. 

In this rule, which puts states in the driver’s seat for deciding 

how they are going to implement these plans, allows them all the 

flexibility to make sure that they are making those kinds of sensible decisions that are sensitive to the needs of their citizens. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I would like to just add two very quick points. 

First of all, the Chamber of Commerce study was of what they 

thought the EPA plan was going to be. It was developed before the 

EPA plan came out and the EPA came out with a different plan 

than the Chamber of Commerce analyzed, so no wonder the numbers are different. 
77 

Secondly, the biggest factor in reducing coal use for electricity 

generation in this country has been the expansion of natural gas, 

and the reason that has happened, although natural gas does bring 

a greenhouse gas benefit, the reason it happened is that natural 

gas has been cheaper, not more expensive than coal. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Yeah. Well, again, I am not sure exactly what 

the Chamber’s study would be adjusted based on the new rule, but 

what I have—know that we have had a number of witnesses, and 

sit where you are, and nobody has said that they think that this 

rule will make the cost of electricity go down. I mean we—and it 

is not just one or two people; we have had a number of people. And 

so I think the question that I have is that you have basically created a tax and this tax is going to be—you know, for upper income 

people this may not be an issue but it is going to cost jobs. But 

more importantly, you know, it is going to put a real strain on our 

families. 

Speaking of jobs, what—how many—if you did an analysis and 

you talked about putting this rule into effect, how many jobs do 

you think would be decreased by the fact that you would put this 

in place? Or do you think it is going to increase jobs or decrease 

jobs? What is your study? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yeah, all of that is laid out in our Regulatory Impact Analysis and looks at the impacts in various parts of the economy on job increases and decreases. And our information shows 

that there will be increases in some areas and decreases in other 

areas. There are already those sorts of shifts going on in the energy 

sector, and so our analysis reflects that. So I would commend folks 

to take a look at that and give us their thoughts on how we have 

looked at those numbers. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. What was the net? 

Ms. MCCABE. If you give me a minute, I will find that for you, 

Congressman. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Ms. McCabe, can I beg of you to look that 

up—— 

Ms. MCCABE. We can get it—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. —when it comes up, we will—— 

Ms. MCCABE. We will get it back to you. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. All right. 

Ms. MCCABE. We can get it back to you. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer. 

Mr. Broun. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

President Obama, in a nationally televised address, said his energy policies would ‘‘necessarily skyrocket the cost of energy.’’ And 

I think your proposed rule—and he is utilizing the EPA to do that. 

And I just want to make a public comment. I think this is blatantly 

unfair to poor people and senior citizens on limited income. That 

is what you guys at the OSTP in the EPA have been doing is driving up the cost of energy and it is absolutely unfair to poor people 

and to senior citizens on limited income, as well as the middle 

class. Only the rich people can afford to pay for the energy that you 

all’s rules that you have already put in place and that you are proposing will go forward. 
78 

But why does the proposed rule that will penalize states whose 

utilities have decided to invest in new nuclear generation by factoring those facilities into the state targets? Shouldn’t those utilities that made the decision to invest in non-emitting baseload generation get full credit for their investments? Administrator? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. So this is an issue that we are getting a lot 

of input on and a lot of good discussion, and as you acknowledge, 

there are states and utilities that have been more forward-looking 

in the types of investments that they have made and we believe 

that the rule actually recognizes those advances and—— 

Mr. BROUN. Well, I don’t think so and the states should get full 

credit for those and the utilities that are doing so. 

Also, can you discuss the treatment of the Nation’s nuclear energy fleet? In your analysis you simply assume that states can keep 

on the nuclear power generation that they now have. How might 

the expected accelerated retirement of nuclear plants affect the cost 

of the rule? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yeah, we recognize that states’ choices about nuclear energy are important considerations for them. The rule itself 

focuses on the fossil generating fleet. That is our obligation under 

the Clean Air Act. We—in—we built into the rule some elements 

that we hope will provide some incentive to keep clean nuclear generation in operation, to help the states with their carbon intensity, 

and we will—we have been talking with states with significant nuclear resources to make sure that we fully understand what they 

see as the possible implications. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, Georgia is trying to put in the first two nuclear 

power plants that have been authorized in several decades—— 

Ms. MCCABE. Right. 

