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

20–877PDF 2017

IMPACT OF EPA’S 

CLEAN POWER PLAN ON STATES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

May 26, 2016 

Serial No. 114–80 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DARIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

HON. JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

JOHN MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

May 26, 2016 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House 

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Enviorment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

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

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Witnesses: 

The Honorable E. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General, State of Oklahoma 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

Ms. Brianne Gorod, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 23 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 26 

The Honorable Charles McConnell, Executive Director, Energy and Environment Initiative, Rice University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 41 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 43 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 58 

Appendix I: Additional Material for the Record 

Statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House 

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 68 

Documents submitted by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 69 

Documents submitted by Representative Mark Takano, Subcommittee on 

Enviorment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House 

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 88 

(1) 

IMPACT OF EPA’S 

CLEAN POWER PLAN ON STATES 

THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:36 a.m., in Room 

2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Bridenstine 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The Subcommittee on Environment will 

come to order. 

I want to make sure everybody here is aware we’re going to have 

votes probably around 10:00 or 10:15 is the word we’re getting. So 

we’re going to get to as much of this as possible, and then we’ll 

have to break for votes and determine if coming back is necessary 

and appropriate. But we’ll make that call as we get closer to that 

time. Sometimes these votes don’t happen right when they’re DD 

we’re expecting them to happen. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Subcommittee at any time. 

Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘Impact of EPA’s Clean 

Power Plan on the States.’’ I recognize myself for five minutes for 

an opening statement. 

Today’s hearing focuses on the impact the Clean Power Plan will 

have on States, and in particular, my home State of Oklahoma. We 

will also examine and discuss the implementation and associated 

economic and legal issues of this rule at the national level. 

The Clean Power Plan is not actually about environmental protection. Administrator McCarthy stated before this committee that 

the Clean Power Plan is not measured by temperature or sea-level 

impacts. She said, ‘‘It is measured in showing strong domestic action, which can actually trigger global action.’’ Additionally, if it 

was truly about protecting the environment, the EPA would not 

cherry-pick the science that supports its preconceived biases in all 

of its regulations. 

This hearing comes at a very critical time. Last month, President 

Obama and his Administration committed another usurpation of 

constitutional power when the Secretary of State John Kerry 

signed the U.N. Paris Climate Agreement in New York. The Clean 

Power Plan comprises a large part of how the Administration expects the United States to comply with this agreement. 

Despite all the facts about why this agreement is a bad deal for 

America, President Obama has ignored Congress and the will of 

the people by choosing to bypass the proper constitutional mechanisms for us approving an international agreement. Let us be clear. 

This was a treaty, and the President did not submit it for ratification. 

While the United States would be required to sacrifice economic 

growth under this deal, China, India, and the rest of the developing 

world will be building coal-fired power plants and emitting carbon 

at an unprecedented rate. In order for the United States to meet 

its promised reductions, future administrations will have to damage more industries such as manufacturing, agriculture, and transportation. This has ramifications across the entirety of the American economy. 

And the question is what for? For what? We have learned in previous hearings that these regulations are all pain with no gain. The 

Clean Power Plan does nothing to avert future temperature rise or 

prevent further sea rise. However, the economic costs to Americans 

will be approximately $29-$39 billion per year. Electricity prices for 

consumers in 40 states could increase by at least ten percent or 

more. Prices in 17 of those states could increase by at least 17 percent or more. That includes my home state of Oklahoma. This is 
5 

a war on the poor and will increase economic inequality across the 

nation. 

With these facts, I completely agree with a recent characterization by one of our witnesses here today, Charles McConnell, that 

the Clean Power Plan as ‘‘ideological mumbo-jumbo’’ and as ‘‘stupid 

regulations.’’ 

The Clean Power Plan has serious legal deficiencies. Even President Obama’s Harvard Law professor, Laurence Tribe, has called 

the plan unconstitutional. Twenty-six states have sued the EPA 

over the rules, citing an overreach of authority under the Clean Air 

Act. This past March in response to these lawsuits, the Supreme 

Court issued a stay of the Clean Power Plan, which prevents the 

EPA from enforcing any of the rule’s requirements until the lawsuits against it are fully resolved. The U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the DC. Circuit announced that it would hear challenges to the 

Clean Power Plan with hearings scheduled for later this September. 

However, despite the Supreme Court’s stay of the rule, and despite the fact that this plan is in litigation, the EPA has been moving forward with a regulatory structure to implement the Clean 

Power Plan. This is outrageous, it is wrong, and I find these actions by EPA unacceptable. 

Earlier this month, several of my congressional colleagues sent 

the EPA Administrator McCarthy a letter raising concerns about 

these actions. In particular, the EPA sent a proposal to the Office 

of Management and Budget to implement a Clean Energy Incentive 

Program, a program based off of the Clean Power Plan. 

Further, EPA officials have notified stakeholders that compliance 

dates will not be adjusted in the event the rules are upheld. In 

other words, there is a stay and the compliance dates will not be 

adjusted in the event that the rules are upheld. In other words, you 

have to keep moving forward on your plan even though there is a 

stay, which friends, means that there is not a stay even though the 

courts have said that there is a stay. In other words, you better go 

ahead and begin complying. 

This is unacceptable. EPA regulations should always respect the 

sovereignty of the States, especially since it is the citizens in each 

State who bear the brunt of the EPA’s rules. I am particularly concerned with how this rule will affect the hardworking residents of 

my district in the state of Oklahoma, so I’m especially pleased to 

welcome Attorney General Scott Pruitt from Oklahoma. And I want 

to thank each of our witnesses for coming this afternoon, and I look 

forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Bridenstine follows:] 
6 
7 
8 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I now recognize the Ranking Member, 

the gentlewoman from Oregon, for an opening statement. 

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

you to all the witnesses for being here today. I offer a different perspective. 

The goal of the Clean Power Plan is important and simple: cut 

carbon emissions from the power sector, the largest source of 

greenhouse gas emissions, so we can lessen the effects of climate 

change in every State and on our planet. 

