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

90–780 PDF 2015

THE FISCAL YEAR 2015 EPA BUDGET 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE 

ECONOMY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 2, 2014 

Serial No. 113–133 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

(II) 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

Vice Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Chairman 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

Vice Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

Ranking Member 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

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

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

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

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 9 

WITNESS

Gina McCarthy, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency .................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 64 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Slide, dated February 20, 2013, URS Corporation, submitted by Mr. Olson ..... 47 

Slide, dated January 21, 2010, Nature, submitted by Mr. Olson ........................ 49 

(1) 

THE FISCAL YEAR 2015 EPA BUDGET 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER, 

JOINT WITH THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield 

(chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power) presiding. 

Present from the Subcommittee on Energy and Power: Representatives Whitfield, Scalise, Hall, Pitts, Terry, Burgess, Latta, 

Cassidy, Olson, McKinley, Gardner, Kinzinger, Griffith, Barton, 

Upton (ex officio), Rush, Tonko, Engel, Green, Capps, Barrow, 

Christensen, and Waxman (ex officio). 

Present from the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy: Representatives Shimkus, Murphy, Bilirakis, Johnson, 

Pallone, DeGette, and McNerney. 

Also present: Representative Long. 

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

Staff Director; Charlotte Baker, Deputy Communications Director; 

Matt Bravo, Professional Staff Member; Allison Busbee, Policy Coordinator, Energy and Power; Megan Capiak, Staff Assistant; Jerry 

Couri, Senior Environmental Policy Advisor; Patrick Currier, Counsel, Energy and Power; Tom Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, Energy 

and Power; Ben Lieberman, Counsel, Energy and Power; Alexa 

Marrero, Deputy Staff Director; David McCarthy, Chief Counsel, 

Environment and the Economy; Brandon Mooney, Professional 

Staff Member; Mary Neumayr, Senior Energy Counsel; Mark 

Ratner, Policy Advisor to the Chairman; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment and the Economy; Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member, Oversight; Tom Wilbur, Digital Media Advisor; Phil Barnett, Democratic Staff Director; Alison Cassady, Democratic Senior Professional Staff Member; Jacqueline Cohen, Democratic Senior Counsel; Greg Dotson, Democratic Staff Director, Energy and the Environment; Caitlin Haberman, Democratic Policy 

Analyst; Alexandra Teitz, Democratic Senior Counsel, Environment 

and Energy; Kate Stoll, Democratic Fellow; and Ryan Schmit, 

Democratic EPA Detailee. 

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

morning. The title of our hearing is the Fiscal Year 2015 EPA 

Budget, and we certainly want to welcome EPA Administrator 

Gina McCarthy for being here with us today and talking about the 

2 

budget and other actions that are taking place over at EPA. You 

want to start my 3 minutes? 

Each of us that are giving opening statements today will be given 

3 minutes because we want to be able to get to the budget and talk 

about a lot of issues. 

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

Jonathan Turley, a professor over at George Washington University, was testifying before the Judiciary Committee recently, and in 

his testimony he said that President Obama’s extensive use of executive orders, executive actions, and unilateral regulatory action 

threatens to enable President Obama to become a government unto 

himself. 

Now Professor Turley said that he had voted for President 

Obama but that he was genuinely concerned about this excessive 

use of executive authority. And when President Obama went to Copenhagen in 2009, he committed the United States to certain 

things relating to climate change. In his Georgetown speech and in 

his State of the Union Address, he has repeatedly indicated that 

since Congress does not act in the way that he wants it to act that 

he is going to do things by executive order and he will go it alone. 

I would say first of all that Congress has acted in the areas that 

the President is concerned about. Congress made the decision, a 

Democratic-controlled Senate, made the decision that we would not 

adopt Cap and Trade. 

And then I might say that 2 weeks ago the House of Representatives passed legislation for the first time ever, gave EPA the authority to regulate CO2 emissions, but set parameters. And in our 

efforts to work with the administration on that legislation, we were 

not responded to. And even Mr. Dingell has repeatedly said when 

the Clean Air Act was passed, it was never thought that CO2 emissions would be adopted. 

One of the things I am most concerned about is that the New 

Source Performance Standards for new electricity generating units, 

this proposal requires carbon capture and storage for cold-fired 

power plants which are not commercially available, have not been 

adequate demonstrated. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 clearly prohibits EPA from relying on federally funded projects when determining whether CCS is adequately demonstrated, and yet EPA 

went and took three projects in the United States—one in Texas, 

one in California and one in Louisiana, I mean Mississippi—none 

of which are in operation. Two of them have not even started construction. And so I think this reflects how aggressive the administration is being. 

As a matter of fact, it was pointed out to us that GAO’s database 

said that EPA had published over 1,900 rules during the President’s first term alone. 

So we have some genuine concerns, and my time is expired. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 

3 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD

I would like to thank EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy for appearing before us 

today, and I certainly hope that we can shed some light on a number of issues with 

the agency’s proposed budget and priorities for the coming fiscal year. 

EPA’s budget for FY 2015 is $7.89 billion. My biggest concerns are with EPA’s 

regulatory agenda and particularly its efforts to target energy, including coal which 

is the Nation’s largest source of electricity. 

Although the President pledged to ‘‘cut red tape’’ in his State of the Union address, EPA is clearly moving in the opposite direction, piling many new major rules 

on top of all the existing ones. This includes an expansive and expensive global 

warming agenda that Congress never authorized and that the agency admits will 

have only a trivial impact on the earth’s future temperature. In other words, EPA’s 

climate agenda is all economic pain for no environmental gain, and may well be a 

part of the reason that the economy and job growth have remained sluggish 

throughout the Obama presidency. 

Just one rule impacting coal-fired power plants, the Mercury and Air Toxics 

Standards, has been estimated by the agency to cost $9.6 billion annually—more 

than the agency’s entire budget. And the initial real-world experience with this rule 

indicates that it may cost quite a bit more than $9.6 billion and lead to numerous 

plant closures. Like many of EPA’s most extreme regulations, this rule is affecting 

the security and affordability of the energy sector. 

The regulations targeting coal have already increased the number of coal-fired 

power plant shutdowns. According to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, these closures will accelerate in the years ahead and could lead to serious 

reliability concerns. 

And I might add that during this very cold winter, we saw the limits of relying 

too heavily on natural gas to fill the void left by coal. In fact, many coal-fired units 

pressed into service to meet peak demand during the coldest days are among those 

slated to be shut down in the near future. This winter was an early warning that 

if EPA’s anti-coal agenda is left unchecked, there will be serious consequences for 

electricity reliability and affordability. 

Time and time again, we’ve seen EPA set extreme standards. We’ve witnessed 

this with the Utility MACT and the Regional Haze Program, with astronomical compliance costs for States and utilities, and in some cases, are causing power plants 

to shut down. And the toughest rules for coal are yet to be finalized. Anyone who 

doubted that EPA is trying to ‘‘bankrupt the coal industry’’ as President Obama 

promised should have been convinced by proposed New Source Performance Standards for new electric utility generating units. In effect, this proposal requires carbon 

capture and storage (CCS) for coal-fired power plants, which is not commercially 

available now and is unlikely to become so for a long time. If this isn’t a ban on 

new coal, then nothing is. 

The Clean Air Act requires that New Source Performance Standards be based on 

technologies that are adequately demonstrated. In the agency’s very strained attempt to claim that CCS is adequately demonstrated, EPA relied on projects in the 

Federal Government’s Clean Coal Power Initiative. But the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 clearly forbids EPA from relying on such federally funded projects when determining whether CCS is adequately demonstrated. The provision in EPAct 05 is an 

explicit prohibition that Congress intended to include in order to prevent EPA from 

prematurely mandating the use of a technology before it is commercially viable. 

This committee’s November 15, 2013, letter to EPA specified these violations, 

which are all too typical of an agency that routinely exceeds its authority to achieve 

a predetermined agenda. And the agency’s failure to respond to the letter is all-tootypical of the lack of EPA’s transparency and responsiveness. 

I hope we can explore these and other serious concerns with both the substance 

and the legality of EPA’s regulatory agenda for the fiscal year ahead. 

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

gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, for his opening statement. 

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

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly 

want to thank the Administrator, Administrator McCarthy, for 

being with us here today. I want to take a few moments, just a 

4 

quick sentence or so, to extend my congratulations to you. I have— 

was on leave of absence for a number of months due to my wife’s 

illness. So I didn’t get a chance to say congratulations. So I want 

to congratulate you. It is belated, but it is heartfelt. 

Madam Administrator, your visit here could not be more timely 

as it coincides with the release earlier this week on the second report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which 

warn that the detrimental effects of man-made climate change are 

being felt, and it also warned that if we fail to address this issue, 

we can continue to expect dire consequences for humans and natural systems all across our globe. 

According to the report, the flooding, the heat waves, the reduced 

crop yields that we have witnessed recently both here and abroad 

are only going to get worse if we do not act to curb the effects of 

climate change sooner rather than later. In fact, as a Chairman of 

the IPCC noted when the study was released, and I quote, ‘‘Nobody 

on the planet is going to be untouched by the impacts of climate 

change.’’ 

So Madam Administrator, I for one want to applaud you, applaud 

your agency, for your outstanding work for being on the front lines 

for our Nation’s fight against the impacts of climate change, and 

I certainly do not envy the task that all of you face. At a time when 

the EPA’s budget is consistently being slashed, the American people are still relying on you and your Agency to do everything in its 

power to protect the public health, both today and for future generations of American families. 

The President’s fiscal year 2015 budget request of $7.89 billion represents a $310 million decrease from last year’s level and in fact 

represents a smaller budget than that which was enacted in fiscal 

year 2003 under President Bush. And my Republican colleagues 

will slash this budget even further in an attempt to hamstring your 

agency, all while the world’s leading scientists warn us of all the 

calamitous consequences if we fail to curb the effects of climate 

change and curb the effects of it now. 

Madam Secretary, again, I applaud the steps that the Obama administration under your leadership is already taking to reduce our 

Nation’s global footprint, and I look forward to hearing your 

thoughts and your comments on the latest IPCC report as well as 

the constructive ways we can address this urgent issue right now. 

Thank you, and with that, I yield the balance of my time to Mr. 

Tonko. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, you are out of time, Mr. Rush. I went 21 

seconds over. You have gone a minute and 10 seconds over because 

we only had 3 minutes. 

Mr. RUSH. Well, I ask unanimous consent that my colleague, Mr. 

Tonko, be given 2 minutes for an opening statement. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. He will get 3 minutes. 

Mr. RUSH. Three minutes? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, he will get three. 

Mr. RUSH. You are most gracious. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I am glad you are back, by the way. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize—this is a joint hearing, 

so he gets his 3 minutes. He went a minute over and I went 21 

5 

seconds over, and now I am going to recognize Mr. Shimkus for his 

3 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I will try to be punctual. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. Welcome, Administrator McCarthy, and thank you for 

appearing today. I plan to focus my comments and later my questions on programs within my subcommittee’s jurisdiction. 

Your authorities under the Safe Drinking Water Act and Solid 

Waste Disposal Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act and the 

Superfund all come under the Environment and the Economy Subcommittee. These programs touch the lives of most every American 

citizen. 

On several issues, EPA and our subcommittee have worked together closely and successfully on a bipartisan basis to solve problems. For example, with your support we enacted E–Manifest in 

October 2012 to set up an electronic reporting program for hazardous materials under RCRA. Once we got consensus around the 

basic policy, we had to negotiate the complex thickets of budget 

rules, but we finally got it through the House and Senate and to 

the President for his signature. We are looking for a good progress 

report on E–Manifest today. 

In another example, on drinking water we worked with you and 

in the end, in the last year, to solve the problem you identified involved fire hydrants. In record time, we were able to agree on the 

scope of the issue and draft legislation and move it through Congress to the President’s desk. As a result, water system managers 

and firefighters across America never had to face the terrible dilemma whether or not to keep a hydrant out of service just to comply with a restriction that none of us intended to impose. 

So with those two solutions under our belts, let us turn together 

to TSCA reform. Just in the last 10 months I have convened six 

hearings on TSCA. In February we released a discussion draft of 

a modernization bill. We have gotten comments from a wide range 

of stakeholders. EPA has given us some valuable but preliminary 

technical assistance, but many large policy issues still remain unresolved. We want to resolve those with you, and we hope you share 

our ambition and sincere desire to make this a collaborative process. 

Our Founding Fathers never said it would be easy getting agreement among the President and a majority of the House and the 

Senate, but that is no reason not to try. We look forward to working closely with you on these and other issues to protect our citizens’ health and their way of life. And with that, Mr. Chairman, 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

Welcome, Administrator McCarthy, and thank you for appearing today. I plan to 

focus my comments and later my questions on programs within my subcommittee’s 

jurisdiction. Your authorities under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and Superfund all come 

under the Environment and the Economy Subcommittee. These programs touch the 

lives of almost everyone in the United States. 

6 

On several issues EPA and our subcommittee have worked together closely and 

successfully on a bipartisan basis to solve problems. For example, with your support 

we enacted E-manifest in October 2012, to set up an electronic reporting program 

for hazardous materials under RCRA. Once we got consensus around the basic policy, we had to negotiate the complex thickets of budget rules, but we finally got it 

through the House and Senate and to the President for his signature. We are looking for a good progress report on E-manifest today. 

In another example, on drinking water, we worked with you at the end of last 

year to solve the problem you identified involving fire hydrants. In record time we 

were able to agree on the scope of the issue, draft legislation, and move it through 

Congress to the President’s desk. As a result, water system managers and firefighters across America never had to face a terrible dilemma: whether or not to keep 

a fire hydrant out of service just to comply with a restriction that none of us intended to impose. 

So with those two solutions under our belts, let’s turn together to TSCA reform. 

Just in the last 10 months, I’ve convened six hearings on TSCA and in February 

we released a discussion draft of a modernization bill. We’ve gotten comments from 

a wide range of stakeholders. EPA has given us some valuable, but preliminary 

technical assistance, but many large policy issues still need resolution. We want to 

resolve those with you, and we hope you share our ambition and sincere desire to 

make this a collaborative process. 

Our Founding Fathers never said it would be easy getting agreement among the 

President and a majority of the House and of the Senate. But that’s no reason to 

not try. We look forward to working closely with you on these and other issues to 

protect our citizens’ health and their way of life. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. This time I want to 

recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for his 3- 

minute opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. As we 

know, we are here to discuss the fiscal year 2015 budget request 

for the Environmental Protection Agency. Welcome Administrator 

McCarthy, and thank you for being here today, and more importantly, thank you for your tremendous leadership of a very important agency. 

I however regret that I find the administration’s budget request 

for your Agency disappointing. A budget does more than lay out the 

annual priorities for the current year’s work. It is or it should be 

a statement about what we aspire to for the future. This budget 

is not very inspiring. There are many unmet needs in communities 

across this great country. When I visit towns across my district, I 

see the need, and I think we should be addressing that need. 

We have been cruising along on investments that our parents’ 

generation made in this country. They invested in the infrastructure to deliver clean, safe drinking water, drinking water that is 

delivered to American homes across this country. There should be 

no question that we maintain that level of service, not reduce our 

commitment. Water is basic to everything we do in our daily lives 

and in our economy. Water is essential for agriculture, for fisheries, 

for recreation, manufacturing, transportation, energy development 

and yes, for daily living. 

The 2013 Infrastructure Report Card produced by the American 

Society of Civil Engineers gave our Nation a D on drinking water 

infrastructure, and that D was not meant to stand for delightful. 