Mr. BROUN. —and it has run into problem after problem, Georgia 

Power Company has and Southern Company has because of this 

Administration particularly. We need to make nuclear power easier 

to put in place. We need to have some policy to—NRC as well as 

EPA and other entities that affect these, to make it so that utilities 

can put in power plants and not so expensive because that is going 

to make electricity much cheaper and it is non-emitting. 

Dr. Holdren, emails have emerged in the Richard Windsor lawsuit where former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson violated the 

law by using false email identity that also revealed that you used 

a private email account for work-related emails, all this while you 

were at the White House. According to records from that lawsuit, 

you were sending such work-related emails to your duties at the 

White House even after you sent a memo admonishing other OSTP 

employees to stop using private email account. And in fact you 

even pledged that you were going to cut ties with previous groups 

and you used private emails, I understand, with the Woods Hole 

Oceanographic Institute in spite of your pledge and against the 

law. Have you decided to heed your own advice and stop using your 

private email account when you are clearly discussing your workrelated duties of the White House? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I am not sure what that has to do with the topic 

of this hearing but I will answer. The—— 
79 

Mr. BROUN. You were here before me and last time I saw you 

we were in the office talking about another issue and hopefully we 

can settle that in the future. 

Dr. HOLDREN. So—— 

Mr. BROUN. But—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. —the answer is I copied—— 

Mr. BROUN. —I think it is very important—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. —as the regulations require in the White House, 

I copied all work-related emails that originated on my home computer to the White House so that there would be a record so there 

would be no violation of the Federal Records Act. The reason I did 

some of those emails initially at home was that I didn’t have the 

technological capability to get at my White House computer from 

home. We now have that capability and I am no longer using my 

home computer when I am not at the White House. But then I 

complied—— 

Mr. BROUN. So you utilized—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. I complied with regulations by copying those 

emails to my White House computer so that there would be no violation of the Federal Records Act. 

Mr. BROUN. And so all of your private emails were put into public records so that the—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. As far as I know, all those related to work—— 

Mr. BROUN. —Federal Records Act and Freedom of Information 

Act, there is no violation? 

Dr. HOLDREN. As far as I know, there is no violation. As far as 

I know, I succeeded in my intention to copy all of my work-related 

emails to the White House computer. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, I certainly hope so. Lisa Jackson broke the 

law—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Okay. 

Mr. BROUN. —and I think that you are doing the same thing 

when you do that. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Mr. Broun. 

Mr. BROUN. My time is expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Hultgren. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you both for being here. We as policymakers certainly need to know how science is being used by the 

Administration to justify new rules. Too many of my constituents 

are just struggling to keep the lights on, just as we were struggling 

earlier in this hearing, on home or work, so they really do need to 

know the effects the rules will actually have. To many of my constituents, many of this Administration’s new regulations seem to 

benefit lawyers in Washington, D.C., more than the environment 

back in McHenry County, Illinois. 

Administrator McCabe, we have had former Administration witnesses testify to EPA’s interagency collaboration as being merely a 

box-checking exercise rather than a true collaboration. This echoed 

back to your response to me in a previous hearing where you would 

not say that EPA actually utilized DOE’s Technology Readiness Assessment for the technologies you needed to justify your own rules. 

This seems to be an ongoing problem throughout your agency 

and with environmental regulations in general, so I want to ask a 

more specific question about how EPA plans to react during the po-
80 

tential grid reliability emergencies that I am afraid these rules 

might bring about. It is my understanding that there have been 

two instances where plants were shut down due to EPA regulations 

but DOE required them under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power 

Act to resume operations in order to avoid a reliability emergency. 

If these plants did not resume operation, they would face unlimited 

liability from lawsuits under the Clean Air Act. One of the plants 

did resume operation and was slapped with National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard violation. The other was forced to settle significant lawsuits out of court. 

This should be a yes or a no. If you are receiving two conflicting 

orders from a regulatory agency, is it proper use of regulatory authority to just make a citizen choose which fines they pay and 

which mandates they ignore? This certainly seems to be a case 

where the EPA rules say that the lights being off is a greater benefit to society than people working. When or could the Administration’s new plan be used in this way? 