In a Science Committee hearing last fall, Jason Eisdorfer, the 

Utility Program Director of the Oregon Public Utility Commission, 

thoughtfully explained Oregon’s efforts to implement the Clean 

Power Plan. Oregon Governor Kate Brown has stated that the 

EPA’s Clean Power Plan rule is in the best interests of Oregon on 

many fronts. A healthy environment is essential to ensuring the 

health of Oregonians and protects our quality of life for many generations to come. 

Oregon has been proactive in its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions. As a former member of the Oregon State Legislature, I 

helped establish some of the State’s carbon emission reduction 

goals. For example, in 2007 Oregon set a target of reducing statewide emissions by 75 percent by 2050. We also set a goal of having 

up to 25 percent of our energy generated through renewable 

sources by 2025. This year, Oregon took further action to require 

50 percent renewables by 2040 and a total phase-out of coal-fired 

electricity by 2035. These efforts and others have put Oregon in a 

position to not only meet but surpass its Clean Power Plan carbon 

reduction goal. 

Now, some contend that environmental regulations might harm 

the economy. This certainly has not been the case in Oregon. According to the Energy Trust of Oregon, the State has produced 

about 3,200 full-time jobs, added $3.9 billion to the State’s economy, saved customers $1.9 billion on their energy bills, and avoided 

14.6 million tons of carbon dioxide, which is equivalent to removing 

2.5 million cars from the roads for a year. 

The Clean Power Plan builds on efforts of States like Oregon by 

creating a unified national approach to our biggest environmental 

challenge but leaving States flexibility. The Clean Power Plan represents an opportunity for American ingenuity that will allow us 

to benefit from the much-needed transition to a low-carbon economy. 

More than 150 companies now have signed the American Business Act on Climate Pledge to demonstrate their support for action 

and a low-carbon sustainable future. We ought to listen. 

Thank you very much again, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing, and 

thank you to all of our witnesses for being here this morning. I look 

forward to your testimony, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:] 
9 
10 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I’d like to thank the gentlewoman from 

Oregon, Ms. Bonamici. 

I now recognize the Chairman of the full committee, my friend 

from Texas, Mr. Smith. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 

comments a while ago. 

President Obama submitted costly new power plant regulations 

as the cornerstone of the recently signed Paris climate agreement 

last month at the United Nations. These measures will adversely 

affect our economy and have no significant impact on global temperatures by the EPA’s own admission, so the regulations perpetrate a fraud on the American people. 

In Paris, the President pledged that the United States will cut 

its greenhouse gas emissions by 28 percent over the next decade 

and by 80 percent or more by 2050. Again, even if fully implemented, it will have no significant impact on global warming. 

The U.S. pledge to the U.N. is estimated to prevent only 1/50 of 

one degree Celsius temperature rise over the next 85 years. EPA’s 

own data shows that this regulation would reduce sea level rise by 

only 1/100th of an inch, the thickness of three sheets of paper. 

The President’s pledge attempts to create an international agreement that binds the United States for decades to come, but lacks 

constitutional legitimacy since it has not been ratified by the Senate. The agreement not only requires the United States to reduce 

carbon emissions but also compels our country to pay billions of 

dollars to developing nations to reduce their carbon emissions. 

Even if all 196 countries fulfill their promised reductions for each 

year after 2031, it will only reduce temperatures by one sixth of a 

degree Celsius. 

The so-called Clean Power Plan will cost billions of dollars, cause 

financial hardship for American families, and diminish the competitiveness of American employers, all with no significant benefit. 

This past month, the Energy Information Agency calculated that 

the Clean Power Plan will hit consumers with higher electricity 

rates. The rate increases being forecast by EIA will have real economic consequences and place a needless burden, especially on lowincome families. 

The President’s Power Plan is nothing more than a power grab. 

A majority of Congress disapproved of the Clean Power Plan 

through the Congressional Review Act. And the Governors of most 

states are challenging it in court. 

Meanwhile, the President attempts to justify his actions with 

scare tactics, worst-case scenarios and biased data. Statements by 

President Obama and others that attempt to link extreme weather 

events to climate change are simply unfounded. The lack of evidence is clear: no increased numbers of tornadoes, no increased 

hurricanes, no increased droughts or floods. 

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change found that there is ‘‘low confidence’’ that drought has increased in intensity or duration. The same lack of evidence can be 

found in the IPCC reports for almost every type of extreme weather. The Administration’s alarmism is not good science and intentionally misleads the American people. 
11 

The President’s signed Paris pledge will increase electricity costs, 

ration energy, and slow economic growth. It ignores good science 

and only seeks to advance a partisan political agenda. 

As we will hear today, the President’s so-called Clean Power Plan 

is a bad deal for the American economy, and would produce no substantive environmental benefits. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 
12 
13 
14 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I’d like to thank the Chairman of the 

full committee from Texas, Mr. Smith, for his comments. 

Let me introduce our witnesses. Our first witness today is The 

Hon. E. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General from my home state, the 

great state of Oklahoma. Thank you for being here. Attorney General Pruitt received his bachelor’s degrees in political science and 

communications from Georgetown University and his law degree 

from the University of Tulsa. 

Our next witness today is Ms. Brianne Gorod, Chief Counsel of 

the Constitutional Accountability Center. Ms. Gorod received her 

bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Emory University and her 

law degree from Yale. 

Our final witness today is The Hon. Charles McConnell, Executive Director for the Energy and Environment Initiative at Rice 

University, my alma mater, and former Assistant Secretary of Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy. Mr. McConnell received his 

bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering from Carnegie Mellon 

and his MBA in finance from Cleveland State University. 

In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your testimony 

to five minutes. Your entire written statement will be made a part 

of the record. 

I now recognize Attorney General Scott Pruitt for five minutes to 

present his testimony. You are recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. E. SCOTT PRUITT, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, good morning, Chairman Bridenstine, Ranking 

Member Bonamici, and Members of the Subcommittee. I thank you 

for the invitation to discuss the legality of the Clean Power Plan 

with you today. 