New York State, by their estimates, will require an investment of 

$27 billion over the next 2 decades. There are other States facing 

7 

that same situation. That is a huge need. In addition to the backlog 

of infrastructure repair and replacement, we also need to redesign 

some of our infrastructure to withstand the new conditions we will 

face due to climate change. 

So we cannot maintain our edge as a Nation in this 21st Century 

with infrastructure from the 19th and 20th Centuries in need of repair. We could be putting many people to work, rebuilding the infrastructure to support our modern society and maintain a strong 

and vibrant economy. 

There are some important initiatives under way as part of the 

President’s Climate Action Plan, and I am supportive of that. I am 

very encouraged by it. But we could do much better for our citizens 

and for future generations. 

I want to work with you to make the Federal Government a 

stronger partner with State and local governments in reducing the 

backlog of infrastructure projects. We all want to ensure that tax 

dollars are spent efficiently and effectively, but doing more with 

less is not going to address the situation where need is growing. 

It is not a sustainable strategy, and it will not deliver the 21st 

Century infrastructure that we need. My question: Why put investment off? Infrastructure problems cost money, and the longer 

projects are delayed the higher the cost to restore services. 

Administrator McCarthy, I know you believe that environmental 

protection and economic development go hand in hand. I have seen 

you in action. I know you are committed. I want to work with you 

to continue to demonstrate the power of that combination. And 

again, I thank you for appearing before this joint committee hearing. I yield back 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I will recognize the gentleman of 

the full committee, Mr. Upton, for 3 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome. I 

want to begin as I did last year by acknowledging and applauding 

the success of our Nation’s efforts to protect and improve our environment over the years. 

Under existing regulations our air quality has improved dramatically. This is something that our entire country should be proud of. 

EPA reports that total emissions of toxic air pollutants decreased 

by approximately 42 percent between 1990 and 2005, and between 

1980 and 2010, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants 

dropped by 63 percent. 

I want to commend EPA’s efforts to resolve issues such as Superfund cleanups, particularly appreciative of your focus along with 

my two Senators on the Kalamazoo River, particularly the Allied 

site and look forward to getting that project accomplished. And 

total removal may well turn out to be the most cost-effective solution in the long run. 

But in spite of this success over the last few decades, I do have 

some concern over EPA’s regulatory trajectory. The number and 

scope of EPA’s regulations is continuing to grow without precedent. 

This administration is seeking to regulate sometimes where they 

failed to legislate, and that pace is continuing with the release of 

8 

several major rules that impose indeed billions of dollars in costs 

with somewhat questionable benefits. 

These rules continue to threaten not only electric reliability and 

affordability, but they certainly shake up the confidence in the 

manufacturing renaissance under way. EPA continues to regulate 

too much too fast. No wonder so many job creating companies are 

holding back on new investment. They not only face rising energy 

and compliance costs but also uncertainty as to what those new 

regs are going to require. 

The worst of EPA’s regulatory agenda may yet to come, especially with the greenhouse gas regs for power plants. We have yet 

to see fully what EPA plans proposed for existing power plants or 

the full impact on consumers’ electric bills and unemployment. But 

if we allow that agenda to continue without the proper oversight, 

we may well see higher costs, more jobs lost and widespread problems. 

We get constant reassurances from the administration that costs 

are minimal and benefits always trump costs when it comes to 

EPA’s regs. Of course the health law was also rolled out with a 

host of assurances that certainly fell woefully short. Many EPA 

rules were introduced with the same kind of rosy economic promises and while they are proving to be just as detached from reality. 

When I meet with manufacturers, I usually hear about the problems with the health law and yes, problems with EPA. Both threaten job and global competitiveness and do so at a time when low energy prices are finally giving American manufacturing an edge. 

Administrator McCarthy, you were recently quoted in the New 

York Times saying that you want to avoid a repeat of the 

Obamacare roll-out debacle. I fear that it may be too late, but I certainly hope that we can work together to limit any further damage. 

And again, welcome. We appreciate your testimony. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

I want to begin as I did last year by acknowledging and applauding the success 

of our Nation’s efforts to protect and improve our environment over the years. 

Under existing regulations, our air quality has improved dramatically. This is something that our entire country should be proud of—EPA reports that total emissions 

of toxic air pollutants decreased by approximately 42 percent between 1990 and 

2005 and that between 1980 and 2010, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants dropped by 63 percent. 

I want to commend EPA’s efforts to resolve issues such as Superfund clean-ups. 

I particularly appreciate your focus on the Kalamazoo River, particularly the Allied 

site, and look forward to getting that project accomplished. Total removal may well 

turn out to be the most cost-effective solution in the long run. 

In spite of this success over the last few decades, I have some concerns with EPA’s 

regulatory trajectory. The number and scope of EPA regulations is continuing to 

grow without precedent. The Obama administration is seeking to regulate where 

they failed to legislate, and this pace has continued with the release of several 

major rules that impose billions of dollars in cost with questionable benefits. 

These rules continue to threaten not only electric reliability and affordability, but 

they shake up the confidence in the manufacturing renaissance underway. EPA continues to regulate too much too fast. No wonder so many job-creating companies are 

holding back on new investment—they not only face rising energy and compliance 

costs, but also uncertainty as to what new regulations will require. 

The worst of EPA’s regulatory agenda may be yet to come, especially with its 

greenhouse gas regulations for power plants. We have yet to see fully what EPA 

plans to propose for existing power plants, or the full impact on consumers’ electric 

9 

bills and on employment. But if we allow this agenda to continue, we may well see 

higher costs, more jobs lost, and widespread problems. 

We get constant reassurances from this administration that costs are minimal 

and benefits always trump costs when it comes to EPA regulations. Of course, the 

health law was also rolled out with a host of assurances that fell woefully short. 

Many EPA rules were introduced with the same kinds of rosy economic promises, 

and they are proving to be just as detached from reality. 

When I meet with manufacturers, I usually hear about the problems with the 

health law and problems with the EPA. Both threaten jobs and global competitiveness, and do so at a time when low energy prices are finally giving American manufacturers an edge. 

Administrator McCarthy was recently quoted in the New York Times saying that 

she wants to avoid a repeat of the Obamacare rollout debacle. I fear that it may 

be too late, but I certainly hope that we can work together to limit any further damage. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time, I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, for a 3-minute 

opening statement. 

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much. I might just make a note 

that Obamacare brought in 7 million people and appears to be 

quite successful despite the aspirations of our Republicans to trash 

it. 

Administrator McCarthy, I thank you very much for being here 

and more importantly, thank you for your service to the Nation at 

the Environmental Protection Agency. Since its inception, EPA has 

worked to make our air safer to breathe, our water safer to drink, 

and today EPA is on the front lines of effort to address the greatest 

environmental challenge of our time, climate change. 

Administrator McCarthy, Americans are counting on you to carry 

out the President’s Climate Action Plan and cut dangerous carbon 

pollution. Earlier this week the world’s scientists sounded an alarm 

once again to alert us of the high stakes if we fail to take immediate action on climate change. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, released a new report on the impacts of climate change, the future 

risks from a changing climate and opportunities for action to mitigate those risks. This new IPCC report concludes that the effects 

of climate change are evident on all continents and in all oceans. 

To learn about that report and what scientists have to say, we have 

to read the newspaper because our committee will not hold a hearing with scientists to hear from them directly. 

Climate change is not something we can have the luxury to 

worry about at some time in the future. It is already here. And the 

longer we wait to respond, the more pervasive, severe and irreversible the impacts will be. The IPCC concludes sea level rise threatens coastal areas with flooding and erosion. The oceans will grow 

more acidic threatening fisheries and those who depend on them 

for their livelihoods. Extreme weather events would become more 

frequent, threatening lives as well as critical infrastructure. Heat 

waves will take more lives. No one would be immune from the consequences of climate change, but the impacts will be especially severe for those who are least able to respond and adapt. 

10 

I know you understand this and are committed to making the 

Environmental Protection Agency one of the world’s leaders in the 

effort to protect families from dangerous climate change. I want 

you to know that I am committed to supporting your efforts. EPA 

does not often get a warm welcome in the House of Representatives. Don’t take it personally. In fact, the House has voted 194 

times in the last 3 years to undermine the Agency, 748 times to 

weaken fundamental environmental protections. That is a testament to how out of touch Congress has become and to the vast influence of the special interests. It is no way a reflection of the quality of your work at EPA which has been so superb. 

So I hope you will continue to do exactly what you have been 

doing, which is taking forceful, reasonable steps to protect the environment for our children and future generations. Families across 

America are counting on you to do what is right and to stand up 

to special interests that seem to be vocal in this institution, that 

those special interests would endanger our future. I yield back my 

time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Waxman. Now at this 

time, Ms. McCarthy, I will recognize you for your 5-minute opening 

statement, and I understand you are accompanied today by the 

Acting CFO, Ms. Froehlich. We welcome you. We are thrilled that 

you are here with us this morning, and it will be a joyful morning. 

So at this time, Ms. McCarthy, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF GINA MCCARTHY, ADMINISTRATOR, 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. Thank you Chairman Whitfield, also 

Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Members Rush and Tonko, it is great 

to be here in the—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Would you mind just pulling the microphone a 

little bit closer? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sure. Is that better? Let us hope I don’t blow 

you away later. But it is great to be here, and thanks for the opportunity to discuss EPA’s proposed fiscal year 2015 budget. I am 

joined by Maryann Froehlich who is the Agency’s Acting CFO. 

EPA’s budget request is $7.89 billion for the fiscal year 2015 

starting October 1, 2014. This budget meets the challenge of domestic spending constraints while still fulfilling our mission to protect public health and the environment. 

The fiscal year 2015 budget reflects EPA’s plans to take advantage of new technologies and new regulatory and nonregulatory approaches. It recognizes that EPA is part of a larger network of environmental partners in our States, our tribes and our communities. 

This budget will provide the support for a smaller workforce by 

focusing on real progress in priority areas: communities, climate 

change and air quality, toxics and chemical safety, as well as clean 

water. 

We are asking for $7.5 million and 64 staff in fiscal year 2015 

to help provide green infrastructure, technical assistance for up to 

100 communities to promote cost-effective approaches for water 

management. In addition, this budget request continues our environmental justice efforts. We will do more to partner with States, 

11 

tribes and local governments and other Federal agencies. Funding 

for State and tribal assistance grants or our STAG funds are once 

again the largest percentage of the EPA’s budget. Addressing the 

threat from climate change is one of the greatest challenges of this 

and future generations. The request designates $199.5 million specifically for this work. 

The Agency has added $10 million and 24 FTE’s in fiscal year 

2015 to support the President’s Climate Action Plan with $2 million designated for adaptation planning. The Agency will also focus 

resources on the development of common sense and achievable 

greenhouse gas standards for power plants, the single largest 

source of carbon pollution. When it comes to cutting greenhouse 

gas emissions, the President’s budget provides support for the 

States to help them implement the Clean Air Act. 

The EPA’s budget requests almost $673 million to support work 

to improve chemical safety for all Americans and especially our 

children. We are requesting $23 million and 24 FTE in fiscal year 

2015 to support activities under the President’s executive order on 

chemical safety, as well as Agency efforts on chemical 

prioritization, air toxics, radon, and volatile organic compounds in 

drinking water. 

The Nation’s water resources are the lifeblood of our communities. We are requesting $1.775 billion for the Clean Water and 

Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. The Agency is also directing $8 million and 10 FTE to advance clean water infrastructure 

in sustainable design like the Municipal Storm Water Sewer System Program for technical support communities. E–Enterprise is a 

major joint initiative between EPA and the States to modernize our 

business practices and to look towards the future. The benefits of 

implementing just the one initiative, the E–Manifest system, includes annual savings estimated at $75 million for over 160,000 

waste handlers. 

In fiscal year 2015, the Agency is requesting over $1.33 billion 

to continue to apply effective approaches for cleanup under RCRA, 

Superfund, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks and other authorities. This strategy will ensure land is returned to beneficial 

use. $1.16 billion is requested for Superfund which includes a $43.4 

million increase for remedial work and an increase of $9.2 million 

for emergency response and removal. 

The fiscal year 2015 budget includes a total of $1.13 billion in 

categorical grants. Within that total is over $96 million for tribal 

assistance program grants, an $18 million increase for pollution 

control, a $16 million increase for environmental information 

grants and a $15 million increase for State and local air quality 

management. Science is the foundation of EPA’s work, and science 

is supported in this budget at $537.3 million. 

And lastly, recognizing the importance of the 2-year budget 

agreement Congress reached in December, we are expanding opportunities to all Americans as best we can, but the levels are not sufficient to expand them to all or to grow the economy in ways that 

we would like. For that reason, across the Federal Government, the 

budget also includes a separate, fully paid-for $56 billion initiative. 

Within this initiative is a climate resilience fund which includes 

12 

$10 million for protecting and enhancing coastal wetlands and $5 

million to support urban forest enhancement and protection. 

Chairmen Whitfield and Shimkus, I thank you for the opportunity to testify and also to take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:] 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you very much, Ms. McCarthy. As 

I said, we appreciate your being here, and I will recognize myself 

for 5 minutes of questions. 

Under your New Source Performance Standards for new electric 

utility generating units, you specifically set the emissions standards based on three plants in the United States, one in Mississippi, 

one in Texas and one in California. The one in Texas, they have 

not even started construction. The one in California, they have not 

even started construction. The one in Mississippi is being constructed. It is not in operation yet. None of them would be built 

without funding from the Federal Government and our tax credits 

under the Clean Coal Power Initiative. And the 2005 Energy Policy 

Act specifically says you cannot—if a facility is receiving funds 

from the Clean Coal Power Initiative, you cannot say that it has 

been adequately demonstrated. 

And we wrote a letter to you back in November asking your legal 

justification for doing this. We still have not heard from you all. We 

have talked to lawyers outside the Congress, inside the Congress, 

and everyone genuinely believes that the 2005 act explicitly prohibits you from setting an emission standard if it is receiving funds 

from the Clean Coal Power Initiative. So how can you proceed with 

this and what are your lawyers telling you and do you intend to 

respond to our letter? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Mr. Chairman, I did listen to you when we 

spoke last time and we received your letter. We did respond by including a notice of data availability that is in the Federal Register 

which really explains the impact of EPAct on this proposal and the 

fact that we did fully consider it. We did have a very robust record 

to indicate that CCS was actually technically achievable and available the way the law requires. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. No private company is going to build one of 

those plants without money. You know, the Mississippi plan has a 

serious cost overrun. The Chairman of Southern has said this 

would not have been built without Government support. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, EPAct requires that we not rely 

solely on those funded projects out of DOE to establish these standards. We have a very robust record, well beyond those few facilities 

to indicate that CCS is—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, you know, that is the Government’s position, but CEOs of private companies that have a responsibility investing say that there is no technology available to them to meet 

the emissions standard that you all are setting in this new rule. 

And the reason we get upset about it is, I mean, most people recognize Europe is the green energy capital of the world. Twenty-two 

percent of their electricity comes from renewables. And yet, even 

in Europe where they in the last 20 months have mothballed 30 

gigawatts of new gas powered plants because the gas coming from 

Russia is so expensive, and as you know, their unemployment rate 

is even higher than ours and their economy is more sluggish than 

ours is, but yet last year they imported 53 percent of our coal exports, from America. Fifty-three percent went to Europe because 

when the gas prices went so high, they recognized they have to rely 

on coal. And under this rule, we don’t have that flexibility. 

