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

94–838 PDF 2015

EXAMINING THE IMPACTS OF EPA AIR 

AND WATER REGULATIONS ON THE STATES 

AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE INTERIOR 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 26, 2015 

Serial No. 114–20 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ROD BLUM, Iowa 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

WILL HURD, Texas 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

TED LIEU, California 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

MARK DeSAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Staff Director 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

JOSEPH BRAZAUSKAS, Counsel 

DREW COLLIATIE, Professional Staff Member 

SHARON CASEY, Deputy Chief Clerk 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INTERIOR

Cynthia M. Lummis (WY), Chairman 

Paul A. Gosar (AZ) 

Blake Farenthold (TX) 

Ken Buck (CO), Vice Chair 

Steve Russell (OK) 

Gary J. Palmer (AL) 

Brenda L. Lawrence (MI), Ranking Member 

Matt Cartwright (PA) 

Stacey E. Plaskett (VI) 

Jim Cooper (TN) 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on February 26, 2015 ....................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Tim Fox, Attorney General, State of Montana 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 5 

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

Ms. Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General, State of Arkansas 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 13 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15 

Ms. Anne E. Smith, Ph.D, Senior Vice President, NERA Economic Consulting 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 27 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 29 

Mr. David Harrison, Ph.D, Senior Vice President, NERA Economic Consulting 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 51 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 53 

Ms. Susan F. Tierney, Ph.D, Senior Advisor, Analysis Group 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 80 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 82 

APPENDIX 

Statement of Ms. Lummis, Chairwoman of Subcommittee .................................. 104 

Statement of Mrs. Lawrence, Representative ....................................................... 106 

2014–06 Henry Waxman ‘‘The Clean Air Act’s Track Record’’ ............................ 109 

2015–02–26 National Wildlife Statement .............................................................. 112 

2014–06–12 Tsirigotis-EPA to Coyote-Crow MT ................................................... 120 

Links to: 

2014–07–31 NERA ‘‘Assessing Economic Impacts of a Stricter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone’’ .................................................. 122 

2014–10–16 NERA ‘‘Potential Impacts of the EPA Clean Power Plan’’ ....... 122 

2015–02–26 ‘‘Economic Impacts of a 65 ppb National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard for Ozone’’ ..................................................................................... 122 

2015–02–26 NERA ‘‘Economic Impacts of a 65 ppb National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard for Ozone’’ ................................................................. 122 

2015–02–26 National Association of Realtors Statement ..................................... 143 

Thomas Easterly-IDEM Statement ........................................................................ 159 

AG Comments-EPA Carbon Emission Guidelines ................................................ 162 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

EXAMINING THE IMPACTS OF EPA AIR AND 

WATER REGULATIONS ON THE STATES AND 

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 

Thursday, February 26, 2015, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INTERIOR, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m. in room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Cynthia Lummis [chairwoman of the subcommittee], presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lummis, Chaffetz, Buck, Palmer, 

Gosar, Russell, Lawrence, Cartwright, and Plaskett. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. 

Good afternoon and welcome to the first hearing for the new Subcommittee on Interior of the Oversight and Government Reform 

Committee. 

I am pleased to be holding this hearing on the impact on the 

American people of three proposed EPA rules. 

Over the last year, the EPA has issued rules that are unprecedented in scope and among the most expensive in history. This 

overreach will impact families and businesses across the country. 

The first rule we will examine is the redefinition of the term 

waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act. Despite 

two Supreme Court rulings that define the maximum reach of the 

Clean Water Act, the EPA has proposed a rule that will increase 

its regulatory authority far beyond current policy. 

It would allow the EPA almost unconstrained access to regulate 

and burden landowners with endless environmental studies. Even 

more disturbing, the Waters of the U.S. rule still does not provide 

the regulatory certainty that farmers, small businesses and homeowners need. 

Instead, it will result in more red tape, displace local management programs and shift limited resources away from working environmental programs. 

We will also examine two EPA Clean Air Act rules that would 

fundamentally alter the relationship between States and the Federal Government. These rules would result in massive consumer 

electricity price increases and trillions of dollars in lost economic 

activity. 

These rules are particularly damaging to my home State of Wyoming where we produce over 40 percent of the Nation’s coal. They 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

would force the retirement of coal power plants across the country, 

significantly increasing electricity and natural gas prices and 

threatens the reliability of the electric grid. 

The first of these air regulations is called the Clean Power Plan. 

This proposed rule would require the regulation of existing power 

plants and unconstitutionally expand EPAs authority into the management of States energy generation. 

It does this through so-called beyond the fence measures that 

regulate more than just power plants. These measures would mandate energy efficiency requirements on individual households. Compliance costs of the Clean Power Plan could be as high as $479 billion by 2030 and 43 States would face double digit electric price increases. 

This massive cost comes with extremely limited benefits and violates the principles of federalism. 

The second regulation we will examine is the EPAs proposal to 

update the air quality standards for ground level ozone. This benign sounding rule is actually widely considered to be the most expansive and expensive rule in the history of the United States. 

Independent experts estimate the total possible cost of the rule at $1.7 trillion and 1.4 million job equivalence lost per year. This 

rule is so burdensome that some national parks, the Nation’s most 

pristine environments, will be found to violate the new standards. 

Today, we will hear from two State Attorney Generals, who will 

explain the impact these rules will have on the States. They will 

also discuss the EPAs utter lack of consultation with Native communities despite clear legal requirements. 

We will also hear from two economists who raise significant 

questions about EPAs cost estimates. Just as importantly, these 

economists will also testify that the EPA is systematically overestimating the benefits of these rules by double counting benefits from 

other rules, ignoring basic accounting practices and projecting benefits out hundreds of years. 

Ms. LUMMIS. With that, I would like to thank the witnesses in 

advance of your testimony. We are so grateful that you are here. 

I now recognize Mrs. Lawrence, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Interior, for her opening Statement. Mrs. Lawrence, I am so pleased to be serving with you. I so enjoyed our visit 

the other night. Welcome to our collaboration. The microphone is 

yours. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. It is an honor to be a Member of Congress and 

to sit with the leadership that we have as the Chair for this committee. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I want to thank you for holding this hearing. 

I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today. 

In a special message to Congress in 1970, President Nixon stated: ‘‘As concern with the condition of our physical environment has 

intensified, it has become increasingly clear that we need to know 

more about the total environment, land, water and air.’’ Indeed, the 

present government structure for dealing with environmental pollution often defies effective and concerted efforts. 

In proposing that the Environmental Protection Agency be set up 

as a separate, new agency, ‘‘I am making an exception to one of my 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

own principles that as a matter of effective and orderly administration, additional new, independent agencies normally should not be 

created. Because environmental protection cuts across so many jurisdictions and because arresting environmental deterioration is of 

great importance to the quality of life in our country and the world, 

I believe that in this case, a strong, independent agency is needed.’’ 

I want to start by saying that the EPA was not established to 

be red or blue. It was established to be green. It was established 

to help us protect our environment, our citizens and our children. 

First, I would like to address the Clean Water Act which has 

been successful in past years ensuring that Americans have clean 

and safe water. Those of us who have been involved and informed 

know that there are some challenges across our country that are 

stepping up now and that we need to address. 

I believe we all agree that clean water is vital to each of us for 

our drinking supply, for safe places to swim, for healthy fish, for 

growing crops, for beverage manufacturing, for energy generation 

and for a host of other uses. 

The proposed EPA rule would improve the process for determining what types of water are and are not covered by the Clean 

Water Act. Contrary to the claim of detectors, the rule would clarify protection for streams and wetlands that form the foundation 

of the Nation’s water resources. 

It will not result in an expansion of Federal authority. Only 

waters that have been historically covered by the Clean Water Act 

are covered by the rule. 

Turning our attention to the dangers of ozone exposure is equally 

important. More than 1,000 new studies demonstrate the health 

and environment harms of ozone. Exposure can cause difficulty 

breathing and airway inflammation. Ozone exposure is likely to 

cause permanent death from lung disease. 

Children often suffer from a disproportionate burden of ozone related health impacts because their lungs and other organs are still 

developing. Nearly 26 million people have asthma in the United 

States, including 7.1 million children. 

Fortunately over 40 years ago, Congress passed the Clean Air 

Act to protect public health and the environment. 

Recently, EPA proposed new national air quality standards for 

ozone to lower the ozone in the atmosphere from 75 ppb to a range 

of 65 to 70 ppb by the year 2030. The Clean Power Plan has also 

been proposed in order to limit the amount of carbon pollution 

power plants will emit. Likewise, the Waters of the United States 

rule was proposed to clarify which bodies of water are or are not 

covered by the Clean Water Act. 

History tells us that environmental regulations do not cause an 

economic calamity. In fact, in the past 40 years, the CDP has increased by 212 percent since the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts 

were enacted. 

Clean air pollutions have decreased by 70 percent. Instead of 

killing jobs, as some opponents have claimed, the pollution control 

industry has generated more than $300 billion in revenue and $44 

billion in exports and supported 1.5 million jobs. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

None of the inflated costs of implementing these laws ever materialized. Industry innovation improved and thrived in response to 

new demands. 

In closing, there have been numerous processes in the past few 

decades to clean up the air and water but more work is necessary 

to adequately protect public health from ozone, excessive carbon dioxide and water pollution and to mitigate the efforts of climate 

change. 

I hope that we look at this industry and recognize the oppositions 

of some industries based on really scare mongering. History shows 

us that cleaning the air and water are both good for public health, 

good for our economy and good for our country. 

Thank you. 

Ms. LUMMIS. I thank the gentlelady from Michigan and look forward to our collaboration. Our districts just about couldn t be more 

different than two districts in the United States. She represents 

northern areas of Detroit, very urban, and my State of Wyoming 

is the most sparsely populated in the Nation, rich in clean air, 

clean water and natural resources. 

This will be fun. I am very much looking forward to working 

with you. Thank you for your opening remarks. 

