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

97–757PDF 2017

STATE PERSPECTIVES: 

HOW EPA’S POWER PLAN WILL 

SHUT DOWN POWER PLANTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

September 11, 2015 

Serial No. 114–38 

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 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

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 

September 11, 2015 

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 ................................................................................................ 5 

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 ............................................................... 6 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

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

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Committee on Science, 

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

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

Witnesses: 

Mr. Craig Butler, Director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

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

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

Dr. Bryan Shaw, Chairman, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 21 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23 

Mr. Jason Eisdorfer, Utility Program Director, Oregon Public Utility Commission 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 28 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 30 

Appendix I: Additional Material for the Record 

Documents submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Enviorment, Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 64 

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

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 71 

Documents submitted by Representative Donna F. Edwards, Subcommittee 

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

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 76 

Documents submitted by Representative Gary Palmer, Subcommittee on 

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

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 92 
Page

IV 

Appendix II: Slides 

Slide submitted by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Chairman, Subcommittee 

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

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 126 

Slide submitted by Representative Bill Foster, Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 127 
(1) 

STATE PERSPECTIVES: 

HOW EPA’S POWER PLAN WILL 

SHUT DOWN POWER PLANTS 

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:04 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Bridenstine 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The Subcommittee on the Environment 

will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Subcommittee at any time. 

Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘State Perspectives: How the 

EPA’s Power Plan Will Shut Down Power Plants.’’ I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Today’s hearing focuses on the EPA’s final Clean Power Plan 

rule and the tremendous impact that this rule will have on the 

states upon final implementation. I am very concerned about how 

this regulation will affect the American economy, more specifically, 

access to cheap and abundant traditional energy sources as well as 

affordable and reliable electricity. Today, I look forward to hearing 

testimony from state regulators about how this rule will specifically 

impact the citizens of their states. 

The negative impacts of EPA’s supposed Clean Power Plan are 

well documented. A few months ago, we heard from industry 

groups about some of these impacts. The Committee learned that 

the total compliance costs of the rule could be as high as $366 billion by the year 2030. Additionally, according to the National Association of Manufacturers, the regulation is projected to cause double-digit electricity price increases in 43 states. 

Moreover, the Committee has heard testimony that the EPA is 

using questionable legal authority to promulgate the Clean Power 

Plan under section 111 of the Clean Air Act. In fact, Laurence 

Tribe, leading environmental and constitutional law professor and 

mentor to President Obama, referred to the method by which this 

rule was enacted as ‘‘burning the Constitution.’’ 

This Committee has also heard testimony at previous hearings 

that the climate benefits from any reductions in carbon emissions 

realized by the rule will be negligible on a global scale. 

Unfortunately, we have a rule that will place tremendous costs 

on the American people for very little benefit if you believe the 

models that we’ve been given by the Administration. 

The U.S. Energy Information Administration reaffirmed many of 

these facts in a report analyzing the impacts of the Clean Power 

Plan. The Committee heard testimony from Howard Gruenspecht 

at EIA, who reported that EPA’s rule will shut down large numbers 

of coal-fired power plants, increase electricity prices, and decrease 

the U.S. GDP. 

Many states, including the ones that we have represented before 

us today have pushed back on the massive overreach of EPA’s carbon emission rule. States are uniquely positioned to protect the environment in their states and support their local economies, a key 

fact the EPA disregarded in promulgating this rule. My home State 

of Oklahoma, which has been leading the charge against EPA’s onerous rule, recognizes that this rule will harm reliability and impose massive costs on its citizens. I applaud Oklahoma’s efforts to 

fight against the EPA and its activist, overbearing regulatory agenda. 

This Committee has called many hearings conducting oversight 

of EPA’s regulatory agenda and will continue to do so in order for 

the American people to understand how this will impact their lives. 
6 

I thank all of our witnesses for testifying today and I look forward to hearing about how EPA’s final Clean Power Plan will impact your states. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Bridenstine follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

CHAIRMAN JIM BRIDENSTINE

Today’s hearing focuses on the EPA’s final Clean Power Plan rule and the tremendous impact that this rule will have on the states upon final implementation. I am 

very concerned about how this regulation will affect the American economy; more 

specifically, access to cheap and abundant traditional energy sources as well as affordable and reliable electricity. 

Today, I look forward to hearing testimony from state regulators about how this 

rule will specifically impact the citizens of their states. The negative impacts of 

EPA’s supposed Clean Power Plan are well documented. A few months ago, we 

heard from industry groups about some of these impacts. The Committee learned 

that the total compliance costs of the rule could be as high as $366 billion by 2030. 

Additionally, according to the National Association of Manufacturers, the regulation 

is projected to cause double digit electricity price increases in 43 states. 

Moreover, the Committee has heard testimony that the EPA is using questionable 

legal authority to promulgate the Clean Power Plan under section 111 of the Clean 

Air Act. In fact, Laurence Tribe, the leading environmental and constitutional law 

professor and mentor to President Obama referred to the method by which this rule 

was enacted as ‘‘burning the Constitution.’’ 

This Committee has also heard testimony at previous hearings that the climate 

benefits from any reductions in carbon emissions realized by the rule will be negligible on a global scale. Unfortunately, we have a rule that will place tremendous 

costs on the American people for very little benefit. 

The U.S. Energy Information Administration reaffirmed many of these facts in a 

report analyzing the impacts of the Clean Power Plan. The Committee heard testimony from Howard Gruenspecht at EIA who reported that EPA’s rule will shut 

down large numbers of coal-fired power plants, increase electricity prices, and decrease the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. 

Many states, including the ones that we have represented before us today have 

pushed back on the massive overreach of EPA’s carbon emission rule. States are 

uniquely positioned to protect the environment in their states and support their 

local economies—a key fact the EPA disregarded in promulgating this rule. 

My home state of Oklahoma, which has been leading the charge against EPA’s 

onerous rule, recognizes that this rule will harm reliability and impose massive 

costs on its citizens. I applaud Oklahoma’s efforts to fight against the EPA and its 

activist, overbearing regulatory agenda. 

This Committee has called many hearings conducting oversight of EPA’s regulatory agenda and will continue to do so—in order for the American people to understand how this will impact their lives. I thank all of our witnesses for testifying 

today and I look forward to hearing about how EPA’s final Clean Power Plan will 

impact your states. 

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 of our witnesses for being here today to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan. 

I am especially pleased to welcome Mr. Jason Eisdorfer, a fellow 

Oregonian. I’m looking forward to learning more about Oregon’s 

work to implement the Clean Power Plan and I’m glad you will discuss some of the successes our state has had in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, I’m glad the 

title is ‘‘State Perspectives,’’ plural, because there are different perspectives here. 

The mission of the EPA is important yet simple: to protect 

human health and the environment. And the goal of the Clean 

Power Plan is equally important and simple: to cut carbon emis-
7 

sions from the largest source, largest source—sorry—the power sector, so that we can lessen the effects of climate change on our 

states, our country, and our planet. 

The Clean Power Plan offers enormous flexibility to states as 

they tackle their individual carbon emissions targets and the collective goal of reducing carbon emissions by 32 percent by the year 

2030. Inaction is unacceptable. 

The Pacific Northwest faces risks that Oregonians take very seriously. For example, according to the National Climate Assessment, 

the snowpack in the Cascade Mountains has decreased by 20 percent compared to 1950, and what snow remains melts about 30 

days earlier than usual. These changes are putting additional pressure on the region’s water supply. Also the coastline, the health of 

our commercial fisheries are threatened by rising seas and ocean 

acidification. Thousands of salmon from the Columbia River died 

this summer because the water’s too warm. These and other 

changes have the potential to negatively affect not only the safety, 

but also the economic security of my constituents. 

Thankfully Oregon is a state that has been proactive in efforts 

to mitigate and adapt to climate change. As a result, Oregon can 

be a resource for states that are just beginning to address this important challenge. As a former member of the Oregon legislature, 

I helped establish some of the state’s carbon emissions reduction 

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

goal of having up to 25 percent of our energy generated through 

renewable sources by 2025. These efforts and others have put Oregon in a position to not only meet, but likely surpass, its Clean 

Power Plan carbon reduction goal, and all of that while maintaining a healthy and vibrant economy. 

Oregon is a leader in renewable energy technology and many 

businesses have developed new products that add jobs to our economy and are energy efficient. One innovative example is Lucid Energy, which has developed technology to generate electricity 

through a hydropower system in existing city water pipes. 

Some today will likely contend that regulating carbon hurts the 

economy. But a recent report by Citi GPS adds to the growing body 

of evidence showing that this is simply not the case. The report 

states: ‘‘We are not climate scientists, nor are we trying to take 

sides in the global warming debate; rather we are trying to take 

an objective look at the economics of the discussion, to assess the 

incremental costs and impacts of mitigating the effects of emissions, to see if there is a solution which offers global opportunities 

without penalizing global growth.’’ The authors conclude: ‘‘The incremental costs of following a low-carbon path are in context limited and seem affordable. The return on that investment is acceptable and, moreover, the likely avoided liabilities are enormous.’’ 

When you have climate scientists and economists agreeing that action to address climate change is necessary and that the benefits 

outweigh the risks, then it is time for our country to stop dragging 

its feet and to move forward as a Nation and a global leader. 

The Clean Power Plan builds on the efforts of states like Oregon 

by creating a unified, national approach to our biggest environmental challenge. The Clean Power Plan represents an opportunity 
8 

for American ingenuity that will allow us to benefit from the muchneeded transition to a low-carbon economy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again thank you to our witnesses 

for being here this morning, and I do want to ask that the Citi GPS 

report from which I quoted be entered into the record. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

MINORITY RANKING MEMBER SUZANNE BONAMICI

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today 

to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan. I am especially 

pleased to welcome Mr. Jason Eisdorfer, a fellow Oregonian. I’m looking forward to 

learning more about Oregon’s work to implement the Clean Power Plan and I’m 

glad you will discuss some of the successes our state has had in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

The mission of EPA is important yet simple—to protect human health and the 

environment. The goal of the Clean Power Plan is equally important and simple— 

to cut carbon emissions from the largest source, the power sector, so that we can 

lessen the effects of climate change on our states, our country, and our planet. 

The Clean Power Plan offers enormous flexibility to states as they tackle their individual carbon emission targets and the collective goal of reducing carbon emissions by 32 percent by the year 2030. 

Inaction is unacceptable. The Pacific Northwest faces risks that Oregonians take 

very seriously. For example, according to the National Climate Assessment, the 

snowpack in the Cascade Mountains has decreased by 20 percent compared to 1950, 

and what snow remains melts about 30 days earlier than usual. These changes are 

putting additional pressure on the region’s water supply. 

Also the coastline and the health of our commercial fisheries are threatened by 

rising seas and ocean acidification. Thousands of salmon from the Columbia River 

died this summer because the water was too warm. These and other changes have 

the potential to negatively affect not only the safety, but also the economic security 

of my constituents. 

Thankfully Oregon is a state that has been proactive in efforts to mitigate and 

adapt to climate change. As a result, Oregon can be a resource for states that are 

just beginning to address this important challenge. 

As a former member of Oregon’s state legislature, I helped establish some of the 

state’s carbon emissions reduction goals. For example, in 2007, Oregon set a target 

of reducing statewide emissions by 75 percent by 2050. We also set the goal of having up to 25 percent of our energy generated through renewable sources by 2025. 

These efforts and others have put Oregon in a position to not only meet, but likely 

surpass, its Clean Power Plan carbon reduction goal. And all while maintaining a 

healthy and vibrant economy. 

Oregon is a leader in renewable energy technology and many businesses have developed new products that add jobs to our economy and are energy efficient. One 

innovative example is Lucid Energy, which has developed technology to generate 

electricity through a hydropower system in existing city water pipes. 

Some today will likely contend that regulating carbon hurts the economy. But a 

recent report by Citigroup adds to the growing body of evidence showing that this 

is simply not the case. The report states: ‘‘We are not climate scientists, nor are we 

trying to take sides in the global warming debate, rather we are trying to take an 

objective look at the economics of the discussion, to assess the incremental costs and 

impacts of mitigating the effects of emissions, to see if there is a ’solution’ which 

offers global opportunities without penalizing global growth.’’ 

The authors conclude: ‘‘the incremental costs of following a low carbon path are 

in context limited and seem affordable, the ’return’ on that investment is acceptable 

and moreover the likely avoided liabilities are enormous.’’ 

When you have climate scientists and economists agreeing that action to address 

climate change is necessary and that the benefits outweigh the risks, then it is time 
9 

for our country to stop dragging its feet and to move forward as a nation and a global leader. 

The Clean Power Plan builds on the efforts of states like Oregon by creating a 

unified, national approach to our biggest environmental challenge. 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.Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again thank you to our witnesses for being here this morning. I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. 