And the Clean Power Plan represents an extraordinary moment 

in our constitutional history. It’s extraordinary in scope, extraordinary in cost, and extraordinary in its intrusion into the sovereign 

power of the States, and all done not by this body but rather by 

regulatory fiat. 

I want to say at the outset, however, that I believe the EPA has 

an important role to play in our Republican form of government. 

There are clearly air and water quality issues that cross state 

lines, and sometimes that can require federal intervention. At the 

same time, the EPA was never intended to be our nation’s foremost 

environmental regulator. The States were to have regulatory primacy. That construct, a construct put in place by this body, has 

been turned upside down by the current Administration, and that’s 

why I’m here today. 

I’d like to start by explaining to you why I so jealously guard 

Oklahoma’s sovereign prerogative to regulate in a both sensible 

and sensitive way the regulation of the energy industry. We 

produce more wind energy than all but three States in the country 

with 17 percent of our electricity generated by wind while 7.4 percent of all the natural gas burned in this country and produced 

comes from Oklahoma. 

Indeed, we are a leading innovator in natural gas production 

through hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, a technological innovation that has done more to reduce carbon emissions 
15 

in this country than any other technological advancement in our 

time. In fact, just this month, the federal EIA announced that as 

of 2015 the power generation industry has reduced carbon dioxide 

emissions to 1993 levels. And because coal still accounts for 34 percent of power generation, we will continue to see market-driven 

emissions reductions for years to come. 

I tell you all this to help you understand Oklahoma’s objection 

to the Clean Power Plan. In all candor, of course we think the policy justifications for the plan are unpersuasive. We don’t think that 

government regulators ought to be in the business of picking winners and losers in the energy sector. But whether unpersuasive or 

not, ultimately, you are the arbiter of this decision. 

And therein lies our objection to this plan. This body did not decide the plan. So the members of this committee who strongly support the Clean Power Plan, as a matter of policy I say to you this: 

Pass a bill. Let democracy decide whether a Clean Power Plan is 

right for America. But we didn’t get democracy. We got a regulatory cram-down through the actions of the EPA. 

And to those who claim that the Clean Air Act unambiguously 

authorizes the EPA to enact through rule the Clean Power Plan I 

say to you this: If that were so, how do you explain the unprecedented step that the Chairman mentioned that the United States 

Supreme Court took recently to issue a stay in this proceeding? 

That stay was entered because five members of the Court thought 

that this plan, this Clean Power Plan rule was unlawful. And those 

five members were correct. 

Although this body has debated a number of bills through the 

years designed to achieve de-carbonization, it has never adopted 

any such legislation. Frustrated with Congress, the EPA now purports to have discovered sweeping authority in section 111(d), an 

obscure provision in the Clean Air Act that has been used only five 

times in 45 years. According to the EPA, section 111(d) authorizes 

it to use the States to impose on power plants emission reduction 

requirements that are premised not on pollution control measures 

at the regulated plants but on reducing or eliminating operations 

at those plans and shifting their electricity generation to competitors, something the EPA euphemistically calls ‘‘generation shifting.’’ 

None of this can be reconciled with the words this body enacted 

in section 111. Section 111(d) authorizes the EPA to establish procedures under which the States set standards of performance for 

an existing source. Those standards must reflect the applicant—application of the best system of emission reduction to that source to 

a building structure, facility, or installation. In other words, the 

EPA may seek to reduce emissions only through measures that can 

be implemented by individuals—individual facilities, something 

called ‘‘inside the fence.’’ Indeed, for 45 years this is the way the 

EPA has interpreted the provision. 

Finally, the rule violates the Constitution. Cooperative federalism programs must provide States with the meaningful opportunity to decline implementation, but the rule does not do so. 

States that decline to take legislative or regulatory action to ensure 

increased generation by the EPA’s action face the threat of insufficient electricity to meet their demand. The rule is thus an act of 
16 

commandeering that leaves the States no choice but to alter laws 

and programs governing electricity generation and delivery to accord with federal policy. 

If the EPA gets its way, section 111(d) will be transformed from 

a limited provision into the most powerful part of the Clean Air 

Act, making the EPA a central planner for every single industry 

that emits carbon dioxide. Congress did not intend, could not have 

imagined such a result when it passed the provision more than 45 

years ago. 

Finally, there are some who wish to create a false dichotomy between those who are ‘‘for’’ clean power and those who are ‘‘against’’ 

clean power. I urge this committee to resist such rhetoric. We are 

all for clean power, and no one, no bureaucrat in D.C., no environmentalist in California has a stronger interest in clean air and 

clean water in Oklahoma than we do. That is our air that our children breathe and the water that our grandchildren will swim in, 

and that is why I jealously guard my State’s prerogative to craft 

regulations that make sense for Oklahoma. And more importantly, 

that is why I vigorously advocate for the rule of law, for the democratic process, and for the respect that the Constitution’s separation of powers between the Federal Government and the States. 

Mr. Chairman, I again appreciate the opportunity to discuss 

these issues with you, and I look forward to the questions at the 

end of our testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pruitt follows:] 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I’d like to thank the Attorney General 

for his testimony. 

Ms. Gorod, you are now recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MS. BRIANNE GOROD, 

CHIEF COUNSEL, 

CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER 

Ms. GOROD. Thank you——— 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Could you turn on your mike? 

Ms. GOROD. I would like to thank the subcommittee for inviting 

me to assist its members and their colleagues in considering the legality and benefits of the Clean Power Plan. 

I am Chief Counsel of the Constitutional Accountability Center, 

a public interest law firm, think tank, and action center dedicated 

to the progressive promise of our Constitution, and I serve as counsel in the current legal challenge to the Clean Power Plan to over 

200 current and former Members of Congress. 

