U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

97–581 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 113–743 

REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT’S 

CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 16, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JANUARY 16, 2014 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 2 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 4 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 5 

Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ..................................... 7 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 8 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 9 

Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon ................................ 16 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 16 

Booker, Hon. Cory A., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ..................... 19 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama ............................. 21 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 22 

Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska ............................. 24 

Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas ......................... 25 

Wicker, Hon. Roger, U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi ........................ 27 

WITNESSES 

McCarthy, Hon. Regina, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ........................................................................................................................... 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 38 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 41 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 44 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 52 

Response to an additional question from Senator Barrasso ......................... 53 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Sessions ........................................................................................ 54 

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 58 

Senator Fischer ......................................................................................... 59 

Ashe, Hon. Daniel M., Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ......................... 62 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 71 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 73 

Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe ............................. 77 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Sessions ............................ 78 

Sutley, Hon. Nancy H., Chair, Council on Environmental Quality ..................... 80 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 82 

Tangherlini, Hon. Dan, Administrator, U.S. General Services Administration . 88 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 90 

Ritter, Hon. Bill, Jr., Director, Center for the New Energy Economy, Colorado 

State University ................................................................................................... 119 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 122 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 132 

Senator Sessions ........................................................................................ 136 

Dessler, Andrew E., Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M 

University ............................................................................................................. 138 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 140 
Page

IV 

Lashof, Daniel A., Ph.D., Director, Climate and Clean Air Program, Natural 

Resources Defense Council .................................................................................. 153 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 155 

Curry, Judith A., Ph.D., Professor and Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology .............................................. 169 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 171 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Sessions ............................ 185 

White, Kathleen Hartnett, Distinguished Senior Fellow-in-Residence and Director, Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment, Texas Public 

Policy Foundation ................................................................................................. 186 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 188 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Sessions ............................ 200 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

LETTERS AND E-MAIL

November 15, 2013, letter to Gina McCarthy, EPA, from Representative 

Upton et al. ........................................................................................................... 215 

December 19, 2013, letter to Gina McCarthy, EPA, from Representative 

Lamar Smith et al. ............................................................................................... 217 

December 2013 draft letter to Regina A. McCarthy, EPA, from the Center 

for Regulatory Effectiveness ................................................................................ 222 

November 19, 2013, e-mail exchange between Nathan J. Frey, Office of Management and Budget, and Robert Wayland, Environmental Protection Agency ........................................................................................................................... 236 

STATEMENTS AND NEWS RELEASES

December 17, 2013, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Arctic 

Report Card: Update for 2013 ............................................................................. 238 

January 16, 2014, statement by the Center for Regulatory Solutions ................ 241 

October 29, 2013, statement of the Energy and Environment Initiative, Rice 

University ............................................................................................................. 246 

June 25, 2012, statement of the San Miguel Electric Cooperative, Inc. ............. 251 

January 13, 2014, SNL Energy Daily Coal Report ............................................... 260 

October 8, 2013, statement of the University of Texas at Austin, Climate 

Systems Science ................................................................................................... 272 

September 17, 2013, U.S. Census Bureau highlights on poverty ........................ 274 

February 27, 2009, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis news release, Gross 

Domestic Product: Fourth Quarter 2008 (Preliminary) .................................... 275 

December 20, 2013, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis news release, National 

Income and Product Accounts, Gross Domestic Product, 3rd quarter 2013 

(third estimate); Corporate Profits, 3rd quarter 2013 (revised estimate) ....... 277 

Element VI Consulting, EPA and the CCS Oops .................................................. 280 

January 21, 2014, National Bureau of Economic Research, Social Security 

and Elderly Poverty ............................................................................................. 282 

ARTICLES AND REPORTS

AGU Publications, National Center for Atmospheric Research (Kevin E. 

Trenberth and John T. Fasullo), An apparent hiatus in global warming? ..... 284 

September 13, 2013, Congressional Research Service (Jane A. Leggett et 

al.), Federal Climate Change Funding from FY2008 to FY2014 ..................... 298 

January 2009, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government 

(Craig A. Hart), Advancing Carbon Sequestration Research in an Uncertain 

Legal and Regulatory Environment ................................................................... 318 

January 2, 2014, Nature (Steven C. Sherwood et al.), Spread in model climate 

sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing ......................................... 364 

January 9, 2014, Politico Pro (Erica Martinson), Challenge to EPA power 

plant rule surprised administration ................................................................... 378 

January 2, 2013, Salon (Jillian Rayfield), Koch brothers donated big to ALEC, 

Heartland Institute .............................................................................................. 380 

August 2013, Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report to Congress ......... 382 
Page

V 

MISCELLANEOUS

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, State of Nebraska, Plaintiff, 

v. United States Environmental Protection Agency; and Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator, U.S. EPA, Defendants ................................................................ 430 

2011 tax information from the Charles Koch Foundation ................................... 439 

Biography of John Christy, Director, Earth System Science Center, University 

of Alabama—Huntsville ....................................................................................... 515 

(1) 

REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT’S 

CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:15 a.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of the 

committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Vitter, Cardin, Whitehouse, Merkley, 

Booker, Carper, Inhofe, Crapo, Barrasso, Sessions, Fischer, 

Boozman, and Wicker. 

Senator BOXER. Good morning, everybody. And I would ask the 

panel to take their seats, and I would ask the good Senator Udall 

to sit there at the end and he is going to introduce us to a member 

of the second panel. But knowing his schedule, we said we would 

allow him to go first. 

We also want to note that Senator Inhofe, one of the great members of this committee, has to run to be a ranking member in his 

Armed Services Committee. So he is going to leave, preserve his 

early bird status and come back. 

Senator INHOFE. I will. 

Senator BOXER. So before we even do our opening statements, 

Senator Udall, we want you to be able to go to your next appointment. Please, go right ahead. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Boxer. Good morning to the 

committee. Thank you, Senator Vitter. I appreciate an opportunity 

to introduce a member of your second panel, but a man who looms 

large in our great State of Colorado, and that is former Governor 

Bill Ritter. He helped our State become a national leader in the 

new energy economy, and in our fight to combat global warming. 

He was our Governor from 2007, Senator Boxer, to 2011. He found 

really creative ways to grow a bipartisan consensus around the 

need for our State to develop job creating clean energy while also 

safeguarding our land and our air, our water, the features that 

make the Centennial State, look, I am going to be immodest here, 

we are the envy of the world. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL. He was raised on a farm, he brought that rural 

perspective to discussions about crafting an effective State policy of 

energy development. 

Many of you have heard me talk about our strong renewable 

electricity standard. It is second only to the great State of California’s. I helped lead that effort in 2004. We started out with a 10 
2 

percent requirement. We very quickly met that requirement, and 

then Governor Ritter came along and he built on that accomplishment and he led the effort, Senator Boxer, to whereby now we are 

going to triple the State’s use of renewable energy to 30 percent by 

2020. 

Along the way he created the Governor’s energy office, which was 

the first cabinet level office devoted to improving the effective use 

of Colorado’s vast energy resources. He also signed Colorado’s 

Clean Air-Clean Jobs Act, which moved us in the utility front from 

burning of coal in our front range power plants to the use of cleanburning natural gas. We reduced carbon emissions, we cleaned up 

our air, we created jobs. And that natural gas, it may have been 

from Colorado, Senator Inhofe isn’t here, it may have been from 

Oklahoma, it may have been from Louisiana, Senator Vitter’s 

State. So we are truly an all of the above energy State. We are now 

one of the leading States, because of Governor Ritter’s great work 

in terms of the jobs created and total money invested in our growing clean energy economy. 

Since we are here today to talk about climate action plans, I 

want to add that Governor Ritter issued Colorado’s first climate action plan in 2007. It was a bold proposal, it called for a 20 percent 

reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, and an 80 percent 

reduction by 2050. 

So what has Governor Ritter been doing since he left office in 

2011? Well, he went up to CSU, our land grant college, Colorado 

State University, he created the Center for New Energy Economy 

at CSU. The Center promotes the growth of clean energy by working through, with leaders in government and the private sector, 

their pursuing business friendly policies that create jobs and promote investment in the clean tech economy. And the Center does 

this all the while through maintaining a commitment to the University’s original land grant service mission, to benefit the people 

of Colorado. 

The Center is expanding the innovative and entrepreneurial approach to clean energy research. Colorado State has long been 

known for that. It will play an integral role in bringing alternative 

energy solutions to the marketplace. 

And I just want to end on this note, Chairman Boxer, and Ranking Member Vitter, I am really pleased, I know Senator Bennet is 

really pleased that you saw fit to invite the Governor here today. 

He has a lot to share with you. It is thanks to efforts like Governor 

Ritter’s that I can say with confidence and pride that Colorado has 

a balanced approach to energy that is truly a model for our Nation. 

So I know you will enjoy hearing form Governor Ritter, and I know 

he looks forward to engaging in a back and forth with the committee. Again, thank you for inviting him, and I appreciate the 

time of the committee. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

So we will go the 5-minute rule now. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Today’s hearing will cover three topics. First, the 

President’s climate action plan, which is a critical issue. We have 
3 

four agencies here today to address it. Senator Vitter and minority 

members of this committees stated in their December 2013 yearend report, Vitter and the EPW Republicans will continue pushing 

for an oversight hearing on the Administration’s climate agenda 

that includes witnesses from Federal agencies. 

Second, today’s hearing will include the budget for the EPA, and 

third, we have set aside time for members of this committee to ask 

about John Beale, an outrageous con man who was finally caught 

and convicted. We held a briefing on this on September 30th. All 

members were invited. I asked many questions and Senator Vitter 

asked over 50 questions. However, Senator Vitter has more questions, so we are covering that subject, too. 

The broad scope of this hearing was formally agreed to by ranking members. 

The Wall Street Journal said in its editorial today that I am living in an EPA fairy tale for commending EPA Administrator 

McCarthy for shining a light on the actions of a rogue employee. 

Well, that is what Patrick Sullivan said, the Assistant Inspector 

General, when he said about Ms. McCarthy’s role, ‘‘To our knowledge, the first senior person to express concerns was Ms. McCarthy.’’ So I stand by what I said. 

Now let me turn to the President’s climate action. In his plan released on June 2013, President Obama called for action to fight climate change, so we don’t condemn future generations to a planet 

that is beyond repair. I couldn’t agree more, because climate 

change is a catastrophe that is unfolding before our very eyes. The 

President’s plan lays out a road map for action. It calls for a wide 

range of reasonable steps to reduce carbon pollution, grow the economy through clean energy, prepare for future impacts, such as rising sea levels and storm surges, and lead global efforts to fight climate change. 

When the President announced his climate change plan, many 

companies issued statements of support, including Wal-Mart, Honeywell, DuPont, Dominion Resources, American Electric Power and 

other business leaders. More than 500 companies, such as GM, 

Nike, Mars, Nestle, Unilever have stated that tackling climate 

change is one of America’s greatest economic opportunities in the 

21st century. 

In addition to many of the Nation’s largest companies, the American people have waited on the need to address this growing threat, 

and they want action now. A USA Today poll in December found 

that 81 percent of Americans think climate change will be a serious 

problem if nothing is done to reduce it. And 75 percent of Americans say that the U.S. should take action on climate change, even 

if other nations do less. That poll also found that Americans overwhelmingly support clean energy solutions like generating electricity from solar or wind. 

And here is the thing about the American people. They all say 

this, not just Democrats, not just Republicans, not just Independents. The only place that we have a partisan divide is right here 

in the Congress. 

Well, I am encouraged that significant action to address climate 

change is already underway, including establishing limits on carbon pollution from cars and trucks. The Obama administration is 
4 

also working on carbon pollution limits for new and existing power 

plants. Together these efforts address the Nation’s two largest 

sources of carbon pollution. 

Now, a new peer-reviewed study in the journal Nature finds that 

unless we control carbon pollution, the most severe predictions by 

scientists and climate experts on rising temperatures will occur by 

the end of the century, resulting in the most significant and dangerous impacts from climate change, an increase of more than 7 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. 

In my home State of California, scientists have been telling us 

for years what would happen, for years. And they are right on target. Years ago, they said, there will be substantially higher temperatures, droughts, floods, extreme weather, extreme wildfires and 

rising sea levels. And it is happening. Future generations are going 

to look back to this moment and judge each of us, each of us, by 

whether we start to act on this issue. 

So I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses who are leading their agencies’ efforts to reduce carbon pollution. I will pledge 

to you that I will use every tool at my disposal to ensure that you 

work will be done. The reason is, it is a moral obligation, it is good 

for the economy and it is good for human health. 

Thank you very much, and I would ask my ranking member to 

address us at this time. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, for calling today’s 

hearing on the President’s climate action plan. It is long overdue, 

quite frankly. In 2013, the committee failed to hold an EPA budget 

hearing and held only one climate hearing, which had excluded all 

Federal Government witnesses. Today’s one hearing comes 7 

months after the announcement of the biggest regulatory avalanche in U.S. history, the President’s climate action plan. And this 

avalanche of regulatory actions will begin in 2014, and I believe 

will further frustrate our already struggling economy. Only a fraction of the jobs economists had hoped for were created in December. 

Last June, when President Obama announced his climate action 

plan, it was clear to me that he didn’t want his supporters to engage in straight economic arguments over promise on the impacts 

taking action will have or debate the validity of the claim that the 

science is already settled. In fact, there were White House talking 

points to that effect. However, these are topics that must be discussed. 

While the current EPA Administrator argues that the President’s 

climate action plan is part of an overall strategy positioning the 

U.S. for leadership in international discussions, her predecessor 

clearly argued that such action would have no impact without 

international participation first. For the purposes of facilitating 

international buy-in, the Administration is moving forward with a 

domestic agenda that will clearly damage our ability to utilize our 

abundant energy resources and to support the growth of manufacturing jobs. 
5 

I am afraid these policies just show the international community 

three things: how to undermine chances of economic recovery and 

growth, how to achieve the lowest work force participation rate 

since the Carter administration, and how to increase energy prices 

by denying the ability to utilize all energy resources. While these 

policies were squarely rejected by Congress in 2009, since then the 

President has simply sought to legislate them through administrative fiat. 

President Obama promised his Administration would be the most 

transparent in history. However, his record, including here, reflects 

a determined effort to do the opposite. I think the social cost of carbon is a perfect example on point. Since last June, a number of my 

Republican colleagues joined me in asking the Administration to 

provide details on those social costs of carbon estimates which were 

developed in a black box and are used regulatory by multiple Federal agencies to justify costly regulations. 

The first confirmation of even participation in these closed door 

meetings was acknowledged at a November EPW hearing by EPA’s 

Director of Atmospheric Programs. She committed to providing further detailed information to the committee in November, and we 

got a short, terse, very superficial response to our detailed question 

this morning. I think that says it all. 

Afterwards, the Administration gave in to pressure from Congress and the public and announced that the estimates would be 

noticed in the Federal Register and open to comment. Yet they are 

still being utilized in many ways across the Federal Government in 

rulemakings. 

While the President’s climate action plan includes a role for almost every Federal entity, the EPA is clearly at the core. I am very 

concerned that the EPA waited over 3 months to publish a second 

try at proposed greenhouse gas new source performance standards 

for power plants. I am even more concerned that I believe these 

roles are still contrary to Federal law. I think the EPA’s delay is 

designed to postpone controversial news during an election year 

and give the EPA more time to make excuses about why they are 

taking action beyond the scope of their legal authority. 

So in summary, I continue to be really concerned that the President’s climate action plan has deeply flawed legal justifications and 

perceived theoretical benefits. I believe it undermines our economic 

recovery, threatens to keep off limits our energy abundance and 

manufacturing renaissance, exponentially increases Federal bureaucracy and red tape and most tragically, hurts those who can 

least afford it. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. Senator Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. First, Madam Chair, thank you very much for 

your extraordinary leadership on these issues during very challenging times. I thank you for holding fast on science, because the 

science is clear. Atmospheric science 101 teaches us that carbonbased gases in the atmosphere are what keep the planet warm and 

habitable by trapping heat around the planet. Earth’s plants and 
6 

oceans naturally help regulate and balance the level of carbon in 

the atmosphere by absorbing carbon. Since the industrial revolution, levels of carbon in the atmosphere have been steadily increasing, and the reduction of forest acres around the world have compounded these increases in carbon pollution emissions by reducing 

nature’s carbon sequestration capacity. Therefore, increased levels 

of carbon gases in the atmosphere have led to more heat being 

trapped, which is changing the earth’s climate. 

We are accelerating by human activities the carbon emissions. It 

is having a catastrophic impact, and we have to do something 

about it. These are scientific facts. There isn’t any debate in the 

scientific community on these facts. Neither is any debate among 

political leaders in any other developed nor many developing countries. Because unlike in the U.S. Congress, facts on climate change 

are accepted. 

I urge my colleagues to think about how future generations will 

look back upon our political squabbling and inaction to legislate 

meaningful policies to curb carbon pollution and authorize action to 

adapt to our world’s changing climate. After all, it will be our 

grandchildren and their children, not us, living in the world we 

leave them. 

The effects of climate change can be seen around the world, 

across the United States and in my home State of Maryland. Scientists monitoring migrating patterns of fish and birds are seeing 

changes in these patterns as meteorological seasons are changing. 

In some instances, the changes in certain wildlife species, particularly cold weather and cold water adaptive species like trout and 

salmon, are shrinking, while the ranges of pest species like bark 

beetles are expanding due to milder winters. Changing water temperatures in the Chesapeake Bay will have an impact on our blue 

crabs and oyster populations, which will threaten the livelihood of 

Maryland’s watermen, who make their livelihood off the seafood of 

the Bay. 