I now recognize the chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Smith. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you also 

for holding this hearing today. 

Over the last year, the Environmental Protection Agency has released some of the most expensive and burdensome regulations in 

its history. These rules will cost billions of dollars, place a heavy 

burden on American families, and diminish the competitiveness of 

American workers around the world. 

Today’s hearing will examine the Clean Power Plan and the 

manner in which EPA has used secret science, questionable legal 

interpretations, and flawed analysis to place tremendous and unlawful burdens on the states, and yet, despite these issues, this Administration continues to force costly and unnecessary regulations 

on hardworking American families. On August 3rd, the Obama Administration ignored the outcry from stakeholders and the American public when it issued the final rule on its Power Plan. The 

Clean Air Act was never intended to regulate carbon. This final 

rule is another example of the President and his Environmental 

Protection Agency sidestepping Congress to push an extreme agenda. 

It is well documented that the final plan will shut down power 

plants across the country, increase electricity prices, and cost thousands of Americans their jobs. My home State of Texas would be 

one of the hardest hit. The state would be forced to close affordable 

coal-fired power plants, which also provide reliable electricity during peak usage times in the summer. Additionally, the rule will 

cause double-digit electricity price increases across the United 

States. 

Despite EPA’s statements to the contrary, this rule goes well beyond the regulation of power plants, even reaching down into 

Americans’ homes to control electricity use. Higher energy prices 

means the price of everything will increase, and low-income families already struggling to make ends meet will be among those 

most burdened by this costly rule. The so-called Clean Power Plan 

is simply a power grab that will force states to try to reach arbitrary and often impossible targets for carbon emissions. 

EPA asserts that the Clean Power Plan will help combat climate 

change. However, EPA’s own data demonstrates that is false. The 

data shows that this regulation would reduce sea-level rise by only 

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

represents massive costs without significant benefits. In other 

words, it’s all pain and no gain. Under the Clean Power Plan, 

Americans will be subject to the constant threat of government 

intervention so the onslaught of EPA regulations continues. 
10 

I look forward, Mr. Chairman, to today’s hearing and to hearing 

from the witnesses about the impact of these burdensome EPA regulations on their states, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH

Over the last year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released some 

of the most expensive and burdensome regulations in its history. These rules will 

cost billions of dollars, place a heavy burden on American families and diminish the 

competitiveness of American industry around the world. 

Today’s hearing will examine the Clean Power Plan and the manner in which 

EPA has used secret science, questionable legal interpretations, and flawed analysis 

to place tremendous and unlawful burdens on the states. And yet, despite these 

issues, this Administration continues to force costly and unnecessary regulations on 

hardworking American families. 

On August 3rd, the Obama administration ignored the outcry from stakeholders 

and the American public when it issued the final rule on its Power Plan. The Clean 

Air Act was never intended to regulate carbon. This final rule is another example 

of the president and his Environmental Protection Agency sidestepping Congress to 

push an extreme environmental agenda. 

It is well documented that the final plan will shut down power plants across the 

country, increase electricity prices and cost thousands of Americans their jobs. My 

home state of Texas would be one of the hardest hit. The state would be forced to 

close affordable coal-fired power plants, which also provide reliable electricity during 

peak usage times in the summer. Additionally, the rule will cause double digit electricity price increases across the United States. Despite EPA’s statements to the 

contrary, this rule goes well beyond the regulation of power plants, even reaching 

down into Americans’ homes to control electricity use. 

Higher energy prices means the price of everything will increase, and low-income 

families already struggling to make ends meet will be among those most burdened 

by this costly rule. The so-called Clean Power Plan is simply a power grab that will 

force states to try to reach arbitrary and often impossible targets for carbon emissions. 

EPA asserts that the Clean Power Plan will help combat climate change. However, EPA’s own data demonstrates that is false. This data shows that this regulation would reduce sea level rise by only 1/100th of an inch, the thickness of three 

sheets of paper. 

This rule represents massive costs without significant benefits. In other words, it’s 

all pain and no gain. Under the Clean Power Plan, Americans will be subject to the 

constant threat of government intervention. The onslaught of EPA regulations continues. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses about the impact of these burdensome EPA regulations on their states. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Chairman Smith. 

I will now recognize the Ranking Member of the full Committee 

for her statement. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you to all of our witnesses who are here. 

EPA’s Clean Power Plan is a step in the right direction. The scientific evidence shows we cannot afford to wait, but must act now 

if we are to stand a chance of lessening the impacts of climate 

change. Record temperatures, an increase in heavy rain events, 

and rising seas are a few examples of what Americans are confronting now and can expect to see more frequently in the coming 

years. 

As the largest source of carbon pollution, cutting emissions from 

power plants is the key to any solution. This is why I am supportive of the Clean Water Plan—Clean Power Plan and its goal 

to reduce carbon emissions by 32 percent by 2030 from the power 
11 

sector. The final rule we will be discussing today is responsive to 

more than four million public comments received by EPA. It sets 

reasonable limits that take into account the characteristics of each 

state. It provides states with an additional two years to formulate 

and implement their compliance plans. It responds to concerns 

about grid reliability by including a reliability safety valve and requiring states to consider reliability concerns in their state implementation plans. And finally, the central feature of the rule is the 

enormous flexibility it provides to states. 

EPA is not prescribing a specific set of measures, but instead, 

states will choose what goes into their plans, and they can work 

alone or as part of a multi-state effort to achieve meaningful carbon reductions. 

Today, I suspect that we will hear some of the same old arguments about the Clean Power Plan that we hear about nearly every 

regulation issued by the EPA: that it will cause nothing but harm 

to our economy, that the federal government is overstepping its authority, that the rule is unnecessary, and that it won’t make any 

difference in the long run. 

However, we know that these assertions are just not true. Rather, as history has shown us time and again, stricter pollution limits 

have invariably led to innovation and the creation of new technologies that end up creating jobs while protecting our environment. I am confident American industry will continue this record 

of innovation and job creation as the Clean Power Plan is implemented. 

Additionally, and perhaps, most importantly, the Clean Power 

Plan sends a strong and much needed signal to the rest of the 

world about the seriousness of the United States in addressing climate change. Such a position is critical to meaningful international 

engagement on this issue. 

I recognize that implementing the Clean Power Plan will not be 

easy, and that there are real costs associated with transitioning to 

a low-carbon economy. But the bottom line is that the costs of inaction are even greater. 

I look forward to today’s discussion and to hearing more about 

how we can achieve the emissions targets in the Clean Power Plan. 

I thank you, and yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson of Texas follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being here this 

morning. 

EPA’s Clean Power Plan is a step in the right direction at the right time. The 

scientific evidence shows we cannot afford to wait, but must act now if we are to 

stand a chance of lessening the impacts of climate change. Record temperatures, an 

increase in heavy rain events, and rising seas are a few examples of what Americans are confronting now and can expect to see more frequently in the coming years. 

As the largest source of carbon pollution, cutting emissions from power plants is 

the key to any solution. This is why I am supportive of the Clean Power Plan and 

its goal to reduce carbon emissions by 32 percent by 2030 from the power sector. 

The final rule we will be discussing today is responsive to the more than 4 million 

public comments received by EPA. It sets reasonable limits that take into account 

the characteristics of each state. It provides states with an additional two years to 

formulate and implement their compliance plans. It responds to concerns about grid 
12 

reliability by including a ‘‘reliability safety valve’’ and requiring states to consider 

reliability concerns in their state implementation plans. 

And finally, the central feature of the rule is the enormous flexibility it provides 

to states. EPA is not prescribing a specific set of measures, but instead, states will 

choose what goes into their plans, and they can work alone or as part of a multistate effort to achieve meaningful carbon reductions. 

Today, I suspect that we will hear some of the same old arguments about the 

Clean Power Plan that we hear about nearly every regulation issued by the EPA. 

That it will cause nothing but harm to our economy. That the federal government 

is overstepping its authority, that the rule is unnecessary, and that it won’t make 

any difference in the long-run. 

However, we know that these assertions are just not true. Rather, as history has 

shown us time and again, stricter pollution limits have invariably led to innovation 

and the creation of new technologies that end up creating jobs while protecting our 

environment. I am confident American industry will continue this record of innovation and job creation as the Clean Power Plan is implemented. 

Additionally, and perhaps, most importantly, the Clean Power Plan sends a strong 

and much needed signal to the rest of the world about the seriousness of the United 

States in addressing climate change. Such a position is critical to meaningful international engagement on the issue. 

I recognize that implementing the Clean Power Plan will not be easy, and that 

there are real costs associated with transitioning to a low carbon economy. But the 

bottom line is that the costs of inaction are even greater. I look forward to today’s 

discussion and to hearing more about how we can achieve the emissions targets in 

the Clean Power Plan. 

Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Ranking Member Johnson. 

And now to introduce our first witness, the Chairman of the 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Dr. Bryan Shaw, I 

yield to the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Smith. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and let me say it’s nice 

to be able to welcome a Texas colleague. 

Chairman Shaw was appointed to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) in 2007. Since then, he has served on 

the Texas Environmental Flows Advisory Group and is Chair of the 

Texas Advisory Panel on Federal Environmental Regulations. He 

was appointed Chairman in 2009. Prior to joining the TCEQ, 

Chairman Shaw served as a member of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board Committee on Integrated Nitrogen. He also served on the Environmental Protection 

Agency SAB Environmental Engineering Committee and the Ad 

Hoc Panel for Review of EPA’s Risk and Technology Review Assessment Plan. Additionally, he is a member of the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture’s Agricultural Air Quality Task Force. In addition to 

his chairmanship, Dr. Shaw serves as an Associate Professor in the 

Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department of Texas A&M 

University. His research there focuses on air pollution, air pollution 

abatement, dispersion model development, and emission factor development. Chairman Shaw received his bachelor’s and master’s 

degrees in agricultural engineering from Texas A&M and his Ph.D. 

in agricultural engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I’m pleased that Chairman Shaw 

is here to testify. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Chairman Smith. 

I will now yield to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, to introduce our next witness, Mr. Craig Butler, Director of the Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency. 
13 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is indeed my distinct pleasure to introduce Director Craig Butler, the 

Director of Ohio’s Environmental Protection Agency. Director Butler received his bachelor’s degree in geography and environmental 

science from Mansfield University and his master’s degree in environmental science from Ohio University. Craig and his team have 

done some tremendous work for Ohio. The respect that they have 

earned from people across our state both within the energy sector 

and in the state agencies is clear. Their high standards of an exceptional work ethic is evident in everything that they do. For instance, the comments that Director Butler and his agency submitted to the U.S. EPA in response to the Clean Power Plan proposal are viewed by many as some of the most detailed, extensive 

and informative comments that the U.S. EPA received regarding 

this regulation. They clearly highlighted the many shortcomings of 

the Clean Power Plan, such as its potential impact on grid reliability and energy costs. 

Director Butler, I want to personally thank you for being here 

today. I wish I could stay and hear the entire testimony but with 

it being the last day of the week, we have multiple hearings in conflict, and so I’ve got to go to another hearing that is getting underway as we speak. But I want to reiterate, thank you so much. The 

work you’re doing in Ohio and the example that you’re setting 

across the Nation, boy, I sure we could get along and work out a 

working relationship with the federal EPA the way that we’ve done 

it in Ohio. You’re to be commended, and I welcome you. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. 

Our final witness today is Mr. Jason Eisdorfer, Utility Program 

Director for the Oregon Public Utility Commission, and I’d like to 

yield to the Ranking Member, Ms. Bonamici, for an introduction. 

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

It’s my honor to introduce a fellow Oregonian, Mr. Jason 

Eisdorfer, who has served as the Utility Program Director of the 

Oregon Public Utility Commission since 2012. He oversees a staff 

of approximately 77 employees and provides direction to formulate 

policies, recommendations and practices regarding the regulation of 

investor-owned utility, natural gas, water and telecommunications 

utilities. Previously, Mr. Eisdorfer was the Interim Director of 

Strategy Integration at the Bonneville Power Administration, a 

federal power marketing administration, and before that, he served 

as BPA’s Greenhouse Gas Policy Advisor. In this role, he served as 

the Senior Advisor to the Agency on Policies and Programs Related 

to Climate Change. He served as Legal Counsel and Energy Program Director of the Citizens Utility Board of Oregon for 13 years. 

He has coauthored state legislation related to climate change and 

electric utility restructuring and operations including the Electricity Restructuring Law in 1999 and the Oregon Renewable Energy Act and Climate Change Integration Act, both of 2007, and 

more recently he has advised on additional state legislation concerning storage technology pilots and natural gas utility carbon reduction programs. Mr. Eisdorfer has served as an Adjunct Professor of Law at both the University of Oregon School of Law and 

the Northwestern School of Law at Lewis and Clark College teaching classes on energy law and climate change and policy. He is a 
14 

graduate of the University of Chicago and he received his law degree, as I did, from the University of Oregon. Go Ducks. 