I am now pleased to recognize Mr. Chaffetz, the Chairman of the 

full committee, for his Statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 

creating this subcommittee and giving us an opportunity to look at 

some issues that are so impactful for our citizens. The time is 

yours. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. I thank you for being the chairwoman 

of this committee. We reconfigured this to give some focus not only 

between the Department of Interior but also the Forest Service, the 

Department of Energy and the EPA so that we, as the oversight 

committee, can look at the far reaching breadth rather than just 

have it siloed in one committee or another. 

I appreciate all the members who will participate on these panels 

and in all these discussions. 

I too am from the intermountain west. We are proud neighbors 

of Wyoming. Where we produce a lot of this energy. We have an 

abundance of coal, natural gas and oil shale. Yet every time I turn 

around, there seems to be some reason, some other implication that 

is put out there by the EPA. 

We love the west; we love our mountains, our air, our water and 

our streams. I do think there is a role to create some bounds and 

rules of the road, but I do worry about how severe the EPA is in 

its approach. 

It wasn t too long ago in this very room we found out that the 

person heading up Air and Water Quality, one of the most senior 

people at the EPA, we had a hearing, he had not shown up for 

work in years. He was convicted of fraud and is in jail. He had to 

pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in restitution to the government because he was telling his senior leadership that he was a 

CIA agent and that he was overseas in Afghanistan. 

It begs the question, if he was so fraudulent that he actually 

went to jail, what about all the regulations that came into place for 

air and water quality during that time. It does beg the question. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

We have had the Inspector General here talking about the problems they have with sexual harassment in the senior-most offices. 

We have had people here talking about the fact that they cannot 

seem to fire anyone and move them out the door. 

Time and time again, the EPA has routinely been here talking 

about all these problems with mismanagement and waste. Yet, 

they want to go into our States and start telling people how to conduct their business. 

Again, we need clean coal and good energy. I buy that. Let us 

also understand that there are very real impacts upon economies, 

jobs and peoples livelihoods. Their job role and responsibility is not 

to just shutdown everyone. 

I really appreciate the panel who I think can give us a much 

broader scope and understanding of all the ramifications that come 

into place when you have the EPA come in. I appreciate the Attorney Generals who have taken time out of their busy schedule to 

give us their perspective from across the United States. 

I look forward to some robust discussions today. I have great optimism for this panel and this subcommittee moving forward. 

With that, I yield back. 

Ms. LUMMIS. I thank the Chairman. 

I will hold open the record for five legislative days for any member who would like to submit a written Statement. 

We will now recognize our panel of witnesses. I am pleased to 

welcome the Honorable Tim Fox, Attorney General, State of Montana; the Honorable Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General, State of Arkansas; Dr. David Harrison, Senior Vice President, NERA Economic Consulting; Dr. Anne E. Smith, Ph.D, Senior Vice President, 

NERA Economic Consulting; and Dr. Susan F. Tierney, Ph.D, Senior Advisor, Analysis Group. Welcome all. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn before 

they testify. Please rise and raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth? 

[Witnesses respond in the affirmative.] 

Ms. LUMMIS. In order to allow time for discussion, please limit 

your testimony to 5 minutes. Your entire written Statement will be 

made a part of the record. 

I now would like to recognize Attorney General Fox for his opening Statement. 

STATEMENT OF TIM FOX 

Mr. FOX. Chairman Lummis, Congresswoman Lawrence and 

members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to speak here 

today. 

I am Tim Fox, the Attorney General of Montana. Without hopefully offending any of the other members of the committee, Congresswoman Lawrence, you will be glad to hear that I am Detroit 

Tigers fan—go Tigers. 

I will speak briefly this morning of my concerns with three regulatory initiatives by the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency. Two are rulemaking proposals and one involves an unprecVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:27 Oct 28, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\94838.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

edented action by EPA to exercise a preemptive veto of a Section 

404 permit. 

In a proposal published in the Federal Register on April 21, 

2014, EPA proposes to amend the definition of ‘‘waters of the U.S.’’ 

in such a way that would extend the reach of the Clean Water Act 

to virtually all interState and intraState waters and all lands 

which could potentially affect such waters. 

Montana is, for the most part, a headwater State, blessed with 

waters of exceptional quality. The people of Montana have taken 

steps to fully protect that priceless resource. Those steps begin 

with our State Constitution which provides comprehensive protections for our waters. 

We have implemented those constitutional safeguards through 

the 1971 Montana Water Quality Act and regulations to implement 

the Act. Based on its Water Quality Act, Montana sought and was 

granted primacy to implement the Clean Water Act s permit system in the State but even beyond the permit protections, the Montana DEQ has broad authority to prevent pollution. 

The point is that Montana has taken primary responsibility for 

its land and waters as was assumed by Congress when it enacted 

the Clean Water Act. There is no justification for extending the 

reach of the Clean Water Act in our State. 

The overreach impinges indirectly on our State’s sovereignty and 

offends Congress Stated intention in the Clean Water Act to recognize, protect and preserve the primary rights of the States to manage their lands and water resources. 

The second problematic proposed rule is EPAs June 18, 2014 existing source proposal under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. 

I join the Attorneys General of 16 other States in comments on 

that proposal, but I also filed separate comments with Chairman 

Darrin Old Coyote of the Crow Nation. I want to talk just a minute 

about those comments. 

I grew up Hardin, Montana on the Crow Reservation and developed a deep appreciation both for the Crow people and the problems they faced and continue to face. The Crow Nation has huge, 

undeveloped coal reserves and one operating mine, the Absaloka 

Mine which provides two-thirds of the Crow Nation’s annual nonFederal budget and is by far the largest private employer on the 

reservation. 

Unfortunately, one of the very likely effects of EPA’s existing 

source rule would be to kill the market for the coal produced by the 

Absaloka Mine which is nearly all sold to Minnesota utilities. This 

will in turn kill the mine, in turn causing drastic loss of services 

and employment on the Crow Reservation. 

EPA has a legal duty under Executive Order 13175 to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development 

of regulatory proposals that affect tribes. Aside from two ‘‘Dear 

Tribal Leader’’ form letters, nobody from the agency contacted the 

Crow Nation directly in a government to government contact as required by Executive Order 13175 and the Presidential Memo which 

implements the Order. 

Given the consequences of the proposed rule to the Crow Nation, 

this doesn’t seem a sufficient effort on the part of EPA. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 

Third and last, the matter I want to address today is EPA’s involvement and their actions relating to the proposed Pebble Mine 

project in Alaska. 

In 1979, the EPA promulgated a rule providing the Administrator could prohibit the specification of a site under Section 404(c) 

before a permit application has been submitted to or approved by 

the Corps or a State. 

This authority up to now has never been used to issue a preemptive veto. However, last year, the EPA proposed to use the authority to issue a preemptive veto before any formal application for a 

permit had been prepared or filed by the developer of the Pebble 

project. 

As Montana’s chief legal officer, it greatly concerns me that we 

can see a situation in our State where the Administrator of a Federal agency preemptively vetoes a development proposal before we 

have an opportunity to receive, review and comment on an application for permit. 

Chairman Lummis, Congresswoman Lawrence and members of 

the committee, thank you again for giving me some time here today 

to speak on behalf of the people of Montana. I have submitted a 

more comprehensive written testimony for your consideration. 

I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. 

[Prepared Statement of Mr. Fox follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
8 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 94838.006
9 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 94838.007
10 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 94838.008
11 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 94838.009
12 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 94838.010
13 

Ms. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman and look forward to visiting 

with him some time about the Purple Cow Restaurant in Hardin, 

Montana that I used to frequent when I was a younger gal. 

Mr. FOX. Chairman Lummis, if I may, my mother was the hostess at the Purple Cow. 

Ms. LUMMIS. That was one of my favorite places. I have pictures 

at the Purple Cow. 

The chair now recognizes the Attorney General of the State of 

Arkansas, Ms. Rutledge, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LESLIE RUTLEDGE, ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

STATE OF ARKANSAS 

Ms. RUTLEDGE. Chairman Lummis, Ranking Member Lawrence 

and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to speak 

with you all today. 

My name is Leslie Rutledge, Arkansas Attorney General. I am 

here today to give you a sense of our State, one that is rich in natural heritage and is known across the Nation as the natural State 

for rolling hills, dense woodlands, miles of rivers and lakes and 

how they will be impacted by overreaching regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Specifically, the EPA exceeds its legal authority in three recently 

proposed rules: the Clean Power Plan, more stringent ground level 

ozone standards and changes to the definitions of the waters of the 

United States. 

As Attorney General, I represent the interests of Arkansas utility 

rate payers. These are hardworking Arkansans, some who own 

their own small businesses, some run multigenerational family 

farms from Fayetteville to Warren to Texarkana to Jonesboro, and 

all points in between. I have heard grave concern about the EPA’s 

proposed Clean Power Plan. 

The rule requires Arkansas to meet an almost 45 percent reduction in carbon emissions from electric generating units by 2030. 

This is the sixth highest rate of reduction in the Nation imposed 

upon a State that ranks 46th in per capita income. 

This is a rule that the EPA does not have the legal authority to 

issue. The EPA regulates coal-fired power plants such as the one 

in Independence County, where I grew up, under Section 112 of the 

Clean Air Act, not Section 111(b). 

The law cannot be clearer. It specifically prohibits the EPA from 

invoking 111(b) where the source category is regulated under Section 112. The proposed rule mandates what each State must 

achieve rather than providing guidelines and procedures for States 

to use. This is a serious overreach of the EPA’s authority and different from the implementation of any other limits set under the 

Clean Air Act. 

My opposition to this rule begs the question whether I am for 

clean air. I certainly am and I can confidently say that all Arkansans are in favor of clean air. 

The rule goes beyond the EPA’s authority to regulate air pollution. It imposes a misguided, national energy policy and seeks to 

control the State’s regulation of energy generation and usage. 