Climate change is also directly affecting human population 

around the globe. This raises concerns about climate refugees, who 

have lost their communities to sea level rise and other catastrophic 

weather events in the decades to come. In my own State of Maryland, I can point to the people who live on Smith Island, as they 

see their island being consumed by sea level rise. 

While I am disappointed that the politics of Washington prevents 

Congress from enacting legislation to address both the causes and 

effects of climate change, our Nation is very fortunate to have an 

Administration that is able to rise above the squabbles in Congress 

to take bold action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, promote more 

responsible and efficient energy consumption, grow our Nation’s renewable energy sources and take critical steps to adapt to the effects of climate change. EPA has reduced U.S. vehicle fleet emissions through improved CAFE standards by setting ambitious yet 

achievable goals for fuel efficiency. The President’s announcement 

in 2011 to raise CAFE standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 

in sum are the world’s most ambitious fuel economy standards in 

the world. These targets demonstrate how EPA and the industry 

can work together to achieve what is necessary to protect public 

health and the environment. 
7 

And I might point out, this is going to help our economy. Efficiencies of energy creates jobs, clean energy creates jobs. 

President Obama’s EPA has also taken bold and a necessary step 

toward regulating carbon pollution from our Nation’s power sector 

by using existing authority under the Clean Air Act to propose the 

first limits of carbon emissions for the U.S. power generator sector. 

All of this is helping. The Obama administration has executed successful programs that are generating clean energy and American 

jobs, reducing our reliance on foreign oil, bolstering our national security and international competitiveness and protecting health and 

the environment. 

We should help. Instead, what we see, particularly coming over 

from the House of Representatives, are proposals that would block 

this progress. Fortunately, we have stopped that in the Senate. But 

we should adopt an energy policy that will help this Nation not 

only become energy independent for our national security and not 

only help our economy grow but also help our environmental future. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Crapo. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding this 

important hearing on the President’s climate action plan. 

I share many of the concerns outlined by my colleagues on this 

panel and welcome this opportunity to hear from the Federal officials assembled on the first panel who have and will continue to 

generate the President’s core policies on climate change. Many of 

my concerns with the President’s current action plans stem from 

issues that we have wrestled with in this Administration in the 

past. 

For instance, the Environmental Protection Agency has without 

providing for public comment or peer review adjusted upwards the 

social cost of carbon to modify the accounting for benefits claims 

from regulatory actions. Moreover, proposed regulations of greenhouses gases from new and existing sources are likely to cripple 

numerous large scale manufacturing and energy projects across the 

Nation, creating an environment in which foreign countries will become far more attractive for future investment, potentially undermining our economy again. 

In another instance, the Treasury Department obstructed multiple transparency requests for more than 9 months regarding internal work on the development of a carbon tax, as well as sources 

of funding for international climate commitments that were negotiated behind closed doors. 

We can all agree that affordable energy is a critical component 

of having a healthy and robust economy in the United States. And 

we are fortunate to have tremendous energy resources here at 

home. As such, I am concerned that the Administration’s proposals 

threaten to undermine an important sector of our economy and the 

industries and jobs it supports in the name of modest environmental gains. In reviewing the testimony provided by members of 

President Obama’s Administration today, I am concerned that the 
8 

views of those most likely to be negatively impacted by the new 

EPA regulations have not been appropriately considered. 

Protecting and improving our natural environment is a goal 

shared by many. But there is strong disagreement about how to 

achieve these goals. In general, the best policies for addressing climate change are grounded in three basic principles: sound peer-reviewed science, protection of our quality of life; and policies that 

promise the greatest benefit to both the environment and the people without harming our economy. 

The recent climate change proposals issued by President Obama, 

however, will have severe economic consequences and will likely 

yield immeasurable environmental benefits if fully implemented. 

Further, they would undermine the utilization of our own traditional affordable sources of energy and increase the cost of electricity for consumers. Rather, we must utilize an all of the above 

approach which should include a robust expansion of nuclear energy production, hydroelectric power and other promising renewable and emissions reducing technologies. By expanding and diversifying our energy portfolio, we can reduce risks to the environment, promote a strong domestic energy sector and increase our energy security. 

I support legislative solutions that preserve and enhance our natural environment. However, I am deeply concerned that unilateral 

EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is already imposing 

major burdens on our economy without resulting in commensurate 

environmental benefits. I agree on the need for continued research 

in the field of climate science in order to gain the necessary knowledge needed to implement effective policies. The issue is fraught 

with significant social, environmental and economic consequences, 

and it is essential that we get it right. 

As such, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, particularly Dr. Judith Curry, and her work at the Georgia Institute 

of Technology. 

Again, thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding this hearing. I 

look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Let me just briefly welcome our witnesses to this chamber, one 

in which reality is so often suspended, one in which science is so 

often twisted and mocked and one in which the power of special interests to manipulate American democracy is often so nakedly revealed. 

My belief is that the propaganda machine behind the climate denial effort will go down in history as one of our great American 

scandals, like Teapot Dome or Credit Mobilier or Watergate, for 

that matter. 

Most Americans see through it. Major American organizations, 

everything from Coke and Pepsi to Ford and GM to Wal-Mart and 

Nike and Apple, you can go on and on through the corporate community, outside the corporate community you can go from the Joint 
9 

Chiefs of Staff to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to the 

Garden Clubs of America, over and over again, organization after 

organization accepts the science, accepts the reality. And frankly, 

farmers and fishermen are starting to see it happen on their farms 

and in their fishing grounds in their reality. Ask the ski mountains 

of Utah. 

So I simply urge you all while you are here to keep the faith. 

Keep faith with reality. Keep faith with truth, keep faith with 

science. Armor yourselves against the slings and arrows of the 

deniers and the polluters machine and do our duty. I ask this particularly on behalf of my home State, Rhode Island, which is a 

coastal State, which is at the front line of the undeniable effects 

of climate change. Our sea levels are rising. It is not complicated. 

You measure that with a yardstick, more or less. Our oceans are 

warming. Not complicated. You measure that with thermometers. 

And we know that our oceans are getting more acidic. Everybody 

with an aquarium can take a litmus test. This is not complicated. 

And it is affecting our people. 

So bear that in mind, do our duty and thank you. I ask that the 

remainder of my statement be put into the record. 

[The referenced statement was not received at time of print.] 

Senator BOXER. Without objection, it will be done. 

Senator Sessions, you are next followed by Senator Barrasso. 

That is the list we have, but it is up to both of you. 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Barrasso was here before I came. 

Senator BOXER. Then absolutely, Senator Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Madam Chairman, last week was the 50th anniversary of the 

war on poverty. The war began when President Lyndon Johnson 

visited with Tom Fletcher and his family on the front porch in 

Martin County, Kentucky. NPR did a story on this recently and 

said at the time, the poverty rate in this coal mining area was 

more than 60 percent. Johnson visited the Fletchers on the porch 

of their home, a small wooden structure with fake brick siding. 

This is from the NPR story. The study went on to say that photographers took what would become one of the iconic images of the 

war on poverty. The President crouched down, chatting with Tom 

Fletcher about the lack of jobs. 

Flash forward to today, according to the Department of Agriculture, the latest numbers for 2011, 38.6 percent of the population 

of Martin County is in poverty. NPR stated that this is twice the 

national average. In addition, 47 percent of children in that county 

are in poverty. NPR went on to say today, many people here rely 

on government aid. In fact, it is the largest source of income in the 

county. They say people say it has helped to reduce hunger, improve health care and given young families a boost, especially at 

a time, NPR said, when coal mining jobs, let me repeat, when coal 

mining jobs are disappearing by the hundreds. 

Now, this is National Public Radio, not known as a conservative 

outfit that champions coal. Those are the ones saying that. 
10 

The actions of this Administration’s EPA to wipe out coal and 

eventually natural gas is costing thousands of jobs, and it is driving up energy costs for many of the most vulnerable people in this 

country. I can only conclude that this EPA is on the wrong side of 

the war on poverty. In fact, this EPA is the tip of the spear that 

is spending energy producing communities like Martin County, 

Kentucky, like Campbell County in my home State of Wyoming, 

Marshall County in West Virginia, Belmont County in Ohio back 

to the very days before Lyndon Johnson’s original declaration. 

When you wipe out the jobs in these communities and you drive 

up electricity costs, you create poverty, period. Folks back in those 

counties wonder why the EPA is making these decisions that deliberately hurt them. The Associated Press shed some light on this 

with an article written January 10th of this year, just 6 days ago. 

The article demonstrates that the EPA has been colluding with the 

Sierra Club and their Beyond Coal campaign to deliberately draft 

a rule that will prevent new coal-fired power plants from being 

built. According to the Associated Press article, e-mails between 

the Sierra Club and the EPA produced through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit show the green group and senior officials of the 

Nation’s top environmental enforcer met and corresponded frequently about the agency’s work on coal regulations. The article 

goes on to say that the EPA has repeatedly said the regulations on 

coal-fired plants will not be a death blow to the industry. However, 

the agency was working closely behind the scenes with the Sierra 

Club, an environmental organization that was pushing the agency 

to adopt standards that would be impossible for power plants to 

meet. 

Many of the e-mails are between John Coequyt, head of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign, and the EPA’s Michael Goo and 

Alex Barron, both in the agency’s Office of Policy at the time. Just 

yesterday, a report of new e-mails obtained from the Freedom of 

Information Act show more coordination between the EPA and extremist environmental groups. The report stated, ‘‘E-mails show 

EPA used official events, official events, to help environmentalist 

groups gather signatures for petitions on agency rulemaking, incorporated advance copies of letters drafted by those groups into official statements by the agency and worked with these environmental extremist groups to publicly pressure executives of at least 

one energy company.’’ 

Madam Chairman, I cannot believe that these are the first instances of this type of collusion in this Administration’s EPA. It is 

clear that this EPA and this Administration has an agenda. And 

that agenda is hurting jobs, the agenda is raising energy costs and 

the agenda is making poverty worse in struggling communities 

around this country. The message to energy producing communities 

is clear: if you like your job, your community and your electricity 

bill, you can’t keep them. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Barrasso follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 
11 

Last week was the 50th anniversary of the war on poverty. This war began when 

President Lyndon Johnson visited with Tom Fletcher and his family on their front 

porch in Martin County, Kentucky. NPR did a story on this iconic moment, and 

stated, ‘‘At the time, the poverty rate in this coal-mining area was more than 60 

percent. Johnson visited the Fletchers on the porch of their home—a small wooden 

structure with fake brick siding. Photographers took what would become one of the 

iconic images of the war on poverty: the President crouched down, chatting with 

Tom Fletcher about the lack of jobs.’’ 

Flash forward to today. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s latest 

numbers for 2011, 38.6 percent of the population of Martin County is in poverty. 

NPR stated that this is twice the national average. 

In addition, 47 percent of children in the county are in poverty. NPR went on to 

say that ‘‘Today, many people here rely on government aid. In fact, it’s the largest 

source of income in Martin County. People say it has helped to reduce hunger, improve health care and give young families a boost, especially at a time when coal 

mining jobs’’—let me repeat—‘‘coal mining jobs . . . are disappearing . . . by the hundreds.’’ This is National Public Radio, not known as a conservative outfit that champions coal, saying this. 

The actions of this Administration’s EPA to wipe out coal, and eventually natural 

gas, is costing thousands of jobs and driving up energy poverty for the most vulnerable. I can only conclude that this EPA is on the wrong side of the war on poverty. 

In fact, this EPA is the tip of the spear that is sending energy producing communities like Martin County, Kentucky, Campbell County in my home State of Wyoming, Marshall County in West Virginia, and Belmont County in Ohio back to the 

very day before Lyndon Johnson’s original declaration. 

When you wipe out the jobs in these communities, and you drive up electricity 

costs, you create poverty, period. Folks back in these counties wonder why the EPA 

is making these decisions that deliberately hurt them. Well, the Washington Free 

Beacon shed some light on this in an article written on January 10th of this year. 

The article demonstrates that the EPA has been colluding with the Sierra Club 

and their Beyond Coal campaign to deliberately draft a rule that will prevent any 

new coal-fired power plants from being built. According to the article, ‘‘E-mails between the Sierra Club and the EPA produced through a Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) lawsuit show the green group and senior officials at the nation’s top environmental enforcer met and corresponded frequently about the agency’s work on new 

coal regulations.’’ 

The article goes on to say that ‘‘The EPA has repeatedly said the regulations on 

coal-fired power plants will not be a death blow to the industry. However, the agency was working closely behind the scenes with the Sierra Club, an environmental 

organization that was pushing the agency to adopt standards that would be impossible for power plants to meet. Many of the e-mails are between John Coequyt, head 

of the Sierra Club’s ‘beyond coal campaign,’ and the EPA’s Michael Goo and Alex 

Barron, both in the agency’s office of policy at the time.’’ 

And just yesterday, the Washington Free Beacon reported new e-mails that show 

more coordination between EPA and extremist environmental groups. The paper 

stated, ‘‘E-mails show EPA used official events to help environmentalist groups 

gather signatures for petitions on agency rulemaking, incorporated advance copies 

of letters drafted by those groups into official statements, and worked with environmentalists to publicly pressure executives of at least one energy company.’’ 

Madam Chairman, I can’t believe these are the first instances of this type of collusion in this EPA. It is clear that this EPA and this Administration has an agenda, 

and that agenda is not to create jobs, provide affordable energy, or fight poverty in 

these struggling communities. 

The message to energy producing communities is clear—if you like your job, community, and your electricity bill, you can’t keep them. 

I thank the Chair and look forward to the testimony. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

I ask unanimous consent to place into the record an article entitled The Future of Coal. Despite the gas boom, coal is dead. It goes 

on to talk about how, over the 20 years, employment is down because people are more productive, production is actually up. That 

is No. 1. And No. 2, I want to put into the record news today that 

the third quarter GDP went up 4.1 percent compared to the last 

quarter of George W. Bush where GDP went down 3.8 percent and 

that was the time that the Administration then was arguing over 
12 

they couldn’t do anything about greenhouse gases, that it wasn’t 

actually in the Clean Air Act. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
13 
14 
15 
16 

Senator BOXER. So I think we really need to balance this out. 

And now we are going to go to Senator Merkley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. No matter where 

you travel in our State, you see the assault of carbon pollution on 

our natural resources. We can take and start with farming. We 

have had three worst ever droughts in the Klamath Basin in a 13- 

year period. And based on the snow pack this year, we may well 

have a fourth this coming summer, devastating a key agricultural 

part of our State. 

If we turn to fishing, we have streams that are smaller and 

warmer, affecting our trout and our salmon. A lot of folk certainly 

appreciate having vital streams with vitality, if you will, and do not 

appreciate this assault of carbon pollution on our fishing. 

If we turn to our sea life off the coast, we are having trouble with 

oyster seed, the baby oysters that are distributed throughout the 

industry to create the oyster industry. They are having trouble because there is more carbonic acid in the ocean. Why? Because of 

the carbon pollution. Carbon pollution assaulting our natural resource base. 

And if we turn to our forests, the concern is even more evident. 

We have pine beetle infestations that are out of control because we 

don’t have the cold snaps, cold enough and long enough to kill 

them off in the winter. We have large red zones that I have taken 

tours from the air in that you see red trees as far as the eye can 

see as a result. And we have forest fires that are the worst ever 

in a hundred years summer before last, and year after year with 

drier forests, more lightning strikes, more devastation. Part of that, 

certainly a piece of it, has to do with forest health, which is why 

I am lobbying the Administration to continue forest health money 

for us to be able to reduce the load enforcement. 

A lot of it has to do with these changing patterns. In fact, the 

Department of Energy has an early version of their study from Los 

Alamos National Laboratories that says that western forests will 

be largely wiped out by the year 2100 with the combination of forest fires and beetle devastation. 

So for the people of Oregon, in our rural areas, who see this devastating attack of carbon pollution affecting their fishing and farming and forestry, we need to stand up for rural America. We need 

to stand up for our natural resources, we need to stand up for this 

planet. 

And I look forward to your comments. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Inhofe would like to be heard next. Is that OK with colleagues? 

Senator SESSIONS. It would be OK with me, Madam Chair. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. This is one of those times we have the Armed 

Services hearing at the same time, as you well know, Senator Sessions. 
17 

On multiple occasions and most recently on May 30th of last 

year, President Obama has said, and this is a quote that he has 

used several times, he said the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago, and that climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated 5 or 10 years ago. 

Both statements are false, and through letters to you, and I appreciate very much the quick response I got from you, Ms. McCarthy, 

and on the record of this committee, we have asked the EPA to provide us with the data backing up these two statements, the two 

statements made by the President. 

But they didn’t have the data, and referred us to the U.N. IPCC, 

Intergovernmental, and their scientists, apparently the EPA 

thought they were the source of this. Well, we went there and they 

had nothing to back it up, so apparently the President just made 

that up. And I think it is very important, because when you get 

statements that are made that are supposed to be based on logic 

and on truth, you have to check them out. Last week’s record cold 

temperatures brought global warming debate back to the public’s 

attention, but that is only important to the extent that it is bringing more awareness to the uncertainty of the science around the 

debate. When you go back and look at the temperature projections 

from the climate models and compare them to actual temperatures, 

two things are readily evident. First, temperatures have flat-lined 

over the last 15 years. And second, an average of over 100 climate 

models from the last decade show that the scientific community did 

not predict this would happen. To my knowledge, not a single climate model ever predicted that a pause in global warming would 

ever occur. Senator Sessions is going to go deeper into this. 

The truth completely contradicts the Presidents’ statement and 

begs the question as to why he and the EPA not only continue to 

deny the truth of it, but why it has raced to stop this information 

from disseminating into scientific record. What I am referring to is 

the Administration’s efforts with other nations to lobby the IPCC 

to back up the President’s statement in the most recent report. And 

while I did not think the IPCC hiatus explanation was sufficient, 

I have to at least give them credit for recognizing the facts for what 

they are and that the hiatus has occurred and does exist, is existing today. 