Thank you for joining us today, Mr. Eisdorfer. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Ranking Member Bonamici. 

In order to allow time for discussion—we’re going to move to witness testimonies—please limit your testimony to five minutes. Your 

entire written statement will be made a part of the official record. 

I now recognize Chairman Shaw for five minutes to present his 

testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. BRYAN SHAW, CHAIRMAN, 

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Dr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Bonamici and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here, 

and good morning. A special thank you to Chairman Smith for the 

kind introduction. 

My name is Dr. Bryan Shaw. I’m the Chairman of the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality. As the leader of this agency, my job is to ensure we carry out our mission, which is to mitigate environmental risk while basing all of our regulations on 

sound science and compliance with state and federal statutes. In 

every case where Texas disagrees with EPA actions, it is because 

EPA’s actions are not consistent with these principles. 

As you know, the EPA’s Clean Power Plan for existing power 

plants was signed by the EPA Administrator on August 3, 2015, 

and is currently awaiting publication in the Federal Register. The 

final version of the Clean Power Plan is radically different than 

EPA’s proposed plan, and as such, the TCEQ is continuing to study 

and evaluate the impacts of the final rule. 

Currently, the following concerns associated with the rule have 

been identified. First, EPA’s methodology for determining the Best 

System of Emission Reduction, or BSER, in this Rule marks a radical departure from historical practice, and, I would argue, the 

plain language of the Clean Air Act. Specifically, the EPA has now 

asserted the power to determine Best System of Emission Reduction by evaluating technologies and methods outside the fence of 

the facilities it claims to be regulating. This is the first time the 

EPA has not determined this BSER based on technology or methods that could be applied to the source itself or materials being 

used by the source. In the past, Best System of Emissions Reduction evaluations have included installing scrubbers, low-emission 

combustion technology, pretreatment of fuels, and myriad other 

systems that a facility operator actually can control. But in this 

case, the EPA has evaluated states’ electric grids and energy policies as a whole, instead of the individual sources which it has authority to regulate under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. 

The final Clean Power Plan establishes national performance 

rates for two subcategories, steam generating units and stationary 

combustion turbines, applying three building blocks as BSER. 

While the final rule allows states to use—to elect to use alternate 

statewide goals, these goals are derived from the same performance 

rates. However, only the first of these blocks, Building Block 1, or 

the heat rate improvement, those efficiency improvements on existing coal-fired power plants, is within the historical approach of how 
15 

EPA has determined BSER in the past. Block 2, which is redispatching generation from steam-generating units to natural gas 

combined cycle units, and Block 3, increased renewable energy, rely 

on the assumption of other generating units increasing their generation, generating units in which most circumstances are not located in the same area, and for most forms of renewable energy, 

are not even subject to the Federal Clean Air Act. In effect, EPA 

is setting standards for existing power plants based on the method 

of electric generation they prefer, not on the control technology or 

methods that can be feasibly applied to the existing sources. 

Another major concern is that the final Clean Power Plan has an 

insignificant effect on global carbon dioxide concentrations, global 

temperatures, and sea-level rise. The final rule does not provide a 

single quantifiable climate benefit. EPA’s purported climate benefits are based solely on the Office of Management and Budget’s Social Cost of Carbon and their claim that it will put the United 

States in a stronger bargaining position at the President’s upcoming climate summit in December. Aside from the obvious substantive objections I have to this line of reasoning, I submit to you 

that a regulation this expensive that entails such an unprecedented 

arrogation of power to the Executive Branch cannot be justified as 

a bargaining chip or with fuzzy math. 

Furthermore, the EPA is deceiving the American public by claiming wildly inflated economic benefits only tangentially related to 

the purpose of the rule. The rest of EPA’s claimed benefits from the 

rule are actually co-benefits from reductions of non-GHG, nongreenhouse-gas, pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, and even these benefits are suspect. Not only are criteria pollutants not the purpose of the final Clean Power Plan, the majority 

of claimed co-benefits are due to changes in ambient concentrations 

of ozone and PM2.5 in areas that are already attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for these criteria pollutants, 

so it is irrational for the EPA to claim a health benefit from reduction in a pollutant in areas where the EPA has already determined 

that the current concentration of the pollutant is adequate to protect human health. In areas not attaining this standard, there are 

other rules in the Clean Air Act requires those states to develop 

plans to address those and bring them into compliance. 

So one final issue before I close would be a more technical concern about leakage that the EPA has included in the final rule. 

‘‘Leakage’’ is the shift of generation from existing units to new 

units that are not subject to the Clean Power Plan. This results in 

a net increase in emissions, and the EPA is requiring states that 

choose to use a mass-based approach must address this leakage. 

Also, they propose to address that in the federal plan if that federal 

plan includes a mass-based approach. EPA’s motivation for its 

leakage policy is to remedy the nonsensical situation that emission 

standards for existing fossil fuel units under 111(d) are much more 

stringent than the standards for new fossil fuels under 111(b), that 

is, it would have a more stringent standard for existing sources 

than for new, and this makes that very detrimental and unworkable moving forward. 

So it’s important for me to bring this forward, and I thank you 

for the opportunity to testify today. 
16 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shaw follows:] 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Chairman Shaw. 

Director Butler, you are recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. CRAIG BUTLER, DIRECTOR, 

OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. BUTLER. Chairman Bridenstine, Ranking Member Bonamici, 

Members of the Subcommittee, and in particular, Representative 

Bill Johnson, thank you. My name is Craig Butler, and I’m Director at Ohio EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency in Ohio. 

Thanks for the opportunity to provide testimony on the now-final 

Clean Power Plan issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

When I provided testimony back in March in the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, the CPP was only a proposal, and 

U.S. EPA was in the process of collecting and evaluating what 

turned out to be over 4.3 million comments, and while we continue 

to review the final rule presented by U.S. EPA, our fundamental 

and legal technical concerns persist or continue to grow. 

Ohio has striven to revive its manufacturing output over the last 

few years. Driven by affordable and reliable power, countless energy-intensive industries including auto manufacturing, steel, glass 

production and iron reside in Ohio. This manufacturing rebound 

has been due in no small part to the shale gas production in the 

eastern part of the state, and like our locally mined coal, provides 

a foundation for predictable and relatively stable low-cost power to 

industries and citizens in the State of Ohio. 

While working to revive our manufacturing output, we have 

achieved significant emission reductions from our coal-fired power 

plants. Between 2005 and 2014, carbon dioxide emissions from 

these units were reduced by approximately 30 percent. Given these 

reductions, one might think that Ohio is well on a path to comply 

with the final CPP. 

Unfortunately, U.S. EPA suggests using a baseline for emission 

reductions is 2005, but in reality they’re using 2012, meaning that 

any reductions prior to that are not being considered for compliance with our mandated reduction target. 

Ohio’s coal fleet has and will continue to improve its operational 

efficiency, however, requiring additional pollution control measures 

will be extremely costly and will undermine the long-term viability 

of these plants. 

Ohio has experienced a dramatic loss in generating capacity, losing some 6,100 megawatts between years 2010 and 2015, primarily 

due to U.S. EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standard. A further reduction in usage of coal-fired generation is the biggest means for 

complying with the final CPP and is a serious concern with respect 

to end-user costs, infrastructure and reliability. 

As mentioned, on August 3rd, EPA released three rules that will 

have an adverse effect on coal-based electricity generation across 

the country. Finalizing emissions standards for new electronic generation units was the first rule released and created a reliance on 

cost-prohibitive technology that will effectively prevent any new 

coal plants from being built across the country. Carbon capture and 

sequestration, the only technology described in that rule, is provided—is proving to not be ready for wide-scale technical imple-
22 

mentation. Costs are escalating to the point where even with heavy 

subsidization, projects are being abandoned. 

The second and third rules work together. The second rule is the 

final version of the CPP and the third rule is a proposed back stop 

or federal plan for states that are unable to or choose not to comply 

with the final CPP. These rules will result in an unprecedented 

overhaul of the power generation, transmission systems by dramatically reducing fossil-fuel-based power generation and establishing aggressive new renewable targets. These rules together circumvent Congressional authority by creating a large-scale program 

to revamp the power industry and replace the long-standing economic model for generation of electricity based on an environmental model. 

U.S. EPA made certain changes in response to comments on the 

proposed CPP. U.S. EPA is evident, however, it raised the rule’s 

carbon emissions reduction from 30 percent to 32 percent. In Ohio, 

our mandated target is now roughly 11 percent more aggressive 

than the proposed rule, meaning Ohio will need to lower its carbon 

emission rate by 37 percent between 2012 and the final plan. 

The final CPP dictates that natural gas generation be deployed 

at 75 percent capacity factor. Updated cost projections using the 

final rule haven’t been completed but our Public Utilities Commission conducted an analysis of the proposed rule, estimating a 70 

percent capacity factor and predicted wholesale energy prices to be 

39 percent higher in calendar year 2025, costing Ohioans $2.5 billion more than projected. 

U.S. EPA has made profound changes to the rule. The number, 

the nature, and the overall level of wholesale changes drive Ohio 

to call for U.S. EPA to rerelease the final CPP as a proposed action 

allowing interested parties an opportunity to review and provide 

comment. 

On numerous occasions, EPA and the DC. Circuit Court of Appeals and the State of Ohio have pointed out serious legal shortcomings. This is why Governor Kasich has written a letter to the 

President asking to stay the implementation of the rule and all 

legal appeals—until all legal appeals have been resolved. 

I strongly believe that the CPP is not the answer, and with unresolved legal challenges, along with substantial changes between the 

draft and final proposal, U.S. EPA should hold off on implementing 

this plan until legal challenges are resolved or reissue the final 

plan as a proposed action. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I’m happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Butler follows:] 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Director Butler. 

Mr. Eisdorfer, you are recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JASON EISDORFER, 

UTILITY PROGRAM DIRECTOR, 

OREGON PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION 

Mr. EISDORFER. Chair Bridenstine, Chair Smith, Members of the 

Committee, I am Jason Eisdorfer, Director of the Utility Program 

at the Oregon Public Utility Commission. 

For more than a year now, three Oregon state agencies, the Department of Environmental Quality, the Department of Energy, 

and the Public Utility Commission, along with nearly two dozen 

major stakeholders have been working together to understand 

EPA’s draft and now final 111(d) rule, and we are now working on 

implementing the Clean Power Plan. 

In our initial comments to the rule back in October of last year, 

the Director of Oregon’s DEQ wrote on behalf of the state that ‘‘The 

Clean Power Plan proposal is a welcome federal response to reversing climate change and is a good first step in mitigating the effects 

of greenhouse gas pollution across the country.’’ Governor Kate 

Brown has stated that ‘‘The EPA’s Clean Power Plan 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. 

As we look at how Oregon fares under the final rule, we can say 

that Oregon is in pretty good shape, and there is a reason for this. 

Oregon has been planning for this eventually for more than two 

decades. The risk of greenhouse gas regulation that we have required the utilities to plan for is now a reality. Oregon’s utility 

ratepayers have been investing in clean energy to reduce the costs 

and risks of carbon regulation and those investments are paying 

off. Here are a few investment highlights. 

The investor-owned utilities in Oregon engage in integrated resource planning, which is firmly rooted in robust analysis that compels the utility to make decisions that result in a least-cost, leastrisk future for its customers. This has included considering that 

risk of future costs of greenhouse gas regulation and the utilities’ 

decisions about what types of energy resources to invest in. 

Oregon’s largest utility, Portland General Electric, is retiring the 

State’s only coal plant in 2020, about 20 years ahead of schedule, 

based on a least-cost, least-risk determination by the Public Utility 

Commission. Customers of the two largest utilities have been paying into a dedicated fund for cost-effective energy efficiency and we 

believe our energy efficiency delivery system is second to none. Oregon has a renewable portfolio standard that directs the state’s 

largest utilities to serve their customers with 25 percent renewable 

energy by the year 2025. 

This is but a partial list of policies and investments that have 

put Oregon, its utilities and their customers in a strong position to 

comply with the Clean Power Plan. These investments will reduce 

the costs and risk of compliance with the plan and keep our utility 

system strong and robust. 

Despite these long-term investments, or perhaps because of these 

long-term investments, our economy is strong. Since 2000, per cap-
29 

ital carbon emissions have been in steady decline in Oregon and 

yet the state’s GDP is as good as or better than the national average. Oregon’s real GDP growth exceeded the U.S. rate in 13 of the 

16 years between 1998 and 2013, and Oregon ranks among the 15 

fastest-growing state economies in 11 of those 16 years. 