I’m really pleased to be here today to discuss the Clean Power 

Plan because its implementation is of critical importance to the 

public health and welfare of our citizenry. The Clean Power Plan, 

once implemented, will produce critically important reductions in 

carbon dioxide emissions from what are by far the largest emitters 

in the United States: fossil fuel-fired power plants. These reductions are necessary because the emissions of carbon dioxide and 

other heat-trapping greenhouse gases are driving long-lasting 

changes to our climate that pose a tremendous threat to Americans’ health and welfare. 

The benefits of the Clean Power Plan rule will be significant. 

EPA projects that the Clean Power Plan will help cut carbon pollution from the power sector by 30 percent from 2005 levels and will 

also cut pollution at least to soot and to smog by over 25 percent 

in 2030. The Clean Power Plan will also lead to climate and health 

benefits worth an estimated $55–93 billion in 2030, including 

avoiding 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 

asthma attacks in children. 

And the Clean Power Plan will achieve these environmental and 

public health benefits while also producing economic benefits, including new jobs and savings for U.S. households on their electricity bills. 

Despite these tremendous benefits of the Clean Power Plan, opponents of the rule have challenged the rule’s legality arguing, 

among other things, that the EPA acted without lawful authority 

in promulgating the rule and that it unconstitutionally intrudes on 

State authority. These arguments are both wrong. 

First, the EPA clearly acted with lawful authority when it promulgated the rule. Opponents of the rule like to say that the Clean 

Power Plan is an example of executive overreach, President Obama 

acting through executive action because he couldn’t get legislation 

passed through Congress. We of course heard this a moment ago 

from Attorney General Pruitt urging members of this subcommittee 

to pass a bill. 

Well, Congress did pass a bill. Congress passed the Clean Air 

Act, and in the Clean Air Act, Congress addressed the serious 

threat it recognized was posed by air pollution. And in the Clean 
24 

Air Act, Congress did what it often does when it passes legislation. 

It set out broad goals and provided guidance about how to achieve 

those goals. Congress then gave an expert agency, in this case the 

EPA, the authority to fill in some of the details about how best to 

achieve those goals. 

Congress recognized that this approach was particularly necessary in the context of environmental issues where the issues are 

complicated and technical, and understanding of the precise nature 

of the problem is often evolving. Indeed, Congress specifically used 

broad language in certain provisions because it wanted the EPA to 

have the flexibility to address a wide variety of pollutants both 

known and unknown. Congress wanted the law to be comprehensive, and it wanted the law to be forward-looking. 

Significantly, the United States Supreme Court has previously 

recognized that Congress drafted the Clean Air Act to provide the 

flexibility to address new and evolving problems and that EPA is 

at the frontline of determining when and how—of course consistent 

with the statutory guidance provided by Congress to address those 

problems. 

The Clean Power Plan is a lawful exercise of the authority Congress conferred on the EPA in the Clean Air Act because the Clean 

Power Plan is consistent with the text, with the structure, and 

with the history of the Clean Air Act. Most significantly, Congress 

enacted the 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act to put in place 

a comprehensive regulatory regime that would govern all air pollutants that EPA determined were harmful to the public health 

and welfare. 

The provision on which EPA relied in promulgating the Clean 

Power Plan rule was a critical component of that comprehensive 

program because it directed EPA to regulate pollutants that are or 

may be harmful to the public health or welfare but that cannot be 

regulated under other specific programs established in the statute. 

If the courts were to conclude that the Clean Power Plan is unlawful, EPA would not be able to do what Congress directed it to 

do in the Clean Air Act, that is, comprehensively regulate harmful 

air pollutants. By promulgating the Clean Power Plan, EPA helps 

effectuate the robust clean air and public health policy that Congress established in the Clean Air Act. 

Second, the rule does not unlawfully intruded on State authority. 

In fact, the Clean Power Plan respects State authority by giving 

the States the opportunity to design an emissions reduction plan 

that makes sense for their citizens. If the States choose not to avail 

themselves of that opportunity, the EPA will directly regulate 

sources within those States. But the States themselves face no 

sanctions and the States themselves are not compelled to take any 

action to implement the resulting Federal standards. Tellingly, 18 

States and the District of Columbia have intervened in the legal 

challenge to the Clean Power Plan to support the rule and its legality. 

In short, the Clean Power Plan is entirely lawful. If the courts 

were to conclude otherwise, it would critically undermine not only 

the Nation’s fight against air pollution but the statutory scheme 

that Congress put in place when it enacted the Clean Air Act. 
25 

So thank you again for giving me the opportunity to testify this 

morning, and I look forward to answering questions from the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gorod follows:] 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Ms. Gorod. 

I just want to give everybody a quick update. We’re being told 

that votes are going to be called between 10:00 and 10:15. If votes 

are called, we want to give people an opportunity to ask questions 

of the witnesses, so we will come back after votes, and if it votes 

are called while Mr. McConnell is giving his testimony, we’ll let 

him finish before we take a recess. 

So with that, Mr. McConnell, you are recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. CHARLES MCCONNELL, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT INITIATIVE, 

RICE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee, for the opportunity to testify today. I will discuss how 

this plan does not impact the environment and then discuss the 

large and disturbing impact on what we at your alma mater of Rice 

University, Mr. Chairman, call energy sustainability. 

The Clean Power Plan has been falsely sold as impactful environmental regulation when it’s really an attempt by our primary federal environmental regulator to take over federal and state regulation of energy. 

Let me be very clear. I believe science and technology confirms 

that the climate is changing. I’m not in denial. I also believe 

science and technology confirms that CO2 is a contributor or a forcing function for climate change. It’s certainly not the exclusive forcing function, but it is a major contributor. These two facts, I believe, are scientifically and technically documented, and we have an 

obligation as a society to address those concerns. 

But with that said, what’s also clear scientifically and technically 

is that EPA’s plan will not significantly impact global emissions. If 

the definition of clean was simply the reduction of atmospheric CO2

levels, and that’s a naively narrow and incorrect perspective, by the 

way, but even if it were, then this Clean Power Plan is not the pursuit of clean. 