I know the Administration and I will never agree on the science 

of global warming, but we can set aside for now and focus perhaps 

on the more alarming issue, the politics of EPA’s regulations. 

In October 2012, when I was ranking member of this committee, 

I released report highlighting the Administration’s systematic actions to delay finalization of costly environmental regulations until 

after the 2012 presidential election. Whether it was the farm dust 

rule or the ozone standards, the President punted regulation after 

regulation until after the election to minimize the influence this 

would have on voters. Again, it appears he is doing exactly the 

same thing for the first round of greenhouse gas regulations for the 

construction of new power plants. 

As we know, this is because under the Clean Air Act, this is significant, new rules for power plants must be finalized within 1 year 

of the proposal’s publication in the Federal Register, or the proposed rule is invalidated. This is important, because after announc-
18 

ing the climate action plan, the President ordered the EPA to issue 

a new proposal by no later than September 20th of 2013. 

Now, the EPA proposed a new rule on September 20th, but it 

didn’t publish the Federal Register until after January 9th of 2014. 

Had the EPA published the rule in the Federal Register on the 

same day it proposed it, on September 20th, it would have been 

forced to finalize the rule by September 20th of 2014, which is 

about 6 weeks prior to the 2014 elections. But because the agency 

delayed the publication until last week, the EPA will not be required to finalize the rule until 8 weeks after the election. 

This reveals an astonishing double standard. On one hand, the 

President says that we don’t have time to delay action on global 

warming. He says we must act before it is too late. But on the 

other hand, his actions show it is OK to wait to finalize rules that 

will harm the economy until after the elections, so they won’t have 

an impact on the vulnerable candidates that might be damaged by 

this. 

Ultimately, this hypocrisy reveals the Administration is fully 

aware that the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations will put a drag 

on the economy. Study after study has shown that greenhouse gas 

regulations will cost the economy between $300 billion and $400 

billion a year. If we remember, the predecessor of Ms. McCarthy 

said before this committee that even if we did pass these, it 

wouldn’t have an effect of reducing greenhouse gases worldwide because it would only affect the United States. 

Let me say to Ms. McCarthy, thank you very much for your very 

kind condolences over the problem that we had. Thank you, 

Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

On multiple occasions, and most recently on May 30th of last year, President 

Obama has said that ‘‘the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than 

was predicted even 10 years ago’’ and that ‘‘the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated 5 or 10 years ago.’’ 

Both statements are false, and through letters to you, Ms. McCarthy, and on the 

record in this Committee, we’ve asked the EPA to provide us with the data backing 

up these statements, but they don’t have any data and referred us to the U.N. 

IPCC. They had nothing to back it up, so President Obama just made it up. 

Last week’s record cold temperature brought the global warming debate back to 

the public’s attention, but that’s only important to the extent that it’s bringing more 

awareness to the uncertainty of the science around the debate. 

When you go back and look at the temperature projections from climate models 

and compare them to actual temperatures, two things are readily evident: (1) temperatures have flatlined over the last 15 years; and (2) an average of over 100 climate models from the last decade shows that the scientific community did not predict this would happen. 

This fact completely contradicts the President’s statements and begs the question 

why he and the EPA not only continue to deny the truth but why it has raced to 

stop this information from disseminating into the scientific record. 

What I’m referring to is the Administration’s efforts, with other nations, to lobby 

the IPCC to back up the President’s statements in their most recent report. And 

while I did not think the IPCC’s hiatus explanation was sufficient, I have to at least 

give them credit for recognizing the facts for what they are: that the hiatus has occurred and does exist. 

I know this Administration and I will probably never agree on the science of global warming. But we can set that aside for now and focus on perhaps the more 

alarming issue—the politics of the EPA’s regulations. 
19 

In October 2012, when I was Ranking Member of this Committee, I released a 

report highlighting the Administration’s systematic actions to delay the finalization 

of costly environmental regulations until after the 2012 presidential elections. 

Whether it was the farm dust rule or the ozone standard, the President punted regulation after regulation until after the election to minimize the influence these rules 

would have on voters. 

And it appears that he’s doing the exact same thing with the first round of greenhouse gas regulations for the construction of new power plants. 

And we know this because under the Clean Air Act, new rules for power plants 

must be finalized within 1 year of the proposal’s publication in the Federal Register, 

or the proposed rule is invalidated. This is important because after announcing his 

Climate Action Plan, the President ordered the EPA to ‘‘issue a new proposal by no 

later than September 20, 2013.’’ 

The EPA proposed the new rule on September 20, but it did not publish it in the 

Federal Register until January 9, 2014. 

Had the EPA published this rule in the Federal Register on the same day it proposed it, on September 20, 2013, it would have been forced to finalize the rule by 

September 20, 2014, about 6 weeks before the 2014 elections. But because the Agency delayed the publication until last week, the EPA will not be required to finalize 

the rule until January 2015, about 8 weeks after the 2014 elections. 

This reveals an astounding double standard. On the one hand, the President says 

that we don’t have time to delay action on global warming. He says we must ‘‘act 

before it’s too late.’’ But on the other hand, his actions show it is OK to wait to finalize rules that will harm the economy until after the elections so they won’t have 

an impact on vulnerable Senate Democrats who face voters this fall. 

Ultimately, this hypocrisy reveals that the Administration is fully aware that the 

EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations will put a drag on the economy. Study after study 

has shown that greenhouse gas regulations will cost the economy $300 billion–$400 

billion per year and will stunt economic growth for generations. 

They would be the largest tax increase in American history, and our economy simply cannot afford them. And more importantly, by this Administration’s own admission, the whole implementation of the rule would not reduce GHG emissions worldwide because it would only apply to the United States. So it would be the largest 

tax increase in American history for nothing. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator Inhofe. 

And we turn to Senator Booker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CORY A. BOOKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator BOOKER. First of all, I want to say thank you to the 

ranking member and to the chairwoman for this opportunity. This 

is my first hearing on this committee, and it is a privilege and 

honor to be here, especially with committed activists on both sides 

of the aisle who have a passion and concern for our country and 

its well-being. So it is an honor to be here as I begin my Senate 

career. 

Chairwoman, it was a long time ago that I was the mayor of New 

Jersey’s largest city. That was back in October. What frustrated me 

is, I am a guy who believes very strongly in the power of markets, 

in the power of private enterprise and industry to help poor communities, creating jobs, creating economic activity, lifting people 

up. That is the idea of this country. 

But what I get frustrated with about having been a mayor as I 

look at the landscape of my city, and frankly the landscape of the 

State of New Jersey, is that we have it backward in our history 

about what it means to do private enterprise. All over Newark and 

New Jersey right now is a population as a whole paying the costs 

of corporations who did not internalize their pollution. Think about 

this right now. When I was mayor of Newark, the government had 

to spend, and somewhere there were Federal dollars, cleaning up 
20 

brownfields where corporations of past years, decades and centuries ago, poisoned our ground, just to try and get it ready for economic opportunity. In Newark we have an incredible river, the Passaic River, running through New Jersey and Newark, that is so 

polluted right now that not only will it cost this Federal Government, as well as the State government, as well as past polluters, 

trying to chase them down and legal fees and legal costs, millions 

and tens of millions and hundreds of millions of dollars to ever get 

that river clean enough, but it also killed entire industries. 

Everywhere around my State, dozens and dozens of Superfund 

sites that we are paying for as a population. I am all for the power 

of markets. But this idea that we are privatizing profits and socializing costs has to stop. And the pain and suffering of especially 

poor populations is something that you cannot put a price tag on. 

What would it mean for people in America to live in a place 

where you can’t plant in your ground to grow vegetables in your 

back yards? We did urban agriculture in my city, acres of it, and 

we could not go into the ground. We had to put the soil on top. Who 

is paying that cost? What does it mean in a city when you are separated from your air, as we have epidemic asthma rates? What does 

it mean to a people that is separated from their water, where they 

can’t even go swimming? Who is calculating those costs? 

So I am happy that the Federal Government over the years has 

caught up to a lot of these polluters and begun to put the regulations in place. But I am telling you right now, they are too late. 

So much land should be developed in economic activity, and it can’t 

be touched. We have an Agent Orange site in New Jersey that is 

capped over. So here we are today, at another verge of being too 

late. And again, poor people who desperately need economic opportunity are being denied that in communities all over New Jersey. 

Why? Because look, when the temperature rises on our planet, 

please know that cities like Newark, New Jersey, are many degrees 

higher because they lack permeable surfaces, their tree canopy isn’t 

there, and they are suffering as a result. These cannot be calculated, these negative externalities cannot be calculated. 

So what I am simply saying is, I cannot stand by and allow the 

continued socialization of costs and allow those who are doing the 

polluting not to be held accountable for factoring those costs into 

their business. The epidemic asthma rates that are causing a generation of children to miss school, talk to teachers in urban areas, 

not just in New Jersey, and see what asthma does to undermine 

the education of children and therefore undermine their future economic viability, contribution, success that drives our whole economy, you understand the peril we are in. 

I end with the simple words of Martin Luther King, a hero to Republicans and Democrats. He said, we are now faced with the fact, 

and it seems that we want to ignore many facts in our day and age. 

He says, we are now faced with facts, my friends, that tomorrow 

is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of right now. 

In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is no such 

thing as being too late. We cannot afford to be too late and tarry 

away in needless and senseless discussions and undermine our 

ability to act and link people who put these pollutants into our air 

take responsibilities for the costs that they take. 
21 

I do believe that the problem, as King said, is not the vitriolic 

words and actions of bad people, it is the appalling silence and inaction of the good people. We are good people. I hope that we can 

act on this urgent need and urgent problem. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you for that eloquence. 

And we turn to Senator Sessions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. It is a fair question to ask this 

morning, what is right and what is wrong with the President’s climate agenda. That is what we are paid to do, is to try to do the 

right thing for America and wrestle through these issues. What is 

right, first, I have said repeatedly it seems logical that greenhouse 

gas increases could, all things being equal, result in a warming effect in our atmosphere. Scientists have told us that. It is an important scientific question and there are smart and justifiable steps 

that can be taken. 

For example, I have supported funding climate research, research into potential new technologies, cleaner sources of energy, 

common sense ways to promote energy conservation and efforts to 

expand nuclear power, the most significant emission-free energy 

source in the world, I would suggest. I have supported in the past 

ethanol, solar and other renewables and gas mileage rules, CAFE 

standards. But the truth is that predictions of warming simply 

have not occurred at the rate the experts have predicted. This rush 

to force billions more dollars of cost in this economy, many more 

thousands of people laid off, based on predictions that are not panning out deserves analysis. There is common ground that we can 

reach, things that we can do together. And there are certain things 

that I oppose and do not believe can be justified. 

What is wrong with the President’s plan? I would suggest four 

concerns. One, the President’s plan lacks balance between cost and 

benefit. This Administration, primarily through EPA, is imposing 

a massive, bureaucratic, expensive plan that threatens to kill thousands of jobs and increase energy costs for American families. It 

will hammer middle class working families and make our economy 

less competitive. 

Last month the economy added just 74,000 jobs. For every one 

job added, nearly five left the work force. That is not good. Today 

we have the lowest workplace participation rate in 36 years. We 

still have fewer jobs today than in 2008. And the President’s climate agenda is hindering our economic recovery. Just look at the 

thousands of jobs awaiting approval on the Keystone Pipeline, 

which is being blocked. 

Significantly, the amount taxpayers are being asked to pay for 

this agenda is out of balance. A recent report by the CRS found 

that direct Federal funding to address global climate change totaled approximately $77 billion between 2008 and 2013, 18 agencies involved. For this amount, the taxpayer should expect significant benefits. Yet the facts show that if the agenda is adopted in 

its entirety and all these goals are achieved in the U.S., there 

would still be no measurable difference in the global temperatures 

20, 50 or 100 years from now. 
22 

What else is wrong with the climate agenda of the President? It 

empowers Federal bureaucrats to regulate in ways that Congress 

never authorized. I reject the notion that the 1970 Clean Air Act 

gave EPA the power to force every coal-fired power plant in America to capture and store carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide was never 

even contemplated when the Clean Air Act was passed. 

Moreover, the President continues to misrepresent climate 

science. He repeatedly stated global temperatures are increasing 

more than was predicted 10 years ago. I raised that before. This 

claim is demonstrably false. It is as false as, if you like your health 

insurance, you can keep it. Really worse, because it misrepresents 

existing facts, not something that might happen in the future. 

As shown in this chart, which was updated just a few days ago, 

with the most recent satellite data for all of 2013, global temperatures have not increased since 1998. They just haven’t. That is not 

consistent with the models that we have been told correctly predict 

our future. Even the State Department in a letter to me of December of this year acknowledged a ‘‘recent slowdown in atmospheric 

warming,’’ they acknowledge that. But the President is still claiming it is higher than was predicted. That is not acceptable. We expect more out of the President and we expect the EPA director to 

tell the President, this is not accurate and to stop saying that. 

Finally, the President’s plan is doing too much too fast. Scientific 

American just this month had an article entitled The Long Slow 

Rise of Solar and Wind. They say that each widespread transition 

from one dominant fuel to the other has taken 50 to 60 years. And 

there is no technical or financial reason to believe renewables will 

rise any faster. Yet we are trying to force this beyond reason. They 

go into some length about that. 

Madam Chair, thank you for having this hearing. These are important issues. We need to wrestle with it, and I think we can 

begin that today. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

And there is dispute about what you said, and I will put some 

things into the record at the end of the hearing, and I will be 

happy to share them with you, Senator. 

OK, so we’re now going to go to Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

For years I have been working with our colleagues here in Congress and the Administration, all kinds of stakeholder groups 

across the country to try to tackle one of the biggest challenges of 

our generation, that is climate change. I believe climate change exists and that we are living on borrowed time. The longer we wait 

to address this issue, the more damaging and expensive it becomes. 

Before the recent recession, we had members of both parties, including myself, put forth legislative proposals that would grow our 

economy and provide for a safe climate. This was a time when our 

climate change debates focused on how we would grow our economy 

and clean our environment. It is not a novel idea, in the 1970s and 

1990s, Republican Presidents and a majority of the members on 

both sides of the aisle supported, as you recall, the Clean Air Act 
23 

and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. These clean air protections protected our health but also allowed our economy to grow exponentially. 

Unfortunately, in recent years we have seen a shift in the debate 

and have been unable to find common ground in climate legislation. Today our climate change debates are focused on the science 

instead of solutions. Our debates focus on backsliding clean air 

laws instead of improving them. Essentially, we are back to debating whether we can have a strong economy or a clean environment. 

History has shown that this is a false choice. 

As Congress fights over what to do, our communities are feeling 

the first tastes of the harmful effects of climate change through 

record droughts and storms. Coastal communities like those in my 

own State of Delaware are especially vulnerable as oceans slowly 

rise and more extreme storms like Superstorm Sandy hit our 

coasts. These climate impacts are costing our country not just in 

lives impacted but in true economic costs. In fact, for the first time 

in history, the Government Accountability Office last year listed 

climate change as one of the biggest fiscal risks facing our country 

in their annual high risk reports, GAO. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency alone obligated over 

$80 billion, $80 billion in Federal assistance for disasters declared 

during fiscal years 2004 through 2011. Despite the warnings and 

the reality, Congress remains gridlocked over this issue, while our 

impacted communities, our children and the rest of the world await 

our leadership. I don’t think the world can wait much longer. 

That is why I welcome the President’s comprehensive climate action plan. I think it is a big step. And a big step, and a big look 

forward to hearing today what progress we have made to date, and 

what work remains. 

At the end of the day, I still believe the best path forward to 

combat climate change is through legislation. I hope in the near future members of both parties, as well as leaders in the private sector and other stakeholders will decide to come together in a common sense environmental protections that are good for our climate, 

our health and our economy. 

The last thing I would say, if I could, Administrator McCarthy 

and I were together on Monday of this week in Detroit, where GM 

won car of the year or truck of the year, international competition 

against the best of the world. We also saw unveiled a new updated 

F–150 truck, the top selling vehicle in America, the Ford F–150. 

They have taken 700 pounds out of the weight of the vehicle, 

Madam Chair, 700 pounds, and the EPA mileage of that truck, believe it or not, highway mileage is 30 miles per gallon. Thirty miles 

per gallon for an F–150. Who would have thunk it. 

We saw internal combustion engines using turbo charges from 

Honeywell and other American companies that are getting 40, 45, 

50 miles per gallon, internal combustion engines. Saw a clean diesel engine that is getting like 60 some miles per gallon, I think it 

was a Volkswagen Jetta. And I think a Mazda product that is getting 70 miles per gallon. A lot of folk who were talking about fuel, 

not just talking but they are working, spending money on fuel cells 

and on that particular approach to production and propulsion. 
24 

A lot of good stuff is happening, a lot of good stuff is happening. 

And part of it is because of the legislative work that we did on 

CAFE that basically said, these are going to the goals that we are 

setting, the milestones that we want to reach and by golly, we are 

reaching them. It is exciting, it is creating jobs, it cleans up the environment, it reduces our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels. 

But it is actually creating a stronger economy, not a weaker economy. 

The last thing I would say, we have a new chairman of GM, new 

president, new CEO, whose name is Mary Barra. At the ceremony 

that Monday morning, GM announced car of the year, Corvette 

Sting Ray, truck of the year, Silverado, and they had a huge crush 

of people around Mary as she tried to leave the press conference. 

As she walked out, I shook hands with her and gave her my business card. On it I had written these words, Gina. I said ‘‘Proud 

Mary, keep on rolling.’’ Proud Mary, keep on rolling. Because they 

are rolling, they are rolling. They are not rolling just to make more 

money, provide more jobs but actually to clean up our economy. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. That is the win-win I see. 