Ms. MCCABE. EPA works closely with DOE and with FERC and 

we have been for a number of years to make sure that we are keeping on top of any potential reliability issues. The—our system of 

laws in this country has provisions for emergency situations that, 

as you note, have been activated not very often, and so we work 

within those system of laws. 

There are a number of things about the Clean Power Plan that 

we think will make those sorts of situations very unlikely to happen. One of them, for example, is the fact that the compliance period, the averaging times for utilities under these rules are lengthy, 

and so they are—they will accommodate emergency situations of 

short duration because they will be able to average their operations 

over a long period of—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. But the point of my question was, you know, 

really of forcing citizens and private entities to choose between 

which fines they will pay, which mandates they ignore. Again, I 

feel like this is an unfair situation to put them in. 

Let me address a second question to both of you. Factoring out 

supposedly co-benefits from other emissions, how do carbon reductions equate to reductions in heart attacks and asthma? 

Dr. HOLDREN. That all has to do with the effects of climate 

change itself as carbon dioxide does not cause asthma by itself; it 

does not cause heart attacks. If, however, you change the climate 

so that there are more extreme instances of heat stress, you contribute to heart attacks. If you change the climate in a manner 

that increases pollens or increases conventional air pollutants of a 

number of kinds, then you affect asthma. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Administrator McCabe, is EPA considering any 

additional requirements for reductions in ozone? 

Ms. MCCABE. They are—we have a process underway now as the 

Clean Air Act requires—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. So yes? 

Ms. MCCABE. —to review the 2008 ozone standard. 

Mr. HULTGREN. And what is that lowering amount that is being 

considered? 
81 

Ms. MCCABE. EPA has not proposed a rule yet. We will propose 

one later this year. There has been a science inquiry going on for 

the last couple of years, as is required by the Clean Air Act. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Was it an agency decision to create new rules or 

was this a result of a lawsuit? 

Ms. MCCABE. We are required under the Clean Air Act to review 

the National ambient air quality standards on a regular basis, 

every 5 years. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Do you believe the EPA should have their hands 

tied on this if they know a rule cannot be complied with? 

Ms. MCCABE. There is a premise of that sentence that I don’t 

agree with. The EPA, ever since the beginning of the Clean Air Act, 

has successfully promulgated health standards for air quality that 

have led to tremendous improvements in public health across the 

country. 

Mr. HULTGREN. My time is expired. I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Chairman. 

To Ms. McCabe—thank you both, first of all. It is great to see 

you again. Thank you both for coming to testify today. Thank you 

for your service to your country. 

Ms. McCabe, at a hearing on the Clean Power Plan back in July, 

Dr. Cash, who is the Commissioner of Massachusetts Department 

of Environmental Protection, highlighted the successes of RGGI, 

the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in New England. For example, he indicated that through RGGI, the participating states 

have been able to reduce carbon emissions by 40 percent while simultaneously expanding the regional economy by seven percent. It 

is my understanding that EPA recognizes the effectiveness of the 

state partnerships like RGGI and has explicitly drafted a proposed 

rule to allow partnerships like these to continue. I was hoping, Ms. 

McCabe, that you might be able to discuss some of the advantages 

of using a regional approach like this to reduce carbon emissions 

and its impact on innovation. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yeah, that is a very, very good question, and Dr. 

Cash is very eloquent on the benefits of the program to Massachusetts. I have had that conversation with him. 

There are a number of benefits and I will just emphasize that in 

our proposal we are agnostic about whether states might want to 

join with other states but there are definitely are some advantages. 

One advantage is that, as you make the pool of participants larger, 

you increase the opportunities and that will generally lead to more 

opportunity for more cost-effective reductions; the bigger the pool, 

the more opportunity. So that is one. 

There are advantages that some states may perceive because of 

the way the energy production system works. That is some companies operate—many companies operate in more than one state and 

so it can reduce complexity for there to be a regional plan that 

states can work within, and so that is another definite benefit. 