Also, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has proposed unnecessarily stringent ground level ozone standards. The proposed rule 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
14 

reduces the current standard of 75 ppm to somewhere between 60 

to 70 ppm. A decrease to 60 ppm will have a devastating effect on 

Arkansas. At that level, almost all of Arkansas would likely be in 

non-attainment. 

Anyone who has visited Arkansas would be hard pressed to believe that our beautiful mountains have a smog problem. Years of 

nonattainment would directly set back economic recovery that we 

have achieved in the past few years. 

Likewise, the EPA’s attempt to clarify the definition of the 

waters of the U.S. is so expansive that it would likely control land 

use activities over most of the United States. As Arkansas Attorney 

General, this is a major concern for me because this would drastically impact our farmers and ranchers. 

Rather than clarifying, the rule complicates current law. The 

process for determining jurisdiction becomes a maize for both regulators and for the public to navigate. Arkansas’ agricultural community would be left with increased uncertainty over the Clean 

Water Act. 

Agriculture is essential to our economy. According to the Arkansas Farm Bureau, agriculture provides $16 billion annually and 

one out of every six jobs in the State. 

While the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have repeatedly offered verbal assurances that agriculture need not worry 

about the scope of the proposed definition of waters of the United 

States, farmers in Arkansas worry because of the actions of agencies, not their words. 

For example, in 2014, the Corps took action against a Tennessee 

row crop farm determining that a field was considered waters of 

the U.S. Arkansas farmers worry that every day activities such as 

plowing and applying fertilizer and pesticides will subject them, 

just like our neighboring State of Tennessee, to Federal jurisdiction 

under the Clean Water Act. 

While each of these rules would cause great harm to Arkansas 

on their own, the cumulative effect cannot be overStated. This Administration is intent on following an agenda that ignores the plain 

language passed by Congress and has created a perfect storm of 

Federal regulation that will result in economic disaster for Arkansas. 

Arkansans believe in protecting our environment. We take great 

pride in being the natural State and take pride in supplying the 

world with food and growing jobs in our State. 

I thank Chairman Lummis, Ranking Member Lawrence and 

other members of the committee for the opportunity to address you 

all today. I welcome your questions. Thank you. 

[Prepared Statement of Ms. Rutledge follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
15 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 94838.011
16 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 94838.012
17 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 94838.013
18 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 94838.014
19 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 94838.015
20 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 94838.016
21 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 94838.017
22 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 94838.018
23 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 94838.019
24 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 94838.020
25 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 94838.021
26 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 94838.022
27 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you, Attorney General Rutledge. 

Before I recognize Dr. Smith, it appears we may be interrupted 

by votes. We will hear the entirety of Dr. Smith’s opening Statement for 5 minutes. If votes have been called, then we will take 

a break for about 25 minutes while the members of the committee 

vote and return to hear the opening Statements of Drs. Harrison 

and Tierney. 

With that, Dr. Smith, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ANNE E. SMITH 

Ms. SMITH. Thank you, Chairwoman Lummis, Ranking Member 

Lawrence and other members of the committee. Thank you for the 

invitation to speak at this hearing. 

I am Anne Smith of NERA Economic Consulting. My testimony 

today is my own and does not represent the position of my company or any of my clients. 

This hearing is about the impacts of EPA regulations. I will address some insights and issues about the comparisons of the benefits and the costs of two major regulations EPA is presently proposing. 

The first, the Clean Power Plan, is to reduce electricity sector 

emissions of carbon dioxide. The other is a tightening of the ozone 

national ambient air quality standard, NAAQS. 

My colleague to my left, Dr. Harrison, will be testifying on high 

costs of these regulations and analyses we have done together at 

NERA. I agree with all that he will have to say. 

I am going to focus on EPA’s own estimates of the benefits of 

these two rules and how they compare to costs. For these comparisons, I will only use EPA’s own lower cost estimates. 

My bottom line is that EPA’s analyses of both rules offer a far 

weaker case that the benefits of those rules will exceed their costs 

than one would believe from listening to EPA’s press releases or 

reading the regulatory impact analyses. 

First, for the Clean Power Plan, EPA’s comparisons of the costs 

and benefits of the CPP falsely suggest that climate benefits will 

exceed costs during the period of implementation, 2020 to 2030. 

When correctly presented, EPA’s own estimates reveal that it 

finds the CPP will cost more than $180 billion by 2030, in present 

value terms and that the present value of its cumulative climate 

benefits are not expected to exceed that $180 billion of cost until 

more than 100 years later. 

Furthermore, EPA’s estimates of those climate benefits are global benefits, all countries of the world and the benefits to the U.S., 

including future U.S. generations, not just current U.S. generations, are not expected to exceed that rule’s costs, even under the 

most pessimistic projections of potential climate impacts that EPA 

is using in its regulatory impact analysis. 

I will now turn to the proposed ozone NAAQS revision. At tightening of the current ozone NAAQS could be much more expensive 

than the proposed Clean Power Plan. Yet, for this rule, EPA does 

not estimate this rule’s ozone-related benefits will exceed its costs, 

even using EPA’s own cost estimates. 

How then can EPA claim that the benefits of the ozone NAAQS 

will ‘‘outweigh it’s cost by as much as three to one?’’ The answer 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
28 

is, they pad the benefits estimates with so-called co-benefits. Cobenefits are estimates of benefits based on projections of coincidental changes in a completely different pollutant than ozone, a 

completely different pollutant than the target of the regulation. 

These are coincidental reductions projected to occur in fine particulate matter, PM2.5, which are the subject of their own regulatory coverage under NAAQS. 

EPA has a long tradition of making rules appear to have benefits 

that exceed their costs by adding such massive doses of co-benefits 

from PM2.5. In fact, these co-benefits also appear in the benefit 

cost analysis for the CPP, the climate rule we are talking about. 

The thousands of premature deaths and the hundreds of thousands of avoided asthma attacks that EPA has claimed for that climate rule are based on PM2.5 co-benefits. They have nothing to do 

with climate benefit estimates whatsoever. 

I have written and testified previously on the problems with 

what I have called EPA’s co-benefits habit. I reference the writing 

of that discussed in my written testimony. 

To summarize briefly, even the Administrator s Statements 

about the health benefits of PM2.5 imply that these co-benefits 

may not exist at all. That is because they are based on changes in 

PM2.5 concentrations that are already below the protected level of 

the PM2.5 ambient air quality standard. 

But, even if they did exist, they should not be used to promote 

regulations that have nothing to do with PM2.5 such as these two 

EPA proposals I have talked about which are intended not to reduce PM2.5 but to deal with climate impacts and ozone exposures. 

Using co-benefits in this way is a recipe for creating economically 

inefficient policies for managing those purported risks of PM2.5 

while it also misleads the public on the need for more costly regulations of these other two pollutants. 

Thank you very much for your attention. I will answer questions 

later if you are interested. 

[Prepared Statement of Ms. Smith follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
29 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 94838.023
30 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 94838.024
31 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 94838.025
32 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 94838.026
33 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 94838.027
34 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 94838.028
35 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 94838.029
36 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 94838.030
37 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 94838.031
38 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 94838.032
39 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 94838.033
40 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 94838.034
41 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 94838.035
42 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 94838.036
43 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 94838.037
44 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 94838.038
45 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 94838.039
46 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 94838.040
47 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 94838.041
48 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 94838.042
49 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 94838.043
50 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 94838.044
51 

Ms. LUMMIS. We are interested, Dr. Smith. Thank you very much 

for your testimony. 

Votes have been called on the floor. The subcommittee will reconvene shortly after the end of the last vote. If you could all return 

shortly after the last votes, we would deeply appreciate it. 

The subcommittee stands in recess and with bated breath to hear 

the testimony of Drs. Harrison and Tierney. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. LUMMIS. I thank the panel for its patience with our leave of 

absence to be voting on the floor. 

Our next witness is Dr. Harrison. Thank you for being here. We 

look forward to hearing from you. The floor is yours, Dr. Harrison. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID HARRISON 

Mr. HARRISON. Thank you, Chairwoman Lummis and members 

of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to participate 

in today’s hearings. 

I am Dr. David Harrison, Jr. My testimony is my own and does 

not represent my company or any client. 

My comments on the economic impacts of EPA regulations are 

based on two recent NERA studies. One related to the national ambient air quality standard for ozone and one related to EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from 

the electric utility sector. 

Both studies indicate that these two major environmental policies could have very substantial economic impacts on individual 

States and on the U.S. as a whole. Let me start with the ozone 

study. 

My written testimony is based on a July 2014 study we did, but 

today we released an update that reflects EPA’s November 2014 

ozone proposal. I believe you have received copies of that. I would 

like to request that it be entered into the record. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. HARRISON. Thank you. 

In this updated study, we evaluated a 65 ppb ozone standard. We 

used the same basic methodology as in our earlier study, but used 

EPA’s newer released data on the emissions control technologies 

and costs. 

A key finding of our analysis is that more than 60 percent of the 

emission reductions required to reach the 65 ppb standard was 

what EPA refers to as unknown controls. That is, controls that 

EPA did not identify in its analysis. 

These controls, they assumed, would be equal to the same 

$15,000 per ton regardless of the emission source, the State or the 

level of control. 

In contrast, we developed what we have referred to as an evidence-based approach to identify the likely nature of these controls. 

We concluded that they would mostly involve closure of power 

plants or turnover of older vehicles and similar equipment. 

We found that most of these controls would cost much more than 

the $15,000 per ton that EPA had assumed. 

Using these estimates of compliance costs and NERA’s macroeconomic model called NewERA, we estimate that a 65 ppb ozone 

standard would reduce U.S. GDP by an average of $140 billion per 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
52 

year over the period from 2017 to 2040. The present value of the 

cost today would be $1.7 trillion. 

Other impacts were correspondingly large. For example, the annual reduction in employment income would be equivalent to 1.4 

million jobs per year. The annual reduction in consumer spending 

power would be about $830 per household. 

Let me briefly turn to the Clean Power Plan Study. We evaluated 

what EPA’s preferred option, what they referred to as Option 1, 

which was designed to reduce U.S. power CO2 emissions by 30 percent below their 2005 level. 