Senator Fischer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking 

Member for holding the hearing today. I welcome and thank the 

witnesses for being here as well. 

I am especially pleased that we do have four witnesses here from 

the Administration. Congressional oversight, especially over EPA 

as it rolls out rules that jeopardize the affordability and reliability 

of American energy, is critical. Americans are very uneasy about a 

plan being enacted via executive fiat and with what seems to be 

a total disregard for the costs associated with it. Owners of coal 

plants have announced that a total of over 55,000 megawatts of 

coal fueled generating capacity will be shut down by 2025. Of this 

total, EPA regulations have been cited as a factor in the closure of 

over 45,000 of those megawatts, 303 coal units in 33 States. The 

American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy conservatively estimates 

that these shutdowns will cause the loss of 17,000 jobs. 

In 2012, National Economic Research Associates analyzed the 

impacts of several EPA regulations affecting coal fueled electricity 

generation. Compliance costs for the electric sector average $15 billion to $15.7 billion per year. U.S. employment losses average 

544,000 to 887,000 per year. Given EPA’s recent new source performance standard proposal, which hinges upon unproven carbon 

capture and sequestration technology, Americans can only expect 

even higher energy prices and greater job losses. 

Countries that have made shifts away from fossil fuels are now 

finding such policy positions to be untenable. The New York Times 

reported last year, ‘‘Europe faces a crisis in energy costs. In Britain, climate changes and charges add 19 percent to the electricity 

prices that large manufacturers pay, steel production is down about 

30 percent. Britain, where the average annual household energy 
25 

bill has doubled since 2006, is approaching a tipping point where 

large numbers of people decide to switch off heat permanently.’’ 

The Wall Street Journal reported ‘‘support for the European 

Union’s climate and energy policy eroded further Friday as the 

Czech Republic became the latest member to denounce subsidies 

for clean but costly renewable energy and pledged to double down 

on its use of fossil fuels. It followed Poland’s declaration that it 

would use its abundant domestic coal supplies for power generation 

rather than invest in costly renewable energy facilities. Spain abolished subsidies for photovoltaic power generation in July. And the 

U.K.’s power markets regulator last month froze solar power subsidies for the rest of the year.’’ 

A headline in the Telegraph read ‘‘Brussels fears European industrial massacre sparked by energy costs.’’ In the article a European commissioner warned that Europe’s quixotic dash for renewables was pushing electricity costs to untenable levels. Likewise, 

Australia is learning tough lessons from its costly carbon tax. In 

the year after the carbon tax was introduced, household electricity 

prices rose 15 percent and the number of unemployed workers has 

risen by more than 10 percent. Meanwhile, Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions have actually increased and will continue to increase 

until 2043, according to their government. 

I would urge us to heed these lessons and to proceed with caution before needlessly damaging our economy and adding to the 

burdens of our citizens. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I look forward to today’s testimony and questions. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Fischer. 

Senator Boozman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. And again, thank 

you for holding the hearing. I am glad that we are reviewing the 

President’s climate regulation plan. Oversight is a good thing and 

we appreciate you all being here. In fact, we need to have you up 

here more often discussing not only these issues but these really 

important problems that we face as a Nation. 

Today the question is not whether greenhouse gases trap heat. 

They do. The question is whether current climate science and predict and adequately explain the complexity of climate change. Can 

it do it to the point that our politicians here in Washington can manipulate the earth’s temperature from their desks as we speak? 

Certainly their track record in that regard in the past has not been 

very good in a number of different things. 

The question is also whether expensive regulations would have 

significant impact on the global climate and whether the President’s policies are worth lost jobs, lower take home pay, high gas 

and electricity prices, higher food prices and so on. Sadly, this plan 

appears to be all pain and no gain. The President once said that 

his climate policies would make the cost of electricity necessarily 

skyrocket. Now he says his plans won’t cost much. The President 

may promise that if you like affordable energy, you can keep affordable energy. But like his other promises, we know that that is 

simply not true. We hear many claims, but the actual climate is 
26 

not doing what the models predicted. As one of our witnesses said 

last year, the models have not been successfully field tested for predicting climate change and so far, their error rate should preclude 

their use from predicting future climate change. 

So what does all this mean? Let me explain it in my terms. I am 

an optometrist, my brother was an ophthalmologist, we had an eye 

clinic. When a patient’s symptoms were complicated or unclear, we 

never pretended to be certain about a diagnosis. Instead, we would 

take a scientific approach and be thoughtful, ask questions, investigate. And we were honest with our patients. We would not prescribe a risky procedure if we were uncertain whether we would do 

more harm than good. 

Climate change is similar. There is uncertainty. We see symptoms, but there is strong, contradictory evidence, there is broad 

consensus that carbon emissions have at least some impact on the 

climate, but we don’t know how much. And beyond that, the consensus breaks down. So the diagnosis is unclear. The President’s 

climate regulations are a series of risky procedures with potentially 

harmful consequences to treat a possible problem that we don’t actually understand. So a scientific approach, despite what is being 

said, and being actually done, the actual scientific process is to be 

thoughtful, ask questions and investigate. 

Sadly, those who raise legitimate questions are portrayed as 

‘‘anti-science.’’ But there is nothing scientific about discrediting 

conflicting evidence and asking reasonable questions. Political parties are not science referees, cutting off debate when it suits one 

side. In short, no political party has a monopoly on the facts. 

Speaking of the facts, when reviewing proposed rules we must be 

honest about both the benefits and the costs. Sadly, the Administration recently disregarded well established OMB cost-benefit 

guidelines to generate an increased social cost of carbon. In other 

words, they broke the rules to make emissions look more costly. 

They cooked the books to meet their needs. 

Instead of creating climate millionaires who benefit from carbon 

trading schemes and new regulations, let’s remember that the pain 

falls hardest on low income families. These rules will drive industry costs, hurting American workers and creating foreign factories 

that emit far more than we would save. This climate plan can pass 

Congress, and I understand the temptation to ignore our system of 

checks and balances, pretend the Constitution doesn’t exist and implement whatever plans the President would like. But that is not 

how representative democracy works. The rest of the world is retreating as we heard earlier. Instead, let’s find common ground and 

let’s encourage an all of the above energy mix including wind, renewable, biomass, hydro, solar, natural gas. We will continue to reduce carbon emissions. Nuclear power can produce vast quantities 

of emissions-free energy. Efficiency and new innovations offer great 

promise. 

In short, regardless of whoever’s views, we can all work together 

to reduce emissions without this job killing climate plan. Let’s find 

that common ground. I very much look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

And last but not least, Senator Wicker. 
27 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you 

to members of both panels. It is about to be your turn. 

In Federalist Number 47, James Madison stated there can be no 

liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the 

same person or body of magistrates. I fear members of our current 

Administration are anointing themselves as both legislators and 

administrators with this climate action plan, and I hope we have 

a dialogue about that today and in the coming weeks. 

I also hope we have a reasonable dialogue as Senator Boozman 

suggested on the science, on the different views, on the matter of 

climate science. And I hope we can discuss the various views in 

this room and in this country with respect. What is called for with 

regard to climate science is a robust and comprehensive dialogue. 

Already we have heard it suggested today by some of my friends 

on the other side of the aisle that to question the science of climate 

science amounts to scandal. I hope we can avoid that. This morning 

I hope we are able to engage in a productive exchange of our concerns about the President’s plan, and about executive overreach 

and this agenda’s effect on jobs. I think we should be able to talk 

openly about climate science issues, such as the link between climate change and human activity as well as the challenges of making long-term climate predictions based on models. 

Now, here are some facts. According to analysis done by Dr. John 

Christy of the Earth System Science Center at the University of 

Alabama Huntsville, predictions made by 73 computer models cited 

by the United Nations latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change, IPCC, Fifth Assessment Report, do not accurately predict 

the lack of temperature rises seen in the past 17 years. In other 

words, the IPCC models have been inaccurate. The past 15 years, 

recorded world temperatures have increased only a quarter of the 

rate IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007. 

Further, the 2007 IPCC report included predictions of a decline 

in Antarctic sea ice. But the latest document does not explain why 

this year it is at a record high. Antarctic sea ice is at a record high. 

In addition, the 2013 report states most models simulate a small 

decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent in contrast to the small 

increasing trend in observations. The reality differs from the models. 

The 2007 forecast for more intense hurricanes has also been ignored in the new document after this year was one of the quietest 

hurricane seasons in history. This from a leading group of international experts on climate science. 

A recently published article in Science magazine entitled In the 

Hot Seat said the fact is there is little or no evidence that global 

warming steered Sandy into New Jersey or made the storm any 

stronger. And scientists haven’t even tried yet to link climate 

change with particular fires. 

Despite this knowledge, the Administration has based many policy decisions on the link between specific extreme weather events 

and climate change, as well as predictions on climate models. Climate modeling is difficult by nature, and there are large degrees 

of uncertainty in the resulting predictions. Anyone who suggests, 
28 

as has been suggested in this room today, that climate science is 

not complicated, is simply being naive. Many of the President’s 

policies will negatively affect our constituents by preventing them 

from earning a living. How can we expect to assure these people 

that their sacrifices will benefit them in the long term, when we 

do not have the capacity to accurately predict regional climate 

changes? 

Again, these discussions are important and they should be had 

in this Congress without either side being accused of engaging in 

scandal. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Well, it is your turn, panel. I am sure that you were fascinated 

with all of our comments and mesmerized by them. But now it is 

your turn to mesmerize us. 

So, Hon. Gina McCarthy, Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency, please. 

STATEMENT OF HON. REGINA McCARTHY, ADMINISTRATOR, 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thanks, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member 

Vitter, members of the committee. First, let me thank you for the 

opportunity to come and testify before you today. 

In June of last year, the President reaffirmed his commitment to 

reducing carbon pollution when he directed many Federal agencies, 

including the Environmental Protection Agency, to take meaningful 

steps to mitigate the current and future damage caused by carbon 

dioxide emission and to prepare for the anticipated climate changes 

that have already been set in motion. 

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. Responding to this challenge is an urgent public health, safety, national security and environmental imperative that presents both an 

economic challenge and an economic opportunity. Both the economy 

and the environment must provide for current and future generations. We can and must embrace cutting carbon pollution as a 

spark for business innovation, job creation, clean energy and broad 

economic growth. The United States’ success over the past 40 years 

makes clear that environmental protection and economic growth go 

hand in hand. The President’s climate action plan directs Federal 

agencies to address climate change using existing executive authorities. 

The plan has three pillars: cutting carbon pollution in America, 

preparing the country for the impacts of climate change, and leading international efforts to combat global climate change. EPA 

plays a critical role in implementing the plan’s first pillar, which 

is cutting carbon pollution. Over the past 4 years, EPA has begun 

to address this task under the Clean Air Act. In 2009, EPA and the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, along with the 

auto industry, the UAW and other stakeholders, worked together 

to set greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for model year 

light duty vehicles 2012 to 2025. Over the life of these vehicles, the 

standards will save an estimated $1.7 trillion for consumers and 

businesses and cut America’s oil consumption by 12 billion barrels, 

while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 6 billion metric tons. 
29 

Building on that success, the President asked EPA to work with 

States, utilities and other key stakeholders to develop plans to reduce carbon pollution from both future and existing power plants. 

In March 2012, the EPA first proposed carbon pollution standards 

for future power plants. After receiving over 2.5 million comments, 

we made the decision to issue a new proposal based on this input 

and updated information. 

In September 2013, the EPA announced its new proposal. The 

proposed standards would establish the first uniform national limits on carbon pollution from future power plants. They do not apply 

to existing power plants. The proposal set separate national limits 

for new natural gas-fired turbines and new coal-fired units. The 

rule provides flexibility to the operators of these units by allowing 

them to average their emissions over multiple years to meet a 

somewhat tighter standard. 

The standards reflect a demonstrated performance of efficient 

lower carbon technologies that are currently being used today and 

that set the stage for continued public and private investment in 

these technologies. We look forward to robust engagement on that 

proposal. 

And for existing power plants, we are engaged in an outreach to 

a broad group of stakeholders who can inform the development of 

the proposed guidelines which we expect to issue in June of this 

year. These guidelines will provide guidance to States which have 

the primary role in developing and implementing plans to address 

carbon pollution from the existing plants in their States. When we 

issue the proposed guidelines, the more formal public process will 

begin, providing an additional opportunity for stakeholders and the 

general public to provide input. 

The climate action plan also calls for the development of a comprehensive interagency strategy to address emissions of methane 

as well as domestic action to reduce emissions of 

hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs. EPA is working on these aspects of 

the President’s plan as well. 

The President’s plan also calls for a broad array of actions to prepare for the impacts of climate change. EPA is incorporating research on climate impacts into the implementation of our existing 

programs and developing information and tools to help decisionmakers better understand these impacts. EPA is also working 

closely with our Federal agency counterparts on several other aspects of building our national resilience. 

Working closely with the State Department, EPA is also engaged 

in international discussions with our partners in other countries in 

reducing carbon pollution through an array of activities. 

In conclusion, the President’s climate plan provides a road map 

for Federal action to meet the pressing challenge of climate change, 

promoting clean energy solutions that capitalize on American innovation and drive economic growth. EPA looks forward to working 

with other Federal agencies and all stakeholders on these critical 

efforts. 

Thank you again, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:] 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Administrator McCarthy. 

And we turn to Hon. Daniel Ashe. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL M. ASHE, DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH 

AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Mr. ASHE. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter 

and members of the committee. I want to also thank you for the 

chance to testify on behalf of the President’s climate action plan 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s role under that plan. 

The best science available to us today supports the conclusion 

that earth’s climate system is undergoing rapid and significant 

change, and I believe this is the greatest challenge to current and 

future management of our wildlife resources. I was trained as a scientist, and I lead a science driven organization. We always begin 

with what we know through observation. 

The earth’s climate is changing. It is changing at an accelerating 

rate. Average surface temperatures are increasing. Ocean temperatures are rising. Sea ice and glaciers are melting. Sea levels are rising. Oceans are acidifying. Plants are flowering earlier. Birds are 

migrating sooner. In general, wildlife species distributions are 

shifting northward and higher in elevation. All of these observed 

changes are consistent with observations in the rise of greenhouse 

gas emissions and with the conclusion that human emissions of 

those gases are driving change in the earth’s climate system. 

And it leads to the conclusion that we as responsible wildlife 

managers must anticipate that large scale ecological disruption will 

be an increasing aspect of the daily challenges that we face in 

doing our jobs. We must prepare or be unprepared to deal with the 

consequences. 

The President’s climate action plan is compelling in helping us 

to prepare. It asks us to reduce carbon pollution, prepare our Nation for the impacts of changing climate and help the world understand and respond to the challenge as well. It is really asking us 

to be the leaders that we are supposed to be. 

In decades past, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been a 

leader in recognizing and helping prepare the Nation to deal with 

great environmental challenges. Market shooting and devastation 

of migratory birds, indiscriminate use of industrial pesticides like 

DDT, large scale destruction of wetlands and species extinction, 

great leaders prepared the organization and its employees to deal 

with those challenges. Today we see the emergence of a new and 

likely much greater challenge, climate change. It is our obligation 

to prepare our great institutions, like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, to meet this challenge. We cannot do this alone, and the 

action plan compels us to work with other Federal agencies, States, 

tribes, local communities and the private sector and private citizens. 

In March 2013, the Service worked with Federal and State agency partners to release the National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy. This strategy identifies key 

vulnerabilities to fish, wildlife and plants and presents a unified 

approach to reduce the negative effects of climate change on our 

wildlife heritage and on the communities and economies that depend on those resources. 
63 

Since it was released, the strategy has been incorporated into 

guidance to all Federal agencies for their climate change adaptation planning efforts. And it is the focus of legislation introduced 

by Senator Whitehouse on climate change adaption for natural resources. The Service is embracing the challenge presented by climate change to the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources. We realize 

that addressing this challenge was a good measure of success and 

in the long term will require our commitment, resolve, passion and 

creativity. We look forward to working with this committee and the 

Congress to enhance this most important work, work that will pass 

on our wildlife resource heritage to future generations of Americans. 

Madam Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify, and 

especially for your leadership on this issue. During the members’ 

presentations today, I heard many things of interest, and I heard 

Senator Whitehouse say do your duty. I heard Senator Sessions 

say, there is common ground. I think those are both words to live 

by, and things we can bear in mind as we go forward. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ashe follows:] 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

And we turn to Hon. Nancy Sutley, who is the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. 

STATEMENT OF HON. NANCY H. SUTLEY, CHAIR, COUNCIL ON 

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Ms. SUTLEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Ranking Member 

Vitter and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the President’s climate action plan. 

The President believes we have an obligation to our children to 

reduce carbon pollution, to protect our future. The climate action 

plan builds on steps the Administration has already taken to cut 

carbon pollution and to strengthen our economy by supporting domestic clean energy jobs. As you heard, the plan has three pillars: 

cutting carbon pollution at home, preparing the Nation for the impacts of climate change we can avoid and leading international efforts to address this global challenge. 

The key part of the plan is to reduce carbon pollution in the 

United States. The Administration is already making significant 

progress. In the last 5 years, the U.S. has more that doubled renewable energy generation from wind, solar and geothermal 

sources. We are setting a goal to double electricity production from 

these sources again by 2020. 

We are also focusing efforts on energy efficiency. As you have 

heard, we have established new fuel economy and greenhouse gas 

standards that will double the efficiency of our cars by the middle 

of the next decade and help families save money at the pump. Also 

established the first-ever fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards for heavy duty trucks, buses and vans, and the plan promises 

a second round of standards for heavy duty trucks. 