19 

So what if our gas prices go high? Where are we going to be left 

in America trying to compete in the global marketplace when we 

can’t even build a new coal-fired plant? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I think we have indicated many 

times that this country is relying on coal. Coal will be part of the 

energy mix for decades to come. We know where investment is 

heading in new coal facilities, and all of them that you are talking 

about, while some of them have received DOE funding, they are all 

relying on advancing CCS, recognizing that they are going to be 

around for decades—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. CCS is so far off—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. To come. 

Mr. WHITFIELD [continuing]. I am telling you. It is not anywhere 

commercially viable. So you know, I guess there is no sense my 

continuing to press this point, but I tell you what. Those people 

who are involved in the utility business tell us explicitly that they 

cannot build a new coal-fired plant and meet these emission standards. And I think that America is being jeopardized by this kind 

of action. And I suppose event though you and I have great respect 

for each other—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We do. 

Mr. WHITFIELD [continuing]. And I love dealing with you, it is 

just an area of where we have serious disagreements. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I understand. Well, Mr. Chairman, we did try to 

address concerns. This proposal actually requires only partial CCS. 

It is an ability to move this technology forward and to recognize 

that it is an opportunity for coal. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But all of this is being used for enhanced oil recovery, and there are many places where we need plants and the 

enhanced oil recovery cannot play a part in it. 

My time has expired. I am sorry. At this time I recognize Mr. 

Rush for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator McCarthy, 

there is a lot of talk about cutting carbon pollution, and the other 

side don’t ever want to talk about cutting the cost of—or they think 

that the cost of climate change is zero. They don’t ever want to own 

up to the fact that there is an economic price that we are paying 

and will continue to pay for the problems of climate change. 

I want to zero in from the general to the specific. I am concerned 

that the risk and costs of climate change, that it would hit the 

poorest and most vulnerable especially hard. I would like for you 

to give me your view on how does climate change multiply risks for 

people who are already struggling with hunger and with poverty 

and what are some of the impacts of climate change that you are 

most concerned about, particularly for low-income communities? As 

you know, we noted earlier that the IPCC issued a report saying 

that climate change impacts are projected to slow down economic 

growth, make poverty reduction more difficult, further erode food 

security and pull all existing and create new poverty traps. So 

Madam Administrator, talk to us a little bit about how climate 

change is going to impact our Nation’s and the world’s most needy 

and most disadvantaged. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Ranking Member. The real threat of 

climate change is inaction to address the problem. We have seen 

20 

storms, we have seen intense storms, we have seen droughts, we 

have seen fires that are out of control. Many of these results of a 

changing climate were anticipated and predicted by the IPCC when 

they first started gathering. In the fifth assessment they just released indicates that what they predicted and feared is actually 

what we are experiencing now. And they predict that that will only 

get worse, and they also make the point that in addition to already 

large costs that this country and others are facing as a result of 

a changing climate and those impacts, that the most vulnerable 

populations, the poor, those living in coastal areas, those most unable to get up and move and protect themselves, that are going to 

be hurt the most. That is true in the U.S., and that is true internationally as well. 

Mr. RUSH. How would you respond to those who say the United 

States shouldn’t do anything to cut carbon pollution unless other 

countries do something also unless they act first even? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I think the reason that President Obama 

has put out a Climate Action Plan is to have the United States 

show leadership in the international community as well as to recognize that the things you need to do to address climate change 

can be enormously beneficial to the economy. If you are smart 

about the actions you are taking, if you use existing authority, you 

do it legally and technically correct, you can generate reductions in 

electricity generation and demand that will reduce carbon emissions that will save people money, issues like energy efficiency, 

switch to renewable energy. This is the clean energy future, not relying on the clean energy past. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I want to yield back the minute that 

I used earlier, so we are even now. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Thank you, Mr. Rush, and at this time I 

recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ms. McCarthy. It 

is always good to see you. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. You, too. 

Mr. BARTON. Before I begin to give you a hard time, let me give 

you a compliment. I think you and your Agency have been as compliant or cooperative as you can on the renewable fuel standards 

and some of those problems. And I want to thank you and the 

Agency for trying to show some flexibility there. 

Now I have to be a little less friendly. I am going to follow up 

on what Chairman Whitfield commented on. I was chairman of this 

committee in 2005 when we passed the Energy Policy Act. I was 

chairman of the Conference Committee, and I had a good friend 

named John Dingell who is still a good friend, and there was the 

ranking member of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, a young 

man named Rick Boucher who is no longer in the Congress but was 

a very, very hard-working Congressman from Virginia. And they 

wanted to do something on clean coal technology, especially Rich 

Boucher. I know Mr. Griffith is here, and he replaced Mr. Boucher. 

So we have got a very good replacement in Mr. Griffith. 

But we put in a section to fund some research projects for clean 

coal technology, and I am going to read part of the section, Section 

402, Project Criteria, and this is actually from the law, Public Law 

10958. ‘‘To be eligible to receive assistance under this subtitle, a 

21 

project shall advance efficiency, environmental performance and 

cost competitiveness well beyond the level of technologies that are 

in commercial service or have been demonstrated on a scale that 

the Secretary determines is sufficient to demonstrate that commercial service is viable as of the date of enactment of this Act.’’ Well 

beyond the level of technologies that are in commercial service. 

That is Section 402(a). 

If you come over a little bit further on in the section, you get into 

how to actually apply it, and in subtitle (i), Applicability, ‘‘No technology or level of emission reduction solely by reason of the use of 

the technology or the achievement of emission reduction by one or 

more facilities receiving assistance under this Act shall be considered to be adequately demonstrated for purposes of Section 111 of 

the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411. And that is the New Source Performance Review section of the Clean Air Act. 

So it is explicitly clear that in funding these demonstration 

projects, whatever their level of CO2 reduction is, that is not supposed to be used to set for New Source Performance Review Standards. Yet, when your Agency put out the proposed regulation on 

those standards, they referred to these projects, not one of which 

is in operation, none of which are even actually even close to being 

operable except for the plant down in Mississippi, and it is behind 

schedule and over budget. Now you are an intelligent woman. I 

think you are an honest woman. I think you are an able administrator. How can in good conscience you allow these new emission 

standards be promulgated when they are based on technology that 

hasn’t been demonstrated yet and by law says you can’t use these 

emission standards from these demonstration projects because they 

are not in commercial operation? I mean, Mr. Whitfield is agog, 

and I have to join him. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Congressman, our understanding of EPAct 

is that EPA shouldn’t be relying solely on our determination of 

what is the best system of emission reduction under 111, just solely 

on the basis of EPAct-funded projects. But we can look at them in 

the context of the larger and more robust technical and scientific 

record, and that is essentially what we are doing. 

We know that CCS has been used and is being used at the commercial scale in other industries. It has been for many years. The 

technologies available, each component of that technology, has been 

in use, has been tested and is viable. And so we are looking at 

these larger projects that are full-scale power plants that are under 

construction or being developed within the context of that larger 

and more robust context. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, my time is expired. I took too long asking the 

question. I have some other questions for the record, and I will submit those. But we are not going to go away on this. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from New 

York, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Administrator, again, welcome. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. TONKO. Residents in my home State of New York and all 

along the East Coast saw last year just how devastating super 

storms can be. As sea levels rise and storms become more violent, 

22 

storm surges will pose risk further and further inland. In 2011, the 

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, or 

NYSERDA, which I had the honor of leading before I came to Congress, completed an authoritative report on the impacts of climate 

change in New York State. 

According to that report, climate change will lead to the propagation of storm surges up the Hudson River and will move the salt 

water front further and further upstream. This will impair drinking water systems that draw water from the Hudson and could potentially contaminate the backup water supply of New York City. 

This year’s budget request calls for realigning resources to provide 

technical assistance to water utilities at greatest risk from storm 

surges. 

So my question to you, Administrator, is can you elaborate on 

EPA’s efforts to assist these at-risk water systems? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sure. In the President’s Climate Action Plan, he 

created a Resiliency Task Force specifically to look at what the best 

practices were that we are seeing across the country in adapting 

to a changing climate. So we are not only working nationally and 

across the United States to identify these projects and to get the 

lessons learned out, but we are also specifically focusing on some 

ways in which you can address adaptation to climate that also enhances your ability to protect water cost effectively. That is what 

we call green infrastructure. That is a way of actually looking at 

embracing water that is coming in, managing it appropriately and 

preventing the storm water surges and the sewer overflows that we 

see have long-lasting impacts on both our pocketbooks as well as 

the health of our communities. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. Technical assistance and tools are only 

part of the solution. Water systems in New York will have to 

adapt, potentially moving intakes and infrastructure at great cost, 

and they are not alone. The drinking water infrastructure needs 

facing our cities and towns continue to grow and will grow significantly with climate adaptation costs. 

EPA’s most recent survey of drinking water infrastructure needs released in June showed $384 billion worth in drinking water infrastructure repairs needed over the next 20 years. That amount 

is a significant increase from the previous survey demonstrating 

that investment in infrastructure is not keeping pace with need, 

yet the budget request calls for only $757 million for the Drinking 

Water State Revolving Fund, a 16 percent decrease from this year’s 

enacted levels. 

Administrator McCarthy, if more funds were made available 

through the SRF, could more be done to replace water infrastructure that is at the end of its useful life? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TONKO. Well, is EPA considering alternatives to simply rebuilding or replacing the drinking water infrastructure that is in 

place and do we have more cost-effective options available that 

could be applied? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we are exploring cost-effective options so 

that we can stretch the dollars as much as possible and look at 

keeping the facilities that we have in better operating condition. So 

we are looking not only at our fiscal realities of what funds we 

23 

have to be able to support these efforts, but we are looking also at 

directing some of those funds toward these green infrastructure solutions, as well as paying specific attention to small sources, to 

small water systems, that have particular challenges in terms of 

operating and generating and leveraging their own funds. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. You know, the discussion not only with EPA but 

across the board for infrastructure are deficient bridges, to cite as 

an example beyond EPA. There is just a need to invest in this 

country, and you know, the longer we prolong in that investment 

as I made in earlier comment, the more difficult it is going to be. 

So drinking water infrastructure is essential to our public health, 

and the need is acute. I think the amounts appropriated for the 

drinking water SRF should reflect that need and should be considerably higher than this request. I again would hope that this budget would not only suggest or invest in where we are at but certainly where we want to be, and I hope the goal is one that is robust in nature and one that reflects that if we don’t do this now, 

we are going to pass it on to generations yet unborn. And I believe 

that morally that is incorrect, and certainly financially, it is ineffective. I thank you very much again. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mrs. McCarthy, I 

don’t totally agree with Mr. Barton’s description of your history of 

dealing with businesses that are in trouble or that you deem in 

trouble. And I know you will remember this. When I was chairman 

of Science, Space and Technology, before my committee—and it is 

something I am not even going to mention, that you said you are 

not in the business of creating jobs. And it is my hope that the EPA 

would at least not stand in the way of job creation at this time. It 

is so important. 

As you have to know, abundance of natural gas supplies have 

opened up the possibility for the United States to be in a manufacturing renaissance almost. In his State of the Union Speech, your 

President said, ‘‘Business plans invest almost $100 billion in new 

factories to use natural gas.’’ He said I will cut red tape to help 

these States to get these factories built. Are you familiar with the 

President’s statement during the State of the Union? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, I am. 

Mr. HALL. And has the President directed to help get these factories built? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, he has. 

Mr. HALL. And to use some degree of science when making decisions that affects these jobs? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. HALL. And what steps has he taken to cut that red tape? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, he has provided some additional funding that is proposed in the fiscal year 2015 budget. 

Mr. HALL. He just added more money on it? No more—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, it is—— 

Mr. HALL [continuing]. Suggestions? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, it is actually to allow both us and States to 

work together, hand in hand, to look at how we get these cleaner 

24 

facilities up and operating more quickly and through the permit 

process. 

Mr. HALL. Well, then in that case, when and what steps has EPA 

taken to cut the red tape? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we are working very hard to coordinate 

with the States—— 

Mr. HALL. I know you are working hard, but what steps are you 

taking? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We are working through our normal process of 

collaborating with the States to identify ways in which we can 

work together and provide technical assistance to get these permits 

up and running in a way that they are legally defensible and they 

also meet the requirements of the law. 

Mr. HALL. According to the World Bank and International Finance Corporations, ‘‘ease of doing business’’ index, the United 

States ranks 34th in the world in the category of dealing with construction permits. Are you aware of that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am not aware of that figure, sir, no. 

Mr. HALL. Or reconstruction permits under the Clean Air Act’s, 

quote, prevention of significant deterioration—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. HALL [continuing]. Or PSD, as you all call it, the application 

process can take at least 1 year, correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It can, yes. 

Mr. HALL. It can? It takes that, does it not? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is the prescribed timeline in the Clean Air 

Act. 

Mr. HALL. And there can be an administrative appeals process 

that lasts an additional 6 months or more, correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. There can be appeals, and usually that appeal 

is productive in keeping things out of the court which can end up 

going considerably longer. 

Mr. HALL. Has EPA taken any steps to expedite the process for 

obtaining pre-construction permits under the PSD program, and if 

yes, what are those steps? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have taken recent steps, but one of the most 

important things that we have done is we provide guidance to 

States on how States are dealing with their permits, how they can 

take advantage of issues that have been resolved elsewhere. So as 

they are drafting their permits, they are more solid. They understand that they won’t be technically challenged, and those challenges won’t be successful. So we are working together to try to 

share information with you more quickly. 

Mr. HALL. Well, I hope you are. In Arkansas, not far from my 

district in Texas, is a John W. Turk Plant. It uses, and listen to 

this, advanced ultra-super critical technology and is one of the 

cleanest and most highly efficient coal plants in the world. It came 

on line in December of 2012. Are you familiar with the Turk plant? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Somewhat, not totally. 

Mr. HALL. Have you not visited it? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Say it again? 

Mr. HALL. Have you not visited the Turk Plant? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I have not, no. 

25 

Mr. HALL. One this important as you make these steps that you 

are taking? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I am sure I have folks that have been 

there, but that is not a trip I have yet made. 

Mr. HALL. Could the Turk Plant be built under the proposed 

standards for new coal plants that you signed last September? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am not familiar with what its output is in 

terms of its carbon pollution. I do know that ultra-super critical 

can be very, very efficient and they also can be easily adapted to 

look at whether carbon capture sequestration is available. So I 

can’t answer this definitively, and I certainly will for you. 

Mr. HALL. All right. I appreciate that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. But my sense is that it may be close but probably not there in terms of—— 

Mr. HALL. Thank you for that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Fuel facilities’ requirements. 

Mr. HALL. My time is running out. I just wanted to know what 

specifically does EPA believe the Turk Plant could do to further reduce its carbon dioxide emissions because you are all about that 

regulation, are you not? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, sir, the carbon capture sequestration is 

only for new facilities. It is not intended to be a measure of performance for existing facilities. 

Mr. HALL. I thank you, ma’am. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Hall, I might just say, I have been to the 

Turk plant, and I have been told they cannot meet the new emission standards of the New Source—— 

Mr. HALL. Well, I think that is very sad. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. We need to make sure we are in line. Well, I want 

to thank the chair and the ranking member of our both Energy and 

Environmental subcommittees for holding this joint hearing on the 

EPA budget, and I want to thank our EPA Administrator for coming to Houston a few weeks ago. I did not realize that was the first 

time an EPA Administrator had come to the CERNA Energy Conference, and of course, there is no short of energy conferences in 

Houston. But that is one of the major ones, and I appreciate you 

being there. 