They set these State level emission rates based on their analysis 

of production from four building blocks. These building blocks were 

energy efficiency, increased utilization of natural gas, increases in 

renewable and nuclear energy and increases in end use efficiency. 

We used NERA’s NewERA model to evaluate the effects of this 

under two cases. In one case, we assumed the States were able to 

use all four building blocks. In the other case, they would only be 

able to use two building blocks. In the interest of time, I will just 

summarize a few results of the four building block scenario. Note 

that the impacts of the two building block scenario were much 

greater. 

We estimated what the U.S. energy system cost would be under 

the Clean Power Plan under these scenarios. Under the four building block scenario, the U.S. energy systems cost would increase by 

more than $360 billion on a present value basis over the 15 year 

period from 2017 to 2031. 

The impacts on individual States of the Clean Power Plan would 

also be substantial. The most substantial impacts were on electricity prices. For 44 of the States, delivered electricity prices would 

increase by more than 10 percent per year on average over that 15 

year period due to the Clean Power Plan. 

In summary, these States indicate that both the proposed Federal ozone standard and the proposed Clean Power Plan could lead 

to very substantial costs and economic impacts, both on individual 

States and for the U.S. economy as a whole. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to participate. I look forward to answering any questions you might have. 

[Prepared Statement of Mr. Harrison follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
53 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 94838.045
54 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 94838.046
55 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 47 here 94838.047
56 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 48 here 94838.048
57 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 49 here 94838.049
58 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 50 here 94838.050
59 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 51 here 94838.051
60 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 52 here 94838.052
61 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 53 here 94838.053
62 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 54 here 94838.054
63 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 55 here 94838.055
64 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 56 here 94838.056
65 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 57 here 94838.057
66 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 58 here 94838.058
67 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 59 here 94838.059
68 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 60 here 94838.060
69 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 61 here 94838.061
70 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 62 here 94838.062
71 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 63 here 94838.063
72 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 64 here 94838.064
73 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 65 here 94838.065
74 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 66 here 94838.066
75 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 67 here 94838.067
76 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 68 here 94838.068
77 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 69 here 94838.069
78 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 70 here 94838.070
79 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 71 here 94838.071
80 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you for your testimony, Dr. Harrison. 

I would now like to recognize Dr. Tierney for 5 minutes. Welcome, Dr. Tierney. 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN F. TIERNEY 

Ms. TIERNEY. Thank you so much, Chairman Lummis, Ranking 

Member Lawrence and subcommittee members. It is very nice to 

be here today. Thank you very much. 

As you know, the EPA has responsibility under the Clean Air Act 

and the Clean Water Act to protect the public from harmful discharges of pollutants into the Nation’s air and waterways. 

In the decade since these Federal laws were enacted, they have 

led to improvements in the public s health and protected the Nation’s natural resources on which our entire economy depends. As 

scientific information has evolved over time, as has technology, so 

has the administration of these Federal laws. 

I am a former Environmental Secretary and energy regulator in 

the State of Massachusetts where I was appointed by both Republicans and Democrats. I have direct familiarity with administering 

Federal and State laws to protect the environment and energy markets. 

Since leaving government, I have been a consultant and worked 

for a wide variety of clients looking at energy markets, State environmental laws, Federal environmental laws, local economies and 

impacts on consumers of a variety of different public policies. 

The three proposed EPA regulations under discussion today are 

important regulations from a public health point of view, but are 

also important for local economies and economic development. 

First, clarifying the scope of Federal jurisdictions and consistency 

of treatment of waterways across the Nation helps to provide appropriate signals to private actors about what they can expect 

when States review their economic development activities. Lack of 

clear rules is known to chill economic development. 

Second, ensuring that ozone standards remain up to date and 

consistent with the evolving State of knowledge in the scientific 

community is critically important for public health and for local 

economies as well. 

Economic impact analyses that fail to look at the benefits to public health are inherently inconsistent with what the ozone standard 

is all about, which is public health. 

Third, the rest of my testimony will focus on the EPA’s proposed 

Clean Power Plan. The EPA is required to establish emissions controls on the power sector. In doing so, the EPA has adopted a regulatory approach that offers significant flexibility to the States to 

fashion their own plans to control emissions from power plants in 

ways that work well for their economies. 

Having a reliable and efficient electric industry is critically important for Americans and the U.S. economy and so is addressing 

carbon pollution. In that context, the EPA’s proposal is critically 

important. 

The Supreme Court has said that greenhouse gases are an air 

pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The American power sector represents the Nation’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. 

Americans are feeling the effects of costly climate change already. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
81 

The power sector in the United States emits 1 out of every 15 

tons of pollutants anywhere in the globe. It is a major source of the 

global warming emissions and is costly for climate change. 

Equally important is assurance that the electric system is reliable and it is affordable. Fortunately, EPA’s proposal allows States 

to adopt approaches that minimize the Clean Power Plan’s cost to 

consumers. 

In the past year, I have co-authored three reports on EPA’s proposed impacts on consumers and electric system reliability. In researching the newest one of those reports, which we issued last 

week and which I have attached to my testimony, my colleagues 

and I read a significant number of the comments that have been 

filed on the EPA’s proposal. 

We found that many studies and comments incorrectly presume 

that the rule will be inflexibly implemented, which is opposite to 

the way it has been designed. The assumptions are worse case scenarios and assume that the private sector will idlely stand by as 

will regulators rather than doing their jobs to make sure the impacts are at least cost and that there are reliable outcomes. There 

is no historical basis for those sets of assumptions. 

The issues will be solved by a dynamic interplay of actions by 

regulators and market participants with solutions proceeding in 

parallel. Indeed, this dynamic interplay is the reason why a recent 

survey of 400 utility executives in the United States said they support the proposed Clean Power Plan and the emissions targets. 

Finally, the electric industry is undergoing major change as we 

know. Those changes are from the shale gas revolution, its price 

pressure on coal in many parts of the country, the domestic supply 

of renewable energy in vast parts of the United States, aging infrastructure and a significant growth in energy productivity. 

These shifts are underway and are causing enormous changes in 

the industry. Had the EPA never proposed the Clean Power Plan, 

we would be seeing many and the same kinds of directions we are 

seeing in the U.S. electric sector in any event. 

Thank you very much. 

[Prepared Statement of Ms. Tierney follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
82 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 72 here 94838.072
83 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 73 here 94838.073
84 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 74 here 94838.074
85 

Ms. LUMMIS. I thank the panel. We will now have questions from 

members of this subcommittee. The Chair first recognizes herself 

for 5 minutes. 

I have a quick question for Dr. Harrison. Before I do, Dr. Tierney, is it your position that carbon is a pollutant? 

Ms. TIERNEY. Yes. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Dr. Harrison, is carbon a pollutant? 

Mr. HARRISON. I think the issue is whether it is regulated. I 

guess those are legal issues. I understand that it is considered a 

pollutant in terms of the regulatory process that is underway. 

Ms. LUMMIS. I have a quick question for you about EPA’s attainment level for ozone. If it is set at 65 ppb, could you elucidate me 

about some of the effects? I think I heard you say for 44 States, 

10 percent per year for 15 year increase in electricity costs, is that 

correct? 

Mr. HARRISON. No. I think at that point I was talking about the 

Clean Power Plan. In terms of the 65 ppb ozone regulation that we 

evaluated, I summarized some of the results. We found that the 

present value of the compliance costs would be over $1 trillion. 

I think I mentioned in terms of the effects on gross domestic 

product would be around $140 billion per year with a present value 

over the period 2017 to 2040 of $1.7 trillion. Those are two examples. 

Our study we just released describes a great many other impacts 

which I would be glad to go into if you like. 

Ms. LUMMIS. I will come back to you on that so hold that 

thought, please. 

I would like to ask Attorney General Rutledge, given this testimony and what you have learned about the EPA’s proposed regulations, what kind of impacts will there be on your State? I am really 

concerned about lower and middle income residents of your State. 

Ms. RUTLEDGE. Thank you for the question. 

These EPA regulations and energy costs that would result from 

111(d) being implemented, this rule being implemented, would significantly raise the cost for all Arkansans and all ratepayers. 

It would dramatically hurt the lower income and middle income 

ratepayers because of such a dramatic increase. I would be remiss 

if I did not mention that it would also hurt small businesses in Arkansas that are trying to make payroll. 

A $20 increase may not seem like much to those living in the 

seven richest counties in the United States here around the Beltway but for those folks living in rural Arkansas trying to make a 

payroll, a $20 increase is a dramatic difference. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Attorney General Fox, same question, what about 

the impact of these EPA regs affecting both air and water on the 

citizens of Montana? 

Mr. FOX. Thank you for the question. 

First of all, let me say that primarily as the chief legal officer of 

the State of Montana, my appearance here today is primarily focusing on the rule of law, the Constitution and particularly the separation of powers, cooperative federalism as we see in the Clean Air 

Act and the Clean Water Act and their original statutes and intent, 

and also the limits of executive power. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
86 

With that said, as I mentioned earlier in my testimony, if I may 

focus once again on the Crow Nation. That is one area where the 

harm of these regulations, should they be implemented, goes without saying but is worth repeating. 

There is a large portion of coal on the Crow Reservation, a 40 

year old coal mine that produces some 7.5 million tons of coal, provides $10 million to $20 million of revenue to the Crow people, 

which is three-quarters of their non-Federal revenue. The mine employs up to 150 people, 70 percent of those are members of the 

Crow Tribe. 

With the decommissioning of their primary clients in Michigan 

and Minnesota and their coal-fired electric generation plants, they 

will lose their market. When they lose their market, the mine will 

close. 

The tribe estimates that will raise the unemployment rate somewhere from 50 percent on the reservation, as it is now, to as high 

as 90 percent. The harm that would cause to the people of the 

Crow Nation and, more generally to the people of Montana, is very 

extreme. 