The plan also sets a goal to reduce carbon pollution through energy efficiency and standards for appliances and energy efficiency 

efforts in Federal buildings. Since August, the Department of Energy has proposed or finalized several energy efficiency standards 

for appliances and other products. When combined with other energy efficiency standards issued by the Administration, they will 

help cut consumer electricity bills by hundreds of billions of dollars. 

We are also focused on making sure that the Federal Government is leading by example. Since 2008, Federal agencies have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by almost 15 percent. The 

President recently directed agencies to consume 20 percent of their 

electricity from renewable sources by 2020, more than double the 

current goal. 

Even as we work to cut carbon pollution, we also need to take 

action to address the impacts of climate change that can’t be avoided. We know as the earth continues to warm, we can expect more 

frequent extreme weather events, including large storms, severe 

droughts and heat waves. In 2012, weather and climate disasters 

caused over $110 billion in damage. Last summer the Administration released the Hurricane Sandy rebuilding strategy. The strategy focuses on helping the region build to be more resilient to deal 

with future storms. As part of these efforts, the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development and its partner agencies are investing in safe and more resilient infrastructure, and the Federal 
81 

Transit Administration is strengthening public transit systems affected by the storm. These efforts can serve as a model for communities across the country. 

The President also signed an executive order directing agencies 

to help communities strengthen their resilience to extreme weather 

and other climate impacts. The agencies are directed to modernize 

their programs to better support local preparedness, to better manage our natural resources to improve resilience and to develop information and tools to help local decisionmakers. The executive 

order also established a task force of State, local and tribal elected 

leaders to advise the Administration. Their recommendations will 

be vital to ensure that the Federal Government responds to the 

needs and priorities of communities when addressing the impacts 

of climate change. 

Finally, all agencies are now examining how a change in climate 

will affect their missions. Last February, Federal agencies for the 

first time released their climate change adaption plans, outlining 

strategies to reduce their vulnerability to the impacts of climate 

change. 

As you have heard, we also understand that our response to climate change must be global and we are committed to playing a 

leadership role that can support a strong international response. 

The Administration is pursuing this through multiple channels, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 

Change, as well as multi-lateral and bilateral initiatives focusing 

on tackling the key drivers of greenhouse gas emissions. 

The impacts of climate change are being shouldered by communities, families and businesses across the country. For the sake of 

our economy and the legacy that we leave our children, it is vital 

to address this problem head-on. Thank you for listening, and I 

look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sutley follows:] 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

And now we turn to Hon. Dan Tangherlini. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAN TANGHERLINI, ADMINISTRATOR, 

U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. TANGHERLINI. Good morning, Chairman Boxer, Ranking 

Member Vitter and members of the committee. I appreciate being 

invited here today to testify on this important topic. 

Last year, the U.S. Government Accountability Office added climate change to its high risk list, citing that it presents a significant financial risk to the Federal Government. According to the 

National Climatic Data Center in 2012, weather and climate disaster events caused over $110 billion in damage and 337 deaths, 

making it the second costliest year on record. The Administration 

is committed to reducing the damage caused by climate change and 

to preparing for its long term impacts. In June 2013, the President 

reaffirmed this commitment with a climate action plan that directs 

agencies to cut carbon pollution, prepare for the impacts of climate 

change and lead international efforts to address global climate 

change. 

GSA is one of the many Federal agencies doing its part to assist 

in this effort. As the owner and caretaker of Federal properties, our 

large and diverse portfolio presents many opportunities to increase 

the Government’s energy efficiency, reduce our contribution to climate change, save millions of dollars in energy costs, and to plan 

and implement risk management strategies. As part of the President’s climate action plan, GSA is undertaking efforts to improve 

the efficiency of our Federal buildings, identify and prepare for climate risks, and is working to ensure that we share lessons learned 

with our partner agencies. 

GSA reduces energy consumption across its portfolio through a 

variety of means. GSA leverages technology such as advanced metering, remote building analytics and smart building systems to uncover deeper energy savings opportunities. We also use rapid building assessments to perform sophisticated energy audits that require no onsite work or new device installations. Another valuable 

tool is energy savings performance contracts. These are public-private partnerships where the private sector provides the up front 

capital to make energy efficiency upgrades in a facility and is paid 

by the Federal agency from the guaranteed energy savings under 

the contract. Once the contract ends, the agency continues to benefit from the reduced energy costs. 

The President’s climate action plan sets new goals on the use of 

renewable energy, increasing the current goal from 7.5 percent to 

20 percent by 2020. In fiscal year 2013, 46.1 percent of electricity 

procured or generated by GSA came from renewable sources, and 

enough renewable energy to power nearly 2,600 homes came from 

our own facilities. 

GSA is also working to improve our partners’ understanding of 

their energy use. As directed in the December 2013 Presidential 

Memorandum on Federal Leadership and Energy Management, 

GSA is partnering with the Department of Energy and the EPA to 

prepare and initiate a pilot Green Button initiative that will in-
89 

crease our partners’ ability to manage energy consumption, reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions and meet sustainability goals. 

Taken together, these efforts have led to a significant reduction 

in GSA’s energy use intensity and greenhouse gas emissions. In fiscal year 2013, GSA reduced energy usage per square foot by 24.8 

percent, ahead of statutory targets. Since fiscal year 2011, these reductions have saved $192.7 million in avoided costs. Also in fiscal 

year 2013, GSA achieved an approximately 50 percent reduction in 

greenhouse gas emissions, exceeding our 2020 target. This amount 

of energy that we no longer use is enough to power over 60,000 

homes for 1 year. 

GSA is also preparing for the potential impacts of climate change 

as part of the President’s climate action plan. While it is impossible 

to predict the precise occurrence and cost of each and every climate 

risk, it is imperative to develop a robust risk management approach. The President’s climate action plan represents a commitment to reduce and respond to the impacts of climate change. GSA 

is responsible for buildings and offices throughout the Government 

and across this country. This means we play a vital role in mitigating and preparing for these adverse effects. Through improved 

energy efficiency and risk planning, we hope to continue to make 

progress on both of these critical efforts. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and I welcome any 

questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tangherlini follows:] 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much to our patient panel. We will 

start the questioning and comments. 

Sometimes the more things change, the more they stay the same. 

Let’s take the often-repeated charge that scientists are divided on 

climate change. Let’s take a look at that. So we have quantified it. 

There are 98 percent of the scientists, I am sorry, I will correct myself, 97 percent of the scientists who say that human activity is 

causing carbon pollution. And there are 3 percent who fight that. 

So it is 97 percent of the scientists on one side and 3 percent on 

the other. And my colleagues act as if it is 50-50. 

It is just like the scientists who are divided on whether or not 

smoking caused cancer. It was 97 percent to 3 percent and when 

you looked at the 3 percent, they were somehow connected to the 

tobacco industry. And I can tell you that most scientists who say 

no to climate change have ties to big oil and coal polluters, including the scientist who was mentioned here today by Senator Wicker. 

We checked it out. He is from a think tank that is funded by the 

Koch brothers. 

So again, when people say there is a split, let’s look at what the 

split is. Second—— 

Senator WICKER. Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. I am going to continue and then I am happy to 

call on you in your turn. 

Now, there’s also predictions of economic gloom and doom, gloom 

and doom if we address climate change and if we move to clean energy. We are already hearing about the money we are saving by 

going to energy conservation. 

But let’s go back 40 years. Forty years, when in this committee 

we had a robust debate, I wasn’t here then, on the Clean Air Act. 

And it was gloom and doom, we were going to destroy the economy. 

Let’s look at what happened since the Clean Air Act. 

Over the last 40 years, our national GDP has risen 207 percent. 

The total benefits of the Clean Air Act amount to more than 40 

times the cost of regulation. For every dollar spent we get $40 in 

benefits. So the gloom and doom that is always predicted when we 

move to clean up the environment keeps being repeated. Fortunately, the people don’t believe it. Only the people here believe 

that. Too many. But the people out there, Republicans, Democrats, 

Independents, don’t believe it. 

Now, I want to ask Administrator McCarthy a question related 

to something that is very disturbing that has been said on the 

other side. And I believe my friends truly mean this, they are not, 

they are very, very concerned. And they are concerned that the 

President is acting by fiat, that he is above the law, that he is moving in a way that isn’t warranted and that is up to the Congress 

to take action to move forward with new standards for existing 

power plants and so on and so forth. 

So I just looked at the Supreme Court decision, there are two of 

them, one in 2007. And what they said then contrary to something 

Senator Sessions said, which he has a right to believe, he said that 

carbon wasn’t covered. Well, the Supreme Court said that ‘‘The 

statute is unambiguous,’’ and the Clean Air Act covers carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, without a doubt. 

Senator SESSIONS. Madam Chair, you quoted my name, and—— 
95 

Senator BOXER. You will have the time. You will have the time. 

Senator SESSIONS [continuing]. Your interpretation of my remarks—— 

Senator BOXER. You will have the time. You can talk about me 

for an entire 5 minutes, I don’t care. Now, could you set the clock 

back and give me another 30 seconds? Thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Here we are. Clear Supreme Court case decision, 

followed by another one in 2011 that said absolutely, you have to 

move on these power plants. 

So my question to you is, as you move forward with this, isn’t 

it true that if you did not move forward with the climate action 

plan, if you did not try to regulate this carbon pollution which is 

so damaging and which is covered by the Supreme Court decision 

that you could be sued and you could be harmed if you didn’t do 

that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Madam Chairman, we actually have been petitioned and we are in litigation about regulating carbon pollution in 

a number of sectors. The most important thing to remember about 

the President’s carbon action—— 

Senator BOXER. Sued because people think you are not doing 

enough? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

Senator BOXER. Or because you are doing too much? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct, because once you decide it is a 

pollutant under the law and that it endangers, EPA is obligated to 

look at those public health and environmental impacts and to consider those in their regulations. 

Senator BOXER. So you are already being sued by those in the 

public who think EPA is not doing enough, while people here say 

you don’t have the right to do anything, and the President has no 

right to do anything. It is very clear, if you read these cases, that 

you have to move forward. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. But the President made the—I am sorry. 

Senator BOXER. No, no, go right ahead. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. But the President made the very sensible and 

common sense decision to tell us to focus on power plants first. Because power plants represent 33 percent of the carbon emissions 

that are being emitted in the U.S. and 60 percent of the emissions 

from stationary sources. So we are trying to be very deliberate and 

careful in how we apply the Clean Air Act. 

Senator BOXER. I believe you are. And I would close with this, 

the endangerment finding was started under George W. Bush, and 

we got that endangerment finding, that draft, and it was completed 

under the Obama administration. So that was common ground. 

I would call on Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chair. Administrator 

McCarthy, I am going to have 5 or 10 minutes talking with you, 

so I want to focus on all of these new, very consequential regulations. But I first want to ask that if this committee calls a separate 

hearing on the investigation and circumstances surrounding John 

Beale, and if you are invited to testify along with other appropriate 

witnesses, would you come and testify at that hearing? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Whatever the Chair wishes, sure. 
96 

Senator VITTER. Is it fair to say whatever the committee wishes, 

if it is a committee invitation? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. If I am invited, I will always appear. Yes. 

Senator VITTER. So you have no hesitation talking about that 

subject? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. None at all. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you. 

OK, Ms. McCarthy, I want to focus on one area where I think 

there is a clear overstep, and that is the greenhouse gas new 

source performance standards. You have said as you relooked at 

that, ‘‘We did what democracy demands, we paid attention, we read 

those comments, we thought about them and we decided that we 

needed to update the proposal.’’ Talking about the initial wave of 

comments that came in about that. And you further stated, ‘‘Our 

best defense is to do it right, to do it correctly under the law.’’ 

However, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 clearly prohibits EPA 

from considering certain federally funded projects when setting the 

standards. And yet three such projects form the majority of EPA’s 

discussion regarding new plants. And there is no mention of EPA 

Act 2005 in the over 400 pages of that proposal. 

Recent press accounts report that you and the agency were unaware of this conflict with the EPA Act requirement until it was 

pointed out by colleagues in the House of Representatives. How did 

the EPA miss this? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, I will advise you that EPA is, understands that concerns have been raised about EPACT. To address 

those concerns we have very recently, I think as early as this 

morning, provided to OMB for interagency review a notice of data 

availability, so that the package is very clear about its intersect 

with EPACT. We believe that having this specific consideration for 

EPACT makes no change in the standard as we have proposed, but 

it is important that the public have this information and have us 

provide more clarity on that issue. That is exactly what we are 

doing. 

Senator VITTER. Is all of this since the issuance of the new proposed rules, or did you consider that, did you evaluate that before 

the issuance of the new rules? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I can’t say what the individual staff was aware 

of or not. I certainly was not aware that we should raise that issue 

specifically. We are going to address that issue specifically, but 

Senator, we are looking at evidence in data well beyond what has 

been associated with the EPACT funded projects. So we are very 

comfortable with the standard that we propose. We think it is a 

very robust data set. We are looking at those facilities in concert 

with all those, which is perfectly appropriate under EPACT. 

Senator VITTER. Well, as you know, these three projects that 

under the law you can’t consider, you clearly cannot consider, they 

form the majority of your discussion about the regs. So I think 

there is a serious problem there. 

But let me go on. Let me just also point out, you said EPA read 

all the comments. San Miguel Electric Cooperative submitted comments and they underscored this particular issue. They pointed 

out, this law is in direct conflict with what you are doing, with your 
97 

evidence, your support for doing this. So I just wanted to point that 

out. 

This is very concerning, because this is a direct legal conflict. I 

think this concern is underscored by the fact that litigation has 

now been filed over this direct legal conflict, which is clearly, by 

EPA’s own submissions and writing, the majority of its backing for 

these new source performance standards. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. But Senator, our understanding of the reading 

of the EPACT is that we can’t solely make a determination on the 

basis of EPACT funded facilities. There is nothing in the law that 

precludes us from considering those in the context of a larger, more 

robust data set, which is what we are actually doing. 

Senator VITTER. OK. I want to move on to the social cost of carbon process. Many of us have written you and others at EPA, very 

concerned about this secretive process. We wrote you in September 

of last year, we wrote another one of your high-ranking deputies 

in November with detailed questions. We got a response at 8:18 

a.m. this morning. I appreciate that. I think the timing of that response says a lot. 

We are going to be, I am out of time, so we are going to be submitting detailed questions as a follow up to you and to the other 

witnesses for the record regarding the social cost of carbon process, 

because it is being used to justify all sorts of regulations, we believe, without adequate backing. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator Vitter. Senator 

Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank all four 

of our witnesses, not only for their appearance here but for their 

public service and for your strong leadership on this issue. 

Mr. Tangherlini, I want to ask you a question concerning one 

specific consolidation. But buildings play a huge role in dealing 

with the carbon emissions. We had the President take some pretty 

aggressive action so that the Federal Government is a leader in reducing carbon in our buildings. The Committee on the Consolidation of the FBI, our resolution makes it clear that to the maximum 

extent practicable the Administration shall require that the procurement include requirements for water and energy efficiency and 

stormwater management in accordance with the executive order. 

This is the largest public works consolidation probably in this decade. So it is one that we will want to be a clear example of what 

we can do to reduce carbon emissions. 

But we also want to consolidate the FBI, because it is inefficient 

the way they operate, which is also causing excess energy use and 

a larger carbon footprint than we need. The committee is pretty 

clear when it says we want a consolidated headquarters facility, 

giving you up to 2.1 million rentable square feet and up to 55 

acres. The Appropriations Committee just recently in its report accompanying the Omnibus Appropriation Bill made it clear that the 

FBI headquarters consolidation is expected to result in full consolidation of the FBI headquarters. 

Can you assure this committee that passed the resolution that 

you will be in full compliance with both the environmental issues 

as well the plan that is ultimately selected? And that is going 
98 

through a competitive process, which I certainly full understand. 

But it will provide for the full consolidation of the FBI. 

Mr. TANGHERLINI. That is definitely our interest, Senator Cardin, 

as you point out. Having these employees spread out over more 

than two dozen facilities is not helping the ability of the FBI to 

meet the needs of that agency, but certainly causing undue expense 

because of rent, but also undue damage because of the additional 

environmental impacts. It is our interest to consolidate fully the 

FBI. We also though have to see what resources are available to 

us through the exchange process and what resources we would 

have to be able to bring into the project. 

So as we have talked about, we are at the beginning stages of 

identifying the value of the current facility, identifying sites, completing a fair, transparent, competitive process. 

Senator CARDIN. And I fully support that. I would just be pretty 

clear about this, I think it is pretty clear that Congress expects full 

consolidation and that that is not able but I would hope that you 

would work with Congress rather than—we expect full consolidation. Let me just put it that way. 

Mr. TANGHERLINI. Absolutely. 

Senator CARDIN. Let me just make one observation, Madam 

Chair, the point that you raised on the Administration’s actions on 

the regulatory front which are required to do and they are doing 

absolutely the right thing in regulating carbon emissions. We tried 

a few years ago to pass a different framework, framework that 

would give more flexibility, set a cap and then give flexibility on 

how to reach those caps that would be an alternative to the regulatory process under the Clean Air Act. We couldn’t get that done. 

Our friends on the other side of the aisle decided that that was not 

to be how they wanted to move forward. 

And clearly the American people want clean air. And clearly the 

American people want a clean environment. And the Clean Air Act 

is critically important and you have a responsibility to carry out 

that law. And we should help you. We should help you. We try to 

do that. And we didn’t get cooperation, and now we are getting 

complaints. 

So I would hope that we will find ways to find that common 

ground, Mr. Ashe, that you quoted one of the members of this committee that I don’t want to quote because it will just take my time. 