If you refer to the chart being projected and as has been referenced earlier and discussion today, I’ve previously testified that 

the Clean Power Plan reduces the amount of anthropogenic CO2

globally by .2 percent, less than 1 ppm. The global temperature rise 

would decrease by .01 degree Fahrenheit, and the resulting sea 

level rise reduction would be 1/100 of an inch, which is about the 

equivalent of two human hairs. These are scientific and technical 

facts, and facts are stubborn things. 

For context, consider that all of the U.S. annual emissions in 

2025 will be offset by 3 weeks of Chinese emissions, 3 weeks. So 

it’s dramatically uneventful. Is this impactful climate regulation? I 

think not. A committee dedicated to science and technology surely 

cannot and should not recognize this as effective climate legislation. I certainly won’t sit here and recognize it as such. 

The other stubborn fact is that the U.S. energy landscape is 

made up of the makers and the takers. The makers such as your 

home State of Oklahoma, my home States of Ohio and Pennsylvania, and my adopted home of Texas, supply the vast majority of 

all forms of energy, electricity as well as petrochemicals and fuels, 
42 

to the heartland of America, and it’s the foundation of our U.S. 

competitiveness in manufacturing jobs. These makers also bear the 

disproportionate CPP implementation burden as seven States bear 

40 percent of the actual CO2 reduction. 

The takers, well, they have the good fortune to receive reliable, 

low-cost energy from those that make but bear little burden in 

terms of responsibility for this so-called societal plan. What I’ll recognize is is that the Clean Power Plan will cause double-digit electricity price increases in over half of our States from not just the 

operating costs of generation but the hidden costs of this regulation 

in transmission investment and necessary reliability redundancy. 

Energy sustainability means energy that’s accessible, secure, and 

affordable, affordable for our citizens and for global manufacturing, 

and it’s environmentally responsible. And I submit to you that 

through transformative technology that focuses on the emissions of 

electricity production and not the fuel that every major source of 

energy we have today can be used in an environmentally responsible manner. That’s a real all-of-the-above strategy. The Clean 

Power Plan is not. It’s a waste of citizens’ money with redundant 

capital charges and charges for electricity for no environmental 

benefit. 

You know, when the EPA was hatching the Clean Power Plan, 

I was witness to EPA asking my office at the Department of Energy in fossil energy to comment on an EPA-defined concept of resource adequacy, not reliability. And you might ask why. Well, it’s 

inconvenient truth. For those wondering what resources adequacy 

means, it means there’s sufficient theoretical capacity to generate 

power above predicted demand, but this is simply theoretical linguistic mumbo-jumbo offered by that agency in order to sound like 

a thoughtful analysis. It’s theoretical, but it’s not thoughtful. Reliability means reliability, and available power means available 

power, not theoretically available. 

As to the legality of the rule, I’m no lawyer but I am a citizen, 

and I believe the comments that have been made today about the 

legality are certainly worth thinking about and considering strongly. Science and technology requires real understanding and real 

facts. The CPP is not worthy of that as it doesn’t meet those tests. 

I wish this discussion could be about relevant and impactful technology development for all electricity generation and not misguided 

regulatory policy, that’s if we all really care about energy sustainability. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McConnell follows:] 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I’d like to thank Mr. McConnell for his 

testimony. 

Members are reminded that committee rules limit questioning to 

five minutes. As we proceed here, just so everybody knows, we’re 

working on passing an energy and water development appropriations bill. We had a Republican conference meeting this morning, 

and now we’re going to have votes very shortly. So if we need to 

recess, we will. We want to give everybody an opportunity to ask 

questions, and it’s possible—although it is a fly-out day, it’s possible that we’d have more members of this subcommittee here after 

we have votes. 

So with that, I’ll recognize myself for five minutes. 

Attorney General Pruitt, I wanted to ask a question regarding 

the Clean Power Plan. When you think about its implementation, 

we often hear about the immediate impact that the Clean Power 

Plan will have on ratepayers. We hear about those impacts. Can 

you share with us what are some of the secondary and tertiary impacts from the Clean Power Plan on the state of Oklahoma or other 

states and how that might affect us? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, if I might, Mr. Chairman, I do think that the 

impact on consumers is significant. We have had experience in 

Oklahoma just with one rule, the regional haze portions of the 

Clean Air Act, that deal with aesthetics and not safety and health, 

that that one rule that was adopted in 2011 has generated over $1 

billion of added cost to ratepayers in the State of Oklahoma, which 

equates to almost 15 to 20 percent increases in utility rates. 

I mean, what people don’t talk about often with respect to this 

type of action by the EPA, it is the most regressive steps that can 

be taken. It’s effectively a tax on those that can least afford it. And 

when you look at State look Oklahoma when we’re already generating 17 percent of our electricity through wind, the Ranking Member indicated that for Oregon there’s a goal, I think, if I heard correctly of 25 percent where—electricity generation by the year 2025. 

We’re already at 17 percent in Oklahoma. 

And so when the EPA takes this step to force upon Oklahoma 

a 30 plus reduction in its carbon footprint, the question has to be 

asked: Where do we go and how do we impose or take the steps 

that are necessary to address that and how does it impact consumers? 

I mean, as far as the secondary impact, I think it’s clear that it 

will affect manufacturing, I think it’s clear that it’ll affect economic 

developments, and that’s something that’s talked about quite a bit. 

But as far as real, objective, measurable cost, we have seen it impact consumers, the ratepayers in a very significant way, and that 

will continue. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. As you’re aware, Attorney General, 

there are a lot of businesses that are looking for places to locate, 

and when they believe that the state of Oklahoma is going to have 

their electricity prices increased by 20 percent, manufacturers start 

looking elsewhere. And this is going to be a tough challenge for us, 

for our state as we go forward, and I thank you for your leadership 

on these very important issues. 