I think that is an area where we can certainly focus and the Administration’s failure to follow through on their obligation to consult with the tribe really requires them to go back to the drawing 

board. 

I would echo what Attorney General Rutledge says in terms of 

higher rates and the impact on the poor. I think those go without 

saying. Primarily, I am here as a lawyer and the chief lawyer of 

the people of Montana. I really want to stick to that expertise. 

Ms. LUMMIS. I thank the panel. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Cartwright, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Dr. Harrison, thank you for appearing before us today. I had a 

couple of questions for you. 

You said you are appearing today expressing your own opinions 

and those of nobody else, is that correct? 

Mr. HARRISON. That is correct. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. You told us about the results of some studies 

that you did, one about ozone and one about the CPP. My first 

question about the CPP study is that was something your company 

did, NERA Economic Consulting? 

Mr. HARRISON. That is right. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Can you give us an idea of how much time 

went into that study? 

Mr. HARRISON. It was a substantial study. I don’t recall the exact 

number of hours, but it was a substantial study using our NewERA 

model to evaluate the effects of the Clean Power Plan. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. It was not a minor study that NERA Economic 

Consulting did. It was a major one, is that correct? 

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, we considered it a major study, yes. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. I was looking at footnote 2 from your written 

testimony. It said that, among others, that study was prepared for 

the American Coalition for Clean Coal and, Electricity, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and the National Mining Association. Have I read those correctly? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
87 

Mr. HARRISON. That is correct. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. In laymans terms, does that mean they helped 

fund the study? 

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, we prepared the study for those organizations. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Dr. Harrison, is it a matter of complete indifference to you whether those associations and organizations continue to fund studies prepared by NERA Economic Consulting? 

Mr. HARRISON. When we do studies—— 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. It is a yes or no question. Do you care if they 

continue to fund your outfit? 

Mr. HARRISON. I think what I prefer to do, if I may, is ask what 

they did ask us to do. They asked us to do a careful, independent 

study of the effects of the Clean Power Plan on the U.S. energy 

markets. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Let me ask it this way. What about the American Wind Energy Association, did they help fund that study? 

Mr. HARRISON. No, they did not. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. What about the Solar Energy Industry Association, did they help fund your study? 

Mr. HARRISON. No, they did not. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Did any sustainable energy association at all 

get involved in funding your study? 

Mr. HARRISON. No, it was not funded by those organizations. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Dr. Tierney, I have some questions for you 

about the clean water rule. 

The EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed the 

clean water rule to clarify the definition of waters of the United 

States which are the water resources that under the Clean Water 

Act receive numerous protections against pollution. 

The EPA Stated, ‘‘The agencies are eager to define the scope of 

the Clean Water Act that achieves the goals of protecting clean 

water and public health and promoting jobs and the economy.’’ 

Dr. Tierney, ensuring that the Clean Water Act achieves these 

goals is important, would you agree? 

Ms. TIERNEY. I would agree with that. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. The Bureau chief of the Environmental Protection and the Office of New York State Attorney General Eric T. 

Schneiderman, recently testified, ‘‘Presently, jurisdictional decisions related to waters of the United States are made on a case by 

case basis subject to fractured and inconsistent legal interpretation 

by the courts fostering uncertainty, delay and further litigation.’’ 

The EPA has Stated they have received numerous calls for clarification of waters of the United States from a variety of stakeholders. Members of Congress, developers, farmers, States and 

local governments, energy companies and many others demanded 

new regulations to make the process of identifying waters protected 

under the Act clearer, simpler and faster. 

Dr. Tierney, in general, Federal regulations that make a process 

clearer, simpler and faster will most likely benefit stakeholders, 

would they not? 

Ms. TIERNEY. Yes, from my experience in administering such environmental laws, that was clearly the case. I can’t tell you the 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
88 

number of times various parties talked about the need to clarify 

the rules. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Clarifying it makes it simpler and easier and 

more effective for everyone, right? 

Ms. TIERNEY. Yes. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you. 

I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Ms. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. 

Russell, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Dr. Tierney, are you aware that over 4,000 American eagles, red 

tail hawks, American kestrels and burrowing owls are killed every 

year by wind turbines? 

Ms. TIERNEY. I did not have that fact at my fingertips. I would 

love to see the reference to it. 

Mr. RUSSELL. I would be happy to provide that to you. 

Do you believe that the destruction of American birds is good for 

the environment? 

Ms. TIERNEY. No, but I know that energy resources of every kind, 

especially fossil fuels have hazardous impacts of the nature you are 

describing. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Are you aware that solar energy also destroys 

thousands of birds every year, many of them rare species? 

Ms. TIERNEY. That would really surprise me to learn. 

Mr. RUSSELL. I will show you the videos. 

Do you believe that a depression in a farmer or rancher’s field 

that collects rainwater is a navigable waterway? 

Ms. TIERNEY. I understand that the EPA’s proposal is based on 

scientific evidence of the relationship between water systems, wetlands and a variety of other things into navigable waters of the 

United States. 

Mr. RUSSELL. In the case of a ranch in my home State, which is 

not connected to any coast, that would be a navigable waterway if 

it was a depression full of rainwater in my district? 

Ms. TIERNEY. I understand there are navigable waterways of the 

United States that are in the interior of the United States because 

they cross interState commerce and a variety of other things. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Have you ever navigated on a puddle after a rainstorm on a ranch in Oklahoma? 

Ms. TIERNEY. I think that is a facetious question. 

Mr. RUSSELL. I am just curious because it seems that people 

think this is a navigable waterway. 

Ms. TIERNEY. I don’t have any information about a puddle that 

you are describing. I understand that the EPA’s proposal is based 

on scientific evidence. 

Mr. RUSSELL. On scientific evidence—I will try to scientifically 

navigate a puddle after a rainstorm. 

Attorney General Fox, what impact do EPA rules have on tribal 

sovereignty? 

Mr. FOX. They have an impact in actually impeding and invading 

on tribal sovereignty. I think it is important to note that under the 

Executive Order cited earlier and the EPA policy promulgated from 

that order, the executive branch has imposed upon itself a very imVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:27 Oct 28, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\94838.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
89 

portant duty and responsibility to consult with each tribe of which 

there are 566 federally recognized tribes in the United States. 

In this case, the EPA sent out a Dear Tribal Leader letter a mere 

2 days before the promulgation of the rule, the 111(d) rule. That 

Dear Tribal Leader letter referred only to the possibility of a tribe 

having on its reservation a coal-fired generation plant that might 

allow the tribe then to have primacy of its own air regulatory program. 

It did not give anyone a heads up, certainly not a timely heads 

up and certainly not the four tribes who have coal and minerals on 

their reservations any indication of the impact that rule might 

have on the sovereignty of that tribe. 

We have seven federally recognized tribes in Montana. I think it 

is very important as a State and a Nation that we respect the treaties and agreements we have with those tribes. Unfortunately, in 

this case, the EPA has violated the sovereignty of the Crow Nation 

pertaining to its Absaloka Mine. 

Mr. RUSSELL. I want to thank you for that. 

In my limited time that is left, I will direct this to Dr. Harrison. 

You spoke of $140 billion a year reduction in the GDP annually for 

a 65 ppb rate. Were you aware that the entire education budget 

being proposed this year was $140 billion with the Student Success 

Act? 

Also, were you aware that four times of the entire estimated 

gains of the Trans Pacific Partnership would be that number and 

that one third of the defense budget equals the number you cited? 

What impact would that have on our economy? 

Mr. HARRISON. I was not aware of those combinations but I guess 

it is another way of trying to put into perspective these estimates. 

Mr. RUSSELL. I appreciate the panel and the testimony here 

today. I think it is important for the Nation to see the impacts on 

people in Montana, Arkansas, Oklahoma—which has also joined in 

some of these lawsuits. We certainly have tribes as well. 

I thank you, Madam Chairman, for this time. 

Ms. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, 

Congresswoman Plaskett. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Good afternoon and thank you very much, Madam 

Chair. 

Thank you, testifiers for being here. 

I think it is very interesting and should be noted for the record 

that the EPA is not here for this hearing because we are in a proposed rulemaking position and therefore, it would be inappropriate 

for them at this time to testify on this matter. I think we need to 

reflect on the fact these are proposals as yet and not, in fact, rules. 

It appears this is not a new issue and there is a lot of rhetoric 

in the industry right now about the EPA’s proposed Clean Water 

Power Plan, the ozone regulations killing jobs, and excessively raising industry compliance costs. Ms. Rutledge talked about a perfect 

storm. 

These sky is falling claims don’t appear to be new. As a matter 

of fact, I have from June 2014, which I would like to submit to the 

record, a fact sheet prepared under Ranking Member Henry WaxVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:27 Oct 28, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\94838.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
90 

man which gives facts on the Clean Air track record and pollution 

reductions. 

Since its adoption in 1970, there has been a reduction in key air 

pollutants by over 70 percent while the economy has more than tripled in size. 

Dr. Tierney, do you think the economic predictions currently 

used by the industry regarding clean power plant and ozone rules 

are reasonable? 

Ms. TIERNEY. I think there is a problem with many of the assumptions about how the industry is going to respond to a signal 

saying that things need to be done differently in the future. 

As I mentioned, many of the assumptions of the worst case studies are not realistic with what the cost impacts are likely to be at 

the moment. I say that knowing that EPA is very likely to make 

changes in its proposal. We don’t know what those changes will 

look like. EPA has been very open in indicating they are learning 

from the millions of comments they have received. 

They expect to provide a fundamentally flexible rule for people. 

That flexibility doesn’t show up in many of the economic studies. 

That will be the essential way in which private investors, developers, homeowners who have drafty homes will be able to tighten 

those up and not use as much energy in the future. 

Ms. PLASKETT. I live on an island that has to balance clean air. 

The importance of our natural resources is of paramount concern 

to us. At the same time, we also had one of the largest oil refineries 

in the United States which was a balance between having jobs for 

our people as well as protecting our sun and sand. 