Like a lot of my colleagues, I have concern with the Agency’s 

budget proposal, particularly regarding the cuts in Superfund and 

SRF funding, programs of great importance to our industrial and 

blue collar areas like I have in Houston and East Harris County. 

Administrator McCarthy, because in Texas the State didn’t agree 

to issue the GHG permitting, the EPA had to implement the Federal Implementation Plan during that time, and we have—a significant backlog was created when EPA had to issue the permits. 

When pending NSPS rules for power plants, does the EPA expect 

opposition again from the States’ permitting these plants? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No. It seems to be going well. We did have concerns in Texas, and as you know, Congressman, you have been calling us about some of those permits, and we are working—— 

Mr. GREEN. That backlog—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. To advance the backlog. 

26 

Mr. GREEN [continuing]. Is getting brought down. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. But we are working hand in hand with TCEQ 

to make this transition as smooth as possible, and we seem to be 

working well together. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Does the EPA have a plan for effectively implementing a Federal Implementation Plan, if that is an issue? I don’t 

know if it is in other States or is it just Texas? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have no plans at this time, and things are 

going well. 

Mr. GREEN. Does the Agency plan to address permitting with 

the—my concern is of further reduction in staff and combined resources, how is the Agency going to handle that with reduced staff 

under the President’s budget and resources? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we are looking at a number of different 

types of approaches both that we would use through voluntary 

measures and others to monitor facilities more effectively using 

new technologies so that we can make sure that we keep abreast 

of compliance issues. We are going to work hard and we are going 

to figure out how we can use new technologies and practices to do 

the work that we need to do. 

There is no question that it is challenging to keep up with the 

workload, and I don’t doubt that. But there is a reality in the budget that we are trying to face here, and we are trying to change the 

way we do business so that we are as effective as we have always 

been. 

Mr. GREEN. And in our area you know, delay of even longer 

keeps those permits from being issued—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN [continuing]. But that also keeps those jobs from 

being created in our community. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. But we are shifting also, sir, some in our priority 

areas where we know that there is increased work. The President 

did increase our budget for climate-related activities. He is supporting additional funds for the State in that effort so that any 

work that we can anticipate escalating will get the necessary resources. So we have budgeted additional funds for that. 

Mr. GREEN. Let me get back to the Superfund in the budget request. We have several superfund sites both in and around our congressional district including U.S. oil recovery in Pasadena, Texas, 

San Jacinto River Waste Pits which is on the San Jacinto 

River—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN [continuing]. Just east of our district now and the 

Cavalcade Street which is an older one. Unfortunately, this year’s 

budget’s Superfund request is the lowest in the last 12 years. 

I know Superfund has been a priority for EPA. Do we know why 

the program was cut? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, the Superfund program has been enormously valuable, and the President’s fiscal year budget requests 

$1.157 billion which is really a maintenance budget. We would like 

to be able to increase that, but given fiscal realities, we are trying 

to make the best of our budget situation. 

Mr. GREEN. So under the fiscal year budget proposal, the EPA 

would not have any money for new starts or new clean-ups? 

27 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t know the answer to that question. Let me 

get back to you on this. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. One of the consequences of the sequestration 

cuts to the Superfund in fiscal year 2013 and 2014, was EPA able 

to begin any new projects during that period of time? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Could you repeat that? I am sorry. 

Mr. GREEN. The sequestration cuts—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN [continuing]. To the Superfund, in fiscal year 2013 

and 2014, was EPA able to bring any new projects on during that 

period of time? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I will get back to you on that as well, sir. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Mr. Chairman, I know I am almost down to the 

end of time, so I appreciate your courtesies. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much. At this time I will recognize Mr. Upton, the chairman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, and welcome again. As you may 

know, there are a couple of subcommittees meeting today at the 

same time, so we are moving back and forth. I really have just two 

questions, so I am going to ask them both and let you respond and 

then I will yield back. 

One is a Michigan issue, and as you know, I have joined with 

both my two Senators Levin and Stabenow to try and seek the full 

removal of PCBs at the Allied Superfund Site there in Kalamazoo. 

And we are concerned a little bit about the—and we join the local 

community for sure. There are still a number of issues yet to be 

resolved for which the feasibility study failed to account, such as 

a lack of recent data and monitoring of wells on site, the availability of alternative remediation technologies and the reuse and 

redevelopment options. Can you assure us that these outstanding 

issues are going to be addressed before EPA issues the preferred 

clean-up options, and specifically, how is EPA going to account for 

the communities’ redevelopment plans moving forward? That is 

question one. 

Question two, as you know Mr. Waxman and I worked with 

many members of this committee to try and drive a consensus position on the RFS issue. We have done five white papers, a number 

of hearings, obviously bipartisan. We are looking for EPA to do 

their job as well. However, in recent years, EPA has been late in 

finalizing the rule, and in fact for 2014, EPA still has not finalized 

the rule, even though the deadline is usually November of the preceding year, as it is in this case. So when do you expect to finalize 

that RVO for 2014, and what are you doing to get back on schedule 

for 2015? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. OK. Let me quickly answer your questions. We 

certainly, Congressman, have heard from you and a number of others about the Allied Paper site, and I need to take a close look at 

that and look at a variety of alternatives. As you know, we are 

going to be preparing a final clean-up plan for the summer. In advance of that, we are going to have a hearing in the middle of April 

to take some more comment on this. We are going to look at more 

water sampling there, and we will make sure that we listen to all 

the concerns and address them when we put that final clean-up 

plan together. And I appreciate all the concerns that all the ConVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:35 Jan 29, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-133 EPA BUDGET FY2015-AWAIT TAG LINE\113-133 EPA BUDGET FY2015 PDF M
28 

gress and Senate has indicated to us but also the concerns of the 

communities around there. 

On RFS, we are hoping for a June timeline. If I can do it more 

quickly, I would like to. We need to get those final levels out. We 

have certainly heard from many folks on the Hill here that they 

didn’t appreciate some of the proposal that we put out, that they 

thought we could have done a better job. We got a lot of comments. 

A lot of good data came in, and we will be taking advantage of that 

in the final proposal. 

Mr. UPTON. And do you think you will be back somehow on 

schedule for 2015? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is a very good question. Hope springs eternal. 

Mr. UPTON. You are not under oath. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am hoping we can do better. One of the things 

that we tried to do with this proposal was to try to provide more 

certainty moving forward. I think these big fluctuations and the 

levels tend to provide uncertainty in the investment community, 

and we certainly don’t want that to happen. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On Monday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, released its 

multi-year report on the state of climate science. The world’s leading scientists examined the peer-reviewed science and confirmed 

that climate change is already happening on , quote, all continents 

and across the oceans and will get much worse if we do not act. 

The report has been called a tale of two futures because we are 

at a crossroads. We have a choice to make. We can seize the moment by taking action to avoid the worst impacts of climate change 

and realize the benefits of transitioning to a clean energy economy, 

or we can decide, Mr. Chairman, not to act. The result will be runaway climate change with reduced crop yields, more heat waves 

and disease, decreased water availability, more extreme weather 

events and the mass extinction of many of the world’s species. 

Administrator McCarthy, do you believe that there is an urgent 

need to act and that our actions now will determine whether we 

avoid the worst impacts of climate change? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do, sir. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Yet we hear a litany of arguments for why we 

shouldn’t act. Some opponents of action argue that humans are not 

causing climate change. Should this argument persuade us? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, sir. 

Mr. WAXMAN. The IPCC says that there is at least a 95 percent 

chance that humans have been the dominant cause of observed 

warming. And yet, that is not enough for this committee to feel the 

urgency. 

We have heard the claim that climate change has no cause. Does 

the science support this argument? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, sir. 

Mr. WAXMAN. The IPCC says that there will be significant economic impacts from sea level rise, flooding, extreme weather 

29 

events, extreme heat, food insecurity and reduced access to drinking water. 

We often hear the claim that the U.S. emissions in the energy 

sector are lower than they have been in recent years. The implication is that no further action to reduce emissions is required. According to the world’s leading scientists, is this implication true? 

Are we on track to avoid the worst impacts of climate change? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, we are not, sir. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Your answer is persuasive because much larger 

emission reductions are going to be required than we have been 

seeing recently, which probably has a lot more to do with our economic decline during the difficult times. 

Opponents of action also argue that requiring coal-fired power 

plants to control their carbon pollution is part of a war on coal. Is 

that accurate? Is there any way we can reduce our emissions by 

enough to avoid the worst impacts of climate change without controlling carbon pollution from power plants? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Power plants are the largest stationery source of 

carbon, and it represents about a third of what we emit. It needs 

to be addressed. 

Mr. WAXMAN. The loudest voices against taking action have offered no alternative plan to protect our children and grandchildren 

from the ravages of climate change. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is time 

to choose our path. We could accept all of these excuses for inaction 

and do nothing. The result would be a climate catastrophe. Or we 

could choose to act now to address climate change. 

Administrator McCarthy, you are proposing to take reasonable 

action to address this threat, and you have my full support. I would 

be happy to yield to any of my colleagues on either side of the aisle 

because I have a minute left. If not, I will yield it back, and thank 

you, Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Waxman. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to have you 

here, Administrator. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. You, too. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. In January, EPA entered a settlement agreement 

regarding coal ash in which the EPA agreed to finalize the June 

2010 proposed rule by December of this year. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is right. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Will the Agency meet that deadline? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, we will. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Does the Agency intend to finalize the rule under 

subtitle (d)? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I can’t answer that question, sir. The final proposal hasn’t yet been developed. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You understand our concern with the subtitle (d) 

issue in that—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I certainly do. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. It is our analysis, there is no statutory authority 

to implement an enforceable permit program. Does the Agency 

have a strategy for addressing that tissue? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, that is part of the consideration, the development of the final rule. 

30 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. Now I want to turn to TSCA which we 

talked about a little bit before the hearing opened. What is the 

EPA budget to carry out TSCA in fiscal year 2015? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Let me take 1 minute to pull that out. Thanks. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And then the follow-up is how does that compare 

to 2014? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. EPA has identified $86.4 million and 332.6 FTE 

for the TSCA program in the fiscal-year-enacted budget. This request is $90.4 million and 321 FTE. So it is an increase, sir. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. How many work plan chemicals has EPA completed action on so far and how many in fiscal 2014? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have issued five draft work plans for peer review. We are going to finalize those five in 2014. We have plans 

to release draft risk assessments for 19 additional by the close of 

2015, and 10 of those are expected to have been made final. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. Do you use current authority to collect user 

fees to carry out TSCA? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. We actually—TSCA provides limited authority for us to collect user fees. It restricts the amount that we 

collect per submission, and it requires those funds to go to the 

Treasury. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And can you tell me, and if not later for the record, 

how much of the current budget is offset by user fees? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It does not go back to EPA. So I do not know. 

Oh, I am sorry. I believe this year we anticipate $1.8 million as collected for new chemical submissions in a year. That is generally on 

average. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. EPA reviewed some 1,200 chemicals in prioritizing 

83 substances for the Work Plan Chemicals Program. Does EPA 

have the expertise and the capability to prioritize substances in 

commerce for further review and assessment? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have capability of doing that, yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And the follow-up here is how quickly can that 

prioritization be done? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I can get back to you, sir. But as you know, 

there are 10,000 chemicals we are trying to deal with. The numbers we are talking about will not get us there, which is why we 

are looking at other capabilities and screening tools that we can develop. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, please talk—I think that is a great point. Obviously, I am kind of deep in this debate. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So do you feel prioritization is critical in trying to 

resolve this backlog and really answer questions? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think it is important because we have—TSCA 

provides us some authority, certainly not to address the issue as 

robustly as we would like. We are looking at new technologies for 

prioritization based on the information we have today. We are also 

looking at a new technology that we are working in a very robust 

and transparent way to look at a computerized toxicology screening 

process that people think there is great value in. We will see. We 

are going through appropriate review of that. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Right. 

31 

Ms. MCCARTHY. But there has to be a better way for us to target 

our resources more effectively to protect public—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And the toxicologists are really asking for us to 

use sound science in our ability to do this, and I would encourage 

you as we work through this process, prioritization, I think it is a 

have-to, and this is something we can do. 

Let me just take my remaining 20 seconds to just—I live in the 

St. Louis metropolitan area, although this is really a Missouri 

issue. But since I am on this committee, I would also like for you 

just to take a quick look or get briefed if you have not been on the 

Bridgeton landfill and the West Lake landfill, the Senators from 

the State of Missouri and my congressional colleagues. It is an interesting dilemma, and if you haven’t been briefed on it, it probably 

is worth your while to do so. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sounds fascinating. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield back my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 

Administrator for serving at the EPA in a time of difficulty and 

sometimes hostility. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Opportunity as well, sir. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Section 319 of the Clean Air Act defines an 

event as an exceptional event if it affects air quality, if it is an 

event that is not reasonably controlled or preventable and is an 

event caused by human activity. These are events which the EPA 

believes normal planning would not be applicable. And now California is in its third straight year of drought. Droughts tend to 

make air quality worse by having increased dust levels, by 

wildfires and there is no water to wash that away. Are droughts 

included in the EPA’s list of exceptional events? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The event itself is what we analyze, but we are 

certainly aware that drought can exacerbate these exceptional 

events, and we work with States to identify and opportunity to 

work together to actually excuse those if you will from being calculated as part of their attainment demonstration. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. What length of time do you think the EPA 

would consider appropriate then when making exception in this 

case or these cases? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we work with the States to identify what 

kind of data we need, and then we work very hard to go through 

that data and provide decision points for them. 

We actually have done some really big improvements in how we 

work with States on these exceptional events, most notably wind 

events. We have recently completed a review of how we do the exceptional events, what data we require to streamline that, and we 

have been able to get off the books a number of uncertainties that 

the States were concerned about. We are going to be tackling other 

issues like fire as well in the future so that we can make sure that 

we recognize that the climate is changing, and we need a streamlined and more robust way of working on these issues together. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Good. Thank you. On another subject, last week 

the administration announced an interagency methane strategy. 

32 

One component involves reducing emissions from the coal and gas 

sectors. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Why do you think it is important to reduce 

methane emissions? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. Methane is an extremely intensive CO2 or 

source of carbon pollution, and it is important for us to get at 

methane emissions. It is also an opportunity to actually have some 

real impact in the short term over the changes we are seeing in climate. 

We are looking at that, and the President released a methane 

strategy, and that is a strategy that goes across the U.S. Government, and part of EPA’s responsibility under that strategy is to 

look at the methane that is being emitted from landfills in context 

of our Clean Air Act obligations. It is also looking at coal mines. 