I wanted to also ask, from a legal perspective the idea that the 

Supreme Court provided a stay and then the EPA turns around 
59 

and says depending on what the outcome is, the date of implementation will not change. Have you ever seen this kind of activity before where a stay is issued and yet all the plans and processes 

move forward? 

Mr. PRUITT. No. Look, I mean, I think it’s important, Mr. Chairman, to recognize the unprecedented step that took place here. I 

mean, the U.S. Supreme Court intervened to issue a stay against 

this rule. It’s never occurred in history. They largely did it in my 

estimation because of what happened in the Michigan v. EPA case. 

The States brought a lawsuit against the EPA dealing with the 

Mercury rule because the EPA disregarded the cost-benefit analysis under that rule, and we won, but it took three years as a collection of States to the EPA accountable. 

Postscript the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, there were some 

braggadocious comments made by the EPA, and as such, I think 

the U.S. Supreme Court took a very aggressive and a right step to 

issue a stay in this proceeding. 

To your question, no, it’s something we have not seen before. The 

case law, we think, clearly supports that there should be a suspension of the dates while the stay is in place, and that’s something 

that will be argued at the appropriate time. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Excellent. Mr. McConnell, I read your 

testimony, and you talked in your testimony about the interagency 

process that happens within the Administration. Can you share 

with us your thoughts on how that interagency process went and 

the questions you were asked as the person in charge of fuels? 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Well, the interagency collaboration is a—kind 

of a convenient term, but in fact it doesn’t happen in its honest 

form. Very often, the information that’s being asked of it—by agencies such as fossil energy by the EPA will look at 600-page documents and we get a weekend to look at it. The technology and the 

details in those documents often required a tremendous amount of 

scrutiny, and the time provided was ridiculously short. 

I guess my biggest concern is it’s a disingenuous conversation 

that occurs when we talk about interagency collaboration. I surely 

didn’t see it, and that wasn’t just for this but it was for the MATS 

ruling and several other technologies. I often heard comments back 

from EPA at the very highest levels of we don’t really let the technology issues bother us as we forward our policy activities. And 

that was very disturbing. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. So I am out of time. 

I recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Bonamici, for five minutes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Gorod, in February the Supreme Court granted a stay of implementation, as we’ve heard, pending the—a decision by the DC. 

Court of Appeals. They did not grant an injunction. So what does 

that mean? Does that stop work on this issue? 

Ms. GOROD. It doesn’t at all. And I think that is exactly the right 

distinction to highlight. The Supreme Court issued a stay and not 

an injunction. Now, that may seem like technical legal jargon, but 

it’s actually quite important from a legal perspective. 

Chief Justice John Roberts actually explained the distinction in 

a Supreme Court opinion a few years ago. He explained that a stay 

temporarily divests an order of enforceability, whereas an injunc-
60 

tion directs the conduct of a party. So in other words what that 

means is an injunction is a binding restriction on the conduct of an 

agency. A stay is much less powerful focusing only on the enforceability of the rule. 

And what that means in this context is that the EPA can’t enforce the regulatory requirements on the States while the stay is 

in effect, and the EPA has made very clear that it is not doing that. 

It’s making——— 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And I’m going to try—I don’t mean 

to interrupt, but I have several other questions. Thank you. That 

was a good clarification. 

Now, you’ve heard opponents of the Administration’s efforts to 

address climate change suggest that even if the United States were 

to meet the goals of the Clean Power Plan it would have a minimal 

impact on power—on climate change. You’ve also heard that the 

Clean—and testified that the Clean Power Plan will reduce carbon 

emissions, and some have said there’s no benefit from that. Do you 

agree? Can you talk about why it’s important to have the Clean 

Power Plan? 

Ms. GOROD. It’s absolutely important to have the Clean Power 

Plan because these carbon dioxide emissions the emissions of other 

heat-trapping greenhouse gases are producing real and meaningful 

effects on our climate that are having serious effects on weather 

events the health of our citizenry. 

It’s worth noting that a number of States have filed in the lawsuit because they realize how important it is that we have these 

reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, and they’ve also made clear 

that contrary to what Attorney General Pruitt just said, making 

these reductions will benefit not only the public health of their citizens, it will benefit not only the environment of their citizens, but 

that states can make these reductions while also achieving real 

meaningful economic benefits. 

They said, for example, that in their first three years partici- pating in a regional greenhouse gas initiative they realized $1.6 billion in net economic benefits. And it’s also worth recognizing that 

the Clean Power Plan is one important respect in which the United 

States is showing its commitment to reducing global carbon dioxide 

emissions, and it’s that sort of commitment, the setting of these 

ambitious goals, that encouraged 195 nations to sign onto the Paris 

agreement. An important part of making sure that these other 

countries follow through will be the United States following 

through on its own commitments. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And you heard the claims that EPA 

is overstepping its authority by developing the Clean Power Plan, 

so why are these claims inaccurate? And I wanted to know if you 

would please explain a little bit more of what you said in your written testimony as a textbook example of cooperative federalism. Can 

you please elaborate on that point and maybe give us some other 

examples of cooperative federalism we should consider when we’re 

thinking about this issue. 

Ms. GOROD. Sure. So cooperative federalism is quite simple. The 

basic idea is the Federal Government and the States work together. 

The Federal Government will set goals or guidelines and the States 

have the option if they want of regulating in whatever way works 
61 

best for their citizens consistent with local conditions in their 

states. If the States choose not to regulate, then the federal government will regulate directly without requiring the states to do anything. 

There is an environmental statute that dealt with surface mining 

and, the federal government gave the States the option of regulating and said if you don’t want to regulate, the Federal Government will do it in your stead. There was a case involving a radioactive waste act that again gave a state the option of regulating 

the waste themselves or letting the Federal Government do it. 

And I think what’s so important about those examples is that 

there was litigation, it went up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court approved of those programs. It said there is no constitutional problem with the federal government giving the states 

the option to regulate in this way and then regulating if the States 

choose not to. 