But let me in the 40 seconds that I have remaining, the failure 

to deal with this causes us to concentrate on adaptation and resiliency. Significant resources have now been made available through 

the Sandy appropriations, et cetera. You talk generally about it, 

but could you supply us with specific programs that you are dealing with under your jurisdictions to deal with resiliency and adaptation in light of the realities that we now have a different climate 

pattern? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Let me be very brief, because I think others 

might want to interject. But all of the agencies have developed climate adaptation plans that have been publicly commented on. We 

are taking those plans to develop implementation strategies. But 

clearly EPA has a number of issues that are impacted, a number 

of concerns that are impacted by climate. Most notably certainly 

water and wastewater infrastructure issues. Those are of primary 
99 

importance and raise the concern about moving toward green infrastructure, which keeps water local and can help provide more livable and safe communities. 

Mr. ASHE. I think for the Fish and Wildlife Service, Senator 

Cardin, I think probably the most significant relevant piece is, we 

received $102 million under the Sandy supplemental funding for 

resilience, and to look at building resiliency into that middle Atlantic coastline as we do restoration from Hurricane Sandy. So it provides us really for the first time the opportunity not just to rebuild, 

but to rebuild in a way where we are thinking about making that, 

making our coastal infrastructure and our natural, our human and 

natural infrastructure more resilient in the future. 

Senator BOXER. OK, we are going to move on to Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. McCarthy, in my opening statement I brought up something 

that I have talked to you about before. That is, it just seems to me 

that it is, the delay of placing it on the Federal Register until January was done for the political purpose that I outlined. You can remember and I can remember back in 2012, prior to the election, I 

named all the different rules and regulations and how damaging 

they would be, would come out. So this is not a new issue with me. 

I just would ask you, is there any time that during this process 

that you or the EPA had a conversation with the White House or 

OMB in terms of the timing of the release on the Federal Register? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, I will assure you that as soon as that 

proposal was released, we had submitted it to the Federal Register 

office. The delay was solely the backup in the Federal Register office. And we frequently asked when it was going to come out and 

how quickly. Because it was available on our web page, we wanted 

to start the formal public process. 

Senator INHOFE. But if you started it, wouldn’t that start the 

clock running for the 12-month period? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It would have started it an obligation on the 

part—— 

Senator INHOFE. Let’s assume that for any reason, if you submitted that to be placed on the Federal Register, wouldn’t that 

start the 12-month clock running? I am asking because I don’t 

know. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It would have started the obligation under the 

Clean Air Act that says we should complete NSPSs within the 12- 

month period. 

Senator INHOFE. So that would actually end up then in October, 

as opposed to in January in terms of when it actually comes out. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, we had every opportunity to put out a 

reproposal, and we wanted, we tried very hard to get it published 

so that we could start that in the public process. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, that gives us somewhere to go and look at. 

I want to mention one other thing, too. Under the uninsured, unemployment insurance bill, I had an amendment that kind of reemphasized Section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act, and you are familiar with that, that is the one that says the Administration shall 

conduct continued evaluations of potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from the administration and the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter and application of implemen-
100 

tation plans. It goes on, and it is very specific that the reason for 

this is they want to make sure, or we wanted to make sure way 

back in 1977 that if this took place, these various regulations, not 

knowing who would be in office in the future, that we would know 

what effect they have on jobs. And this is something that I do feel 

that we will, you can comply with section 321(a), in spite of the fact 

that my amendment didn’t pass. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We are actually doing the best we can to do a 

complete economic analysis. When we do our major rules, we do 

look at employment impacts to the extent that peer-reviewed 

science and modeling allows. Because of Senator Vitter and his efforts to have us relook at whole economy modeling, we are pulling 

together an expert panel under our science advisory board to continue to look at these issues and to mature that science as best we 

can. 

Senator INHOFE. That is good. But can we say that we would not 

implement these rules until we have that information? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We actually provide a significant amount of information. Whole economy modeling is appropriate for some rules 

and not others. So we believe we are complying with that potion 

of the Clean Air Act at this point. 

Senator INHOFE. And from this point on, and maybe you have 

done it in the past, but from this point on can we really that we 

are not going to be activating these regulations until such time as 

we know the effect it will have on jobs and the economy? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, what you can be assured of us when we 

do rules we will do it to the full extent that the science is available 

and the analysis can be done in a way that is consistent with all 

the requirements at OMB. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, that is good. I appreciate that. We will be 

looking for, as the clock moves on, to make sure that is being done. 

Mr. Ashe, first I want to thank you on the record again for all 

the cooperation you have been on your word to approve the rangewide plan on oil and gas, CCAA, of the lesser prairie chicken. We 

have talked about this for a long period of time. You were kind 

enough to make two trips, not one but two trips out to Oklahoma, 

talk to these stakeholders and again, I just appreciate it very 

much. 

I know Senator Udall, who I thought was here earlier, he may 

have mentioned this, Senator Udall’s State and mine are working 

very hard to enroll acreage into the program so that it can successfully conserve the species in a way that is voluntary. It is just this 

whole idea, like the partnership program that I am so fond of, it 

doesn’t assume that the stakeholders don’t want to clean up their 

system and protect endangered species. Do you think that rangewide plan can ultimately preclude the need for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act? 

Mr. ASHE. Senator, I think I met with the members of the rangewide partnership 2 weeks ago in Texas, and I think they are poised 

to make some significant steps forward. They already have signed 

up I think between a million and a half and two million acres of 

oil and gas lands, and they are working on the possibility of several 

million more. So the question is, can the implementation of the 

range-wide plan potentially address the threats to the species? Yes. 
101 

It can potentially. Will it? I think it is a question of performance. 

And I think we have a little bit of time left to see if that will work. 

Senator BOXER. Sorry to cut you off, but we have gone over quite 

a bit. 

We are going to turn to Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Chairman Boxer. 

Let me first say to my colleagues on the other side that as we 

solve the problem of carbon, I am prepared to accept that there are 

going to be economic impacts on families that you are here to represent. And it is important that in our solution we address that 

concern. Because that is a legitimate concern. 

What I can’t accept is that the coal and oil jobs are the only jobs 

that are at stake in this discussion. Not when fishermen in Rhode 

Island are no longer catching winter flounder because Narragansett Bay is 3 or 4 degrees warmer in the winter. Not when the ski 

season in the northeast, and frankly all the way out to Utah, is 

shortened. Not when foresters in Oregon and across the west are 

losing their jobs to the pine beetle and to the loss of having a vibrant national forest. Not when we have the kind of impacts that 

we are seeing throughout the economy. And that is just the economic impacts. 

We also have health impacts in Rhode Island, as asthma and 

other conditions increase. We are losing our State at the coastal 

verge. The houses at Roy Carpenter’s beach are falling into the 

ocean. I am not going to ignore those factors out of a desire to protect coal and oil jobs. I will work with you to a solution that solves 

our mutual concerns and helps those industries. But I am not going 

to ignore this problem. 

The suggestion that climate change has stopped, I think, flies in 

the face of realistic evidence. If you take a look at what is happening and when that claim is made it refers to surface atmospheric temperature, one specific measure. But if you actually look 

at a trend line plotted, which is a mathematical thing, it is not debatable, it is something that mathematicians do all the time, you 

plot a trend line through the data and that is what you get. It is 

clearly going up. There is absolutely no legitimate dispute about 

that. 

What you can do is you can cherry pick. And that is what some 

of our friends are doing. You can pick different periods in that rising step process. And if you pick a certain period, it will look like 

it is flat through that period. 

But it doesn’t last. The underlying trend is upward. And step 

after step after step is always up. There are in this graph one, two, 

three, four, five, six separate occasions when a denier could say 

that climate change isn’t happening because it has gone flat and 

every single time they would have been wrong. 

In light of that, I will ask Ms. McCarthy, on the spectrum between wisdom and recklessness, where you put placing a bet that 

this evidence shows that climate change has stopped and that we 

should stop worrying about carbon? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Climate change is happening, and I have been 

worried for a while. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And one of the reasons that might explain 

this is when you look at what is actually happening in climate 
102 

change, the carbon pollution is hitting our oceans pretty hard. 

Thirty percent of the actual carbon goes into the oceans. And when 

it does, it changes it, and that is why Senator Merkley has talked 

about the wipeouts of the oyster hatches in his State. Because 

acidified water came in, in which oysters could not build shells. 

Thirty percent of the carbon, 93 percent of the heat, 93 percent of 

the heat. The atmosphere, 2.3 percent of the heat. 

So if anything changes just the tiniest bit in the ocean, imagine 

what effect that has in the atmosphere. Something is happening 

that creates that long-term trend oscillation that creates those 

steps that if you cherry pick them, can create the false impression 

that this thing has stopped. But if you really look at the problem, 

you have to look at the role of the oceans. And I am telling you, 

from the Ocean State, it is very hard for me, let me ask, does anybody on this panel doubt that the oceans are in fact warming? That 

sea levels are in fact rising, and that the ocean is in fact becoming 

more acidic? Indeed, is there a legitimate scientific debate on those 

three subjects? There is none, correct? There is none. The record 

will reflect that there was unanimous agreement from the witnesses. 

Senator SESSIONS. The record will reflect nobody spoke up. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK, let’s go ahead and have them all say 

it, if that is what the Senator wants. 

Mr. ASHE. I don’t believe on those points that you raised there 

is, those are based on observations. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It is measurement, not theory, correct? 

Does everybody agree it is correct? Speak now, or else I am going 

to count you as yes. I am trying to save time here. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We agree. 

Mr. TANGHERLINI. And I defer to my colleagues who actually 

know something about the subject. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. General Services Administration is not expert in this. I can appreciate that. 

Last question. A ton of carbon that is released from a power 

plant, does that do more or less harm than a ton of carbon that 

is released from a refinery, a kiln or a boiler? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Same. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Same. So at some point, we should probably start looking at refineries, kilns and boilers that release tens 

of thousands of tons of carbon as well? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Point taken, Senator. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

We are going to call now on Senator Barrasso. I am going to give 

the gavel to Senator Whitehouse while I step out for just a moment. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. McCarthy, I would like to follow up on what Senator Vitter 

had asked on carbon capture and sequestration and your new proposed rule for new coal-fired power plants. This week a Bloomberg 

news story ran entitled EPA Assertions on Carbon Capture Viability Sparked Concerns by White House Officials. The article quotes 

from interagency comments prepared by the White House Office of 
103 

Management and Budget. The article quotes the White House 

OMB as saying about your new rule that ‘‘EPA’s assertion of the 

technical feasibility of carbon capture relies heavily on literature 

reviews, pilot projects and commercial facilities yet to operate.’’ It 

goes on to say ‘‘We believe,’’ this is the White House saying ‘‘We 

believe this cannot form the basis of a finding that CCS on commercial scale power plants is ‘adequately demonstrated.’ ’’ And as 

you know, and as was stated before, the law requires that emission 

control performance standards must be ‘‘adequately demonstrated.’’ 

So the White House is saying that carbon capture sequestration 

is not adequately demonstrated that you are recommending. So my 

question is, what does the White House know that you haven’t acknowledged? And is the agency going to speak more definitely on 

this topic? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, I don’t know what you are referring to, 

but you can be assured that this proposal went through interagency review. You can be assured that OMB cleared the proposal. 

And I am very confident that you will see that CCS is proven to 

be technically feasible in that data that we have provided. 

Senator BARRASSO. I am just going to have to disagree with you. 

The White House apparently disagrees with you as well through 

the OMB. And it is not just one person who is making that comment. If you take a look at other testimony in the House from Assistant Secretary of Fossil Energy in the Administration testifying 

that commercial technology currently is not available to meet the 

EPA’s proposed rule, the cost of current carbon dioxide capture 

technology is much too high to be commercially viable, places the 

technology at similar economic thresholds of alternative clean carbon. And it just goes on and on about the lack of viability and 

availability of what you are proposing. It just seems to be a level 

of denial by the EPA as to what is actually available, and the 

White House seems to have called you on that. So I would be interested, again, on your getting back to me on the specifics as you look 

into it some more. 

I would like to read from a story from yesterday entitled E-mails 

Show Extensive Collaboration between EPA, Environmentalist Organizations, Top Officials Coordinate Messaging, Help Groups 

Gather Petitions. The article stated that Deputy EPA Administrator Bob Perciasepe attended an April 24th, 2012 meeting with 

24 leading environmentalist groups, including the Environmental 

Defense Fund, the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

according to a notice of the meeting sent by his assistant, Terry 

Porterfield. The article quotes EPA employee Porterfield’s e-mail to 

the environmental groups. The e-mail says ‘‘The purpose is to create a photo op and narrative beat for the comment-gathering efforts on the issue,’’ Porterfield wrote. ‘‘Groups will use materials 

from the event to communicate with supporters and recruit additional comment signers via newsletters, e-mails and social media.’’ 

Is this the standard practice of the EPA, to work with environmental groups to coordinate on getting comment signers that are 

favorable to your proposed policies? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It is very common practice for EPA to meet with 

a variety of stakeholders. Our agendas and our meetings are public. I think if you look at the history of EPA, we meet as much with 
104 

industry groups as we do with environmental groups. It is our job 

to understand what concerns people have and how we can work 

with them to make sure we are doing our job appropriately. 

Senator BARRASSO. This doesn’t sound like you are looking for 

input, though. These e-mails that have been found seem to say 

your goal with meeting with these specific groups is to recruit additional comment signers via newsletters to generate support for positions that you are taking and some of those most liberal of all environmental activist groups, rather than actually bringing in input. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am happy to take a look at that, Senator. I 

haven’t read the e-mail, I don’t know what it is referencing. But 

there are often times when we have groups that come in and give 

us petitions. 

Senator BARRASSO. Is it proper behavior for the EPA to go out 

with these groups for the sole purpose of recruiting additional comment signers to then go ahead and support your position? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I certainly don’t want to interpret what you just 

read, Senator, I don’t know what the occasion was. I am sorry. 

Senator BARRASSO. Do you believe it is proper activity on behalf 

of the EPA? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It is appropriate for EPA to connect with all of 

our stakeholders. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. I would just say to my colleague, I mentioned, 

I don’t know if you were here, the North American Auto Show, a 

place I have gone for many years, a long time, built more cars, 

trucks, vans per capita than any other State. We had a Chrysler 

plant, a GM plant, we lost them both, within months of each other, 

just a few years ago. I still go to the Detroit Auto Show, and I was 

very pleased to see EPA represented there. As you know, a major 

source of air pollution in our country is our motor vehicles. Some 

people might criticize and say, why would you go the North American Auto Show? It is because some of the folks that are most important for our economy, and frankly, people that they need to be 

not just regulating but having a conversation with were there, were 

there, from the top leadership of these companies all the way down. 

That is the kind of thing I commend you for doing and I hope you 

will continue to do more of that. I think you would have been encouraged by that, had you been with us. I want to invite you to go 

with us next year. 

I have a question, maybe just one or two here. Administrator 

McCarthy, with respect to new source performance standards, I 

just want to take a minute or two to focus on EPA’s efforts to implement carbon pollution standards for power plants. We call this 

new source performance standards, as you know. I believe Congress established new source performance standards in the 1970 

Clean Air Act. It is nothing new. And your agency has had a long 

history of implementing this standard. Is that correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is true. 

Senator CARPER. Can you tell us what the agency’s experience 

has been with these types of standards? How has the agency 

worked with industry and stakeholders already and expects to do 

so into the future when it comes to these greenhouse gas stand-
105 

ards? Third part of the question is, what has EPA’s past experience 

been when determining what is adequately demonstrated technology when determining new source performance standards? 

Those questions, thank you. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Senator, thanks for the question. First of 

all, the Agency has had a long history in developing new source 

performance standards. We have done dozens and dozens of industry sectors. There are two types. One is looking at new facilities 

and it is very clear that it is intended to make sure that we continue to develop advanced technologies moving forward, so we take 

advantage of the best and brightest technologies and move our innovative technologies more broadly into the market. 

The work that we do in existing facilities has also been very robust. Our challenge there is to make sure that we work with States 

to develop guidance and then they develop plans to do their job. We 

have had, when I looked at these standards, the standards that, 

the proposal that we put out for 111(b), which is new sources, it 

was done exactly the same way that we have done dozens and dozens of those. We looked at the data available, we looked at the 

technologies, we made a determination that CCS was the best system for emission reduction for coal facilities moving forward, because it was technically feasible, it would amount to significant 

emission reductions. And it would continue to effectively promote 

the development and deployment of advanced technologies. 

So we did it the same way we always do, which for a long time 

we have been doing very successfully and businesses continue to 

grow. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thanks. 

A question if I could for Ms. Sutley. I think you mentioned in 

your testimony when I was out of the room, the President’s task 

force on climate preparedness and resilience, in which Governor 

Jack Markell is a participant, as you may know, how do you expect 

the valuable information collected from this task force will be 

passed down and implemented throughout our Federal Government? 

Ms. SUTLEY. Thank you, Senator. The President directed us to 

establish a task force of State, local and tribal elected leaders, and 

we are grateful to have the participation of Governor Markell. This 

is a very important task force for us in helping to ensure that the 

kinds of policies and programs that the Federal Government as a 

whole is considering in terms of making sure that we are prepared 

and resilient in the face of the changing climate will help States, 

tribes and municipalities to prepare their communities to deal with 

the impacts of climate change. 