It is also looking at unconventional oil and gas development and 

how we can continue to work together as we have before to take 

advantage of new technologies that make the capture of that methane more effective. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Are these new technologies cost effective for the 

industry? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we have already issued a New Source Performance Standard that captures the volatile organic compounds in 

the emissions from unconventional gas when hydrofracking happens. Part of that captures the methane as well. It is very cost effective. In fact, it is one of the few rules that EPA has done at least 

in my tenure that makes the obligated parties money. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Good. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It doesn’t take it away because you can certainly 

reuse the methane and sell it. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Sure. As you know, we have conducted five 

hearings on the Toxic Substance Control Act. In one hearing, every 

single witness agreed the decisions on chemical priority should be 

based on human health safety, every single witness, 11 total. In 

your opinion, does the discussion draft, Chemicals in Commerce, 

put human health safety first or are other considerations given 

higher prominence? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Congressman, EPA hasn’t done a complete assessment of any of the rules so far, but we are providing technical 

assistance to both the Senate and Congress on this issue. We will 

continue to do that, and we certainly have issued principles that 

put public health first and we would be evaluating consistent with 

those principles. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, it is important that the EPA have the authority in my opinion to evaluate chemicals. Would you agree that 

providing EPA with the necessary information of a chemical be 

mandatory before allowing it to enter commerce? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is the law now, and I believe that it should 

remain the law, yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Very good. How can Congress best ensure that 

the EPA is provided with the resources it needs to test and classify 

these chemicals? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we are requesting continued assistance 

under the current TSCA rule. We are also looking at developing 

33 

new tools as I indicated before to prioritize. We need resources to 

be able to do that. And we are encouraged that Congress is looking 

at TSCA with some seriousness, but we certainly know that there 

is a long way to go before we can rely on a new rule and we have 

work to do in the meantime and we will keep doing it. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired. At this time, 

I recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and coming from Nebraska I may have a little bit of an ag angle. So the first question 

is I read with interest over the weekend a new proposed dairy rule 

regarding dairy operations and methane. And I was just wondering 

if, in the proposed methane, to reduce methane emissions by 25 

percent by 2020. You have a look like you don’t know that, but it 

was an article that was in Friday and Saturday’s papers. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. What kind of rule is it? I am sorry. I did look 

a little befuddled. 

Mr. TERRY. Yes. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I apologize. Everything I think comes out my 

face. I look a little—— 

Mr. TERRY. I share the same trait. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I looked befuddled because thankfully, you are 

not referring to anything that EPA has proposed. I do know that 

as part of the methane strategy, the USDA has identified a number 

of ways in which they think they can work with the dairy industry. 

We have been working with them all along on—— 

Mr. TERRY. Yes, the article—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Methane digesters—— 

Mr. TERRY [continuing]. Said EPA was involved. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Only to the extent that we work on a voluntary 

program, not a regulation, to work with the farming community 

and agriculture, particularly dairy, where there are opportunities 

to have methane digesters so that you can recapture the methane, 

and they tend to use it for electricity generation on site. 

Mr. TERRY. Yes, and I have seen some—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And that is entirely, not a rule-making. 

Mr. TERRY. OK. And there is just a couple of concerns with that 

that I will lay out, so as part of that one of the concerns deals with 

the smaller dairy operations because the digester, they are very expensive. And so the feedback that I received over the weekend and 

on Monday was that if you are a dairy operation of about 300 head, 

then you can’t meet that. So I just wanted to put on the table that 

requiring—because mostly when farmers hear voluntary, they 

know it is followed up with mandatory. That is their—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well—— 

Mr. TERRY. You may be able to come up with instances it is not 

but—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I know I should never speak for one of my colleagues on the Cabinet, but I think I can safely speak for Secretary 

Vilsack that he is really talking about a collaborative process to 

take a look at how we can assist the dairy industry in this venture. 

No one at this point that I know of is talking about anything in 

a regulatory context. 

Mr. TERRY. I hope not. I appreciate that but—— 

34 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Me, too. 

Mr. TERRY [continuing]. That is something I would resist. In that 

regard then also one of the other issues that is brought up a lot 

is the groundwater, and there is some proposed rule that is viewed 

in our ag industry and by me as another way to get at water runoff. There is a list of 50 rules that they can use to comply, and 

again, it is voluntary as I understand. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Let—— 

Mr. TERRY. Explain that, how that works—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Me just quickly—— 

Mr. TERRY [continuing]. Because it sounds like a backwards 

way—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No 

Mr. TERRY [continuing]. Of just trying to get around two previous 

Supreme Court decisions to—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, it is actually trying to implement them. It 

is called the Waters of the United States, and we can spend some 

time on this if you would like—— 

Mr. TERRY. All right. 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. And I would be happy to talk to 

your community on this. But I think we did a pretty good job. 

Number one, we made it very clear it does not regulate ground 

water. That is not its business. It is clearly stated. For the reason 

why, the same reasons you are raising it is to address those concerns. And the 50 practices are actually agricultural practices that 

we are defining as exempt from the jurisdiction from the Waters 

of the United States. 

Mr. TERRY. Right. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And we are inviting a process for more of those 

to be identified. So we are doing the best we can to identify and 

to provide more certainty while allowing farmers to do the work 

they need to do for all of us. 

Mr. TERRY. Yes, they would disagree with the certainty of what 

they have to do now. The other part is last week in a hearing there 

was a question about whether or not the agricultural exemptions 

apply to Section 404 or 402. Have you been able to clarify that for 

us as well? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, 404 only. 

Mr. TERRY. 404 only? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. TERRY. Very good. Last, this is a little snarky but it comes 

up a lot. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. OK. 

Mr. TERRY. What is the budget to rent for planes, to fly over feed 

lots in Nebraska? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. First of all, we don’t do drones, so the budget for 

that is zero. We do use flyovers at times to basically as a screening 

mechanism. I do not know what those budgets are, sir. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. Thank you. I yield back my 4 seconds. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. This time I will recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Capps, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Administrator 

McCarthy, thank you for your testimony and for being here today. 

35 

I have a couple topics for sure I would like to get on the table, and 

the first one is off-shore fracking. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. As you know, numerous fracks have taken place 

from off-shore platforms in Federal waters off the coast of California in recent years. Many of these fracks have been in the sensitive waters of the Santa Barbara Channel which is in my congressional district. 

While we know very little about the impacts of on-shore fracking, 

we really know far less about off-shore. And that is why I called 

on the EPA and the Department of the Interior last November to 

place a moratorium on these off-shore activities until a comprehensive environmental review is conducted and considered. 

I know EPA included new disclosure requirements in its most recent discharge permit for these off-shore platforms, and I commend 

you for taking this important step. But this is the catch right now. 

Much more is needed, and under this new general permit, operators only need to report the type and amount of chemicals in their 

wastewater after it has already been discharged into the ocean. As 

a result, regulators like EPA and the California Coastal Commission cannot review these discharges on a case-by-case basis in anticipation of the fracking happening, rather than after the fact. 

So Administrator McCarthy, would you consider modifying this 

discharge permit to require a case-by-case review of these fracking 

discharges? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, the general permit that we issued under 

the law allows us to reconsider that and take a look at new data. 

We are more than happy to work with you. We think that the general permit that we put out was a sensible approach, given the authority that we have under the law. It also requires that the certain standards that are achieved in this effluent that is emitted 

that may contain hydrofracking, that that is appropriately tested 

to ensure that it doesn’t damage aquatic life. But if you have concerns, we are always available to sit down and talk through those, 

and if changes are necessary, the law allows changes to be made. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Great. And I do look forward to that. I think such 

a modification would be important and look forward to continued 

discussion on that topic. 

Here is another topic. Climate change, as you know, is already 

having serious impacts on our environment, on our infrastructure 

and on our public health. Representing a coastal district as I do, 

I am particularly concerned by one of climate change’s lesser understood impacts, ocean acidification. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. The coastal communities in my district depend on 

healthy oceans and coastal ecosystems for their livelihoods, for 

recreation and much more. So changing ocean chemistry, particularly in the coastal zone where much of this economic activity takes 

place, has a direct impact on my constituents. 

The just-released IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change, report on climate change highlighted several factors, including runoff and other pollutions, that are magnifying the impacts of ocean acidification at the local level. 

36 

What is EPA doing to identify coastal areas that are of particular 

risk for ocean acidification, and if you can, tell us what is being 

done or can be done to help make these communities more resilient 

going forward? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. Yes, I think one of the most important messages from the recent IPCC, other than the increasing certainty 

around the science, it was the highlighting of ocean acidification as 

a clear concern. And we have, across the U.S. Government, a number of agencies who are on point to look at that issue, most notably 

NOAA, who has expertise and others, and we are working across 

the Federal Government at understanding the science and its implications. 

On the resiliency side, every agency has developed an adaptation 

plan. We also have a Resiliency Task Force that is looking at this 

from a national level. We need to make sure that our communities 

at risk understand that risk, are prepared to act when risk happens and that also we are looking at the designs that we can put 

into our infrastructure that prevent water from creating the same 

kind of concerns that we have seen in the past. So we are working 

to mitigate carbon emissions. We are looking at also addressing, 

hand in hand with communities, how we can keep them safe in the 

face of a changing climate. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Do you see pieces of the President’s budget allowing 

for this? And also—you are nodding so I will take that as an answer—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mrs. CAPPS [continuing]. But also say to our chairman in conclusion that a hearing on climate change adaptation and resiliency or 

an aspect of that I think would be most appropriate for this committee because these Federal agencies, as the Administrator just 

said, are going ahead and working on it. I think we need to be apprised, but also there might be a role that we would want to play 

working with you. And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady yields back. Thank you. At this 

time I recognize Dr. Cassidy from Louisiana for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Welcome, Administrator. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Hello. 

Mr. CASSIDY. I am from Louisiana, so as you might guess I am 

interested in the export of liquefied natural gas. Sempra has a 

plant that they are seeking approval for to build but need clearances. A Reuter’s article yesterday spoke about how EPA had 

issued something to FERC asking them to consider whether approving LNG export would increase methane release, carbon footprint, if you will, by increasing the demand for more natural gas 

drilling. 

Now this interests me in a couple ways. One, I think it reflects 

we know that natural gas is replacing coal which has a better carbon footprint than coal. Now, if EPA is objecting that there would 

be more gas released in the Haynesville shale of Louisiana, so 

therefore we shouldn’t do it, in my reading it seems to reflect a limited understanding of the positive impacts that it has, not just on 

our U.S. economy creating jobs for those who do not have but also 

on the world economy and frankly on the carbon footprint of the 

37 

world economy. Any thoughts on that? I mean, why would EPA be 

weighing in on this? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Congressman, actually EPA did not oppose any 

objection, and we didn’t recommend that this needed to be done in 

any way. It was part of the normal environmental process in which 

we identify all impacts. And so we were not weighing in relative 

to whether this was good, bad or indifferent related to any 

other—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. Now, the first paragraph—so maybe I have a misunderstanding of the Reuter’s article. The U.S. environmental regulator raised concerns that a Federal review of Sempra’s Energy 

liquefied natural gas export project did not include an assessment 

of potential effects of more natural gas drilling. It goes on to say 

that, you know, increased natural gas extraction would potentially 

increase carbon footprint. 

So even though the article is kind of written to construct that 

you were opposing if you will—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, we raise this type of—it is just raising that 

these are part of the things that you might think about. We did not 

recommend it. We did not make an argument for it, and it is something that we raise in many of our environmental assessment reviews. 

Mr. CASSIDY. OK. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think they might have put it in a much stronger context and clearly did than EPA raised it. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Then let me ask you this. I visit the Petra chemical 

plants in South Louisiana which made gasoline, for example, for 

Northeast United States. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. CASSIDY. And they pose an interesting question. EPA has demanded that sulfur be extracted from oil, but it takes natural gas 

to do so and it raises the carbon footprint of the facility to—the 

process of extracting the sulfur raises the carbon footprint of the 

community or of the facility. And they really feel like they are getting caught both ways. On the one hand, they have to extract the 

sulfur, but on the other hand, you increase your carbon footprint. 

Again, your thoughts on that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, actually, if you take a look at the rule that 

we did which is called Tier 3, it looks at and recognizes these 

tradeoffs, but it also recognizes that the low-sulfur fuel provides an 

opportunity for tremendous greenhouse gas reductions in vehicles 

because it opens up opportunities for better catalytic converters, 

better engine technologies. 

Mr. CASSIDY. I totally get that. So my understanding—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. So on the whole, right now, I think we understand that the refineries have weighed in on this issue. We have 

considered it. It is in the assessment, and I think we have appropriately addressed it. And no refinery right now is being—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. Tasked? 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Tasked with taking a look at this 

issue individually. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Now, let me ask you because also, and again, I 

don’t know, I am asking. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

38 

Mr. CASSIDY. Sometimes they have to get a permit from one of 

your regional offices in order to expand capacity. But again, if they 

are having to raise their carbon footprint—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No. 

Mr. CASSIDY [continuing]. In order to lower sulfur, is this taking 

into account the kind of whole system approach? Well, wait a second. Yes, you have done that. You have lowered the carbon footprint of vehicles, so therefore we will allow you a higher carbon 

footprint at the facility. Is that what is being said? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, the good news is I think, Congressman, 

that in our assessment in working with the refineries themselves, 

the facilities don’t need to make large capital investments and—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. But I have been told at least locally—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. If they do for pollution control equipment, there 

are appropriate exemptions for that, and we work through them. 

Mr. CASSIDY. At least in times past there have been limitations 

on the expansion of some of the facilities in my district because of 

concern over greenhouse gas emission. And so again, my concern 

is that one set of restrictions is setting them up to be denied the 

ability to expand. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am happy to work with you on it if there is 

an instance where this is coming up. 

Mr. CASSIDY. OK. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am not aware of it, but we will work through 

it. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Thank you, Ms. McCarthy. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thanks. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to recognize Dr. 

Christensen from the Virgin Islands. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield. Good morning, Administrator McCarthy and welcome. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Good morning. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. You know, I appreciate the efforts being 

made to streamline the Agency and to meet your missions, yet that 

mission of protecting the public health and the environment. But 

there are many in the House and on this committee who would 

rather just starve EPA to death, and considering that your budget 

is lower as I understand it than the 2003 enacted budget just 

seems to help that process. 

Back home in St. Croix in my district in the USVI, one of my 

high schools is closed after noxious fumes sickened children and 

teachers, and individuals were sent to hospital, and that was the 

third time in a month. EPA has responded, and we thank you for 

that. But we need to know that you will be able to respond if this 

happens again this year, next year or the year after and that you 

would be able to help us with providing monitoring that would be 

long-term monitoring because that is not the first time this has 

happened either at this school or in the surrounding communities. 

The budget with the decreases don’t give me that assurance. In 

your testimony you say that the budget furthers environmental justice efforts, and we are glad to hear that you, too, and you partner 

with the States and the tribes and I am assuming—I shouldn’t assume. I hope that includes the territories. 

39 

But many districts like mine are struggling with economic 

downturns and budget deficits. So we don’t have much to contribute. How successful do you think EPA can be in furthering its 

commitment to environmental justice and other priority goals given 

that many States and territories just don’t have the resources? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I think the good news in this budget is 

that we have increased our request for these categorical grants, the 

STAG grants that go to our States, and certainly it will impact 

your community as well. But we also are really focusing on 

prioritizing our efforts in a couple of different ways. One is the 

issue of environmental justice, and it is important for us to recognize because these are challenges that are not only a fairness question but they point to areas where our intervention would be most 

beneficial from a public health perspective. So we are working very 

hard to get the tools and the policies in place that help us prioritize 

and direct our efforts in that way. 

But part of the challenge here is we have to recognize budget realities, and we are trying to do that. But at the same time we are 

trying to take advantage of new technologies and practices so that 

we can have our people available to answer when schools call and 

not be at every facility measuring the stack. There are new technologies that can help us remotely monitor. We have an E–Enterprise system that is going to get us out of paperwork and into this 

century to do electronic data exchanges and to have that data publically available. 