The Clean Power Plan is not meaningfully different in any way 

from these prior examples of cooperative federalism, and I feel confident that the courts will recognize that when we actually have a 

merits resolution of the case. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And you mentioned the regional efforts. I assume that’s RGGI that you’re speaking about? 

Ms. GOROD. Yes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Could you explain a little bit about whether 

under the Clean Power Plan does that—is a regional approach permissible? And what are the States in RGGI and what benefits have 

they seen? 

Ms. GOROD. Yes, the states in RGGI are nine Northeast and midAtlantic States. They’ve seen real benefits both in terms of carbon 

dioxide reductions and also environmental and economic benefits. 

They’ve seen new jobs, they’ve seen reduced energy bills for their 

consumers. 

And I think a really important point to understand about the 

Clean Power Plan is it does give states considerable latitude to determine how best to regulate for their states. This is not the federal 

government imposing one particular approach on the states. Each 

State can look at its own conditions, look at what has been working 

in their state, what industry is already doing in that state, and 

then adopt the approach that will work best consistent with local 

conditions. And again, if the states choose not to regulate, the Federal Government will step in without imposing any requirement on 

the States themselves. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And just to clarify, if the Federal Government 

steps in, they will be regulating the industries, not the States, correct? 

Ms. GOROD. They’ll be regulating the industries, not the States, 

and the States can of course continue to regulate themselves. And 

it’s worth noting that the federal government will not dictate to the 

States how they regulate, and so it’ll be up to the industries to 

make sure that they can comply with both the federal and the state 

regulations. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much. My time is expired. I yield 

back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
62 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I’d like to thank the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici. 

I would remind everybody that it was before this committee that 

Ms. McCarthy, the EPA Administrator, contradicted the testimony 

of Ms. Gorod when she was asked ‘‘Do you consider 1/100 of a degree to be enormously beneficial?’’ This was from Chairman Lamar 

Smith who was outlining the costs of the Clean Power Plan and the 

benefits. Of course, the EPA has their own models. And he asked 

her, do you consider 1/100 of a degree to be enormously beneficial 

considering the cost? And her response was ‘‘The value of this rule 

is not measured that way. It’s measured in showing strong domestic action, which can actually trigger global action.’’ 

I’d like to recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Thank you 

witnesses for being here this morning. 

I have several questions for Mr. McConnell, and by the way, welcome to Texas. I know you’re at Rice University. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Twenty-five years, sir——— 

Mr. BABIN. That’s right. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. —so it’s home now. 

Mr. BABIN. Well, I went to school at the University of Texas dental branch right across the street over in the medical center. 

And you also spent 31 years at Praxair, I see? 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BABIN. It has a strong presence in my district down in southeast Houston. 

You’re a frequent defender of the need for carbon capture utilization and storage or CCUS technology. There are a lot of folks on 

the left who aren’t interested in investments in research and development for Fossil Energy since that they’d rather ‘‘leave it in the 

ground.’’ At the same time, we hear from folks on our side of the 

aisle who are concerned that CCUS technology is being promoted 

to reinforce this Administration’s climate change agenda. 

I would like to ask if you could talk about why you believe fossil 

energy research and development, specifically the CCUS technology, is a necessary investment to maintain affordable electricity 

for all Americans. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Thank you. 

Mr. BABIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. That’s—I love the question because I’ve spent 

the last ten years of my life talking about CCUS every time I get 

a chance. I will tell you that I don’t believe it’s political at all. I 

believe it’s incredibly important to the future in terms of advancing 

the ball in climate change issues because I believe in that strongly. 

And the IPC has recently come out with a study in Paris that specifically said the greatest challenge for the next 50 years in the 

world is the worldwide deployment of CCUS technology. Forget 

about everything else. If we don’t do that, we’ll never meet our climate targets. 

Well, that’s one side of the conversation. That’s the climate side. 

There’s a much more important in many ways issue around energy 

security. If you capture that CO2 and utilize it for enhanced oil recovery, we can produce energy in this country from resources that 

we have access to, we can produce our own resources here, using 
63 

an environmentally responsible technology, and reduce the amount 

of imported oil that we’d have to have as a country, strengthen 

jobs, manufacturing, create opportunities for us to continue to use 

not only coal but natural gas, which also generates CO2, and all 

other fossil fuels. It’s the perfect storm for a technology that does 

both, improve the climate as well as make our economy stronger. 

Mr. BABIN. Good answer. Thank you very much, Mr. McConnell. 

One more question. The Energy Subcommittee here held a hearing 

earlier this month on Department of Energy fossil energy programs, and I wanted to ask if you think that the Department of 

Energy is appropriately prioritizing the kind of early-stage technology R&D that is necessary to allow the private sector to scale 

up CCUS technology? 

Mr. MCCONNELL. The Department of Energy in fossils specifically is dealing with table scraps in comparison to everything else 

that the Department of Energy is working on. The money that goes 

to renewables, to solar, to wind, to all the other forms of energy, 

which are nowhere near as impactful in our country as fossil energy, is enormously greater. And so the amount of money that fossil has to work with is frankly table scraps. And the opportunity 

for us to take this forward not just for our country but, sir, I would 

argue that for the global impact of us as a technology leader in the 

world, it’s our obligation to advance this technology so countries 

like China and India where the real climate story will be written 

over the next 50 years, they need our technology. They don’t need 

our ideology. 

Mr. BABIN. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The gentleman yields back. 

I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Takano, for 

five minutes. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, I was very surprised to learn that the majority decided to send letters to 17 State Attorneys General, including my 

Attorney General in California, alleging that the office of the highest law enforcement officer in each of these States were colluding 

with environmental organizations. I would’ve hoped that the majority would want to conduct investigations based on facts and not 

simply engage in political theater. 

And as it turns out, they only needed to look at their own backyard to find facts that may support such an investigation. In 2014, 

the New York Times published a story with supporting documentation revealing the working relationship between Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt and the Oklahoma-based oil-and-gas company Devon Energy. 