It can simplify—the RGGI system has some very straightforward 

compliance mechanisms in place that simplify the operation of the 
82 

program, and again, that brings cost down, brings more certainty 

to the process. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Great, thank you. And now a question for you 

both, and, Dr. Holdren, maybe you can start. It has often been said 

or at least reported in the press—some aspects of the press that 

the Administration is waging a ‘‘war on coal.’’ However, I think it 

is important to note that thus far the Administration has invested 

about $6 billion in support of developing carbon capture and other 

technologies to try to make coal more efficient and to reduce its environmental impacts. I believe in December of last year DOE 

issued a solicitation making up to $1 billion in loan guarantees 

available to fossil fuel projects. 

Dr. Holdren, I was wondering if you could just respond to the assertion about war on coal and discuss some of the Administration’s 

efforts? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Thank you, Congressman Kennedy. 

We have actually addressed that a number of times. I know you 

had to be out of the room but the—— 

Mr. KENNEDY. Apologies. 

Dr. HOLDREN. —President and the Administration are certainly 

not waging a war on coal, far from it as you point out. We are investing billions and billions of dollars in improving coal technologies with the understanding and the expectation that coal will 

continue for many decades to come to play a significant role in our 

electricity generating system. 

One of the things we noted was that under the proposed rules 

coal would still be generating 30 percent of U.S. electricity in 2030. 

That is a lot of electricity, it is a lot of coal, but we hope to do it 

much more cleanly. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Ms. McCabe, anything to add? 

Ms. MCCABE. No, I second it. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Okay. I apologize for making you repeat yourself 

but I appreciate the fact that you did. Thanks very much and I 

yield back. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. 

And I am going to recognize myself. 

And I would actually like to hand a couple minutes over to the 

good doctor, Dr. Bucshon. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you. I had another committee markup. We 

just reauthorized Amtrak over in Transportation, so my apologies 

for not being at the entire hearing. 

But I want a couple follow-ups. First of all, Ms. McCabe, I would 

like to invite you to my district for a public hearing on the new— 

or in fact any coal-producing state, if EPA could come into a—and 

listen to what the people in my district or other coal-producing 

states have to say, I am inviting you to my district to do that. 

Dr. Holdren, I am going to request from you that the White 

House and the EPA release all of the scientific information, including all of the data justifying the premise that is being promoted— 

that this regulation, the new power plant regulations will decrease 

the incidence of asthma and heart attacks, including all the medical background information. I have requested this before from 

Health and Human Services and others and they have hidden be-
83 

hind HIPAA regulations, but I would request that we get all that 

information to back up these claims. 

And also, as you admitted, there is a difference between particulate emission and CO2 emission, and this hearing is primarily 

about CO2 emission, and I will give you that there is a significant 

difference. And the comments I made earlier are primarily based 

on particulate information but also then you can’t use that and say 

it is justifying CO2 emission requirements. 

My final comment will be carbon capture and sequestration is 

not economically feasible and not commercially available for my 

state. Therefore, putting in place a regulation that requires it to 

comply also isn’t economically feasible for my state. I understand 

the science behind it. I agree that industry and all of us should always be looking for better ways to burn coal, but the time frame 

and the assumptions that are made for this rule are off base for 

my state and 85 percent of—80 to 85 percent of our power is from 

coal. We are a huge manufacturing state. We are going to lose jobs. 

My district has every coalmine in the state. We have already—we 

are closing to power plants, we have closed one coal—two 

coalmines now, and I would implore you to look at that economic 

information. 

I yield back to the Chairman. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Doctor. 

And forgive also the comings and goings today. This is just a chaotic moment as we are trying to finish off this week and so all the 

running back and forth. 

I had two minutes left in my—and I will ask you to put that on 

the clock so we are studious in splitting the time. 

It is a conversation I would like to do in much greater depth and 

my point of reference is actually sort of the discussion of allocation 

of resources, so in some ways it is less about ACO2, the PM10, 

some of the NOX, some of the other—it is the allocation of resources and where we maximize benefits. 

Sitting in the same chairs about two months ago we had four researchers, all absolutely believed in the difficulties with ACO2 and 

the environment, but when asked the question of what you would 

do for the next five, ten years, the allocation question was—and I 

was surprised at the responses. I would deal with invasive species. 

I would deal with the fish population and some others. 