This is a whole new way that we are trying to shift our ability 

of our Agency to understand the value of new technologies and how 

they can change the way we do business so that human beings see 

human beings when they need to. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Well, thank you. I am somewhat reassured 

by your response, and I hope that at the very least, you get all of 

the budget that you are asking for. But I would have preferred—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I know. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN [continuing]. To see some more. Another area, 

a proposed cut that is most troubling is the defunding of the Beaches Protection categorical grants and the implications of this are 

coastal economy and public health. We rely on our beaches and 

oceans as a source of recreation but also as a major economic driver. In 2011 alone there were 23,481 beach closures and advisories 

issued in this country, and if we stop conducting beach sampling, 

it will be impossible for us to know of pollution problems, and as 

a result we won’t be able to address them. And cutting these important funds could mean fewer tests for bacterial levels and fewer 

people informed when the water is unhealthy. 

In my district close to 3 million visitors come to our shore by air 

and cruise, and about that number came in 2013. And that is a lot 

of people to be affected, and this doesn’t even factor in the residents who depend on these resources the most. 

So Administrator, there have been some discussions that Statelevel organizations are expected to begin to take on these efforts. 

Has EPA done any analysis of how defunding the beaches program 

will affect States and territories and do we know if localities are 

prepared to assume this important responsibility? 

40 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, I am more than happy to provide you with 

additional background on that. We have three program eliminations in this budget that total $37 million. One is our radon 

grants to States. The second is the Beach Monitoring Program, and 

the third is the DERA fund, our Diesel Emission Reduction fund. 

And you know, these are difficult choices for me, and I know that 

they will be. At least the thinking behind the Beaches Monitoring 

Program is that there is a level of expertise and technology that 

has been built up in States that can allow this transition to happen. It also is in the context of a $76 million increase in categorical 

grants on the whole to States that we hope will be prioritized by 

those States effectively. 

But I understand that there are concerns raised on these issues, 

and I will certainly wait to hear from Congress in terms of their 

understanding of these and whether or not this is the appropriate 

way to do our budget. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you having 

this hearing, and Ms. McCarthy, Administrator McCarthy, I appreciate you being here with us to talk about the budget and obviously 

the impacts that that budget will have. 

When I look at your budget, it seems EPA spent a significant 

portion of that budget on rule-making activities. In your testimony 

you say that EPA will focus resources on developing achievable 

greenhouse gas standards for power plants. 

Now, when I look at the track record that EPA has had on the 

rule-making and especially on projections on the kind of impacts 

those rules would have, it raises some serious questions. I want to 

ask you, in 2012, EPA said that its utility MACT rule would not 

result in significant plant shutdowns. On February 8 of 2012, you 

testified that EPA’s analysis showed that only 4.7 gigawatts of capacity would be retired as a result of utility MACT when in fact 

I think you further said that removal of this capacity ‘‘will not adversely affect capacity reserve margins in any region of the country.’’ 

And so when you look at the reality of utility MACT, it is responsible for hundreds of coal plants being shut down nationwide. In 

fact, a group has estimated that nearly 51 gigawatts, or about 330 

coal units in 30 different States, have been shut down or converted 

into a different fuel because of the EPA’s rule. So when you projected in 2012 4.7 gigawatts would be retired, in fact, the numbers 

show it is closer to 51 gigawatts. In fact, the U.S. Department of 

Energy estimates that approximately 54 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity will retire by 2016. 

So when you look at this track record, as you all make rules, it 

seems your predictions of what will happen are so far off and to 

the detriment of American consumers. When these coal plants are 

being shut down, people are paying more for their electricity because of the results of your actions. So you are out there making 

all these rules. You are making all these projections of what these 

rules will do and the impacts have, and it seems that you are so 

41 

far off. So can you explain EPA’s failure to accurately assess the 

real-world implications, especially as it relates to utility MACT? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am happy to talk about this. The numbers that 

you are quoting are numbers of closures that result both from the 

increased inexpensive natural gas, the inability for coal in many 

areas to compete and consumers wanting to spend less money for 

their electricity, much more than it is accountable to one particular 

rule, in this instance. 

Mr. SCALISE. So you are saying that these coal plants that are 

being shut down aren’t because of your rules? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. The vast majority—— 

Mr. SCALISE. That is what they are saying, if you are listening 

to what people are saying in the real world. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is what I am saying, is that what we estimated was the incremental impact from MACT, we did not say 

that there wasn’t a transformation in the energy world—— 

Mr. SCALISE. I mean, President Obama himself said—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Wouldn’t change. 

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. That he wants to bankrupt coal. It is 

not like there is some secret out there. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Who said that? 

Mr. SCALISE. President Obama when he was running for president. He talked about, you know, utility costs skyrocketing—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think the President has been clear in an allof-the-above strategy, and that includes—— 

Mr. SCALISE. All of the above? He is against everything below, 

it seems in his strategies. When you look at what is happening 

with coal, I mean, I hope you are not trying to say there is not a 

war on coal? I mean, there is clearly a war on coal. 

Let me read you a quote from Barack Obama. I mean, you are 

putting words in his mouth. The problem is he said things very different, and he is pushing things very differently. In fact, you are 

carrying things out differently than what is being purported. The 

President said, ‘‘So if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they 

can. It is just that it will bankrupt them because they are going 

to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that is being 

admitted.’’ That is was Barack Obama in 2008 when he was running for president. He said, ‘‘It is just that it will bankrupt them’’ 

to build a coal plant. 

So clearly, he has had this agenda for a long time, whether you 

recognize it or not. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Mr. Scalise, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard is a standard on toxic emissions like mercury and arsenic. It 

has nothing to do—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Well, let me ask you this—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. With greenhouse gas—— 

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. Because we are talking about greenhouse gas emissions and you know, it used to be called global 

warming. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. SCALISE. And then all of a sudden we had the worst freeze 

ever. I mean, it was so cold a couple of weeks ago the polar bear 

could not go outside in Chicago because it was so cold. So now the 

term is no longer global warming, it is climate change. 

42 

You got Secretary of State John Kerry, climate change is as big 

a threat as terrorism, the Secretary of State saying climate change 

is as big a threat as terrorism. We are running coal out of this 

country, coal jobs, the coal itself. It is going to foreign countries, 

by the way, that emit more carbon than we do here in America 

today without all of your standards that you are trying to change 

that are killing jobs, jacking up people’s electricity rates. The impacts are so devastating. 

So do you at least acknowledge that if that coal that used to be 

burned here to provide fuel is being shipped to another country, 

and in many cases they are emitting four or five times the amount 

of carbon in those other countries, do you have a concern about the 

impact on the climate when those policies are actually resulting in 

even more carbon being admitted into the atmosphere when you 

run those jobs to other countries? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I have two concerns. One is the concern to do 

what I can within the authority of the law that is technically available to reduce carbon pollution in the United States, and I have a 

concern that that provide the United States an opportunity to leverage additional reductions internationally so we can have a comprehensive, global strategy to address what I believe is—— 

Mr. SCALISE. So what is happening in the real world, you are not 

concerned that it is devastating our economy and it is actually increasing the amount of carbon emitted in the atmosphere because 

those other countries emit even more than is done here. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Well, it is the real world. I yield back—— 

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

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. The balance of my time. 

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

Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Administrator, thanks very much for being with us today. I really appreciate you being here to answer questions today. 

And I know some of the members on this committee have heard 

me say this before, but I always like to talk about what my district 

looks like and the concerns that we have back home. 

I represent 60,000 manufacturing jobs. Interesting enough, I also 

represent the largest agricultural district for the State of Ohio. And 

when I go out and literally meet with the hundreds of businesses 

that I have seen and talked with over the last couple of years that 

the number one issue that I always hear from my businesses out 

there is on regulations. That is the top question, problem, they run 

into. 

But when I ask them, OK, what regulations are you always talking about, it always comes down to the EPA are the toughest 

things for them to have to try to comply with. And so as we are 

talking about those issues out there, one of the things of course 

that comes up, we want to have people expanding their businesses 

and employing more people. And the question then is would you 

agree that it is more difficult for these businesses that I have and 

across the Nation like this to build new factories or manufacturing 

facilities in areas that don’t meet the national Ambient Air Quality 

Standards? 

43 

Ms. MCCARTHY. There are different requirements. Whether it is 

more difficult or not I can’t answer, sir. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, let me go on because—for example, it is easier 

to build a factory in an area that meets those existing ozone standards than the nonattainment area, and you know, especially when 

I look around Ohio, one of the interesting things is you can be in 

one county and be out of attainment and literally put a factory 

across that next county line and be in attainment. Now, I don’t 

want to say that I want to see that county that was able to get that 

factory to say, well, let us put them out of attainment. But these 

are the things that, you know, these businesses are facing out 

there, and I want to also make sure that we can get the folks out 

there to employ more people. 

And is the EPA currently considering lowering the existing ozone 

standards? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We are currently in the process of doing the 5- 

year review that is required under the Clean Air Act, and it is now 

being currently considered by the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee. 

Mr. LATTA. OK, and if the EPA does lower the standards, will 

that expand the number of areas in the country that are going to 

go into nonattainment? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, we will have to take a look at what the 

Clean Air Science Advisory Committee says and what the data 

says, and we will see what the decision of the Administrator has. 

Mr. LATTA. OK, so if we see more going in there, so we are going 

to have it that more areas in the country, it is going to be much 

more difficult to build more factories that are going to employ more 

people if these standards are lowered. Is that correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I can’t answer the question because there would 

be different standards that are required, but I do not know whether it would be more difficult for an industry to develop there as opposed to a place that is in attainment. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. And even though, you know, in the State of 

Ohio, we have been very fortunate with the Utica shale being developed in the eastern part of the State, Ohio is still 78 percent 

coal-based in our electric generation. In 2010, the EPA proposed 

ozone standards that were subsequently withdrawn at the President’s direction, but that would have placed 77 to 96 percent of the 

counties in the United States with ozone monitors in nonattainment. Is the EPA currently considering the same potential revisions to our ozone standards from that 77- to 96-percent level? Did 

you understand the question? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am sorry. I didn’t exactly understand the question. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. Back in 2010—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. LATTA [continuing]. These were withdrawn, but at that time, 

under the President’s direction, they would have placed 77 to 96 

percent of the counties in the United States with ozone monitors—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Oh, I see. 

Mr. LATTA [continuing]. And nonattainment. 

44 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I see. This is what I do know, is that the policy 

assessment in the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee is looking 

at ranges that are not dissimilar to what the reconsidered proposal 

was looking at, and I do not know what that would translate into 

in terms of nonattainment areas because that is always based on 

the last 3 years of certified data. So I can’t exactly say, but it is 

a similar review that is going on now to what we looked at during 

the re-proposal. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. Well, let me just follow up then because do you 

then think that that would be acceptable to adopt those revised 

ozone standards that would put let us just say 96 percent of the 

counties with ozone monitors in nonattainment, or at 77 percent? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It is not acceptable or unacceptable, sir. I 

wouldn’t be making a decision on the basis of the science related 

to what the protective standard needs to be under the law. 

Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Engel, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, 

Administrator McCarthy. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you for the good job you are doing, Ms. 

Froehlich, as well. I have three issues. I am going to see if I can 

talk fast and get them all in, but one is about fracking in my home 

State of New York—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. ENGEL [continuing]. And Upstate New York. It is a big point 

of contention. Some say it will create lots of jobs. Others are worried about the safety of it. Some argue that the EPA’s real goal is 

to prevent or slow natural gas development in the United States. 

Some say that additional studies aren’t necessary given industry’s 

long track record of using this technology. So how do you respond 

to those things and how will the hydraulic fracking study help 

achieve, you know, the objective that it is supposed to achieve? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, the President I think has made it clear 

that the process of fracking has really opened up opportunities for 

clean, natural gas, but it has to be done safe and responsibly. And 

what EPA is doing right now is the research it needs to do to understand what the potential impacts are to ground water as well 

as looking at what technologies are available to support the recapture of methane so that we are addressing that as an intensive climate-warming compound. And we will keep working through these 

issues. But we are trying to establish the science foundation that 

we can share with the outside community to ensure that natural 

gas is done safe and responsibly. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. I have a very parochial issue involving 

my district. It is the Hillview Reservoir, and in accord with Federal 

Long-Term 2 Surface Water Treatment Rule, the EPA sought to 

have New York City—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. ENGEL [continuing]. Build a concrete cover over the Hillview 

Reservoir in Yonkers. My district goes from New York City through 

Yonkers. That reservoir is in my district. I was one of several memVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:35 Jan 29, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-133 EPA BUDGET FY2015-AWAIT TAG LINE\113-133 EPA BUDGET FY2015 PDF M
45 

bers of the New York delegation that wrote to Administrator Lisa 

Jackson urging a waiver of the regulation as it applies to Hillview, 

and EPA subsequently agreed to initiate a review process for the 

regulation requiring covers on reservoirs such as Hillview. 

So I am wondering if you could please provide me with an update 

or at least get back to me on the status of that review process? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do know that this issue has come up to 

everybody’s attention that Region 2 is working with New York City 

on it, but I will provide you an update on how the rule is being 

looked at. 

Mr. ENGEL. There are just some mandates that just don’t make 

sense that are— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. ENGEL. —costly, and the benefits are very, very minor compared to what the cost is. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We are just trying to get at the public health impacts, and if there is a better way to do that, we will be wide open 

to it. 

Mr. ENGEL. All right. Thank you. And my last one is about revolving funds. States are able to provide low-cost financing for a 

wide range of water quality infrastructure projects through the 

Clean Water, and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds in New 

York has received lots of money through the years to protect our 

watersheds and make upgrades and repairs to our sewer systems. 

I certainly support all of that. 

But despite these investments, EPA’s most recent drinking water 

infrastructure needs survey indicates that New York will require 

approximately $29 billion over 20 years to ensure continued delivery of safe public drinking water. New York has aging sewer and 

water systems. They are in desperate need of repair and upgrade 

or they will pose significant environmental and public health problems. So I think that is important. It also represents an economic 

opportunity because we can put several thousands in New Yorkers 

back to work over the next several years helping to do that. But 

when we look at the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget, it proposes 

a $580 million reduction to the State Revolving Funds from this 

year, and I think that is not obviously very good. So I want to just 

say that. 

And I want to also ask you setting aside environmental and public health issues, please explain the economic and jobs benefits of 

investing in water infrastructure, and tell me how these cuts to the 

State Revolving Funds would impact these benefits. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. We have had to make some difficult choices. 

Clearly the State Revolving Fund is important for public health as 

well as for jobs. I mean, clearly it keeps people employed. It prevents major illnesses from occurring. It helps protect our rivers and 

streams and natural places. So it is extremely important. 

But the choices we needed to make are ones that I know that you 

will consider strongly. But we had to look at how we have been 

capitalizing this fund, what opportunities there are for the revolving fund payments to be in the system and also supporting this effort and also recognize that this administration over the past 5 

years has already invested $20.7 billion in SRF. That compares to 

46 

8 years of history in the prior administration were $17.2 billion has 

been invested. 

Now, that doesn’t mean that me, individually, wouldn’t like to 

see lots more money to this effort for public health purposes and 

certainly because of the economic growth. But there are difficult 

decisions to be made. We did the best we could, and we will certainly listen to what Congress says. 

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the chair, and Ms. McCarthy, I would like 

to keep the conversation going that my colleague from Ohio, Mr. 

Latta, had about NAAQS, National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

and ozone. America has come a long way in improving air quality, 

but counties nationwide are hitting the limits of what they can do. 