The Clean Power Plan provides state regulators with a significant degree of flexibility in determining how to comply and has accommodated states that are differently situated. In Oregon, we are 

currently exploring that degree of flexibility to decide whether to 

use a rate-based system or a mass-based system, for example. To 

their credit, EPA has revised the plan to address the concerns of 

Oregon, other states, and stakeholders. And EPA has improved its 

thinking about the reliability effects of the Clean Power Plan in the 

final rule and understands that reliability is of paramount importance to utilities, regulators and the customers. 

The plan is accommodating of a variety of state compliance approaches, allowing Oregon to leverage existing state laws and recognizing under particular approaches the historic investment Oregon ratepayers have made in clean energy. 

However, Oregon is not an island and it’s not enough for Oregon 

to comply with the Clean Power Plan within its own borders. Ratepayers of several of our utilities are tied to fossil fuel generation 

located in other states. We are more than interested in how other 

western states comply with the Clean Power Plan since our electricity rates depend on how those states comply. 

As Oregon looks to implement its own compliance plan, we are 

very interested in exploring the potential for collaboration with 

neighboring states using market mechanisms to reduce the overall 

cost of compliance and enhance the overall effectiveness of reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions. Oregon is proud of our clean energy investment strategy, and we are in a good position to comply with 

the Clean Power Plan. If the various states collaborate and cooperate, the Clean Power Plan offers the United States a path toward 

finally addressing the real and pressing issue of climate change on 

an integrated and least-cost basis. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Committee 

today. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eisdorfer follows:] 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you for your testimony. 

Members are reminded that Committee rules limit questioning to 

five minutes, so we’ll go into a round of questioning here, and I’ll 

recognize myself for five minutes. 

There’s a chart that was given to us by the U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce. It’s a map of the United States, and you can see that 

the green states—I’m having a hard time reading that little but 

I’ve got it here. So it says the green states this is winners and losers from the EPA carbon regulations, and it says states that will 

be able to increase CO2 are in green, or they’ll be able to sell credits to others needing to achieve compliance. States that are in red 

must reduce CO2 emissions or purchase credits from states in order 

to comply. 

So this to me, this rule has been published—no, it actually hasn’t 

been published. It’s been finalized but it’s not been published in the 

Federal Register as of this point. But when it goes into effect, it’s 

going to establish winners and losers. I guess my question for the 

witnesses, and I’d like to start with you, Chairman Shaw, is, do 

you perceive this as a transfer of wealth from maybe your State of 

Texas to the green states? 

Dr. SHAW. Thank you, Chairman. Certainly, when you look at 

the fact that Texas rate will have to be reduced by about 33 percent, that is coming to come at a cost, and certainly one of the 

major costs that we’ve seen and part of the reason that we’ve been 

able to have economic prosperity and growth in our state has been 

due to low cost of energy. The likely pretty extreme increase in 

rates is going to make it much more difficult for our state to continue to provide those jobs and resources that are necessary for 

that growth. So yes, it would certainly make it easier or make an 

uneven playing field from that perspective if you’re not having to 

make those investments, and we’ve made investments. You know, 

$7 billion in building out transmission lines for our 13,000 

megawatts of wind energy are significant investments that we’ve 

already made. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Director Butler, how do you see this for 

your state? 

Mr. BUTLER. Thank you for the question. I look at it two ways. 

There’s two ways for a state to comply, particularly Ohio. We’re either going to need to shut down additional coal assets and buy 

more expensive power, or buy credits from somebody else. Both of 

those will have a significant cost for the State of Ohio to reach 

what I indicated in my testimony, which is a 37 percent reduction 

in CO2 emissions, and that’s an 11 percent increase over the draft 

plan. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Eisdorfer, it looks like your state is 

going to be able to sell power or sell credits. You guys stand to gain 

a lot from a rule that by the way that did not exist until this 

month. 

Mr. EISDORFER. Mr. Chair—— 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Or I guess last month. 

Mr. EISDORFER. Mr. Chair, two quick points. One, under the proposed rule, Oregon actually did not come out very well in this 

sense, and yet the state really welcomed the Clean Power Plan as 
39 

a good first step toward addressing climate change. So the final 

rule did turn the tables a little bit. 

But the second point I would make is that there are a number 

of customers of utilities in Oregon that are tied to assets in Montana, Wyoming and Utah. So in that sense, Oregon is tied throughout the West, and while that makes it look like Oregon is sitting 

pretty, we have a lot of work to do and a lot of cooperative discussions on a multistate basis in the West. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Do you disagree that Oregon will be advantaged compared to Texas or Ohio? 

Mr. EISDORFER. Again, there are two things that Oregon has to 

think about. One is complying as a state, and in that sense, Oregon 

is in very good shape. The second thing is, rate impacts on customers in Oregon and we have to work with the states in which 

thermal resources are outside of Oregon but serving Oregon. So it’s 

a little bit of half a loaf, perhaps. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Dr. Shaw, the EPA has assumed in the 

final Clean Power Plan that renewable energy sources will increase 

dramatically as a result of this rule. My home State of Oklahoma 

is already a nationwide leader in wind energy. We’re fourth in the 

country in electricity produced from wind, accounting for over 15 

percent of electricity generation in Oklahoma. Do you believe the 

EPA’s targets for renewable energy increases the—increases are— 

renewable energy increases are realistic given the existing increases in production in states such as yours and mine, Oklahoma 

and Texas? 

Dr. SHAW. Chairman, we’ve—my state as well as yours have 

made pretty phenomenal increases in renewables, especially wind 

energy, and the rate that EPA has projected in determining our 

goal it appears that for years 23 through 30, we would have to increase our renewables and wind being part of that at the maximum 

rate that we’ve ever done it every year in that time frame, and I 

think that’s far from typical and would be very challenging to meet. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Last question. I’m running out of time. 

Under the final Clean Power Plan, will states like Oklahoma and 

Texas get any credit for renewable energy sources that have already been implemented in their states? The investments we’ve already made, will we get credit for that? 

Dr. SHAW. Unfortunately, because most of the—many of those investments happened after the—excuse me—before the 2012, which 

they use as a baseline, we don’t get credit for those investments, 

and so it is a pretty significant blow from that perspective. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you for your testimony, and I’d 

like to recognize Ranking Member Bonamici for five minutes for 

her questions. 

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

Mr. Eisdorfer, I only have five minutes and I have a lot of questions, so I’m going to ask three—one about flexibility, one about the 

grid and one about costs—and I’ll ask them all at once to save 

time. 

So you give EPA credit for revising the Clean Power Plan to address some concerns of states and stakeholders. You said that the 

Clean Power Plan provides state regulators with a significant degree of flexibility in determining how to comply. So I want you to 
40 

talk a little bit about how that flexibility will work and how that’s 

responsive to concerns that have been raised. 

Secondly, with regard to the grid, you state in your testimony 

that there are existing tools and frameworks across the country to 

protect the reliability of the grid, and that’s a concern that we’ve 

heard raised, so can you please discuss how the rule was changed 

to address reliability concerns and whether those changes are sufficient to alleviate the grid reliability? 

And finally, one of the main criticisms, and we heard this morning, is that the Clean Power Plan will cause electric bills to increase, but according to the EPA, the average electricity bills will 

be cut, and by 2030, the average American family will save $7 on 

their electric bill per month. So how have consumers and communities in Oregon benefited from programs like the Energy Trust, for 

example, the state’s energy efficiency program, and specifically, 

what has been the effect on electricity bills? So reliability, grid and 

cost. Thank you. 

Mr. EISDORFER. Thank you, Representative Bonamici. We could 

talk for hours on this but I’ll try to be brief. 

The flexibility comes in a number of ways and I’ll sort of list a 

couple. States are allowed to choose whether to go with a massbased or a rate-based calculation that allows states to really tailor 

their particular situation. Under the proposed rule, Oregon was in 

a position where we really couldn’t choose between the two, and 

under the final rule, mass-based became an option. So now as we 

talk to stakeholders, mass-based versus rate-based is very much on 

the table. The EPA also makes it very clear that the states are 

going to have wide discretion on how to allocate allowances. States 

can choose to go it alone or join in multistate bilateral or multilateral agreements or even go into a trading ready kind of platform. 

And so there really are a number of different choices that the state 

can make. 

In terms of reliability, there were some significant improvements 

in the plan. The EPA provided a mechanism for states to seek a 

revision of their plan if there are unanticipated reliability challenges. There’s also a safety valve that would allow emissions from 

a plant to not count under the goal under certain reliability circumstances, and something that we’re actually also looking closely 

at is the memorandum of understanding between the EPA, FERC 

and the U.S. Department of Energy where there’s going to be a coordinated process to help the states address reliability concerns, 

monitor how that state plan development is going to go, and then 

provide support for this important transition period. 

And then finally, on the electricity bills. What I think Oregon 

has done extremely well in the last 20 years is planning. Our integrated resource planning process really causes the utilities to think 

very long and hard about the least-cost, least-risk approach. Oregon, especially since 1999 but even dating back to 1980, has treated energy efficiency not as a boutique thing to do every now and 

then but as a genuine resource that a utility should rely on. It is 

a cost-effective resource and should be at the top of the list of any 

utility acquisition as being the lowest-cost resources. So between 

planning, energy efficiency, we’ve been able to maintain our low 

cost. We are below average and we’ve been below average for quite 
41 

some time. We don’t expect the Clean Power Plan to fundamentally 

change that because the tools that you would use to meet the clean 

power obligations are the very tools that we’ve been using to keep 

rates low. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. 

I now recognize the Vice Chairman, Mr. Westerman. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have two coal-fired plants in my states that could be closed. 

One is actually in my district in southwestern, and has already 

been announced to be closed, and there are studies that show that 

our rates will increase from 20 to 60 percent because of this closure. The obvious negative effects are direct loss of several hundred 

highways jobs and an economic loss of $500 to $600 million per 

year. The higher rates will put a disproportional burden on lowand fixed-income residents in my district, not only in their higher 

light bills but also in the increased cost of goods. 

Chairman Shaw, welcome to the Committee. It’s nice to have a 

fellow bio and agricultural engineer. There’s not too many of us out 

there. 

Dr. SHAW. Right. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. If you look at Texas, what’s the split on residential versus industrial commercial use? 

Dr. SHAW. I don’t have that information, Congressman. I don’t 

know what—you’re talking about how much of that—I mean, it’s 

largely driven by the commercial. We are a large energy consumer 

because of the fact that we manufacture good and process materials that supply much of the rest of the United States. So we’re 

heavy on the commercial side. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Right. And in Ohio, is that similar there too? 

Mr. BUTLER. Yes, sir. Ohio’s the sixth largest energy-consuming 

state in the United States. Fifty percent of that is for industrial. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. And Mr. Eisdorfer, in Oregon? 

Mr. EISDORFER. My recollection is that residential is about 40 

percent and the remainder is split between commercial and industrial. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Okay. I think we fail to see sometimes how 

much of the power actually goes into industry and jobs. So if you 

look at current air quality standards in Texas and the rest of the 

United States and compare those to the world, just kind of quickly 

on a scale one to ten, one being low quality and ten being high 

quality, where would you say China would be on that scale, Chairman Shaw? 

Dr. SHAW. On the south end of that, some of the worst air quality 

that exists exists in some parts of China. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. And Indonesia, Vietnam. What about Western 

Europe? Where would you—— 

Dr. SHAW. They’re certainly better than you see in China but 

they’re still not at the levels that we are. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. And in the United States? 

Dr. SHAW. I would say if we’re not a ten, then the scale needs 

to be accommodating to put us there. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. But we’re leading in the world in air quality 

standards? 
42 

Dr. SHAW. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Okay. So do you believe higher costs and less 

reliable energy could drive industrial manufacturing jobs to countries with lower standards? 

Dr. SHAW. I think it could. I think even the threat of higher costs 

can drive those overseas to lower-cost areas with less restrictive 

regulations. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. And I know in my district, what we need very 

much are jobs and to get people back to work, and I would hate 

for investors to come in and see this huge increase in electrical 

rates and decide to move their manufacturing somewhere else and 

potentially somewhere where it would actually do more damage to 

air quality than they would do in my state. 

Let’s shift gears a little bit. When we look at this Clean Power 

Plan, there seems to be still be a lot of confusion in it, and Mr. 

Eisdorfer, I’ve spent quite a bit of time out in your state, a very 

beautiful state, maybe except for the large wind farms along the 

Columbia Gorge that dot the landscape, but you do have a tremendous amount of biomass in Oregon. How do you feel about the 

EPA’s treatment of biomass as renewable energy? 