So there was a real interesting allocation question, and I have 

great fear that much of sort of the discussion we are having around 

today may be driven by those who have invested in certain technologies and, as my father used to say, it is always about the 

money. Am I being—let me ask, at a high-level policy level, how 

much sort of moves into the discussion of are we driving the allocation of resources where we maximize benefit to our society and the 

environment? 

And that is actually I think more of a Ms. McCabe type question. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Actually, I am going to start and then I will—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Should I flip it because—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. —turn it over to Ms. McCabe. Yeah. I will flip it 

very quickly but allocation of course is always a big challenge. In 

the climate change domain the problem is that if we focus constantly on shorter-term priorities and push off the climate change 
84 

steps that we need to take, it is going to be impossible to meet the 

2 degree C target or even the—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Doctor—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. —3 degree C target—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. —there is actually a problem in that. If you 

and I go back to literature that I think even you were a participant 

in a decade ago, none of us expected the revolution that has happened in natural gas. Who would have ever thought we would have 

that and exceeded the Kyoto accords because of the long-term futures prices of natural gas? So sometimes that arrogance of knowing what tomorrow is were wrong. And I am—this is rude to do; 

I would love to carry this conversation on in the future—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. We should. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. I am now beyond—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. We should. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. —my time and I have to run to another committee, so thank you. And I am going to actually hand over Chair 

so our Ranking Member can do her 5 minutes. Madam Ranking 

Member. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. And I have to apologize. I 

was one of those that had to go to another committee for a markup. 

But, Dr. Holden, as you are aware, the Administration’s Council 

of Economic Advisors released a report in July which makes the 

economic case for addressing climate change. The main conclusion 

is that delaying action is costly. In fact, the report indicates that 

if the lack of action results in warming of 3 degrees Celsius above 

the preindustrial levels rather than 2 degrees Celsius, then the increased economic damages to the United States could be as high 

as $150 billion annually. 

Now, I am a nurse and we have talked all about how much it 

costs and how many jobs, but I am not sure how much we have 

talked about how many lives that are affected if we don’t clean this 

environment. In your testimony you mentioned a growing consensus among economists and others that there is a compelling 

case for making substantial investments to address climate change. 

Can you please describe the current state of the economic literature—excuse me—comparing the cost of action and inaction on 

climate change? Thank you. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes, thank you very much. I do expand on that at 

some length in my testimony. What has been happening in the economic literature of the past two decades is an increasing trend toward a strong consensus that we need to take action and we need 

to take action sooner rather than later precisely because of the 

kinds of finding that you cited. And by the way, there are other 

findings out there that point to even more alarming possibilities if 

we allow the temperature—the global average surface temperature 

of the atmosphere to go to three degrees Celsius or higher. The 

likelihood of tipping points leading to truly unmanageable change, 

that goes up as one goes into those domains and nobody really has 

a handle on what the upper limit of damages might be. 

Just from the standpoint of investment in prudent insurance, it 

makes sense to take steps now to reduce the likelihood of getting 

anywhere near those temperature regimes, and economists as well 
85 

as natural scientists have really largely come to agreement about 

that. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. Lete me thank both of you 

for coming and simply say that while we might sit here with our 

heads in the dust or whatever, the damage goes on, and it is time 

for us to address the issue. And I appreciate you coming, I appreciate your steadfastness, and I certainly appreciate the work of 

EPA. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. [Presiding] The gentlelady yields back. 

I am evidence that if you stay here long enough, they eventually 

give you the gavel. 

And I would like to thank the witnesses for being here and for 

your testimony and for all the Members who are left, which is one, 

for your questions. The Members of the Committee may have additional questions for you and we will ask you to respond to those 

questions in writing. The record will remain open for two weeks for 

additional comments and written questions from the Members. 

The witnesses are excused and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(87) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
88 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by the Honorable John Holdren 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 

Responses by Ms. Janet McCabe 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 

(105) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
106 

ARTICLE SUBMITTED BY RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 

ARTICLE SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE SUZANNE BONAMICI
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 

ARTICLES SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE ERIC SWALWELL
119 
120 
121 

ARTICLE SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE DONNA F. EDWARDS
122 
123 
124 

Æ