We had our inaugural meeting and a lot of good ideas and we 

are having a second one very shortly, looking at different subject 

matters. We started out looking at disasters and resilience preparedness, we will be looking at infrastructure next. So the input 

and the recommendations that we gather from that group will be 

very helpful in helping us to look, governmentwide, through our resilience council at the things that the Federal Government can do, 

not only to prepare the Federal Government to deal with the impacts of climate change and the impacts on emissions, facilities, but 

also to ensure that our communities are prepared. 
106 

Senator CARPER. My time is expired. Mr. Tangherlini, very nice 

to see you twice this week, and Gina as well. Again, nice to see you 

again. Thank you all for your testimony and for the good work that 

you are doing. God bless. Thanks. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would certainly 

agree with the 97 percent as you framed it, that human action has 

caused more CO2 to be emitted into the atmosphere. I don’t doubt 

that one bit, and I don’t think any scientists do. But in Congress, 

in 1974, when they passed the Clean Air Act, did not prohibit carbon dioxide. Global warming was not considered at the time, I don’t 

believe any debate considered that question. It came before the Supreme Court, and what the Supreme Court said, Ms. McCarthy, is 

that the EPA should have to make an endangerment finding. You 

have made that endangerment finding. That was a five to four decision, by the way, only five to four, and it is coming back before the 

Court. And you are going to have to justify why plant food, CO2, is a pollutant covered in 1974. And I would note, Congress has 

never since then ever passed legislation that prohibits CO2 into the 

atmosphere, directly doing so. And Senator Whitehouse produced a 

chart which showed surface temperature data, which he described 

as surface atmosphere. But I am not sure whether—but what the 

IPCC models use, what scientists have referred to over the years 

at atmospheric temperatures are taken at the lower troposphere. 

This is what our chart shows, the kind of data we show, that the 

models aren’t reaching the temperature increases on that that is 

predicted there. Haloes of heat around many land stations that 

record temperatures and they are not accurate, as accurate as the 

troposphere temperatures. That is what the IPCC recognizes. 

Second, the chart suggested 93 percent of the heat is absorbed 

by the oceans, but it doesn’t answer the question about how the 

amount of temperature change in the oceans. Evidence on panel 

will suggest the oceans may have warmed, but only by 5/100ths of 

a degree over the last 50 years. That is the chart Dr. Dessler will 

offer, and he is a Democratic witness who will be testifying here 

today. 

And Mr. Ashe, you stated, more than your written statement 

says, that we have had more storms in America. And if we don’t 

have common ground, if we are going to be able to reach and discuss issues together, we have to agree on what the problem is, and 

we have to be honest about the facts. Dr. Pielke testified here just 

a few months ago, supports President Obama, this is what he 

found about disasters and storms: ‘‘It is misleading and just plain 

incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate time scales either in the United States or globally.’’ You said directly opposite 

that. 

Have you conducted any investigation yourself of storms and disasters? Have you done an independent review of that? Yes or no. 

I presume you haven’t. 

He went on to say globally, weather-related losses have not increased since 1990. He said U.S. hurricanes have not increased in 

frequency or intensity since 1900. He said that since at least 1950, 

the intensity and frequency of floods in the United States has not 
107 

increased. He went on to say the frequency and intensity of tornadoes has not increased since 1950 and droughts have not increased 

globally for half a century. So do you still stand by your testimony? 

Have you done independent research to that effect? 

Mr. ASHE. I am not a researcher. I have not done independent 

research, Senator. I think what I was speaking of in my testimony, 

in my oral testimony, is observation. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I would just say that I hope you will review that and be accurate when you discuss as a public official the 

facts, when you relate them to the American people. And I believe 

your facts are wrong. 

Now, Ms. McCarthy, the President has said that we have had, 

repeatedly, at least three times in recent months, that the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted 

10 years ago. I have written you about this. Is that accurate or not? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do know some of the facts that I can provide 

for you. 

Senator SESSIONS. No, I’m just asking you, is that an accurate 

statement? Has it increased faster than predicted or not? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do not know what the President’s context was 

for making that. I do know that if—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, do you believe the temperature has increased faster than predicted? Do you believe that the temperature 

in the United States has increased faster than predicted in the 

last, worldwide, than 10 years ago? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I believe that 2010 was the warmest year on 

record ever, and I believe that 2012 was the warmest—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Now, I want to know whether or not you believe that data shows that the temperature around the globe is increasing—please let me ask you, do I not have the right to ask the 

director of EPA a simple question that is relevant to the dispute 

that is before us? 

So I want to ask, is the temperature around the globe increasing 

faster than was predicted even 10 years ago? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I can’t answer that. 

Senator SESSIONS. Why can’t you answer that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Because it is a narrow statement and a very 

large wealth of evidence and information. 

Senator SESSIONS. Do we not have the troposphere temperature 

reports that even IPCC recognizes and do they not show that it is 

not increasing anything like what the predictions were? Can you 

answer that question? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, I don’t dissect the information and provide it to you in a way that claims that I am a scientist and it is 

a valid way to look at it. 

Senator SESSIONS. You are asking us to impose billions of dollars 

of cost on this economy and you won’t answer the simple question 

of whether it is an accurate statement or not? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I just look at what the climate scientists tell me. 

I don’t dissect that information in ways that would impress you, 

but certainly I am not qualified. 

Senator SESSIONS. Not me. Climate scientists are telling you it 

is not warming to the degree predicted, in fact, it hasn’t really 

warmed at all in the last 15 years. 
108 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, my time is up. 

Senator BOXER. I am going to give everybody an extra 2 minutes 

like I gave Senator Sessions. So you are going to get 7 minutes. 

Senator Fischer, Senator Boozman, and then we will each have an 

extra 2 minutes to close. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope I won’t take 

that amount of time, since we have another panel today. 

Senator BOXER. We are happy to have you do it. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. 

Ms. Sutley, you spoke about the United States should have a 

global response because we are facing a global problem. In your 

testimony you mentioned working through the United Nations. 

What specifically can you tell us that the Obama administration is 

doing in that regard, and working through the United Nations, in 

your words? 

Ms. SUTLEY. We participate in the U.N. Framework Convention 

on Climate Change, which involves, I believe, over 190 countries. 

The U.S. continues to be a participant in that, and the current activities are around developing an agreement for post-2020, addressing climate change with the aim of reaching an agreement in 2015 

about what that might look like. So the United States as many 

other countries is engaged in those discussions right now. 

Senator FISCHER. What I am looking at are specific actions. You 

say that to leverage more ambitious action by other countries that 

the Administration needs to step forward. I know it is always helpful to work with other nations, it is always helpful to have conversations. But I want to know specifics. What are we doing to help 

other nations? Are we investing resources? Are we providing scientists? What are we doing? And what is involved in the cost? Or 

are we just in conversations right now? 

Ms. SUTLEY. There are a number of different efforts underway, 

both bilaterally and multilaterally, addressing a number of the 

drivers of climate change. For example, and perhaps the Administrator can talk a little bit more about this, working through existing international forums to deal with hydrofluorocarbons, which 

have a global warming potential as well as working on issues 

around clean energy and promoting clean energy and technologies 

around the world. 

Senator FISCHER. Perhaps you and the Administrator could provide me with some examples, and if there are costs involved, I 

would be interested in knowing that as well. 

Ms. SUTLEY. Yes, certainly. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you very much. 

Also, Ms. McCarthy, the EPA regulations on coal-fired power 

plants are required by law to be technologically viable and commercially available. While EPA has insisted publicly that carbon capture and storage technology is technologically viable, there is serious doubt that EPA officials actually believe this to be true. 

I am going to highlight a 2012 e-mail exchange that was produced through a Freedom of Information Act request between John 

Coequyt, head of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign, and 

EPA’s Michael Goo and Alex Barron, both in the agency’s ops policy 

at the time. Coequyt forwarded an article to Goo and Barron regarding your comments on proposed CCS regulations. In the article 
109 

you were quoted as saying, ‘‘While it is a significant economic lift, 

the proposed standard will provide investment for new technologies. CCS is technologically viable.’’ 

The headline then read, Coal To Remain Viable, says EPA’s 

McCarthy. In forwarding this article to EPA’s Barron and Goo, Mr. 

Coequyt wrote, ‘‘Pants on fire.’’ Do you have any idea why he would 

say pants on fire? We all know the saying that goes with that. Do 

you have any idea what that supposedly is about? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, I don’t. 

Senator FISCHER. Do you stand by your statement that, I believe 

you said it earlier today, that the CCS is viable? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Very much so. 

Senator FISCHER. The EPA redacted Barron’s very brief comment 

then to Goo in response to another article 5 months article from 

Politico, with the headline Will EPA’s Greenhouse Regs Wipe Out 

Coal. And EPA did redact that comment, apparently no more than 

three or four words in total on the media article, as deliberative, 

which on its face is a curious use of that process exemption, to keep 

information from the public under the Freedom of Information Act. 

By doing so, EPA nonetheless indicates that it is deliberating 

whether its climate regulations will wipe out coal. I think the 

American public deserves to know, does EPA believe that the CCS 

is viable? Again, could you answer that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, when I was Assistant Administrator, I 

believed that the information supported that CCS was viable and 

was appropriate as a basis for that system of emission reduction. 

As Administrator, I retain the same assessment of the facts. 

Senator FISCHER. Can you tell me why that e-mail was redacted? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I have no idea, Senator. I have no idea. 

Senator FISCHER. Could you look into that and provide me with 

a copy of that e-mail? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I certainly will look into the issue. If they were 

appropriately redacted, then that is fine. But I certainly understand that there may be questions raised. But there is a lot of 

jibber jabber in an agency that is that large. But I want to assure 

you that the policy, the people making those policies and making 

those technical judgments were the people that were investing 

their time and providing input into this rule. 

Senator FISCHER. I know we all receive e-mails and we have no 

control over that. But it is disconcerting when information like that 

does become public and then we have a Government agency going 

through a process of really blocking that freedom of information 

that I would hope would clarify statements like this. So I look forward to seeing that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, we certainly want to be as forthcoming 

as we can. It is an issue that has come up before on this committee. 

We will do our best job to provide you these e-mails, regardless, 

and only redact when it is appropriate to do so. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you so much. 

Senator BOXER. OK, that was 7 minutes, and Senator Boozman, 

you have 7. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

There was some criticism about a person that had done a study 

that was funded by the Koch brothers. I guess my problem with 
110 

that is, you look at the product and then it is peer-reviewed and 

this and that, and you criticize it based on the work. Do you all 

ever use studies that rely, that are being done by environmental 

groups, funded by environmental groups? Is that a criterion for you 

as to whether or not it is a good paper or bad paper? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We actually look at the study itself and try to 

look at whether the analysis is correct and whether the science is 

strong. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I think all of you have people that have 

worked for environmental groups in the past, different Administrations, but environmental groups. And the idea that you can produce 

a product, in fact we have witnesses coming up that are funded by 

outside groups one way or the other. But the idea that testimony 

or a paper can’t be produced because you are a consultant for a 

various entity or whatever I think is really not a good situation. 

We really need to push back from that. 

The other thing is, and in regard to just studies in general, it is 

really hard, we really do want to be helpful in the sense, we have 

some real problems to solve in the environment. It is helpful, 

though, it is difficult to do that if you don’t have access to the materials and the scientific studies that allow you to make really wide 

sweeping decisions in that regard. 

So will you commit to us that we will have those studies available so that we can see what the basis of your rationale is? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, I assume you are talking to me? 

Senator BOOZMAN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have been providing information to the extent that we have it, we have already provided information that 

you have requested. 

Senator BOOZMAN. OK. So the studies that we would like and 

this and that, you will give us those completely? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. To the extent that they are in the control of 

EPA, of course, and to the extent that we can work together on 

those, we are more than happy to do that. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Senator Whitehouse talked about the oceans, 

which are having some real problems right now, and the result to 

the fishermen. Is it your opinion that if we did pass the policies 

that the President is proposing, that you are proposing, would that 

solve the problems of the oceans that he is describing? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Me again? Oh, I am sorry. I keep thinking you 

are looking at me. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I am sorry. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Climate change is a global problem. It requires 

global solutions. There is no question that international effort is required. The issue is, should the United States take action on its 

own that it can do that makes sense, that can be cost effective and 

that will help us grow economically. I think the President indicated 

that that answer is yes. 

Senator BOOZMAN. But the reality right now is, in order for that 

to be effective, we are depending on the Chinese and the Indians 

and people like that who basically have said that they are not 

going to participate. Mr. Ashe. 

Mr. ASHE. First of all, with regard to what Senator Whitehouse 

said, I think that when we look at natural resources like the ocean 
111 

resources, that we have to realize that climate change is an overarching effect. So it exacerbates many problems that already exist 

within fisheries management and wildlife management, problems 

of habitat fragmentation and degradation and contaminant loading 

and invasive species. So it adds another layer of stress. So I think 

the things that we are talking about in terms of dealing with climate change will help address a major source of uncertainty and 

disruption in those systems and will certainly help secure our fisheries resources for the future. I think it is an important step for 

us to take to learn more and reduce the level of uncertainty surrounding this issue. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Ms. McCarthy, are the models that were relied upon in developing the social cost of carbon estimates published and available on EPA’s Web site? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t know the answer to that question, Senator. I can get back to you. That was work that was primarily organized by the Office of Management and Budget, so that work was 

not a product of the EPA, although I am sure our technical and 

economic folks participated in those discussions. I do know they are 

available, they are public, the models are public and they have 

been appropriately peer-reviewed. 

Senator BOOZMAN. OK, so the part that you did, the EPA, it is 

not available on the Web site either? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Any work that EPA would produce would be 

publicly available for sure. I just don’t know whether those particular models appear on our Web site or whether they are part of 

the OMB Web site. 

Senator BOOZMAN. All right. The other thing, Mr. Ashe, I guess 

one of the problems I have also is that we hear a lot about forest 

fires, we hear a lot about beetles and things like that. The reality 

is, and I have heard many, many hearings and testimonies through 

the years, the reality is a lot of that stuff is poor management in 

the sense we had a hearing not too long ago and there was testimony to the fact that the areas that were privately managed out 

west where you had fire, some of the areas that are publicly managed are tinder boxes. The beetle infestation has been going on for 

a long time. And certainly climate has stuff to do with that. 

But I do think that there is a tremendous, let’s jump on this and 

this is all, the reality is, when you have a forest where you have, 

instead of 10 or 20 trees, whatever it can support, if you have 150 

trees taking up the nourishment that makes it more susceptible to 

disease and things like that. Can you comment on that? 

Mr. ASHE. Just quickly, I would say that certainly management 

can have a role to play and certainly can make a difference. But 

you have to realize that the public lands are managed for a much 

broader range of use. So if I have a private forest that is managed 

for short rotation and so I am just cycling those trees off and harvesting that timber on a regular basis, then mountain pine beetle 

is going to be less of a concern for you. Where in our public lands 

and like wildlife refuges in national forests where we are managing 

land for longer term, then pine bark beetle and other infestations 

can be more of an issue. 

But I agree with you that management is part of this solution. 

We have to understand what that proper management is. 
112 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don’t want to get 

gaveled on. 

Senator BOXER. Well, you have 28 more seconds with which to 

continue. 

Senator BOOZMAN. No, I will get some credit out of you and yield 

back my time. 

Senator BOXER. Major credit, that is true. 

So now we are going to complete this first panel, which started 

a very long time ago, it seems like yesterday. We are going to do 

it this way. I am going to give Senator Whitehouse, take my 2 minutes, Senator Vitter, then Senator Inhofe, Senator Sessions and 

then I will close. Everybody has 2 more minutes. So let’s start with 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I will just take a little bit of my time to 

respond to Senator Sessions’ suggestion that one scientist says that 

climate change isn’t really happening and that there really isn’t an 

association with storms. I just want to put that into context. 

There actually is a peer-reviewed scientific consensus out there 

about this. It is massive. It is not unanimous, science is rarely 

unanimous. There are eccentrics, there are outliers, there are people who have non-mainstream opinions and to be blunt, there are 

people who are in concert with the polluting industries and delivering phony science, the way they did on tobacco, the way they did 

on a variety of other public health initiatives. 

So when people pick out what one particular scientist said, it is 

important to look at that in the context of where the bulk of the 

science is. And if you don’t believe science, then perhaps my friends 

from the other side will believe big corporations. 

And one really big corporation that cares a lot about climate’s effect on storms is Munich Reinsurance. Not only Munich Reinsurance, but the entire reinsurance industry and the property casualty 

insurance industry are virtually up in arms about what climate 

change is doing to their risk profile. Here is a graph that Munich 

Reinsurance puts together, showing the increase in natural catastrophes worldwide that are associated with climate change, A, in 

the sense that they are happening while climate change is happening, but B, and that we know some underlying science. We 

know, for instance, it is not disputed, that if you warm the ocean 

it creates more energy going up into storms and that makes stronger storms when they hit the shore. 

So much of the science is was past debate. And if you simply 

take the science as way past debate and apply it, you draw the 

same conclusion. Are there eccentrics and outliers who can be 

quoted? Sure there are. But for this committee to rely on anything 

other than the massive consensus of peer-reviewed science, supported by not just environmentalists, but let’s look at the people 

who are asking us to take action, Coke and Pepsi, Ford and GM, 

Nike, Wal-Mart, Apple, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Garden Clubs of America. At some 

point, people have to come to the realization that the scam that is 

being perpetrated has got to come to an end. And I hope that that 

time comes soon. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. Senator Vitter. 
113 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to make 

a brief comment about science, too, and I think it is a useful transition to the next panel. I want to underscore Senator Wicker’s and 

some others’ comments. I think we do a real disservice to science 

and facts the way we often do a cartoonish gloss over these issues, 

which are often very complicated and subtle. It doesn’t mean we 

don’t need to figure it out, but we need to understand the real 

facts. And I would urge all of us to try to do that. Let me just use 

a couple of examples. 

Senator Boxer said 97 percent of scientists, clearly, it is a clear 

consensus, 97 percent. Well, 97 percent is very catchy. But what 

is the underlying question? Human activity is causing increased 

CO2 emissions. Well, I don’t know why that is not 100 percent. I 

agree with that. I think everybody on this panel agrees with that. 

So let’s mark it as 100 percent. That is not the issue we are debating. 

Give you another example. Dan Ashe said in his testimony average surface temperatures are increasing. Interesting, that is not in 

your written testimony. Is that true since 1998? 