Mr. EISDORFER. Representative Westerman, that is something 

that we continue to look at. As you just said, there are some things 

that remain unclear. That’s not something that we loved and yet 

at the same time we sort of recognized what the EPA was trying 

to—the message they were trying to send is that not all biomass 

is treated equal. So folks at DEQ and Department of Energy 

are—— 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Are they saying some biomass is not renewable? 

Mr. EISDORFER. They’re saying that the carbon sequestration 

benefits need to be tracked very closely and so that may mean that 

some biomass is treated a little bit different and depending upon 

if it’s very sustainably—— 

Mr. WESTERMAN. It’s bad enough when EPA’s picking winners 

and losers in power but then you even get into the renewables and 

they start winners and losers there. I think we should take an allencompassing approach and utilize all the technology that we have, 

and especially the lower cost more efficient technologies and develop these other technologies with more research and development 

in those areas. 

But it looks like I’m about out of time, Mr. Chairman, so I’ll yield 

back. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you for your questions. 

Ranking Member Johnson is recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Shaw, I’m a native Texan. I’m a nurse by education. Last 

year, Parkland Hospital had a billion dollars of uncompensated 

care. Children’s Hospital had about a third of that. Many of the 

conditions are respiratory related, which are also related to environmental contamination. Have you factored in the cost that it 

would take the state to continue to afford this kind of healthcare 

cost with most of our people being poor, that are living in low-income areas that are damaged more frequently by these heavy environmental violations? 
43 

Dr. SHAW. Congresswoman, the Clean Power Plan is directed at 

reducing greenhouse gases, which do not impact the respiratory 

issues. The co-benefits that are claimed in the rule—— 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Wait a minute. Repeat what you just 

said. 

Dr. SHAW. The co-benefits, in other words, the rule is based on 

reducing the greenhouse gas—— 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. I know what the rule says, but you said 

it does not impact respiratory? 

Dr. SHAW. That’s correct. Greenhouse gas emissions do not have 

an adverse impact on respiratory health. High CO2 levels do not 

cause respiratory issues. I know it’s easy to make that conclusion 

because some of the rhetoric from EPA sort of suggests that the 

Clean Power Plan is going to, by reducing greenhouse gases, lead 

to improvement in respiratory conditions. That’s not due to reductions of CO2. Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. What is it due to? 

Dr. SHAW. It’s due to their co-benefits. They’re suggesting that 

the process that they’re mandating to reduce greenhouse gases will 

also accidentally, if you will, or at the same time likely cause reductions in other emissions that they do perceive to cause respiratory impacts. The challenge with that, though, is that they’re 

actually assuming that it’s going to provide health benefits even 

though your area is already in attainment for the PM2.5 standard 

yet they’re assuming that reducing PM2.5 even lower leads to 

health benefits even though their standards say that Houston area 

is already meeting the standard and therefore we’re not having adverse health effects associated with PM2.5. That’s my concern, is 

that it’s misleading whenever they’ve told us that you’re going to 

have these health benefits associated with this rule. Most of those 

are unsubstantiated. The areas where there could be a benefit to 

those areas that are in non-attainment for ozone or something 

along those lines, those are being addressed through other rules 

and we’re making strides to comply with those regulations. So CO2

does not lead to respiratory challenges. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. So you’re challenging the goal of EPA? 

Their goal is health and safety of the people that inhabit this planet. 

Dr. SHAW. The purpose of this—yes, ma’am. The purpose of this 

rule is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and as part of that, the 

stated goal there is—primarily the benefits they claim are a slight 

increase—excuse me, decrease in sea-level rise, unmeasurable, as 

well as a hundredth of a degree Fahrenheit reduction in increase 

in global temperature. Those are unmeasurable and those are not 

quantifiable from a benefit standpoint. Therefore, they went to the 

accidental co-benefits associated with it, not what the purpose of 

the rule was, to claim benefits to the rule. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. So you’re saying that it has absolutely 

nothing to do with the health status, that the science that has indicated that is not pure science? 

Dr. SHAW. I’m suggesting that the goal and the objective of the 

Clean Power Plan and what led to this rule is climate change, climate variability, and that the contaminant that they’re specifically 

seeking in the greenhouse gases and, more particular, carbon diox-
44 

ide, which is the focus of the rule does not have health impacts. 

Carbon dioxide at the levels that we breathe it is actually good for 

plants. We breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. You have 

to get much higher levels of carbon dioxide than we’re ever going 

to see in the ambient air to get health effects associated with CO2

to the human health. So the goal of the plan is to address climate 

change and yet that impact—— 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. So climate change has no impact on 

health? 

Dr. SHAW. The model suggestions of what this rule would accomplish would be an unmeasurable decrease in sea level and one-hundredth of a degree Fahrenheit in temperature change. So even the 

best estimate of what the climate change impact and benefit of this 

rule is so small as to be unquantifiable. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. So would we continue to see climate 

change with a lot of flooding, a lot of air contamination, this is not 

going to impact health? 

Dr. SHAW. For one, the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change, has indicated that the adverse weather that we’re 

seeing has not been correlated with climate change. So there’s certainly a science argument to be made and some additional data to 

be there but it’s not clear that any—that the global climate change 

is going to have those impacts, and it’s certainly clear that this rule 

would not have a measurable impact on any of those—a measurable change in climate change. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Could you submit to me your research 

findings and the origin of them? 

Dr. SHAW. Sure, I will be happy to provide you some of the background information on that. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

Dr. SHAW. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. And the Chair now recognizes the 

Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Smith, for five minutes. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

To respond real quickly to what the Ranking Member said and 

her concern about the unreimbursed costs of Parkland Hospital, 

from what I read, the reason for those unreimbursed costs are primarily due to the fact that up to two-third of the births at Parkland are the children of illegal immigrants in the country today. It 

is not due to healthcare issues caused by carbon emissions. 

Dr. Shaw, let me address my first question to you. The Chairman 

a few minutes ago put a chart on the screen that was produced by 

the Chamber of Commerce that showed that 42 states are going to 

be harmed by this Clean Power Plan, and by harmed, I mean 

they’re going to see a dramatic increase in electricity costs. These 

electricity costs—and there’s the chart—are going to disproportionately hurt low-income individuals because it’s going to raise the 

cost of everything, whether it be food, whether it be electricity, 

whether it be anything else, and so I very much regret the impact 

on low-income Americans that this plan is going to have. 

But I wanted to ask you, do you see any benefits whatsoever as 

a result of this plan’s mandating the reduction in carbon emissions? 
45 

Dr. SHAW. Chairman, no. As you look at the exchange I had with 

Congresswoman Johnson, the rule does not, especially from the 

standpoint of its impact on carbon dioxide, does not have a measurable impact on sea level and/or the global temperature, and to your 

point, Texas having a competitive energy on the market, that is, 

you only get to generate and sell electricity if you can do it cheaply, 

has naturally driven our electricity generation grid, especially in 

ERCOT, to be the cheapest possible. Any reaching in from the federal government to force us to then choose more expensive generation will naturally increase electricity rates, and unfortunately, 

those who are least able to afford it, the fixed income and low income, will be least likely to be able to take advantage of energy efficiency measures and therefore they’re going to be saddled with 

higher electricity rates and therefore electricity bills. So I don’t 

share the EPA’s optimism that we’re going to have lower utility 

bills, especially for the low and fixed income. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Chairman Shaw. 

Mr. Eisdorfer, let me ask you a question, and that is, do you 

think that this Clean Power Plan is going to have any significant 

impact on climate change? 

Mr. EISDORFER. Chair Smith, absolutely. We can talk about the 

incremental benefits of this particular plan—— 

Chairman SMITH. Do you disagree with the EPA’s data that 

shows it would only at best impact the rise in ocean levels by one 

one-hundredth of an inch? 

Mr. EISDORFER. I can’t say whether I agree with that or disagree 

with that. I just haven’t done that analysis. But I do think you 

have to start somewhere, and if we don’t begin to address it, then 

certainly the—— 

Chairman SMITH. But this is going to cost, by the EPA’s own admission, which is probably low, the American consumers about $9 

billion. When the Administrator of the EPA herself was before the 

full Committee a couple of months ago, I made the point that I just 

made to you about no significant impact on climate change, and 

she did not deny that. She said only that it could be justified because we need to show action, which I don’t think is sufficient justification. She did not dispute the data that showed it would only 

impact the rise in sea levels by one one-hundredth of an inch, the 

thickness of three pieces of paper, and we’re subject the American 

people to burdensome regulations. They’re going to cost jobs. It is 

going to increase electricity prices and disproportionately hurt lowincome Americans, all so we can show action, not because it’s going 

to have any significant impact on climate change. That’s what the 

Administrator herself said. So apparently you disagree with her or 

you’re just not sure? 

Mr. EISDORFER. Well, Chair Smith, I think that if there are going 

to be costs borne by the public and the ratepayer, it is because certain plants are going to be dispatched less or be shut down entirely, and those are going to be coal plants, and if those coal plants 

are generating less carbon emissions, that is going to have a measurable effect on the environment and is beginning to address climate change on a national and international basis. 
46 

Chairman SMITH. When you say measurable effect, do you have 

any evidence whatsoever that it’s going to impact the sea-level rise 

by more than one one-hundredth of an inch? 

Mr. EISDORFER. I don’t have that information. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you. 

Last question is, you mentioned a while ago that you were disappointed that the Clean Power Plan was only going to sort of a 

half a loaf impact on the State of Oregon. What were you disappointed about, or what’s the half loaf that did not meet your expectations? 

Mr. EISDORFER. Chair Smith, I think I was probably arguing 

against the visual that was produced that seems to indicate that 

Oregon is in really, really great shape. We are in good shape for 

complying as a state, but as ratepayers, since we are tied to coal 

plants and gas facilities in other states, we do care very much what 

happens in those other states. 

Chairman SMITH. And I saw one chart that indicated electricity 

rates would actually go up in Oregon. Is that possible? 

Mr. EISDORFER. I think that’s a possibility. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Eisdorfer. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The Chairman yields back. 

I now recognize Ms. Edwards from Maryland for five minutes. 

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

you to the witnesses today. 

I just wanted to highlight, Mr. Chairman, that we’ve been hearing a lot about the steps that are necessary to address climate 

change by reducing carbon emissions, and its equivalent is setting 

our economy on fire. That’s some of the accusations. But it’s actually not the case. The efforts of Maryland—and I would note that 

Maryland on that Chamber of Commerce chart is a little deceptive, 

so it makes me question those other red states on there. But the 

efforts of Maryland and other states that have been involved in the 

Regional Greenhouse Gas initiative are proof that environmental 

protection and robust economic development can and should go 

hand and hand. 

I have a recent review of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative 

by the Analysis Group that I want to submit for the record. The 

report finds that over the last three years, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative has produced a net economic value of $1.3 billion and 14,200 jobs, and this is on top of the $1.6 in net economic 

value and 16,000 jobs created over the first three years that were 

analyzed under the program. Additionally, energy bills in my state 

and the other participating states in this regional initiative declined between 2012 and 2014 with consumers saving $460 million. 

Overall, the initiative has achieved a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to 2005 levels while the regional 

economy has grown eight percent, and in fact, Maryland has been 

very supportive of the rule that we’re discussing today, and began 

under this regional initiative CO2 emissions reductions under 

RGGI that have reaped over $200 million from credits. They’ve 

used those. We’ve used those in our state for grants for renewables, 

for solar panels, for helping low-income people with utility bills, 

and for rebates for energy-efficient appliances. And so I am grati-
47 

fied that the EPA has introduced this rule and is preparing to finalize it and is preparing to finalize it because I think it’s going 

to be a great economic benefit for our state, for this Nation, and 

frankly, for our future. 

Maryland relies heavily on the economic generation of income 

from the Chesapeake Bay as do the other states in the region, and 

so we can’t even afford even a little bit of an increase in sea level 

because it would impact our economy tremendously, and so I’m 

gratified for the EPA’s work. 

Let me just say as well, and I’m going to read directly from the 

U.S. National Climate Assessment and the U.S. Global Change research program that was published in May of 2014. Finding five of 

a number of findings, human health. ‘‘Climate change threatens 

human health and well-being in many ways,’’ I quote. ‘‘Climate 

change is increasing the risk of respiratory stress from poor air 

quality, heat stress and the spread of foodborne, insectborne and 

waterborne diseases. Extreme weather events often lead to fatalities and a variety of health impacts on vulnerable populations including impacts on mental health such as anxiety, post-traumatic 

stress disorder. Large-scale changes in the environment due to climate change and extreme weather events are increasing the risk 

of the emergence or reemergence of health threats that are currently uncommon in the United States such as dengue fever. Key 

weather and climate drivers of health impacts including increasingly frequent, intense and longer-lasting extreme heat, which 

worsen drought, wildfire and air pollution risk, increasingly frequent extreme precipitation, intense storms and changes in precipitation patterns that could lead to flooding, drought, and ecosystem 

changes, and rising sea levels that intensify coastal flooding and 

storm surge causing injuries and deaths, stress due to evacuations, 

and water quality impacts, among other effects on public health.’’ 