Dr. Harrison, I wanted to ask you if you have looked at the long 

term economic and social benefits of the rules? Are there any, in 

your opinion? 

Mr. HARRISON. As I think I mentioned, our study was designed 

to look at the economic impacts of the rules. I think my colleague, 

Dr. Smith, did comment on some of the benefit assessments that 

have been made in the rules. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Do you not believe that there are any because an 

impact would have to look at the negative as well as the positive, 

correct? 

Mr. HARRISON. The terminology sometimes can be economic terminology but the typical economic terminology for looking at economic impacts is to look at the effects on the economy. These effects typically are in terms of gross domestic product, job and labor 

market impacts and the like. 

In this study, we did not look at the potential benefits of this 

program. 

Ms. PLASKETT. How can you analyze an impact in terms of its 

economic impact negatively if you don’t look and determine also 

and measure the economic benefits of that? 

Mr. HARRISON. Those can be done. Before coming to NERA, I was 

an Associate Professor at the Kennedy School of Government and 

did many benefit cost analyses. That was not the topic of this particular study. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Your study was merely to look at the negative impacts? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
91 

Mr. HARRISON. No, it was not. I think the way I would look at 

it is that it was trying to clarify what is at stake for the U.S. economy and individual States. There is certainly very useful information to be developed on what the benefits are. 

As I said, my colleague, Dr. Smith, has evaluated both of these 

two proposals in terms of their potential benefits. That was not the 

topic of this particular study. I think you will find the studies typically referred to as economic impact studies do precisely the same 

thing, look at what those impacts would be on the U.S. economy 

and individual States. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Ms. Tierney, did you see what those social or economic benefits were? 

Ms. TIERNEY. Sure. One would surely want to look at the public 

health impacts of a clean power plant or an ozone standard. Certainly the cost of the health care of American people is a cost and 

drag on our economy. Not looking at those doesn’t provide a balanced picture of the impacts of the ozone standard. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you. I have exhausted my time and I 

thank you for your indulgence, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. LUMMIS. The gentlelady yields. The Chair now recognizes the 

gentleman from Arizona, Dr. Gosar. 

Dr. GOSAR. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Dr. Tierney, is CO2 a pollutant? 

Ms. TIERNEY. I understand that the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that it is a pollutant. 

Dr. GOSAR. No, no, I did not ask that. I asked you. 

Ms. TIERNEY. Yes and I answered a minute ago that I thought 

it is, yes. 

Dr. GOSAR. I will come back to that. 

Attorney General Fox, you love dirty water, don’t you? 

Mr. FOX. Say again, sir? 

Dr. GOSAR. You love dirty water out in Montana? 

Mr. FOX. No, sir. 

Dr. GOSAR. I am from Arizona and we love dirty water. How 

about you, Attorney General Rutledge? 

Ms. RUTLEDGE. No, Doctor, we do not like dirty water in Arkansas. 

Dr. GOSAR. Let me ask you a question. Did you ask EPA to clarify the waters of the U.S., Attorney General Rutledge? 

Ms. RUTLEDGE. I have not personally asked the EPA. 

Dr. GOSAR. Are you aware of anything in your State asking the 

EPA for clarification on waters of the U.S.? 

Ms. RUTLEDGE. That would have been under my predecessor. 

Dr. GOSAR. How about you, Attorney General Fox? 

Mr. FOX. I am not aware of the State officially asking for any 

clarification. As far as I know, we have not needed any clarification 

under the existing status rules. 

Dr. GOSAR. Out in Arizona, we have the same problem. We are 

trying to figure out who these people are asking for clarification 

other than some bureaucrats. 

Dr. Tierney, I am coming back to that conversation about CO2. 

Would you consider it an essential gas? 

Ms. TIERNEY. Are you asking if it is physically in our atmosphere? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
92 

Dr. GOSAR. I said, is it an essential gas? 

Ms. TIERNEY. I don’t understand your question. 

Dr. GOSAR. Is it an essential gas for this planet? 

Ms. TIERNEY. Sure, but at high concentrations, we will have a 

greenhouse effect on the planet. 

Dr. GOSAR. So you are aware of photosynthesis? I got it. 

Ms. TIERNEY. Of course I am. 

Dr. GOSAR. Good old plants take CO2 and dirty water. 

Ms. TIERNEY. And they are out of balance right now. 

Dr. GOSAR. I think that is negatable. 

Attorney General Fox, are you aware there are four Supreme 

Court rulings defying the EPA for where they want to go with the 

waters of the U.S.? 

Mr. FOX. Yes, I am aware. 

Dr. GOSAR. Are you also aware that Congress did not give them 

that authority as well? 

Mr. FOX. I am aware. 

Dr. GOSAR. Are you aware of that, Attorney General Rutledge? 

Ms. RUTLEDGE. Yes, Doctor. 

Dr. GOSAR. Why would we continue to go down this path without 

going through Congress first? It defies me. Does it defy you? 

Ms. RUTLEDGE. It certainly does and that is why I am here today 

because of the rule of law, as my colleague from Montana mentioned. 

Dr. GOSAR. I sat in my office 1 day to look at the hearing over 

at Transportation and Infrastructure. Ms. McCarthy was very insistent that they were going to come up with this rulemaking by 

April. 

I find it interesting that my colleague on the other side keeps 

saying that they are not here and they shouldn’t be here because 

they are proposing rulemaking. That doesn’t make any sense because defied by Congress and the Supreme Court from actually 

going there, true? 

Mr. FOX. If you are asking me, I would say yes. If I might add, 

we actually asked, on the 111(d) rules, for the EPA to hold a listening session in Montana. We were denied that ability. 

Dr. GOSAR. Ms. Tierney, I am going to go back to science. I love 

science. By the way, I am a dentist. I also have some botany in my 

background, some water and immunology aspects as well. 

What would you say if you actually found out that through the 

EPA and their Clean Air Act, that implications on the Navajo generating station actually defied the facts of law? 

Ms. TIERNEY. I literally could not hear the question. 

Dr. GOSAR. What would you think, as a scientist, if the EPA and 

their Clean Air administration in Arizona called the Navajo generating station actually defied the rule of science? What would you 

say to that, being a science person? 

Ms. TIERNEY. I am not a scientist. I have a Ph.D. in Regional 

Planning. 

Dr. GOSAR. Oh, interesting. You still have outcomes and facts, 

right? 

Ms. TIERNEY. Of course, yes. 

Dr. GOSAR. If they predicated an example for a Clean Air Act 

based on particulates coming from a certain coal plant. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
93 

Ms. TIERNEY. I know the plant. 

Dr. GOSAR. Say northeast that had implications on the Grand 

Canyon, which it did not, and EPA actually admitted that, would 

you think it was fair that those types of rules would be inferred 

and forced upon Arizona for lack of factual basis? 

Ms. TIERNEY. One of the things you are asking me, I believe, is 

a legal opinion and I don’t believe I am qualified to give you a legal 

opinion. 

Dr. GOSAR. I think you are outcomes-based and you have an 

opinion as an individual. You are sitting in front of a committee 

giving your expertise. I think you are more than applicable to that. 

I hope you are not taking the Scott Walker application and avoiding the question. 

Ms. TIERNEY. Come on, sir. I am not a lawyer. I cannot. I cannot 

give a legal opinion. 

Dr. GOSAR. I am not a lawyer. I am also a dentist so that is why 

I am asking your personal opinion. Would you find it contradictive 

that we would use facts of science and find they are factually biased and factually false and still use those to predicate a rule? 

Ms. TIERNEY. Is this a hypothetical question? 

Dr. GOSAR. It is actually a true statement. 

Ms. TIERNEY. I don’t know the truth of it, so it is very difficult 

for me to answer that. I am not evading the question in any possible way. 

Dr. GOSAR. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will yield back. 

Ms. LUMMIS. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Dr. Tierney, I want to ask you some questions about how you intend to enforce, say, the water rule, how aggressive you are going 

to be on that? 

Ms. TIERNEY. There must be an acoustical issue here in a bubble. 

Would you say your question again? 

Mr. PALMER. On the water rules, EPA has been very aggressive 

in enforcement. It has gone from a regulatory agency to almost operating like a police State. I will be blunt about it. There have been 

cases where the EPA, your armed division, has shown up with body 

armor and weapons drawn. 

Can you give me some idea of what the threat assessment might 

be that would justify that kind of intervention? 

Ms. TIERNEY. I don’t know about the particular thing you are describing, but when I was in State government, we had environment 

enforcement activities where we did have to go in and take control 

of people who were flagrantly violating the State and Federal laws. 

I know it does happen. I don’t know about the particular case you 

are describing. 

Mr. PALMER. Are any of the other witnesses aware of any cases 

where the EPA has come in with armed agents? We have had at 

least two of those in Alabama and one in Alaska. I find it interesting that the EPA is implementing these rules and conducting 

themselves in a way that is more reflective of a police State than 

a regulatory agency. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
94 

Ms. TIERNEY. My experience with that in the past is that other 

people are at risk of being exposed to hazardous pollutants and a 

variety of other things. 

Mr. PALMER. I don’t think that would justify an armed agent. If 

you think someone has violated a rule, I think the first thing you 

do is send down a regulator and interview witnesses. I know specifically of a case where that didn’t happen. 

They showed up in a relatively small town at their waste treatment facility. I have not been to the waste treatment facility but 

I am fairly certain there are no sniper towers or machine gun nests 

or anything there that would justify that kind of intervention. 

Let us turn to the Clean Power Plan the EPA is trying to impose. 

It is going to be enormously costly. Have you given any thought to 

the fact that the Department of Energy and the EPA would like to 

see us go to the vast majority of our power coming from renewable, 

that our power grid will not support that? 

Ms. TIERNEY. Sir, there is no evidence that the Clean Power Plan 

will be 100 percent renewable. The Department of Energy has not 

stood for that position, nor has the Clean Power Plan at the EPA. 