VOC offsets are now $238,000 per ton in my home State of Texas, 

and that is if they can get the offsets. Without offsets, new factories, new power plants and almost anything new that creates jobs 

becomes impossible. If you stop cutting the fat, you are cutting to 

the bone. And EPA’s rules are getting tougher. EPA recently 

pushed the particulate standard lower. Ozone is next. EPA is headed to court next week to settle with the environmental activists on 

a new ozone rule. It should be out by December. 

EPA is looking to lower the ozone standard from 75 parts per billion to as low as 60 parts per billion. A few years ago, your cost 

estimate, yours, for doing that was $90 billion per year, almost $1 

trillion over 10 years. That is a killer for the economy. 

Please pull up the slide for me, my friends. 

[The information follows:] 

47 

48 

Mr. OLSON. Here it comes. This slide shows the few counties that 

meet the 60 billion parts-per-billion rule. Only five national parks 

would be in attainment at 60 parts per billion. Even at 65 parts 

per billion, this will likely be the most expensive rule in American 

history. 

We can only cut emissions so far. Natural sources, like forest 

fires and lightning, create these pollutants. We have foreign 

sources, too. Next slide, please. 

[The information follows:] 

49 

50 

Mr. OLSON. The New York Times declared, ‘‘A New East Asian 

Import: Ozone.’’ This slide shows the tsunami of Chinese ozone 

swarming over our West Coast. Chinese pollution puts our homes 

out of compliance, even under the current caps. On top of all this, 

we still have to grow our economy. Communities can’t create new 

jobs if they can’t expand. In homage to Chairman Emeritus Dingell, I have some yes-or-no questions. 

Will you commit to include in any NAAQS standards a proposal 

to keep the current standard? Yes or no. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I cannot make that commitment, sir. 

Mr. OLSON. No commitment? OK. Is EPA allowed to consider economic costs in setting new NAAQS? Yes or no. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That answer is no. 

Mr. OLSON. No? Will EPA consider job losses? Yes or no. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We will assess them. 

Mr. OLSON. OK, and will EPA consider feasibility, economic feasibility? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. In the establishment of the standard? No, sir. 

Mr. OLSON. Will you do this before December? Yes or no. New 

standards before December? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do not know, sir, because I don’t know the results of the court case. 

Mr. OLSON. OK. If I can just move on, ma’am, I am running out 

of time here. But we can’t shut down the economy or energy production. We can’t end natural and foreign pollution, and we all 

know it is impossible to have zero smog and zero particulate matter. So very briefly, does EPA have a way of striking the balance 

between air quality and achievability? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The Clean Air Act does not ask States to reduce 

background levels. 

Mr. OLSON. OK. I want to follow up on a comment. You touched 

on this issue with my colleague from California about exceptional 

events, to get any relief from penalties if pollution is outside of 

their control. Of the 10 exceptional events waiver requests, my 

State is saying EPA has approved zero of them, zero. Other States 

have the same problems. Do you commit to having a follow-up conversation with this committee on the broken exceptional event system? Yes or no. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We are having those discussions with States as 

we speak. 

Mr. OLSON. This committee then? This committee, commit to this 

committee, have these discussions right here? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I will wait on what the chair asks. 

Mr. OLSON. OK. We will work on that. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Olson, thank you. I am glad you raised this 

issue because as you said, there are lot of areas out of compliance 

with the Ambient Air Quality Standard today, and they are going 

to make this more stringent. It is probably not going to be until 

after the election. But if you are not in compliance, then we know 

that economic development is hampered, and it is something that 

this committee needs to look at because we have some significant 

economic issues. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. 

McKinley, for 5 minutes. 

51 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms. 

McCarthy for appearing before us again. Here is a question. We 

have already talked about CCS and boiler or coal ash and some of 

these other matters, so I won’t get into that. But I am interested 

in the Spruce mine—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY [continuing]. And the fact that for 44 years the 

EPA never used that authority to retroactively withdraw a permit 

that they have done in this case, and I guess the answer you just 

gave to the fact that you don’t consider the economic impact before 

you make your decision and make a rule on it, I guess that comes 

into play because the consequences of that decision have a chilling 

effect, certainly not just in the coal industry but all industries that 

have a 404 or 402 permits. If they have to make those applications, 

you can pull them. 

I have talked to a bunch of bankers, and they all said they are 

going to revisit their decision whether or not they will purchase 

any bonds or obligations if EPA for the first time now is entering 

in—they can pull a permit. So the consequences of your actions are 

detrimental to the economic growth here in this country. 

I am surprised that you don’t take that into consideration but I 

will just have to move on. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Congressman, I was trying to make a decision. 

The NAAQ standard is really a health-based standard where cost 

is considered in the implementation, not the standard itself. And 

so we certainly—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I really want to spend more time on the 

Clean—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Where available—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY [continuing]. Water and safe drinking. That was 

more of a comment that I just hope you would be more considerate 

for the economic impact you are doing with some of the decisions. 

But on the Clean Water and Drinking Act, I really want to amplify a little bit on what Engel and Tonko, their comments about 

that, and I think numbers of other people have made that same response. Do you agree with the President’s priorities in his budget? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, I certainly do. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. This is a chart that I just wanted for everyone 

to maybe be able to get a grasp. 

You made me suck in my breath when you said how much the 

President is investing in clean water—when you see that he is— 

now, his recommendation that you say you support is half what it 

was when he came into office. He does not have a priority for funding State Revolving Fund, for clean water and clean drinking. You 

can see the numbers drop from 3.9 to 1.78. But yet I see that other 

things. When you have a chance at $555 million, you have reduced, 

because you are with him on this, you are reducing the allocation 

into that account, but you are increasing the money for climate 

change, air quality and enforcement. 

Administrator, I have got to tell you. I hold a lot of town hall 

meetings and discussions with small communities in rural America. They are not concerned, maybe to the level they should be, but 

they are not as concerned about climate change or your enforcement. They just want sewer and water lines. And by virtue of the 

52 

President slashing the money for sewer and water lines, for water, 

water quality, that undermines all their hopes and dreams of being 

able to achieve some health environment in these small towns. 

How do you react to that when you see that the President is not 

making it a priority to fund clean water? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I can answer that in a few different ways, 

Congressman, because the President was clearly respecting the bipartisan budget agreement. That put challenges on EPA in order 

to identify how we were going to expend our resources. We did recognize that there were significant investments over the past 5 

years during this administration, well beyond what had been invested the prior eight. We know that money is out and being expended. We also know that the revolving fund that States have 

been operating for years is accruing significant revenues that is increasing the amount of money they can spend—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. If I could reclaim the time. 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. On these projects. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I think it is important to also—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. So we are doing the best we can. 

Mr. MCKINLEY [continuing]. If I could, fortunately the chairman 

of the Appropriations Committee has gotten a hold of this, and now 

he is stopping it and reversing this downward slide by holding 

steady the amount of money we have for this. 

I am just going to reinforce again as at the end. These other 

issues of enforcement, clean up our communities, there may be— 

that is not what America is worried about. American citizens in 

these small towns want sewer and water lines, and for you to take 

an arbitrary—you said it was a tough decision. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Um-hum. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Think about what that decision is for those small 

towns where they are trying to improve their economy, they are 

trying to give health. I can tell you example after example of people 

of those little communities that have no money and no clean water, 

and yet we put money into more environmental—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Part of our consideration, sir, is how does climate actually exacerbate the challenges of our—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Oh, come on. 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Infrastructure with—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. You know better than that. We will talk about 

that another day, and you know—it has nothing to do with climate 

change, and you know that. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and Administrator 

McCarthy, thanks for being with us today—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Great to be here. Thanks. 

Mr. KINZINGER [continuing]. And during the long times. I want 

to chat a little bit about nuclear. Nationwide, four nuclear plants 

retired last year, and at least one is scheduled to shut down this 

year. In Illinois, half of our electricity generation in fact comes 

from nuclear plants. Does your agency believe that nuclear is critical to provide affordable, reliable electricity in the United States? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, certainly the President does as well as the 

Secretary Moniz at the Department of Energy. EPA tries to stay 

53 

in our lane and make sure that any permits can be issued and 

work can get done, but clearly nuclear plays a big part of the current generation capacity, the base load capacity, and from a carbon 

perspective, it is extremely important. 

Mr. KINZINGER. So on January 24th of this year, the CEOs of five 

nuclear companies wrote to your Agency expressing their concerns 

with the cooling towers, or it is the 316(b) rule of the Clean Water 

Act. They raise concerns that the rule could trigger the premature 

retirement of a significant portion of the nuclear fleet. 

The letter states that in Virginia, Dominion’s preliminary estimate for retrofitting the Surry Nuclear Power Station with cooling 

towers is about $3 billion. For the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in 

California, which serves about 10 percent of their State’s needs, the 

cost is estimated to be upwards of $12 billion. And lastly, the letter 

states that the projection of the North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation on units impacted by this rule-making could cause a 

closure up to 39 gigawatts of electric generating capacity. 

So I just want to ask what steps, if any, is the EPA taking to 

address the concerns expressed by these nuclear companies? And 

can you provide any assurances that the EPA’s cooling tower rule 

will not cause the premature retirement of a significant portion of 

the nuclear fleet? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Certainly we have had a number of utilities 

come in expressing concern about 316(b) that was proposed. There 

has been a robust dialogue as there always is, and they have come 

into us. They have had meetings at our Office of Management and 

Budget, and we have been working really closely with our other 

agencies to understand the implications and to make sure that this 

rule is reasonable and appropriate. 

I think you will see that we have listened very closely when this 

rule is released. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Do you have any concerns personally about the 

premature retirement of those plants? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have seen some of the numbers as we are 

looking at greenhouse gas emission projections, and I would indicate to you, being from the New England region, I can remember 

when one of our large nuclear base load facilities went out when 

I was working in Massachusetts. It was a scramble to try to ensure 

that we had the reliability we needed, and we certainly want to do 

nothing that would impact reliability in this country. But we also 

want to make sure that we deal with the pollution challenges effectively. 

Mr. KINZINGER. And so you would consider the preservation of 

nuclear plants a key part of the administration’s, what they call 

their climate change policy? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Nuclear is part of the all-of-the-above strategy, 

yes. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK. It is been reported that the DOE—you may 

or may not be able to answer this—is analyzing a scenario in which 

one-third of our nuclear power plants retire and the impact that 

that would have on the President’s Climate Action Plan—has estimated that the closure of one-third of our nuclear plants would increase electric sector carbon emissions by 8 percent, and have you 

accounted for such a scenario in your Agency’s modeling? 

54 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We are looking at a variety of different models, 

yes. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Again, just briefly I’d like to change topics about 

the benefits of mechanical insulation when it comes to saving water 

and energy. Mechanical insulation is a proven technology that does 

not require additional research or engineering. Simply put, it is an 

energy-saving tool that is available for deployment today. I have 

seen instances in which your Agency has partnered with various 

industries, most notably the lighting industry, to promote the energy savings that can come from using certain projects. Has your 

agency considered partnering with insulation industry in order to 

push a similar program? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do not know, but I will certainly find out. 

Mr. KINZINGER. So you guys would be open to an opportunity? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. To be very honest with you, I am looking with 

a blank stare for a good reason. 

Mr. KINZINGER. I got you. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I know nothing about mechanical insulation. But 

I am more than happy to go back and see if there is opportunities 

there for us. 

Mr. KINZINGER. If you are open to it, I would like to have maybe 

my staff follow up with your staff—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That would be great. 

Mr. KINZINGER [continuing]. And we could go from there. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman and Administrator, thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you for being here. I appreciate it. You 

know, it is interesting because it doesn’t happen that often particularly when we have the EPA Administrator in. But without any 

reference or without any discussions in advance, you have had at 

least two Democrats and now two Republicans talk to you about 

the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. 

This is a big deal, and as you know, I don’t often agree with 

things that the EPA is doing. That is one that I have touted before 

publically as something that the EPA gets right, and you can imagine my surprise and chagrin when I noticed that the President’s 

budget has a 430—and I have heard higher numbers, but my folks 

gave me $430 million cut to that program which is so important. 

And it is particularly important in the very reasons that are being 

impacted by the policies on coal. And you know so my district is 

not a wealthy district. The unemployment for those people that are 

still trying to find jobs is high. District-wide it averages out to 

about $7.61. But when you take into account just the coal-producing counties, it is over 9 percent unemployment, and it is not 

just the 9 percent loss of jobs that are minimum-wage jobs, those 

are the jobs that are paying $60,000, $75,000, $85,000 a year and 

came with benefits. And when you lose hundreds of those over a 

course of just a few years, and my district hasn’t been hurt as bad 

as parts of West Virginia and Kentucky, it makes a big deal. It is 

a big difference. When you don’t have a job and you don’t have 

clean water, it is not a great thing. 

But my folks don’t want to be forced to move out of the mountains where their ancestors and they have lived for hundreds of 

55 

years. And so I ask you to go back and take a look at the revolving 

fund because it is a big deal. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And I appreciate that. I will have to also point out 

that it is one of the things in the administration—you are not the 

only one. Everybody keeps thinking that it is not the policies that 

are pushing coal out the door as much as it is the price of natural 

gas. So I did some quick checking on that. Last week, on 3/26, it 

was $4.42. The experts have all told us—per million BTU, the cost 

of natural gas. Experts have all told us that coal competes just fine 

at $4 or higher. They have also told us that they anticipate long 

term over the next couple of years or decades natural gas prices 

will stabilize in the $4 to $6 range. But the coal companies have 

always been used to that fluctuation, as have the power generation 

companies, that fluctuation in price, and I went back and did some 

checking. Toward the end of March in 1997, March 21, 1997, the 

price was $1.87 for the natural gas. March 22, 2002, $3.57. 2007, 

$7.16. 2010, $4.08. So it is not the price alone. Sure, natural gas 

went down quite a bit. This winter it spiked in the Northeast quite 

a bit. It has leveled back out into that $4 range, $4.33 the week 

before this one or earlier in March, $4.42 last week. 

And so you know, to say that that is the reason that all these 

coal facilities are closing down is not accurate. It is in fact the policies of this administration that are closing that down, that is causing the cost of electricity to go up. You know, if we could count on 

having $2 natural gas which nobody thinks we can indefinitely, 

then theoretically over time the consumer who is paying those electric bills might see their rates stabilize. That is not going to happen. It is going to be a higher rate. And when you take all the coalpowered generation off the board, all those families that are struggling to make ends meet with the high unemployment rate or who 

are middle-income Americans are going to suffer, and it is a serious 

and significant problem. And I hope that when you are looking at 

your budget, you pay close attention to that as well and realize 

that maybe where we ought to be cutting is the folks who are writing all the new regulations here in DC, not the folks who are out 

examining things and not the folks who are doing the clean water 

projects. 