And so I would welcome any submission for the record that would 

refute the findings of the climate change impacts in the United 

States and those highlights as published in May of 2014. 

And then lastly, just as we close out, for our witness from Oregon—thank you for the work that you are doing—I wonder if you 

can talk about any regional efforts that you’re involved in and 

whether you think that you might change some of your work in the 

region over these next several weeks, months and years. Thank 

you. 

Mr. EISDORFER. Thank you, Congresswoman. Two quick things. 

One, the Northwest has acted as a region for many, many years, 

so Washington, Oregon, Montana and Idaho are usually in a constant state of discussion, and so this is no exception. We’re having 

those kinds of discussions. 

Another kind of regional discussion that we’re having is the 

PacifiCorp service territory is six states that includes Washington, 

Oregon, Wyoming and Utah, and they—their resource fleet is 

heavy on coal and so that utility is significantly impacted by the 

rule, and so discussions between those states are in the offing. 

They will be coming and we’ll be discussing what is the least-cost 

way to approach compliance. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you. 
48 

I now recognize Mr. Abraham from Louisiana. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This, once again, in my opinion, is the EPA doing a little malpractice of manipulating data to fit their goal instead of using this 

data objectively to actually formulate a coherent plan. 

I’ll make a brief mention to Ranking Member Johnson and Ms. 

Edwards as far as wanting some documentation as far as whether 

this climate change, which I assume is global warming the way 

they are playing it, I am a practicing physician that does treat respiratory conditions and surely asthma and—Administrator McCarthy has often tried to refer to children’s asthma as something that 

she uses to try to sell her points. But if you look at the data, the 

objective data from an unbiased source, which I have to, that’s the 

CDC, and if you look at states like California who have some of the 

cleanest air in the nation, they still have the highest asthma rate 

and they have increasing asthma rates. So if we want to compare 

apples to apples, you are right, Chairman Shaw, in that CO2 certainly has no role in respiratory asthma as far as exacerbating it. 

So saying that, you know, we do have actually objective data that 

proves your point. I’ll refer also to this report that has been touted, 

and I will that if it has not already been done, that it be inserted 

into the record. 

Mr. Eisdorfer, from this report, it says that Oregon stands to 

make or benefit from up to $125 million. Would you agree with 

that? 

Mr. EISDORFER. I’m sorry. I just don’t have the ability to—— 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Well, it’s a good—you know, I’m assuming it’s a 

good report. It looks to be fairly unbiased, so I will again to submit 

it to the record, and I’ll stay with you, sir. The way I understand 

it, Oregon has only one coal-fired plant? 

Mr. EISDORFER. Yes, that’s—— 

Mr. ABRAHAM. And it’s supposed to go down or shut down in 

2020? 

Mr. EISDORFER. Yes. There’s the Boardman plant. Its useful life 

was to go out to the year 2040, and there was a discussion that 

began about 2006, 2007 by stakeholders, utilities and the regulators, and a least-cost, least-risk analysis was done, and the result 

of that was, it was in the customers’ interests, it was less costly 

to actually shut the plan down early rather than retrofit it with 

non-Clean Power Plan environmental technologies. So it was actually cheaper to shut it down and less riskier to shut it down in 

2020 than the full 2040. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Under the power plan, will Oregon be allowed to 

emit more carbon or less carbon? The way I read it, it’s more actually. What’s your take on that? 

Mr. EISDORFER. From the baseline from 2012, Oregon’s not going 

to be able to emit more carbon than from that baseline. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Okay, and I will probably respectfully disagree 

reading the report, but I will defer to sources for that. 

Chairman Shaw, would you agree that with this BSER methodology, that this is an overreach of the federal government? 

Dr. SHAW. Clearly, this is exceptional from what I think the clear 

reading of the 111(d) statute prescribes. 
49 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Okay. And that’s all I have, Mr. Chairman. I yield 

back. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The gentleman yields back. 

I now recognize Mr. Foster from Illinois. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Butler, I understand one of your fundamental objections 

is that what is proposed is to replace an economic model for determining the energy with one that includes environmental factors, 

and so first is just a simple question. How many people die in Ohio 

each year as a result of power plant emissions? 

Mr. BUTLER. Representative Foster, thanks for the question. I 

don’t know the exact number to your question but my premise—— 

Mr. FOSTER. Roughly, factor of two. 

Mr. BUTLER. I don’t know. I’m not a physician. 

Mr. FOSTER. Okay. Well, it’s certainly surprising, because that 

seems like a fundamental question here. 

Let’s see. I actually do have an estimate, if we could have the 

thing—this is an estimate from—someone by the Clean Air Task 

Force put this together based—I think it’s primarily driven by particulate emissions, and it looks like—you sort of do an eyeball average—about 10 people in 10,000—10 in 100,000. About one in 

10,000 die each year in Ohio, roughly in a typical area of Ohio, if 

this data is correct, and Ohio, I think, has something like 10 million people, so we’re talking thousandish, roughly a thousand people per year die because of particulates from coal plants. 

So I was wondering, from a purely economic point of view that 

you advocate, what is the economically optimum number of people 

to die in Ohio each year? 

Mr. BUTLER. Representative Foster, so Ohio is about 11–1/2 million people, and ultimately I think the chart that you’re showing 

and the argument that you’re making is around something that Dr. 

Shaw talked about, this issue about these co-benefits of the Clean 

Power Plan. I mean, you’re talking about—this is about issues 

around particulate emissions. It has nothing to do with CO2 emissions under the Clean Power Plan. 

Mr. FOSTER. Right, but this hearing is about closing plants. 

Mr. BUTLER. This hearing is about—— 

Mr. FOSTER. The title of the hearing is ‘‘closing plants,’’ right? 

Mr. BUTLER. Right. 

Mr. FOSTER. SO the co-benefits—I do not understand the argument that when you complain about the cost of something, you 

don’t include the economic co-benefits, but that’s a separate issue. 

But I was wondering just in general, you know, if you for whatever philosophical approach to this you take, how would you calculate the economically optimum number of people to die in Ohio 

each year? What are the inputs into that? 

Mr. BUTLER. Sure. Representative Foster, we care about all 11– 

1/2 million Ohioans, and this hearing today is about the Clean 

Power Plan. It is about the CO2 emissions that are supposed to be 

reduced from the Clean Power Plan. We take seriously, and as you 

have seen in my remarks also that Ohio has reduced its not only 

CO2 emissions but we’ve reduced our sulfur dioxide—— 

Mr. FOSTER. I’m asking you the general question. How do you do 

the optimum plan? In your point of view, you know, do you believe 
50 

that the optimum number of people to die from particulates in Ohio 

is zero or some number bigger than zero? And how, from your philosophical point of view, do you calculate the optimum number of 

people to die each year? 

Mr. BUTLER. Sure. Representative Foster, so we benefited from 

an all-fuels approach in the State of Ohio. So not only do we have 

coal plants, we’ve got hydroelectric plants, we’ve got energy efficiency, we’ve got natural gas, we’ve got wind, we’ve got solar. We 

think that it is in our best economic and environmental interest to 

have all of those in Ohio and we’ll strive to continue to do that. 

Mr. FOSTER. But ultimately, you have a philosophy that tells you 

how to optimize that mix, well, maybe purely economic or a combination of economic and environmental aspects, that allows you to 

calculate the number of people who should die in Ohio each year. 

How do you—how would you advocate determining that number? 

For example, does it include the health effects in the downwind 

states? If emissions from Ohio kill people in downwind states, 

should that be included or not? If the emissions from Ohio raise 

CO2, we lose the Greenland ice sheet and, you know, 75 years from 

now people die in coastal areas, should that be included or not? 

You know, how large is your commons that you’re looking at here? 

Mr. BUTLER. Representative Foster, so the way that we look at 

this in Ohio is that again, it’s an all-fuels approach, and whether 

or not you want to—what we don’t account for is the notion in the 

Clean Power Plan is that we’ll see any impact to human health because of emissions that are regulated under the Clean Power Plan. 

We take into development of our plan not just clean power but how 

we look at our energy mix based on an economic model. It is also 

based on looking at environmental protection is included my role 

as Director of being protective of human health and the environment. So it’s always a balance, and how we try to balance with perspectives. We work closely with the Public Utilities Commission, all 

of our utilities, to try to set up what that appropriate—— 

Mr. FOSTER. All right. What I’m fishing for is, what is the balance of, you know, human suffering and death versus economic 

goals? Because it seems like there’s a big disconnect and we’re talking past each other—— 

Mr. BUTLER. Sure. 

Mr. FOSTER. —on this where, you know, one side of this hearing 

room, people seem to be, you know, ignoring anything regarding 

quality of life or ultimately death, and versus pure economic concerns. I was wondering how you handle that and what is the objective function you’re optimizing for from a mathematical point of 

view? Does it take into account the number of deaths in Ohio, or 

not? 

Mr. BUTLER. Well, Representative, I’ll just tell you, I think your 

line of questioning’s really unfair from the perspective of what this 

hearing is about. It’s about the Clean Power Plan. It’s about looking at CO2 emissions relative to the Clean Power Plan. You know, 

we have addressed—— 

Mr. FOSTER. The title of the hearing is that the Power Plan will 

shut down power plants. We’re talking about shutting down certain 

kinds of plants. 

Anyway—— 
51 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Real quick, could you answer the question? Is there already a 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard for particulate matter? 

That already exists. Am I incorrect? 

Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, that’s correct. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Okay. Very well. 

I now recognize Representative Moolenaar from Michigan. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to follow up on some of the questions regarding the 

Clean Power Plan rule and the safety valve provision. According to 

the EPA, this would give states a 90-day period to exceed carbon 

limits during emergencies, and EPA has indicated that although 

this safety valve exists, it would be rarely used. 

Mr. Shaw and Mr. Butler, I wonder if you could address the safety valve provision and give us your thoughts on that? 

Dr. SHAW. Thank you. While I certainly am appreciative that 

there’s a recognition that this rule could lead to reliability issues, 

some of the challenges and concerns with the safety valve approach 

is that in order to have allowing generating to operate beyond 

what’s permitted and allowed in those extreme circumstances, 

there’s two issues. One, the EPA has not made it clear what those 

extreme circumstances are, and so it’s going to be rare, would you 

be able to rely on it, and two, one of the outcomes of this rule as 

I see it with the extreme advancement in renewables energy is 

going to make it much more challenging for us to be able to account for baseload and maximum peak load at times when the 

wind is not blowing, which in Texas, by the way, they’re about 180 

degrees out of phase. And so part of what that’s going to mean is, 

we may not have generation available in our market to turn on because it’s difficult to justify cost of building new generation capacity when you may only be able to operate for a few hours a year 

and only during those extreme circumstances, and those rates are 

going to have to be extremely high to warrant those multimillions 

if not billions of dollars in investments. 

Mr. BUTLER. Representative, so I think my comments would be 

very much and similar to Dr. Shaw in the sense that the way that 

we look at this reliability safety valve on the one hand, we are appreciative because I think it was one of the probably most mentioned concerns that states had raised with EPA as well as our 

Public Utilities Commission around the notion that they were going 

to be setting up through the Clean Power Plan really constrain 

zones and putting in a position where we would have unreliable 

power supplies at certain times. So what I will tell you is, I think 

we’ll have to go on what I’ve heard is the Public Utilities Commission, FERC and U.S. EPA have signed a memorandum of understanding. I think they are still trying to figure out the dynamics 

of that as all—as we are as well. So we appreciate that there is 

this reliability safety valve. I think it’s unknown at this point 

whether we think that it will actually be effective. I’ve heard the 

FERC talk about the reliability safety valve from the perspective 

while they have a memorandum of understanding, it really is in 

the details, which are yet to be developed. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Okay. Thank you. 
52 

I also want to get back to this question of getting credit for—and 

maybe have all three of you address this issue. For energy efficiency changes or reduction in greenhouse gases, different plans 

that you’ve implemented in your state prior to 2012 that you don’t 

get credit for, could you talk about that aspect? Because that’s a 

concern I’ve heard from constituents as well. 

Dr. SHAW. I’ll quickly talk about the case for Texas. With regard 

to, for example, renewable energy, we’ve had a very significant increase where about ten percent of our electric generation is from 

wind power that was accomplished through about a $7 billion investment in transmission lines to make that occur and a very dedicated effort, and that peaked right—because in 2012 in the mix of 

things, credits were going to be expiring and so you had this cliff 

where lots of wind power was installed, a lot of expenditure was 

made, but then we don’t get credit because the baseline was drawn 

after that occurred. 