Several email chains between Mr. Pruitt’s office and Devon Energy demonstrate that on at least two occasions letters were provided to his office by the oil and gas company and with very minimal edits. They were sent out on Oklahoma Attorney General letterhead with his signature. 

These are not allegations. These are facts. The documentation is 

clear, and the ethical issues this presents are disturbing. 

Without objection, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that this article 

and relevant email chain be entered into the record. 
64 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you. Now, while I see Mr. Pruitt sitting at 

the witness table, I highly doubt my colleagues invited him here 

today to provide answers regarding these actions. I think it is unfortunate that the majority continues to chase headlines instead of 

chasing the truth. And that is why earlier this month I sent a letter to Mr. Pruitt’s office requesting documents pursuant to the 

Oklahoma Open Records Act to shed some light on this relationship. 

As I said in my letter, ‘‘The Members of this Committee, the citizens of Oklahoma, and the American people have a right to know 

to what extent your office has been passing off the work product 

of Devon Energy or potentially other organizations as the views of 

the Office of the Attorney General of Oklahoma.’’ 

Now, I don’t intend to ask you for a response today, Mr. Pruitt, 

but I would like a commitment from you that your office will cooperate and honor my Open Records request. Can I have a simple 

yes or no from you before I proceed with my questions? 

Mr. PRUITT. Congressman, your request is being processed and 

will be responded to appropriately. 

Mr. TAKANO. So that’s a yes, you do pledge to cooperate with our 

requests? 

Mr. PRUITT. We are in fact processing the request. 

Mr. TAKANO. All right. Thank you very much. 

Without objection, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my letter to 

Mr. Pruitt be entered into the record. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Mr. TAKANO. And where is that thing I had in here? I wanted 

to—oh, here it is. 

Now, Ms. Gorod—I don’t believe Ms. Gorod did contradict Administrator McCarthy. In fact, her response to the Chairman was perfectly accurate. U.S. actions alone and Clean—and the Clean Power 

Plan alone are not enough. However, it is important—it is an important first step, and both these actions will inspire global action. 

Indeed, it already has, as Ms. Gorod alluded to. 

Now, Ms. Gorod, I know you’ve gone over this a little bit before, 

but I want to ask you the question again. Recent Supreme Court 

rulings say—the recent Supreme Court ruling to stay the implementation of the Clean Power Plan appears on its face to give 

merit to the claims made by Mr. Pruitt and others. As I said before, I’m not a lawyer so I was hoping you could provide some clarity as to the impact of this stay. What are the implications of this 

stay, and how is it different than an injunction? 

Ms. GOROD. Sure. So, first I should say that I don’t think it is 

right to conclude anything about the merits, and what will ultimately be decided on the merits from the fact that the Supreme 

Court issued the stay. And let me be clear, I think the Supreme 

Court was wrong to do it, but it was a procedural ruling and it was 

not the result of having reviewed a lower court decision. It was not 

the result of full briefing on the merits. And I think once courts review all of the arguments made by all sides, they will uphold the 

Clean Power Plan and recognize its legality. 
65 

In the meantime, there is—because this was just a stay and not 

an injunction—ample precedent for the EPA to be doing exactly 

what it is doing now, which is continuing to work on matters related to the rule without imposing any regulatory requirements on 

the State. Indeed, in recent years EPA has taken similar actions 

under both Democratic and Republican Presidents. 

Significantly, it’s worth noting that 14 States sent the EPA a letter after the stay went into effect asking the EPA to continue to 

provide the States guidance. 

It’s also worth noting that nothing in the court’s order requires 

a delay of the plan’s full implementation timeline. Of course, many 

of the dates set out in the Clean Power Plan occur well after the 

litigation will presumably be resolved, and it’s entirely possible 

that those dates will remain the same. That’s a decision that’ll be 

made once there’s a ruling on the merits. 

Given that there’s uncertainty about the timeline going forward, 

it makes all the more sense for the EPA to continue to work on the 

plan in the meantime, and that’s exactly what it’s doing. 

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, my time is expired. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I’d like to thank the gentleman. 

We are going to be calling votes very shortly. Everybody has had 

an opportunity to ask questions, so with that, we’re going to close 

this hearing. 

I just want to say one thing before we close, and that is that the 

majority, my side of the aisle is interested in the legal issues surrounding the actions of the ‘‘Green 2O’’ such as protecting the First 

Amendment rights of all citizens to engage in robust debate about 

the science. The free exchange of scientific thought should be something that members on both sides of the aisle support. I am troubled that the minority has chosen to mischaracterize the Committee’s investigation, which is to determine how outside groups convinced States to stifle scientific discourse. 

With that, I want to thank the witnesses for being here. I know 

all of you have been busy and——— 

Mr. TAKANO. Would the gentleman yield? 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I would yield. 

Mr. TAKANO. I think it’s important to understand outside groups 

‘‘colluding’’ with Attorneys General or any elected official, that 

there’s a false equivalency being presented here that elected officials dealing with environmental groups who generally work on behalf of consumers and champions of the environment versus these 

elected officials dealing with big corporations. I think there’s a false 

equivalency here, and I think the American people understand 

that. 

And to be going after the communication between environmentalists—environmental groups and elected officials is one thing, but, 

you know, revealing that cooperation and collusion between Attorneys General and big corporations, oil companies, is another. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. And I don’t disagree with your assessment that we need open and free dialogue and we need certainly 

transparency, but I would also argue that in my state of Oklahoma 

we have a lot of really great folks that work in the energy industry, 

and they should be commended for what they have done for this 

country. 
66 

With that—and I’ll—we need to adjourn because we’re going to 

have votes here very shortly—I would like to thank the witnesses 

for their very valuable testimony and the members for their questions. The record will remain open for two weeks for additional 

comments and written questions from members. 

This hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 10:31 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(67) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
68 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON
69 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAIN JIM BRIDENSTINE
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE MARK TAKANO
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 
125 
126 

Æ