Also, if I could ask you, in regard to EPA’s pending greenhouse 

gas rules for existing power plants—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH [continuing]. That are expected to be proposed in 

June, recognizing the difference between setting a standard and 

complying with a standard, do you believe you have the legal authority to set the standard based on reductions that occur outside 

the fence line of the facility? And if so, where does that authority 

come from? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have certainly heard from States in our 

many discussions as well as the energy sector that we are working 

with closely that they want us to provide as much flexibility as we 

can in terms of the compliance with this—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Well, we are certainly under enough pressure as 

it is—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. But any guidance that—— 

56 

Mr. GRIFFITH [continuing]. And I only have another second. I do 

want to ask, if the courts vacate, stay or remand the rules for the 

new coal-fired power plants, how does that impact your working on 

the rules for the existing plants? I am talking about the carbon. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. You mean when we finish some? 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes, when you finish. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. They are only proposed so we—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I understand. 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Need to go through a final. It is my 

understanding that a 21(d) is only required and appropriate when 

you have an existing 111(b) standard that governs either new or 

modified or both. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. I appreciate your answers, and I yield 

back. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. At this time I 

recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Administrator 

McCarthy. Thanks again. It is good to see you again today. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. You, too. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am sure you probably remember back in May of 

2012 you met with Representative Shelly Moore Capito and me to 

discuss a rule that you were working on for ferromanganese producers. As there are only two remaining domestic producers of this 

strategically important product left in America, you were gracious 

and gave us your word that the EPA would work with the two companies and other stakeholders to craft a rule that meets the statutory obligations of the EPA, mitigates the unreasonable risks and 

allows the facilities and the jobs associated with those facilities to 

remain the United States. I am fearful that all of that work and 

your graciousness has been for naught because it is my understanding that the rule that you submitted to OMB goes well beyond 

what the stakeholders and your own EPA staff had designed to address the local risk concerns after substantial investment in time 

and effort and resources in pursuing the three objectives that you 

gave to us. 

Furthermore, nearly 200 men and women in my hometown of 

Marietta, Ohio, will likely lose their jobs because of your Agency’s 

actions on this rule. Are you comfortable with sending this vital industry and the related jobs related to ferromanganese production 

overseas? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do remember the concerns that you raised, sir, 

and I believe we have developed a proposal that is now being 

looked at that will meet my obligation to you to look closely at this. 

If we have missed our mark, we are talking about a proposal that 

is due to go out in the end of May. So we can certainly have conversations. I would encourage that because—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, when—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. During the interagency process, 

folks have an ability to come in and we can talk through these 

issues and when the proposed rule is issued in May. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I would really like to sit down and have another conversation then because it is my understanding that the 

rule that has been sent to OMB goes above and beyond. It is going 

57 

to level millions and millions more on these companies, and they 

are going to shut down. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And the crux of the problem is that it goes beyond 

what your own staff recommended in their initial findings in working with those companies. So I just want to make sure that the 

hard work that your team went to and that these companies went 

to that we actually produce a—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And I want to make folks—make sure that they 

actually understand what is likely to be proposed so that if you 

could encourage it, we can certainly reach out to the company directly. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we will—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. There are only a few of them. I am more than 

happy to do that if—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. We will reengage. We will reengage. As you know, 

there aren’t many secrets in Washington these days, except for 

maybe—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Apparently not. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Except for maybe the real—what the 7.1 million 

people that have supposedly enrolled in the healthcare law consist 

of, how many of them had insurance before, and how many of them 

have actually paid their premiums. That is the big secret to everybody. But this is not— 

Another one. Your Agency is also working on a MACT rule that 

will significantly impact the brick-making industry. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. This MACT is unique in that it had already been 

issued, yet it was overturned and vacated by the courts despite the 

brick industry already investing $100 million in compliance costs 

over 10 years. Yet, these controls are now being used to establish 

a new floor for brick industry emissions. Recently I helped spearhead a bipartisan letter, some 70 members signed it, urging you to 

reconsider the current proposal and use the tools provided within 

the Clean Air Act to minimize regulatory burdens on the brick industry that do not provide commensurate environmental benefits. 

So what have you done, Madam Administrator? What have you 

done in regards to addressing our concerns as your Agency works 

toward the August 2014 deadline? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We agree with you that this is a proposal that 

actually encompasses a broad number of facilities. Many of them 

are small businesses, and so we are extremely sensitive to do outreach to those businesses to make sure that any proposal that we 

put out will be—so to fully understand their concerns and what 

technologies are available and what those standards ought to be. 

This is very challenging. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am out of time, but if I could just get your commitment? You know, $100 million is a lot of money for that industry. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I understand. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Could I get your commitment that you will consider that investment already in whatever rules you establish? Because that’s a vital industry and—— 

58 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you for bringing it up, sir. It is a challenge. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Long, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Administrator McCarthy, for being here today and giving your testimony. 

The winter in my part of the country, we have had real sharp 

propane price spikes—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. LONG [continuing]. Which were market driven, but something that could not be controlled by the people in our area, of 

course, and we are going to have them again because I just know 

how the market works. And when that happens, people in southwest Missouri where I am from turned to burning wood, a good, reliable source of heating their homes because it is cheap, available, 

reliable, and families use wood stoves to heat their homes. Farmers 

use wood-burning stoves and heaters for their livestock and other 

operations. This New Source Performance Standard or NSPS, I 

guess we are calling it here today, as I understand were designed 

primarily to regulate industrial activities in large facilities like 

commercial-scale power plants and oil refineries or manufacturing 

operations. 

Many of my constituents are very concerned about the EPA’s 

move forward with potentially unachievable NSPS regulations on 

these wood stoves. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. LONG. And are you aware of the significant concerns because 

I know I have heard a lot about it with the pending regulations 

and their impact on the affordability of wood, wood heating? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I certainly am aware of the reliance on wood 

stoves in many communities, and we have been working on this 

rule and working with States and stakeholders for a long time. And 

I think the good news about this rule is I think you will see that 

we listened. We narrowed the kind of technologies that we will actually be regulating under this rule. It is only about new wood 

stoves, not existing, and it actually spreads the timeline to achieve 

this window out 5 years so that we can take advantage of all the 

new technologies that are in the marketplace to make it efficient 

for people when they burn wood. I know this is important. I expect 

we will get lots of comment on this proposal, but I am sensitive 

both to the need to use wood but also to the impact in some areas 

that wood burning actually has on particulate matter levels. 

Mr. LONG. So the stoves that are on the market today can continue to be sold for 5 years, is that correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The stoves that are on the market today can be 

sold for 5 years, but in that—but no stoves are actually going to 

be taken off the market. We know that stoves are available to 

achieve the standards that are in the rule, but we pushed that out 

5 years—— 

Mr. LONG. They are available now? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. They are available now. And we just pushed 

that compliance window out so that we wouldn’t be impacting the 

current stoves that are for sale but only sending the right signals 

59 

that those newer stoves, those more efficient, are ones that should 

be entering into the marketplace 5 years from now. We actually 

provided an alternative that would make it 8 years as well. So we 

are trying our best to help this transition along without impacting 

the wood stove industry which is really coming up with some very 

efficient stoves moving forward. 

Mr. LONG. These stoves are available now that—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is right. 

Mr. LONG [continuing]. Comply with the standards that will go 

into effect 5 years from now? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

Mr. LONG. I doubt—if you want to tell me now, you can, if you 

have it off the top of your head what those are, but could you get 

back with the committee and give me a list of what companies, 

what brands, what models—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Absolutely. Yes. 

Mr. LONG [continuing]. Currently today because that would help 

me because I am answering a ton of mail on this—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I would—— 

Mr. LONG [continuing]. And people are very, very concerned in 

my area. So if you can provide that to the committee, I would appreciate it greatly. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That would be great. I would be happy to do 

that. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 

back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Gardner, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Administrator McCarthy—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. How are you? 

Mr. GARDNER [continuing]. For joining us today. Last Friday the 

White House announced a strategy to cut methane emissions for 

the oil and gas sector. The White House states, and I quote, ‘‘In the 

spring of 2014, EPA will assess several potentially significant 

sources of methane and other emissions from the oil and gas sector. 

EPA will solicit input from independent experts through a series of 

technical white papers. In the fall of 2014, EPA will determine how 

best to pursue further methane reductions from these sources. If 

EPA decides to develop additional regulations, it will complete 

those regulations by the end of 2016.’’ 

I am concerned that these efforts could harm the economy of 

many States, especially States who are trying to promote their own 

efforts and other States that are seeing the benefits of unconventional oil and gas production. The University of Colorado estimates 

that 68,000 jobs could be lost in Colorado and even more in secondary jobs if hydraulic fracturing is prohibited. 

Now, we also have an immense opportunity before us to sell 

some natural gas abroad which I think would strengthen our allies 

and lower our trade deficit. 

We had a hearing last week on legislation I introduced, H.R. 6, 

that would reform the LNG export approval process. I am worried 

that the administration’s regulations may end one of the few good 

economic stories that is happening in our country. What kind of 

60 

regulations for the oil and gas sector are under consideration at 

this point? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Under consideration at this point is actually a 

release of white papers. We are actually going to be working with 

the industry, going to collect data, before any decision is made 

about any next opportunity that regulation may provide. 

Mr. GARDNER. Those are regulations on methane? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

Mr. GARDNER. Any other regulations on other matters? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am trying to think. I don’t want to answer too 

quickly. If there is, I will let you know. 

Mr. GARDNER. OK. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. But at this point, I am not anticipating any. 

Mr. GARDNER. What is the legal authority for the methane regulation? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It would be under the Clean Air Act. Right now 

we actually regulate volatile organic compounds from natural gas 

wells during the hydrofracking process because that is already a 

traditional pollutant under the Clean Air Act. It captures the methane. It may very well be that we decide not to regulate methane 

from additional wells. 

Mr. GARDNER. Would that be Section 111 of the Clean Air Act? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

Mr. GARDNER. That is Section 182 of the Clean Air Act? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

Mr. GARDNER. Are there other possible statutory authorities outside of those two? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. None that I have considered. 

Mr. GARDNER. But nothing that you have considered but there 

may be other statutory authorities? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. There may be. I have no—— 

Mr. GARDNER. Has EPA already decided to develop additional 

methane regulations for the oil and gas sector? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No. 

Mr. GARDNER. If EPA hasn’t decided whether to issue regulations 

or what form they may take or confirm the statutory authority, 

why are you setting up a schedule for completing the regulations? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It was in anticipation to send the signal to the 

industry about when it might be considered, but the first step is 

a white paper to collect information. Colorado and other States 

have been developing their own regulations on these issues. We are 

very respectful of that. We need to work with the States in the industry before any decision is made. 

Mr. GARDNER. Last week EPA also announced plans to bring 

nearly all rivers, creeks and streams under the regulatory control 

of the Federal Government through the Clean Water Act. EPA’s 

proposal would now cover streams that might only flow in some 

seasons and are isolated from navigable waters. 

In my State of Colorado, where according to the EPA’s own 

study, 68 percent of the streams are intermittent. This proposal 

could have a major impact. The bipartisan Western Governors’ Association immediately criticized EPA’s proposal on the day that it 

was released in a letter that was cosigned by my State’s Governor. 

The Governors stated that they were not adequately consulted on 

61 

this proposed regulation, and the proposal could harm a State’s 

ability to manage their waters. 

How will you correct this problem? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we have certainly done outreach, and we 

will work with the Western Governors’ Association. I talked to Governor Sandoval yesterday. And so we have been working with the 

States on this issue. But your characterization that the waters of 

the United States is actually going to be bringing every water 

under the jurisdiction of the Waters of the United States is not correct, sir. Actually, we have listened to the Supreme Court, and 

what is included in the Waters of the United States are waters 

that are navigable as well as those waters that could significantly 

impact—— 

Mr. GARDNER. What do you define as—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. The chemical, physical and biological—— 

Mr. GARDNER. What do you define as navigable? 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Integrity of navigable—— 

Mr. GARDNER. What do you define as navigable? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The same way that you would. 

Mr. GARDNER. Put a boat in it? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Rivers, large rivers, large streams. 

Mr. GARDNER. Large? What is large? I mean, seriously, because 

I am thinking of the South Platte River in Colorado. I am thinking 

of the Republican River in Colorado—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t think there is any disagreement—— 

Mr. GARDNER [continuing]. To Arkansas. 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. About what a navigable water is, 

sir. The question is what is the extent of Waters of the United 

States and is it limited to navigable waters? And it actually isn’t. 

It includes navigable waters, and those waters, that if they are 

damaged, could significantly impact the integrity of navigable waters. 

Mr. GARDNER. But an intermittent flow—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That has never been in question. 

Mr. GARDNER. An intermittent flow river could be considered at 

times a navigable river? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It absolutely could. 

Mr. GARDNER. So 68 percent of the rivers in Colorado which are 

intermittent, could then fall under this rule? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. They could actually have to do a test or a caseby-case analysis as to whether or not they are not only 

hydrologically connected but whether they have a significant nexus 

to navigable waters. It does not automatically make them subject 

to Clean Water Act permitting. 

Mr. GARDNER. Are you familiar with Colorado Water Law as 

compared to other States’ water laws? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am not familiar with Colorado Water Law. 

Mr. GARDNER. A board of independent science advisors that have 

been tasked by the EPA to study the water bodies that are going 

to—I think my time—I have got a couple of additional questions 

that I would submit to you for the record. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am happy to work with you on this, sir. 

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. Thank you. 

62 

Mr. WHITFIELD. All right. Yes, submit them for the record. So I 

guess that concludes the hearing. 

I do want to have a contact at the EPA, Ms. McCarthy, because 

Congressman Rothfus and other members of the Pennsylvania delegation, including Senator Casey, have asked me to try to arrange 

a meeting relating to EPA’s utility MACT rule and its impact on 

Pennsylvania, Illinois, Utah and West Virginia relating to recycling 

coal waste using a circulating fluidized bed technology. They have 

got these plants, and they are taking the coal waste and they are 

producing power from it. And they are cleaning up the environment, eliminating this coal waste, and it appears that they are 

going to be forced to close down. 

And so I would like the name of a person that you would tell me 

at EPA that we could talk to because some members of the Pennsylvania delegation and others would like to have a meeting with 

you all here to discuss this. So if you could— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I will have my Legislative Director get in touch 

with your staff right away, and we will make sure that we get appropriate meetings set up. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mary—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thanks for calling it. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. And then you know, the first article of the 

Constitution talks about the legislative branch of Government, and 

we have the responsibility for oversight. And I know that you all 

get a lot of requests, but back in early October and early December, 

as a result of some hearings that we had, we had asked for some 

specific information from EPA to reply to our request. We received 

it today. So it is, you know, 4 or 5 months in receiving it. And then 

in November we wrote a letter about the Energy Policy Act asking 

the legal justification for setting those three plants in the United 

States as the emission standard, and then on March the 12th, we 

sent a letter requesting documents—March 12th. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. That was last year. 

Mrs. CAPPS. This year, yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, we won’t worry about that one. But on the 

November 15th letter—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have to have a meeting scheduled on that 

one, sir. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. We would like to have a response, and then you 

said it was in the record and so forth, but we asked some specific 

questions. We would appreciate a response. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. If we have not answered you appropriately, we 

will—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, it is my understanding we have not been 

answered appropriately. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. OK. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So if you would do that, we would appreciate 

that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I will. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And then finally I just want to ask one question 

to get it clarified. Can you identify any fully operational base-loadVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:35 Jan 29, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-133 EPA BUDGET FY2015-AWAIT TAG LINE\113-133 EPA BUDGET FY2015 PDF M
63 

ed coal-fired power plant using CCS on a commercial operation 

anywhere in the United States today? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Did you say power plant, sir? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am not aware of any, but I will certainly double check. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, we are not aware of any, either, so 

that—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I know they are being constructed, and I know 

they are close to operational. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, with Federal funds, but OK. Thank you 

very much. Did you have a question Mr.—OK. Well, that concludes 

today’s hearing. We thank you very much for your patience and 

spending 2 1⁄2 hours with us. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And we look forward to working with you as we 

move forward. The record will remain open for 10 days, and that 

concludes today’s hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 

83 

84 

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 

102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

112 

113 

114 

115 

116 

117 

118 

119 

120 

121 

122 

123 

124 

Æ