Mr. BUTLER. Representative, I’ll echo that. One of our very chief 

concerns in comments we made in our draft comments on the 

Power Plan which has yet—was unaddressed and yet to be addressed still is this notion of first movers like the State of Ohio, 

like the State of Texas where we have—we’ve had an aggressive renewable portfolio standard in the State of Ohio since 2008, had targets for renewables, set targets for solar and energy efficiency, hitting targets by the year 2025. To be told that, frankly, because we 

were first movers and we were aggressive in implementing those 

across the state, to be told that those efforts between 2005 and 

2012 don’t count is frankly very, very disappointing to us and puts 

in a very deep hole. Number two, I think even more so, recent— 

very recent conversations with U.S. EPA and our modeling looking 

at the finalized Clean Power Plan is that many of our renewable 

portfolio standard activities going forward even after 2012 will not 

count because they don’t quality under the measurement and 

verification requirements that U.S. EPA has put into the final rule. 

Mr. EISDORFER. Congressman, very quickly, one of the things I 

said earlier is that Oregon was beginning to look at the mass-based 

approach, and under that approach, any energy efficiency with a 

measure life that extends past into—after 2022 and into the compliance period in a sense very much does count to the extent that 

it causes the utilities to have to invest or operate their thermal 

generation that much less. So under mass-based approach, massbased and rate-based treat energy efficiency differently. Under a 

mass-based, all energy efficiency you do, if the measure life extends 

into the compliance period, that’s a really good thing. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, is recognized for five 

minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I’m 

glad I was able to make it back. 

Director Butler, earlier this year in testimony before the Energy 

and Commerce Committee, as I recall, you stated that EPA’s Clean 

Power Plan had not been well designed and that the rule was 

rushed out the door to meet a predetermined schedule. So question 

for you. Now that EPA has released the final Clean Power Plan 
53 

rule, do you still feel that the final rule has some of the same flaws 

that existed in the proposed rule? 

Mr. BUTLER. Representative Johnson, thanks for the question. I 

think that they obviously made some adjustments in the final rule, 

and I think as I made it brief in my remarks today, we still have 

many of those questions remain and there are certain new ones 

too. The actual final Clean Power Plan is dramatically different. A 

lot of the—many of the targets haven’t changed. It’s like the titles 

of the book haven’t changed but all of the pages are different. We’re 

going through that analysis of this 1,500-page rule as it’s in completion, and that is one of the reasons why today I called for EPA 

ought to at a very minimum re-release this rule as a draft so that 

we ought to be able to—rather than having to implement the rule 

immediately at the same time we’re reviewing it, give us and all 

the stakeholders an opportunity to review it. 

I will also just mention the idea that U.S. EPA had made some 

assurances that as soon as August 3 when they released this rule 

that beginning in the first week of September they anticipated this 

rule to be issued as final. They have deferred and moved away 

from that position. I think they’ve given a date sometime in late 

October, which really puts us in a position where U.S. EPA will finalize that rule, they will take comments on the also corresponding 

federal backstop plan for 90 days after that time period, which 

would take us into February, all the while still requiring states to 

be able to submit a plan by September 2016. Those dates are just 

unrealistic for us to meet. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Sure. 

Mr. BUTLER. So I think ultimately there are still many more 

questions that have been even—have been raised even in the fail 

plan that we’re still unclear about, and frankly, U.S. EPA has not 

been able to answer those questions for us. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Okay. Well, you’ve answered several of 

my additional questions. 

Let me turn to another issue that we’ve talked about before in 

some of the hearings and testimonies. For Chairman Shaw and Director Butler, it appears that one of the changes between the final 

and proposed Clean Power Plan rule is the amount of coal-fired 

power plant retirements reflected in the base case, the scenario 

that analyzes the current state of affairs without the Clean Power 

Plan. It appears that the EPA believes that 27 percent or 78 

gigawatts of coal-fired electricity in existence three months ago will 

close by next year even without the implementation of the Clean 

Power Plan. EPA claims that it made this change based on stakeholder comments submitted on the proposed rule. 

So my question, Chairman Shaw and Director Butler, did your 

agencies and the States of Texas and Ohio submit comments for 

the record regarding EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan rule? 

Dr. SHAW. Yes, we did. 

Mr. BUTLER. Representative Johnson, we submitted over 600 

pages of comments on the Clean Power Plan. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Great. For you both, Chairman Shaw and 

Director Butler, in your comments on the proposed Clean Power 

Plan, did you provide comments regarding the number of coal-fired 
54 

retirements that would occur as a result of other EPA rules such 

as the Mercury Air Toxics Rule? 

Dr. SHAW. My agency did not. Our Public Utilities Commission 

perhaps may have. 

Mr. BUTLER. Representative Johnson, we did, and we still, as I 

testified today, just by the mercury, the mass rules that were responsible for closing 25 percent of our megawatts in Ohio, so just 

over 6,000 megawatts of power turned off this year because of the 

mercury standard. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Okay. Final question for the two of you. 

In your opinions, what stakeholder groups would have submitted 

comments that would have led the EPA to make changes to its 

base case scenario for the amount of coal-fired retirements, and do 

you believe that these comments were only submitted in an attempt to make it appear as though the Clean Power Plan was less 

onerous to the states? 

Dr. SHAW. I don’t know what groups submitted comments that 

they were able to base that on, and certainly it does seem especially with the overly aggressive renewables energy goals that they 

have that one could conclude that it appears that they were more 

concerned with getting a 30 percent reduction than in determining 

what BSER was for the different facilities. 

Mr. BUTLER. Representative, I concur with that. I still believe 

that there was a predetermined number or a conclusion before the 

plans ultimately were developed. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Got it. Okay. Well, we’ve heard this before, Mr. Chairman. You know, you got to pass it before you know 

what’s in it. You got to define it before you do the analysis. I mean, 

that’s just a pattern of this Administration in so many areas, and 

this is another one of them. I yield back. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The gentleman yields back. 

Without objection, I have a letter here from the Governor of 

Ohio, John Kasich. It’s a request to suspend implementation of the 

Clean Power Plan. Without objection, I’d like to have this letter entered into the record. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I now recognize the gentleman from 

Alabama, Mr. Palmer, for five minutes. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It was with great interest that I followed your testimony a few 

minutes ago, several minutes ago, Chairman Shaw, that this is 

really not about air quality, it’s about climate change, which I 

think raises some questions as to whether or not this should fall 

under the purview of the EPA since their primary responsibility 

under the Clean Air Act was air quality. That said, one of the 

things that concerns me about this along that same line is your excellent analysis of the scientific evidence to the contrary of what 

this will actually do for climate change, the very limited impact. 

The one thing that you didn’t cover that I’d like for you to comment on is that there’s recently a report from a former lead author 

of the International Panel on Climate Change, Dr. Philip Lloyd 

from South Africa, who says that the majority of climate change 

that we’re seeing is due to natural variations. Are you familiar 

with that? 
55 

Dr. SHAW. I may have. I didn’t recognize it from the author’s 

name but I have read material similar to that. 

Mr. PALMER. I think this guy obviously has an excellent reputation in the scientific community, given that he was a lead author 

of the IPCC, one of their lead authors of the IPCC report. So I 

think it’s sensible then to suggest that the EPA is imposing an 

enormous economic burden on the families of America for little or 

no impact. 

Dr. SHAW. And Congressman, I think that as you even look into 

the material, not the summaries but look into the material of even 

previous IPCC reports, you go back a few years and the message 

wasn’t that climate change, manmade climate change is causing all 

these issues, it’s that we’ve seen a natural climate change and the 

concern was that manmade emissions might accelerate that to lead 

to events, and then there was a shift, it seems to me, that seemed 

to suggest that all weather variability and any unusual weather 

became accredited to climate change, and I think it seems to support what the more robust review of the scientific record reflects. 

Mr. PALMER. That came after they realized that we haven’t had 

any temperature increase in 18 years and there was no evidence 

to support that, so they just changed the dialog from global warming to climate change. 

Mr. Eisdorfer, in regard to this impact that this is going to have 

and your assertion that there’s some association with health benefits and particularly asthma, there’s a study out of UCLA, there’s 

several studies to indicate that the single biggest predictor of asthma is income. It’s not air quality, it’s income. How do you respond 

to that? 

Mr. EISDORFER. Representative Palmer, not really my area of expertise. It may be that low-income folks tend to be downwind from 

generating facilities. 

Mr. PALMER. No, sir. 

Mr. EISDORFER. I’m not really sure what the answer is. 

Mr. PALMER. No, sir, it’s the proximity to traffic and things like 

that may have some impact but the study indicates that the majority of this is low-income families, and I want to continue on that 

line and point out that the National Black Chamber of Commerce 

is opposed to the Clean Power Plan, and they’ve pointed out that 

if this goes into effect, that poverty rates among black families will 

go up 23 percent, among Hispanic families it’ll go up 26 percent. 

And the states that have already implemented a renewable power 

plan such as Maryland, who began this initiative in 2005, their 

power rates have gone up—their electricity power rates have gone 

up 61 percent. So you’re imposing an enormous burden on families 

through this rule that I don’t think the EPA has taken into full 

consideration. 

There’s one other thing about this too is how it impacts senior 

households, basically low-income houses. They’re below 34,000, I 

think, in median income, and there’s a report that came out that 

indicated that you’ve got households, 41 percent of seniors went 

without medical or dental care because they had to make a choice 

between that and paying their energy bill, 30 percent went without 

food for a day, 33 percent did not fill out a prescription or took less 

than a full dose. 
56 

You know, this is the real impact of the regulations that the EPA 

is imposing. This is just some pie-in-the-sky stuff. This is how it 

impacts real people. It costs jobs. The Black National Chamber of 

Commerce is estimating that they’ll lose literally hundreds of thousands of jobs among black workers and hundreds of thousands of 

jobs among Hispanic workers. That’s the real impact. It’s not some 

issue of we may stop this unproven idea of climate change. That’s 

the real impact. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

I’d like to recognize Ranking Member Bonamici for—she’d like to 

make a submission for the record. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to submit 

to the record a letter written to the Administrator of the U.S. EPA 

by the Attorneys General of New York, California, Connecticut, 

Maine, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, 

the District of Columbia, and the Corporation Counsel of the City 

of New York dated August 3, 2015, in which this group of Attorneys General and Corporation Counsel wrote that the power plant 

rules issued today are the product of an unprecedented effort by 

the EPA to solicit public input including from states, cities, nonprofit organizations and industry. They write in strong support of 

the final rules, stating that the rules are firmly grounded in law, 

and I would like to submit this for the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. And of course, the states that are going 

to benefit from the Clean Power Plan financially would be the ones 

that would sign that letter. 

I’d like to recognize Dr. Babin from the great State of Texas. 

Mr. BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that 

you said ‘‘great.’’ 

I have a lot of concerns with the EPA’s final rule for the Clean 

Power Plan. While it’s an improvement over the proposed rule, it 

goes too far with unrealistic expectations for reducing carbon emissions and lacks clarity in other areas. For example, I have a new 

biomass plant in my district that uses forest waste for fuel. Under 

the Clean Power Plan, it’s not clear if this plant would be treated 

as a renewable facility for purposes of emission counting. Has EPA 

provided you, Dr. Shaw, Chairman Shaw with the TCEQ, with any 

more guidance on how these facilities will be handled under the 

Clean Power Plan? 

Dr. SHAW. That is one of those areas that still remains very elusive to get a good answer to, and our fundamental understanding. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Thank you. There’s a lot of folks that are worried about that in my district. 

And also, Dr. Shaw, I have several coal-fired plants in my district. In fact, surprisingly to many Texans, 65 percent of our energy 

is produced in coal-fired plants no matter how cheap natural gas 

is. Do you believe that this new rule will kick-start a transition 

away from coal toward renewable energy in Texas causing a number of coal-fired power units to retire? 
57 

Dr. SHAW. It seems that there’s no other outcome then in order 

to meet the rule would almost dictate require closing and at least 

throttling back to a point that they’re no longer economically feasible to maintain many coal-fired power plants. 

Mr. BABIN. So war in coal is kind of a good name. 

If so, how will this affect the economy and jobs in my district? 

Won’t this raise prices and affect reliability of our energy? 

Dr. SHAW. Congressman, I think based on the fact that especially 

ERCOT and I think your district is in the ERCOT region is an energy only competitive market which has led to, for example, last 

time our checked, our electricity utility rates were about 30 to 35 

percent lower than the RGGI states’ utility rates. That’s been because we’ve incentivized the most efficient generation capacity. 