EPA estimates that at the end of the day, based on their analyses, there would be 30 percent of the Nation’s power produced by 

coal. That is part of the outlook there. The integration of renewable 

energy is something that today, in the absence of the Clean Power 

Plan, the industry is already addressing and coping with and has 

plans for how they will continue to cope with integration of renewable energy. 

Mr. PALMER. From my perspective, it is the intention of the EPA, 

and I think this Administration, to eliminate fossil fuel, to shut 

down the coal industry. They have been fairly transparent about it. 

Their plans are to have us at 80 percent renewable in the next 

two or three decades. Our electric grid is not designed for that. 

There is a study out of Cal Tech that indicates it will cost $1 trillion to upgrade our grid so it can do that. 

Ms. TIERNEY. One of the wonderful things about natural gas as 

a fuel is it is very nimble to operate natural gas fire-powered 

plants. They integrate wonderfully with renewable energy projects. 

A domestic fuel, like natural gas, which is so plentiful as a result 

of the shale gas revolution in providing low cost energy to the 

United States, is helping us with our grid reliability. 

Mr. PALMER. Do you realize that when you talk about 

supplementing your renewables with natural gas, you are admitting that renewables are not a legitimate or reliable source of energy? 

Ms. TIERNEY. That is absolutely not what I was saying. Both of 

them provide power to the grid, period. 

Mr. PALMER. What we are having right now with wind turbines 

having to dump power because we don’t have an economical way 

of storing power. If we go to renewable and back it up with natural 

gas, you are still going to have a major redesign issue for the infrastructure. 

Ms. TIERNEY. One of the wonderful things going on with innovation in the United States is tremendous research right now on storage. There are breakthroughs going on in small scale, large scale 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
95 

storage. That is happening in a variety of different places around 

the country. 

Mr. PALMER. There is a huge disagreement over whether or not 

in a timely manner, it would be an economically sound alternative. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. LUMMIS. The gentleman yields. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan, Mrs. 

Lawrence. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. Tierney, I feel that we are here today to talk about our environment and also to talk about human beings, the impact that it 

has on our quality of life. 

Is it correct that the Clean Air Act requires air qualities to be 

required to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety? 

Ms. TIERNEY. My understanding, having been an implementer of 

the Clean Air Act in Massachusetts for many years, is that every 

5 years, the law requires the EPA to go through a process, advised 

by its Scientific Advisory Council, with regard to the extent to 

which its ambient air quality standards are adequate to protect 

public health. 

That is the process they have gone through and have published 

proposals and have now revised those to tighten the ozone standard because of public health benefits that would accrue. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. I do want to be clear that today we are addressing a proposed language and proposed act. I also want to know, is 

it also true that the air quality standards must consider the health 

of groups of people considered to be most at risk, like the 7 million 

children with asthma and the elderly? Is that true? 

Ms. TIERNEY. That is right. I believe that the tens of millions of 

people who suffer from respiratory disease, breathing problems, 

heart problems, small birth weight, is above 100 million according 

to the American Lung Association. We are talking about a significant portion of the population which suffers from diseases tied to 

air quality. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. With that being said and the law that requires 

we protect public health and protecting the clean air to provide 

these over 7 million people who are at risk, would you agree in proposing to reduce ozone levels to the range of 65 and 70 ppb that 

EPA is justified in relying on more than 1,000 new scientific studies which conclude that the current ozone standard is harmful to 

public health? 

Ms. TIERNEY. I am going to answer yes, because I know the process the EPA uses to examine the literature on what scientists are 

saying about the quality of air and the problems it is posing. As 

a result of that process, the advice they have been given has been 

to tighten the standard from 75 to between 65 and 70 ppm. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Madam Chair, I am going to yield the rest of 

my time. But I do want to say that this is about the industry, our 

economy, but most important in the priority of the proposed language that we are talking about, it must address the human needs 

and the impact on our quality of life in America and that we empower the EPA to keep the purpose of their existence, as I disVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:27 Oct 28, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\94838.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
96 

cussed in my opening remarks when President Nixon proposed that 

we do this. 

Thank you. 

Ms. LUMMIS. The gentlewoman yields. 

If the panel will indulge another two questions from each member, we will do that now. It looks like we have assent to that, so 

thank you. 

The Chair yields herself time to ask two questions. 

The first of my questions is for Dr. Smith about the Clean Power 

Plan. Earlier there was a discussion talking a little bit about benefits and quantifying benefits. I want to understand a little bit about 

the EPA’s quantification of benefits of the Clean Power Plan. 

How far into the future would the rule begin to confer benefits? 

Are these Stated benefits global or domestic? 

Ms. SMITH. The benefits for reduction in climate change risks in 

that rule are projected out to 2300. We are looking at a present 

value of damages. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Not 2030? 

Ms. SMITH. So 2300, 300 years from now, a little less than 300 

years from 2030 when the rule is fully implemented. The damages 

are really out far in the future, the projected damages that are part 

of those benefit estimates for that rule. 

The timing of the benefits is way different than the timing of the 

costs. We see about a 100-year to 125-year payback period before 

the costs that have to be spent through 2030 might be paid back 

in any kind of expected value of climate benefits. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you, Dr. Smith. 

My second question is for our Attorneys General. To both of you, 

do your States have adequate environmental laws to handle the air 

quality and water quality concerns that are being addressed today 

by the EPA? 

Ms. RUTLEDGE. Yes, Arkansas has the Department of Environmental Quality that addresses such. I believe one particular issue 

with the proposed rule is going beyond the authority, as I Stated 

earlier, what the EPA actually has authority to do which is to provide guidelines and appropriate procedures for the States. 

That way, the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

can work with the EPA in implementing those guidelines that were 

right for the State of Arkansas versus what the EPA is attempting 

to do in going beyond its authority, mandating what each State 

must do. 

Mr. FOX. Chairman Lummis, Montana has been very proactive 

in taking steps legally and practically to protect the environment, 

air, water and everything in between. Our constitution in Article 

9, Section 3, includes a specific provision giving the right to Montanans to a clean and healthful environment. 

We have also enacted the Montana Water Quality Act, our own 

version under primacy of our Clean Air Act. I might add that I 

used to be an Assistant Attorney General for the Department of 

Environmental Quality. I am a geologist trained in environmental 

protection. 

I was in charge of the investigation that led to the first criminal 

violation and prosecution of someone under our Water Quality Act 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
97 

in Montana which later led, actually, to Federal charges on different grounds as well. 

We do a very good job. We are very thorough in making sure that 

we protect our environment. I think it is important to note that 

both the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act include provisions 

in the very beginning of both Acts stating that it is the primary 

responsibilities of the States and local government to regulate both 

water and air. 

Again, under principles of cooperative federalism, I think that is 

where we start as a foundation. What EPA proposes to do here is 

way over the line and we need to get back to the basics. 

I would welcome Congress debating this because I think that is 

truly where this discussion should be held and ultimately where it 

should be decided. 

Ms. LUMMIS. I thank the panel. 

The Chair now yields to gentlewoman from Michigan, Mrs. Lawrence. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Ms. Tierney, I would like to ask this question. 

The Bureau Chief of Environmental Protection bureau recently testified that jurisdictional decisions related to the waters of the 

United States are made on a case by case basis, subject to factual 

and inconsistent legal interpretations fostering uncertainty, delay 

and further litigation. 

Members of the EPA have Stated that they received numerous 

calls for clarification of waters of the United States from various 

stakeholders, including farmers, developers, and State and local. 

In general, would you say the proposal making a process clearer, 

simpler and faster will benefit these stakeholders? Would you agree 

with that? 

Ms. TIERNEY. Yes. As I said, as an administrator of Federal and 

State laws on the environment, it has been my experience that 

when there is gray area and a developer doesn’t know or a private 

investor doesn’t know how a law will be implemented in a particular case, it requires a lot of time and money to figure that out 

and it often does chill development. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Would you say in this proposal that is one of 

the objectives, to provide clarification to the States and the stakeholders? 

Ms. TIERNEY. That is my understanding of the motivation of the 

EPA in doing this, yes. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. I yield my time. 

Ms. LUMMIS. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona for two more questions, Dr. Gosar. 

Dr. GOSAR. Dr. Smith, I have a couple of questions for you. You 

did a Clean Power Plan evaluation for global temperature changes. 

What did you find? 

Ms. SMITH. I think it was about a .06 degree change in global 

temperature against a projected change of several degrees. 

Dr. GOSAR. Was it within the margin of error? 

Ms. SMITH. I have to be clear, I don’t really remember the number but it was very small. 

Dr. GOSAR. Point zero zero three. 

Ms. SMITH. Thank you. You remember better than I do. 

Dr. GOSAR. Statistically, is it an anomaly? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
98 

Ms. SMITH. It is simply not very meaningful if that is the amount 

of change anyone is projecting. Yet the benefits being attributed to 

this one rule are deriving benefits off these tiny, tiny changes. 

If climate change is going to be changed in any way, very much 

larger increments in emissions reductions need to occur in order to 

get very much larger changes in temperature. That one rule does 

nothing. Yet benefits are being attributed to it. 

The only way to get the benefits is to do far more. That rule cannot do it. 

Dr. GOSAR. Interesting. 

Attorney General Fox, you are a geologist. Are you aware of any 

climate change in our years past? 

Mr. FOX. Yes, that is one of the first things we learned in school 

in the university, is the effect of the change in climate geologically 

speaking through time. 

Dr. GOSAR. History tells us a lot of about that. My dad was a geologist. As soon as the sun came up, our car always slowed down 

and we were always talking about this period of time, right? 

Mr. FOX. Yes, sir. 

Dr. GOSAR. Fossils are kind of a product of that, right? 

Mr. FOX. Yes, sir. 

Dr. GOSAR. Coal is kind of a product of that, right? 

Mr. FOX. Yes, sir. 

Dr. GOSAR. Gas is a product of that, right? 

Mr. FOX. Yes, sir. 

Dr. GOSAR. And oil? 

Mr. FOX. Yes, sir. 

Dr. GOSAR. Along those same lines, Attorney General Rutledge, 

what kind of implications can you have on civil penalties the EPA 

has already started to establish? I will rephrase that a little bit. 

Are you aware of civil penalties that can be expounded by civil violations of the clean waters of the U.S.? 

Ms. RUTLEDGE. Under the proposed rule or currently under any 

by the EPA, yes. 

Dr. GOSAR. Some are pretty severe? 

Ms. RUTLEDGE. Absolutely. 

Dr. GOSAR. I am aware of a poor rancher in Wyoming that has a $75,000 penalty on a stock pond that actually followed State regulations of Wyoming ADQ. Still, the EPA thinks they run the roost. 

Do you find that a violation of State sovereignty. 

Ms. RUTLEDGE. Absolutely, and that is the problem that as the 

chief legal officer of the State that I have because it prevents me 

from being able to protect the citizens of Arkansas. Because when 

you have a Federal agency such as the EPA overstepping its 

boundaries, insisting and implementing civil penalties on our citizens and our businesses, then we are not able to govern ourselves. 

Dr. GOSAR. Would you feel the same way, Attorney General Fox? 

Mr. FOX. Yes, sir. 

Dr. GOSAR. Thank you. 

Ms. LUMMIS. That was the longest multi-part two question effort 

I have ever seen. Congratulations, Dr. Gosar. 

The Chair now yields to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Cartwright. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
99 

Dr. Tierney, our Ranking Member, Congresswoman Lawrence, 

brought up a very important point. That is, what are the human 

costs of what we do to our environment? 

You and I talked earlier about the clean water rule and the intent of clarifying what waterways and bodies of water the Clean 

Water Act applies to. Under the Clean Water Act, the lack of clarity on what waters are and are not subject to the Clean Water Act 

protections could result in higher risk of pollution of water resources in the Nation’s public health, is that a fair statement? 

Ms. TIERNEY. Certainly, there are countless examples where you 

could find that chain of events occurring where some actions one 

place could have downstream effects on peoples health. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. We have been bandying about estimates of 

costs for all sorts of things today. One thing I wanted to mention 

was the EPA estimated that the proposed rule, the clean water 

rule, would provide annual benefits to the public between $388 million to $514 million, which significantly outweighs the estimated 

costs of between $162 million to $278 million for mitigating impacts to water resources and taking steps to reduce pollution. 

The benefits of this proposed rule include reducing flooding, filtering pollution, providing wildlife habitat, supporting hunting and 

fishing and recharging groundwater. Broadly, do you agree with 

those statements? 

Ms. TIERNEY. I agree with those propositions. I have seen those 

in effect in my experience. Flooding and wetland protection is enormously important. If it is damaged from one kind of pollutant or 

another, you have lots of havoc when there is storm surge or other 

kinds of things. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you. I am encouraged by the efforts of 

the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to clarify this definition and help make the government function more efficiently and 

effectively with rules that are clear and easy to follow. 

Madam Chair, I do have a couple UC requests. I request unanimous consent to enter into the record a report from the National 

Wildlife Federation entitled statement for the Record of the National Wildlife Federation in Support of the Clean Water Act, 

Waters of the United States Rulemaking, dated today, February 

26, 2015. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. There was some discussion about whether the 

EPA reached out to the Crow Tribe of Montana. I ask unanimous 

consent to enter into the record a June 12, 2014 letter to Darrin 

Old Coyote, Chairman, Crow Tribe of Montana, from the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Also without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. I yield. 

Ms. LUMMIS. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the 

Virgin Islands, Ms. Plaskett. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you very much for everyone’s patience here 

this evening. 

My question was actually already asked and Ms. Tierney did not 

have time to respond to my question to discuss some of the economic and social benefits you see from the ozone rule. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
100 

Ms. TIERNEY. Thinking of your own island is a great example. 

One of the reasons people are concerned about CO2 emissions is 

the growing concentration of those in the atmosphere and the clear 

evidence from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and 

the U.S. National Climate Assessment about the fact we are already seeing the impacts of climate change in low lying areas and 

along coastal regions. 

For example, sea level rise and a number of other things are real 

impacts on local economies. There are real impacts we are already 

picking up. There is no way we are going to avoid some continuing 

impacts associated with climate change. We are only talking about 

taking steps in the United States to do a piece of the action. 

I hear and appreciate the concerns of many people that our poorest residents around the country are facing higher electricity bills, 

I am also aware they are going to face higher temperatures and 

need for air conditioning under extreme climate change events. 

We are really talking about things where we try to protect one 

pocket of health care costs and other kinds of costs with another 

piece of impact on their energy costs. The net effect of those is supposed to be these are beneficial actions that the EPA is doing to 

protect Americans. 

Ms. PLASKETT. When you look at particularly poor communities, 

quite often the individuals living close to some of these places, particularly in my own area, I know there are families that have very 

high incidents of asthma as well as just starting to look at cancer 

registration from some of these plants. 

Those also have an enormous economic impact on a society and 

a jurisdiction for having to deal with those kinds of issues. Do we 

measure those things in terms of these Acts? 

Ms. TIERNEY. I know that EPA’s studies take a great care to look 

at the impacts on populations that are especially poor or exposed 

to air quality problems which often happens in poor urban areas 

that are close to cars or a lot of industrial activity. Yes, those are 

things that are trying to be avoided. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you. 

I just want to say our own jurisdiction has also feelings about paternalism on the part of EPA to striking the correct balance and 

not being unnecessarily helpful to the economy. We have to look at 

the long-term effects of some of these rules. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. LUMMIS. I thank the gentlelady. 

I too would like to enter into the record the following: The NERA 

Report on the Clean Power Plan; the NERA Report on the Ozone 

Rule, including the update that was released today; testimony regarding Waters of the U.S. Rule submitted for the record by the 

National Association of Realtors; testimony for the record from 

Thomas Easterly, Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management; comments submitted to EPA by the 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality regarding the Clean 

Power Plan; comments submitted to EPA by the State of Montana 

and the Crow Nation regarding the Clean Power Plan; and comments submitted to EPA by 11 State Attorneys General regarding 

the Clean Power Plan. 

Without objection, so ordered. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
101 

Ms. LUMMIS. I very much want to thank our witnesses for taking 

the time to appear before us today. We value your expertise and 

the time you have spent with us helping us better understand 

these issues. 

If there is no further business? 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. I just want to say to Mr. Fox, we are going to 

do it this year. The Tigers are going to do it. 

Mr. FOX. Tigers all the way, Ranking Member, Tigers all the 

way. 

Ms. LUMMIS. With that, and without objection, the committee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(103) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
104 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 94838.001
105 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 94838.002
106 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 94838.003
107 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 94838.004
108 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 94838.005
109 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 75 here 94838.075
110 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 76 here 94838.076
111 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 77 here 94838.077
112 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 78 here 94838.078
113 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 79 here 94838.079
114 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 80 here 94838.080
115 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 81 here 94838.081
116 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 82 here 94838.082
117 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 83 here 94838.083
118 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 84 here 94838.084
119 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 85 here 94838.085
120 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 86 here 94838.086
121 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 87 here 94838.087
122 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 88 here 94838.088
123 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 89 here 94838.089
124 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 90 here 94838.090
125 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 91 here 94838.091
126 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 92 here 94838.092
127 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 93 here 94838.093
128 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 94 here 94838.094
129 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 95 here 94838.095
130 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 96 here 94838.096
131 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 97 here 94838.097
132 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 98 here 94838.098
133 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 99 here 94838.099
134 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 100 here 94838.100
135 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 101 here 94838.101
136 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 102 here 94838.102
137 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 103 here 94838.103
138 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 104 here 94838.104
139 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 105 here 94838.105
140 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 106 here 94838.106
141 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 107 here 94838.107
142 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 108 here 94838.108
143 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 109 here 94838.109
144 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 110 here 94838.110
145 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 111 here 94838.111
146 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 112 here 94838.112
147 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 113 here 94838.113
148 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 114 here 94838.114
149 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 115 here 94838.115
150 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 116 here 94838.116
151 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 117 here 94838.117
152 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 118 here 94838.118
153 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 119 here 94838.119
154 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 120 here 94838.120
155 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 121 here 94838.121
156 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 122 here 94838.122
157 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 123 here 94838.123
158 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 124 here 94838.124
159 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 125 here 94838.125
160 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 126 here 94838.126
161 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 127 here 94838.127
162 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 128 here 94838.128
163 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 129 here 94838.129
164 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 130 here 94838.130
165 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 131 here 94838.131
166 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 132 here 94838.132
167 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 133 here 94838.133
168 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 134 here 94838.134
169 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 135 here 94838.135
170 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 136 here 94838.136
171 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 137 here 94838.137
172 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 138 here 94838.138
173 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 139 here 94838.139
174 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 140 here 94838.140
175 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 141 here 94838.141
176 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 142 here 94838.142
177 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 143 here 94838.143
178 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 144 here 94838.144
179 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 145 here 94838.145
180 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 146 here 94838.146
181 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 147 here 94838.147
182 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 148 here 94838.148
183 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 149 here 94838.149
184 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 150 here 94838.150
185 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 151 here 94838.151
186 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 152 here 94838.152
187 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 153 here 94838.153
188 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 154 here 94838.154
189 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 155 here 94838.155
190 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 156 here 94838.156
191 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 157 here 94838.157
192 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 158 here 94838.158
193 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 159 here 94838.159
194 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 160 here 94838.160
195 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 161 here 94838.161
196 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 162 here 94838.162
197 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 163 here 94838.163
198 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 164 here 94838.164
199 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 165 here 94838.165
200 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 166 here 94838.166
201 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 167 here 94838.167
202 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 168 here 94838.168
203 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 169 here 94838.169
204 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 170 here 94838.170
205 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 171 here 94838.171
206 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 172 here 94838.172
207 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 173 here 94838.173
208 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 174 here 94838.174
209 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 175 here 94838.175
210 

Æ 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 176 here 94838.176