Anything that makes us depart from that is going to necessarily increase electricity rates, and in fact, the jobs that are utilizing that 

energy. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you. 

And directed at you again, Dr. Shaw and Director Butler, when 

Administrator McCarthy was here and testified before the Science 

Committee back in July, she stated unequivocally that the EPA’s 

regulatory agenda relies on science that is accessible and transparent. Do you agree that with regard to the Clean Power Plan, the 

EPA has promulgated this rule in transparently and that all aspects of the rule including the calculation of benefits rely upon 

science and data that have been publicly made available? 

Dr. SHAW. I think that is a stretch, and certainly we’re still 

digging our way through the 1,500 pages so maybe we’ve missed 

it in their somewhere, Congressman, but it is a challenge to understand the basis, and I think part of that is because it’s very difficult to quantify some of the benefits because it’s difficult to quantify the benefit of a hundredth of an inch of sea-level-rise change. 

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Butler? 

Mr. BUTLER. Representative Babin, I would agree with Bryan, 

my colleague. Relative to transparency, maybe I’ll transition and 

just mention one other issue relative to transparency. U.S. EPA 

often—the Administrator often talks about the unprecedented level 

of outreach that they’ve done and that they held lots of public hearings. I know the States of Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky, we 

asked the Administrator to hold one of those public hearings somewhere within one of our three states so that they could see and get 

firsthand information from those the most dramatically affected by 

the Clean Power Plan, coal miners and coal-fired—folks that work 

at coal-fired power plants. The closest they got was Pittsburgh for 

having one of those public hearings, and frankly, the level of transparent interaction, I think it was more of just a traditional topdown regulatory approach. They developed this Clean Power Plan 

under their own model, handed it to the states. We got an opportunity to provide some comment but ultimately I think they’re still 

continuing down along the strategy that they had all along. 

Mr. BABIN. Absolutely. Thank you. I think we can see a little 

more transparency myself. 

I want to thank all the witnesses, and Mr. Chairman, it seems 

that if you give them an inch, the EPA will take a mile. This plan 

is another overreach by this Administration and I hope not just for 
58 

the sake of my home State of Texas but for the entire country, we 

as a Congress will be able to do something about this final rule. 

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I’d like to thank the doctor from Texas. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, for five 

minutes. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, and Chairman Shaw, I’m going to start 

with you. Thank you for being here. I didn’t get to hear your testimony. I came in late. Apparently I was out too late last night. 

But you mention in your testimony that the EPA seems to be 

choosing energy sources that they prefer, and Mr. Westerman actually said in his comments earlier that it looks like they’re in the 

business of picking winners and losers, and I appreciate your comments when I was here about this adversely affecting low-income 

people, especially in Texas, since we have our own grid at 85 percent, as you know, ERCOT. So what you’re saying is that this is 

actually going to adversely affect low-income people more so than 

others. 

Dr. SHAW. Yes, Congressman. I don’t see a way that—when you 

look at a methodology that changes from dispatching determining 

what your generation source is going to be based on the economics, 

which is what our system, especially in the ERCOT region, is based 

on, that a system that changes that and says create new generation sources that didn’t meet that test, that aren’t as cost-effective, 

and then dispatch based on greenhouse gas emissions alone, that’s 

necessarily going to raise the cost, the rate, if you will, of that electric generation. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, that’s fascinating. I followed your exchange 

with, I think, my colleague from Maryland and also from the north 

part of Texas. Our colleague from Maryland seemed to list just a 

whole bunch of bad things that were going to happen, all kinds of 

illnesses, fires and bad weather. She got down and she even said 

heat. I think she said heat stress, which low-income people would 

actually when their electricity bill goes up be more prone to turn 

off their air conditioning and probably accede to heat stress. She 

had quite a long list of bad things the EPA’s apparently trying to 

prevent. The only thing she left out was mumps and measles. And 

so I was appreciating your comments to the colleague from Texas 

that actually this is about CO2 and that doesn’t cause—I mean, 

CO2 doesn’t cause asthma. 

You also said something I think 100—or Chairman Smith might 

have said one-hundredth of a degree Fahrenheit, an unmeasurable 

raise. Is that what he said? 

Dr. SHAW. I said that as well. The Chairman may have mentioned that as well. That’s from EPA’s—— 

Mr. WEBER. And then one one-hundredth of an inch sea-level 

rise. 

Mr. Eisdorfer, let’s go over to you. You seem to be in favor of the 

plan. One one-hundredth of an inch, I was fascinated by Chairman 

Smith’s comment that that’s three pieces of paper. Three pieces of 

paper. So if we’re going to disadvantage some low-income people, 

and by the way, the EPA cost estimate of this was $9 billion. If you 

divide that out by 50 states, it’s $180 million per state, just FY I. 

A hundred and eighty million dollars per state. If we’re going to 
59 

disadvantage low-income people and cause their electricity prices to 

rise, Mr. Eisdorfer, how many sheets of paper would you add to 

that pile to disenfranchise what percentage of the elderly and the 

low-income? Would you add one sheet to increase the number of 

disadvantaged economically by this? I mean, is it worth that I 

guess is what I’m saying? 

Mr. EISDORFER. Congressman Weber, it’s absolutely worth it. It 

is—— 

Mr. WEBER. It is worth it to add one sheet of paper to sea-level 

rise to actually economically disadvantage how many, one percent 

of the elderly in Oregon? 

Mr. EISDORFER. So we’re talking about climate change as if it 

were an environmental issue and this is a one side versus the other 

side kind of thing. I tend to see climate change almost entirely as 

a social and societal issue. The Earth is going to take care of itself. 

The issue is, how is humanity going to fare in it, and the Clean 

Power Plan is not the cure-all but it is the start, and it’s sort of 

interesting to me, in this discussion we’re talking about the economics of the plan. We haven’t talked a lot about the economics of 

the built environment in Miami or Manhattan. 

Mr. WEBER. Let me stop you there. I’m running short on time. 

When you talk about states being socioeconomic and you said it’s 

not about environment, which is really interesting to me, so if 

you’re concerned about people and society—Mr. Foster was saying 

that a thousand people, I think, would die in Ohio from—in his exchange with Director Butler from coal-fired plants. The truth of the 

matter is, and I did some Citicom—this Citi data.com research real 

quick. People are leaving Ohio because there’s no jobs, and actually 

2,800 of them left in 2008 alone and came to Texas. If you looked 

back and you did some more research, Chicago Tribune will tell 

you that July 2013 to July 2014, 10,000 people left and headed to 

Texas, Florida and California. So we have our great TCEQ Director 

or Chairman here. We understand in Texas we want clean air, 

we’re doing a good job, so it is about society but it’s doing it reasonably, and I don’t think this EPA rule is reasonable. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence. I yield back. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The gentleman yields back. 

We have a request for another couple of minutes of questions 

from one of our Members, and Ranking Member Bonamici has been 

gracious enough to allow that, so I’m going to give her two minutes 

to ask a few more questions. Then I’ll give our side another two 

minutes to ask a few more questions, then we’ll close. 

Ms. Bonamici, you’re recognized. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Eisdorfer, I want to follow up on the discussion we were having about the changes that the EPA made in the final rule about 

the way it treats a number of renewable sources. We talked about 

biomass but also nuclear. Hydropower is very important. Oregon 

does not have any nuclear power plants. But can you talk about 

whether those changes in the treatment of renewables will affect 

the state’s energy mix, and if so, how? 

Mr. EISDORFER. Two changes. One, hydropower was not included 

in the baseline this time so the fact that Oregon is a hydropower 

state doesn’t actually play into whether we are doing well or not. 
60 

And secondly, under the mass-based approach, any renewable investment that would allow a fossil fuel resource to be dispatched 

differently, dispatched less, and actually reduce emissions is a very 

good thing. So in that sense, any non-carbon-emitting resource that 

allows the existing thermal plants to operate differently is good for 

the state. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. 

And in my remaining minute, you said in your testimony that 

Oregon is not an island, and we’ve talked about the regional approach, but could you briefly mention the importance of the United 

States taking a leadership role in international efforts to reduce 

carbon emissions and lessening the risks and impacts associated 

with climate change? 

Mr. EISDORFER. Well, two brief things. I’ve heard discussion here 

about sort of a top-down very heavy-handed approach, and unwittingly I think the EPA actually didn’t do that. The Clean Air Act 

is a work between—is working—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. The Clean Power Plan? 

Mr. EISDORFER. Well, the Clean Air Act itself actually requires 

the federal government and the states to work well together, and 

the Clean Power Plan itself is really offering opportunities for the 

states to work very well to come up and share with each other and 

learn from each other, and assuming we can do that, we can really 

show the world the kinds of opportunities there are to reduce carbon emissions at a very least-cost path, and so if we can do it, everyone else can do it. We just need to show the world that we can 

do it. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I thank the Ranking Member, and the 

gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, is recognized for two minutes. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Shaw, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the EPA 

erred in issuing its proposal to limit mercury emissions from fossilfuel-fired power plants. Unfortunately, a number of states had already implemented control technologies and shut down plants in 

order to comply. What I’d like to ask you, and Mr. Butler, you can 

respond as well, and we’ve only got a couple of minutes, so if you 

can, make it brief, should this give states pause when considering 

whether to comply with the Clean Power Plan? 

Dr. SHAW. Certainly, Congressman, that’s one of the great concerns. As I refer to it, it’s the camel’s nose getting under the tent, 

and that is the impacts of this rule will be irreversible in that decisions are already being made and the uncertainty is leading to decisions, and if this rule is not stayed, there are going to have to 

be decisions that are being made and frankly, coal-fired power 

plants are going to be making determinations, do I invest in some 

of the other regulations, some of which Mr. Butler talked about, in 

hopes that I’ll still be allowed to operate under the Clean Power 

Plan. And so it’s a great concern. 

Mr. PALMER. Because I’ve only got a minute, let me direct this 

question to you, Chairman Butler. Would it be your opinion that 

submitting a state implementation plan would potentially put your 
61 

state and other states in a position of implementing costly regulations which might be struck down later by the Court? 

Mr. BUTLER. Representative Palmer, that’s exactly the point that 

we were making as well with a group of states asking U.S. EPA 

to stay the execution of this until all these legal challenges and uncertainty have been resolved. The MATS rule is a clear example in 

Ohio. It caused 6,100 megawatts of power to be turned off this year 

and it’s irreversible. The Clean Power Plan is far more sweeping 

than the MATS rule. We would expect an even greater result if 

that were to go forward. 

Mr. PALMER. I want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking 

Member Bonamici for allowing the additional questions. I yield, sir. 

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

Alabama, thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony. You 

want an additional two minutes as well? All right. The gentleman 

from Texas is recognized for two minutes. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your overriding generosity. 

Chairman Shaw, as you know, in Texas in the 81st or 82nd session we passed a law the Governor signed into effect that says the 

TCEQ in promulgating rules and regulations has to take into account the effect on industry and the economic impact. So I think 

we get right in Texas. A lot of people are moving to Texas as everybody recognizes, and we do create a lot of jobs. What advice would 

you give us in this last minute or so about the EPA, how they 

might could do things better, making the air cleaner, the water 

cleaner but still helping our economy? What advice would you 

offer? 

Dr. SHAW. Well, thank you, Congressman. I think I’ll start with 

our mission. Our mission statement is effectively that we’re to provide for clean air, clean water and the safe disposal of waste in 

keeping with sustainable economic development, and that’s a recognition that we’re not choosing the environment or the economics, 

one or the other; we’re choosing to have both because we recognize 

that we have to have a strong economy to make further environmental investments and we have to have a clean environment to 

be able to track the kinds of jobs and businesses that people want 

to work in and raise their families around. And so my advice would 

be that if the EPA would focus and partner with states, recognizing 

that we want to protect our environment. We’re looking for largely 

market-based approaches but certainly we want to be able to maintain our state’s ability to customize those regulatory approaches to 

fit the specific dynamics of our state. We end up—and I think 

Texas is a great example. We’re able to get greater results faster 

and more economically, and that helps to share them not only 

across the United States but even across the world as we do things 

more efficiently, others adopt those same techniques. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. You’ve got 15 more seconds if you’d like 

it. 

Mr. WEBER. Director Butler, this is a question—— 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Okay. Now I recognize myself to close. 
62 

I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. The record will remain open for two weeks 

for additional comments and written questions from the Members. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(63) 

Appendix I 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
64 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE BONAMICI
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE BRIDENSTINE
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 

DOCUMENT SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE EDWARDS
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE PALMER
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) 

Appendix II 

SLIDES
126 

SLIDE SUBMITTED BY REPRESENATIVE BIRDENSTINE
127 

SLIDE SUBMITTED BY REPRESENATIVE FOSTER
128 

Æ