Mr. ASHE. Senator, I think that average surface temperatures 

are increasing, as Senator Whitehouse said. 

Senator VITTER. Is that since 1998? 

Mr. ASHE. I don’t know, I am no looking at the record since 1998. 

I am looking at the temperature record, the historical temperature 

record, average surface temperatures are increasing. 

Senator VITTER. Over what period of time? 

Mr. ASHE. Over a period of time that is relevant for natural resource management, which is looking at since the beginning of the 

industrial revolution. 

Senator VITTER. My point is, we need to be precise and we don’t 

need to game words. You also said sea ice and glaciers are melting. 

Did you mean net, and did you include Antarctica which is a continent, or is that not sea ice? 

Mr. ASHE. Sea ice and glaciers are melting. It is indisputable, 

Senator Vitter, indisputable. 

Senator VITTER. Are you saying net? 

Mr. ASHE. I am saying sea ice and glaciers are melting, that is 

what I said, it is indisputable. 

Senator VITTER. Well, they are always melting sometimes and 

elsewhere they are building. Are you claiming that that is net, and 

are you counting Antarctica, which is a continent? 

Senator BOXER. We really need to move on. 

Senator VITTER. If you could provide that for the record, because 

that is the level of detail and disciplined discussion that I think we 

need. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. Let me try to get this out really 

quickly. 

Ms. Sutley, several months ago the Corps of Engineers testified 

to Congress that it would not consider the life cycle of greenhouse 

gas emissions of coal exports when considering the environmental 

impact of a coal export facility licensed to the west coast. They said 

it would be outside the Corps’ control and responsibility for the permit applications. Conversely, as you know, I believe, Columbia Uni-
114 

versity’s Center for Climate Change Law released a report in August saying that increased sales of coal in Asia are in effect the 

Corps’ decision, meaning that they should be the scope of NEPA. 

Do you agree with Columbia or do you agree with the Corps? 

Ms. SUTLEY. Thank you, Senator, for the question. We agree that 

agencies need to look at greenhouse gas emissions when they looking at their NEPA analysis. 

Senator INHOFE. I am really sorry, but we are in 2 minutes, and 

I need to have that answer for the record. But I would like to ask 

you this to see if you would be in a position to let us know. Is there 

a date certain for finalizing the guidance for the including life cycle 

greenhouse gas emissions and the NEPA analysis? 

Ms. SUTLEY. Senator, we continue to work based on the draft 

that we put out in 2010, we are working on revising that but I 

don’t have a date certain yet. 

Senator INHOFE. If you decide you are going to have one, would 

you try to let us know for the record? 

Ms. SUTLEY. Yes, we will. 

Senator INHOFE. We would appreciate that. 

Let me just make this one comment. I know people get hysterical 

on all this stuff, but when Senator Whitehouse talked about the 

just one scientists, I have 700 scientists I listed in a speech on the 

Senate floor, probably 8 years ago, and these are scientists, Richard Lindzen from MIT, these are top scientists, totally refuting the 

assertion that is being made on which we are spending hundreds 

of billions of dollars. Just the bills that they try to do through legislation on cap and trade, that range, and no one disagrees with this, 

would be between $300 billion and $400 billion a year, and now 

through regulations it would be even more than that. So that cost 

is there. 

In accordance with your predecessor, Lisa Jackson, when I asked 

the question, if we pass these things here, is it going to lower 

worldwide greenhouse gases, the answer was no, because this only 

affects the United States. This is not where the problem is, it is 

in China and India and Mexico, in other places. So I just want to 

say that we are talking about the largest tax increase in the history of this country if we were to go through with what they are 

trying to do through regulation that they could not do through legislation and not get anything for it. That is my question. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, there is no question time. We have 2 

minutes, you have gone over by a minute. 

Senator Sessions. Two minutes. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. One of the 

things that we have heard today a good bit is carbon pollution. 

That is sort of a new phrase we are seeing a lot. You might wonder 

why that is happening. I think there is a great deal of unease in 

the pro-global warming community about what the Supreme Court 

is going to do. The Clean Air Act of 1970, I said earlier 1974, it 

was 1970, did not ban CO2 and did not even consider the possibility 

of global warming, Ms. McCarthy. 

So now the Supreme Court said you should make an 

endangerment finding and you have. And without any explicit, express authorization from the elected representatives of the American people, under this decision you have made, the Environmental 
115 

Protection Agency can go into any American’s backyard, prohibit 

their barbecue grill, eliminate their lawnmower. You have that 

power. It is one of the greatest expansions of Federal power without explicit congressional authorization in the history of the Republic. You are able to go in any place where any carbon is produced 

and regulate that, because you say it is a pollutant. And the Supreme Court ruled five to four that you should make a formal finding on that. They have not ratified our decision. And with the altering of the predictions and the global warming projections that are 

not coming true, I would hope that they would not allow you to 

have that power, finally, when they finally rule on it. 

So I want to say, Congress has never authorized such an action. 

They would never authorize it today. And you should be really 

careful about the assertion of power that you have. 

I thank the Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Just for the record, the D.C. Court recently upheld the ruling of 

the Supreme Court. So let’s just stop relitigating something that 

went all the way to the Supreme Court. 

Senator SESSIONS. It is going back to the Supreme Court. 

Senator BOXER. I don’t want to be interrupted, please. I didn’t interrupt you. 

Senator SESSIONS. You used the power of the Chair to dispute 

what I had said. 

Senator BOXER. I did not. 

Senator SESSIONS. I felt I had a chance to respond. 

Senator BOXER. I will use freedom of speech to correct folks who 

I believe are wrong and I will defend your freedom of speech to do 

the same. Now, let’s be clear. D.C. Court upheld this, period, and 

it is moving forward. And if you don’t act, you are going to be sued. 

And the American people want this done. 

I just looked at the polling. Only 3 percent of younger voters 

don’t believe climate change is happening. You look at Republicans. 

The latest poll I saw said that a vast, well, well over 50 percent 

said that if you are a climate denier, you are out of touch. So I wish 

this committee would find the common ground with the American 

people. Because when you deny you are doing just what people said 

when they said cigarette smoking doesn’t cause any harm. 

A couple of other things, 1980 to 1990, hottest decade on record 

until 1990 to 2000, which became the hottest decade on record, 

until 2000 to 2010, which is now the hottest decade on record. That 

is not me. That is not EPA. That is NOAA. In 2008, the Bush administration used a form of the social cost of carbon on fuel economy rules. They used it on air conditioner rules, efficiency rules, 

and frankly, I never heard a peep out of anybody at that time. 

Now, I don’t know why my clock isn’t moving, but it should be 

moving, it should be down to a minute. 

Let me just close with this. We know what happens when the environment is thrown under the bus. It is called China. And I am 

going to put into the record today Airpocalypse, Smog Hits Beijing 

at Dangerous Levels. On Thursday residents of Beijing woke up 

with splitting headaches. Bottom line, 1.2 million Chinese died in 

2012 because of air pollution. 
116 

Now, I will do everything in my power to make sure that this 

Clean Air Act, which passed in this very sacred room, so many 

years ago, in a bipartisan way, that that Clean Air Act is upheld 

and that everything we do is consistent with the law. And this one 

went all the way to the Supreme Court. And the fact of the matter 

is we have to make sure we uphold it. 

Now, that is the end of this panel. What I want to make sure, 

because Senator Vitter is very anxious to have another hearing 

about Mr. Beale. And I am not. 

[The referenced material follows:] 
117 
118 
119 

Senator VITTER. To have a hearing about Mr. Beale. 

Senator BOXER. We had a briefing. He wants a hearing, in addition to the briefing, in which he asked 50 questions. It is his right 

to ask that. What I am going to ask you, Administrator McCarthy, 

since no one asked you about that, although it was in the scope of 

hearing, would you please answer the question and take a week to 

do it, what is in place now, we know that this con man is going 

to jail. But what is in place now at the EPA to make sure this 

never happens again? If you would get that to us, the Chairman 

and the Ranking, and members of the committee, in about 2 weeks, 

can you do that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, sure. 

Senator BOXER. And then we will look at whether or not we need 

a hearing. 

I want to thank the panel. It has been a tough morning for you. 

You handled all the questions, I think, with great integrity. Please 

now go back to your normal work and we will call up the second 

panel. And if the second panel can come up very quickly, because 

the caucuses have meetings shortly. 

OK, if everyone could leave, we are going to get going right now. 

Thank you to the first panel. We are getting started. 

And we are going to start with Hon. Bill Ritter. You had a wonderful introduction from your Senator, so please, sir, proceed. You 

are the Director of the Center for the New Energy Economy, Colorado State University. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL RITTER, JR., DIRECTOR, CENTER 

FOR THE NEW ENERGY ECONOMY, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. RITTER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity. Ranking Member Vitter, other members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and testify before the committee regarding the President’s climate action plan, 

but particularly with the work that I do at Colorado State University that really involves what States are doing around the country 

regarding energy and particularly regarding clean energy. 

I left office in 2011 and founded the Center at Colorado State 

University, so for the past 3 years I have worked with States on 

energy policy. We have developed actually a Web site that tracks 

every piece of advance energy legislation at the State level. There 

were 3,600 separate pieces of energy legislation introduced in State 

houses across America last year; 600 of those were signed into law 

by Governors across the country. 

It is important in this discussion to understand that clean energy 

is on the minds of Governors across the country. There are 220 million Americans who live in a State that has a renewable energy 

standard or renewable energy goal. About 240 million Americans 

that live in a State with an energy efficiency resource standard, 

and a number of Americans similar to that number that live in a 

State with a climate action plan. 

What is really important as well about that is those States include both States where there is Democratic leadership and Republican leadership. If you just look at sort of the recent past, what 

Republican Governors have done with respect to renewable energy 
120 

standards or energy efficiency resource standards or just generally 

with the topic, you get a sense that this is a bipartisan sort of coalescing at the State level. 

Governor Snyder in Michigan just recently announced a plan to 

increase the renewable energy standard in Michigan as well as mix 

with natural gas and try and lessen the amount of coal that there 

will be in Michigan. They import 100 percent of their coal; it is 

about 60 some percent of their fleet. Governor Kasich in Ohio has 

been very good about looking at natural gas regulation as a part 

of his work there. But as well, he has looked to the manufacturing 

association for Ohio and another group called the Advanced Energy 

Economy of Ohio with regard to sort of their input on the renewable energy standard and the energy efficiency resource standard. 

There was a real concerted effort in the United States across the 

States last year to undo the renewable energy standards in different States and the energy efficiency resource standards, including in Ohio. Every one of those efforts actually wound up failing 

and every one of the States, including those that are under Republican leadership, were able to beat back those efforts. So Governor 

Sandoval, actually the Republican Governor in Nevada, expanded 

the renewable energy standard. Governor Brewer in Arizona often 

champions solar as an important part of that State’s growing economy. Governor Brownback in Kansas was another, this is another 

State where they did not, they were not able to attack or defeat the 

renewable energy standard. And it was beaten back and really, 

with the support of Governor Brownback with the support of the 

wind industry there. 

Our experience in Colorado is interesting to think about. As Senator Udall said, we expanded our renewable energy standard to 30 

percent over the, by 2020, we did it with a rate cap in place to protect consumers. But that has created jobs in a significant way, and 

as well, it is interesting to think about Xcel Energy, the major investor-owned utility in Colorado, because of the efforts to combine 

both the transition of coal to natural gas as well as a 30 percent 

renewable energy standard, Xcel will reduce their emissions. This 

is a major investor-owned utility, reduce their emissions from 2005 

to 2020 levels by 35 percent. 

It is important to understand that this is all done in conjunction 

with the Federal Government, and why the President’s Federal climate action plan is so important. Because it is not just States acting alone, it is actually a great deal to do with a variety of things, 

including EPA rulemaking where SIPs were required. The Department of Energy, working in concert either with technical assistance 

or with research assistance for States, developing their State energy plans, and certainly as utilities, look at the future and understand that a different business model is probably going to be required over the next 10 or 20 or 30 years to have the Federal Government’s assistance, both from the Department of Energy perspective as well as other agencies, and trying to help this very important industry understand how to shift its rate design, its revenue 

model. 

So those are all part of what the Federal Government can do in 

interacting with States. States are a vital part of this Nation’s climate action plan. States have shown great success in actually 
121 

being able to hold rates at a fairly steady rate. In Colorado, for instance, below the consumer price index increases, below inflation. 

Even with an aggressive renewable energy standard like 30 percent. And at the same time, show job creation as a result of it. 

So I come here, Madam Chairman, appreciative of the time that 

I have to speak about this and willing to answer any questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ritter follows:] 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

I am going to hand the gavel over to my wing man here, Senator 

Whitehouse, due to other obligations, and he will complete the 

hearing. We are going to now hear from our next panelist, Dr. Andrew Dessler, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW E. DESSLER, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF 

ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY 

Mr. DESSLER. Thank you. My name is Andrew Dessler, I am a 

professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M. 

In my testimony, I will review what I think are the most important conclusions the scientific community has reached in over two 

centuries of work on climate. First, the climate is warming. By this 

I mean that we are presently in the midst of an overall increase 

in the temperature of the lower atmosphere and oceans spanning 

many decades. Second, most of the recent warming is extremely 

likely due to the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse 

gases by human activities. This is based on several lines of evidence, including observation of increasing greenhouse gases in our 

atmosphere and understanding of the greenhouse effect and a demonstration of the enhanced greenhouse gas effect can explain the 

observed warming. 

For simplicity, in the remainder of my testimony I am going to 

refer to this mainstream theory of climate influence as the standard model. The standard model in fact can explain just about everything we observe in the climate system, both present day and 

during the geologic record. It has also made many successful predictions which are the gold standard of science. If you can successfully predict phenomena that are later observed, one can be supremely confident that a theory captures something essential about 

the real world. So as an example, climate scientists predicted in the 

1960s that the stratosphere would cool while the troposphere would 

warm, as a result of increased greenhouse gases. And this was observed 20 years later. In the 1970s, climate models predicted the 

Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic. This has also been 

subsequently confirmed. 

The water vapor feedback is another fundamental prediction of 

the standard model that has just recently been observed. This explains why the bulk of the scientific community is so confident in 

the standard model. It explains just about everything, and it makes 

many successful predictions. 

Now, you don’t hear about this very often. Because scientists 

don’t like to talk about things we know. I am uninterested in 

things we know; I like things we don’t know. That is research. That 

is things where we can get stuff done. 

And it is also true that obviously, this doesn’t mean our knowledge is perfect. And this is reflected in uncertainty estimates that 

are provided in the consensus reports. 

Now, a caveat. I said above the standard model explains virtually 

everything, which means there are a small number of observations 

that aren’t necessarily well explained by the standard model, just 

as there are a few heavy smokers who don’t get lung cancer. An 

excellent example of this is the so-called hiatus which has been 

mentioned several times. Slow warming of the surface temperature 
139 

over the last decade or so. This is frequently presented as an existential threat to the standard model. But as I describe below, this 

greatly exaggerates its implications. 

Before I explain why, I think it is worth recognizing that skeptics 

have a track record of overstating the importance of these challenges to the standard model. A few years ago, for example, strong 

claims were made about the surface temperature record. It is argued that siting issues, for example, a thermometer too close to a 

building meant that the surface record was hopelessly biased. This 

was portrayed as an existential threat to the standard model. 

Subsequent research, however, has resolved this issue. It is now 

clear there was never a threat to the standard model at all. 

So why do I think that the hiatus, the slow warming of the last 

decade, is not much of a threat to the standard model? To begin, 

a lack of a decadal trend in surface temperatures does not mean 

that the warming has stopped. Observations show that heat continues to accumulate in the bulk of the ocean, indicating continued 

warming. Also in my written testimony, and in the plot that Senator Whitehouse showed, the surface temperature record shows frequent periods of short cooling, even while it is undergoing a longterm warming trend. 

In addition, one of the Senators said the climate models do not 

predict periods of no warming. That is not correct. Climate models 

do predict periods where there is no warming. 

Now, that does not mean that we understand the hiatus perfectly. And I view the hiatus as an opportunity not as an existential threat. I think short-term climate variability is an area where 

our understanding could improve and the hiatus will help us to do 

that. Papers are already coming out, on a monthly basis, it seems, 

I suspect that in the next few years, our understanding of this phenomena will be greatly improved. At that point, I predict that arguments about the hiatus will disappear just like arguments about 

the surface temperature record have. 

Now, given the success of the standard model, what does it tell 

us about the impacts of future climate change? Before I begin talking about this, I think it is worth discussing the value of talking 

about what we know rather than what we don’t know. Focus on 

what is unknown can lead to an inflated sense of uncertainty. For 

example, we don’t know the exact mechanism by which smoking 

cigarettes causes cancer, nor do we know how many cigarettes you 

have to smoke to get cancer, nor can we explain why some heavy 

smokers don’t get cancer while some non-smokers do. Based on 

this, you might conclude that we don’t know much about the impacts of smoking, but that is wrong. 

So let me just conclude by telling you a few of the certain impacts of climate change. We know the planet is going to warm. 

That is virtually certain. We know extreme heat events will become 

more frequent. We know the distribution of rainfall will change. 

We know the seas will rise. We know the oceans will become more 

acidic. We can argue about things we don’t know, but those are 

things that are virtually certain. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dessler follows:] 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 

Senator WHITEHOUSE [presiding]. Thank you very much, Dr. 

Dessler. 

Dr. Lashof, please. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL A. LASHOF, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, CLIMATE AND CLEAN AIR PROGRAM, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

Mr. LASHOF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear here today. I want to thank 

you, Senator Whitehouse, for your work with Senator Boxer and in 

the Senate Climate Task Force. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. One day I am bipartisan, 1 day. 

Mr. LASHOF. So I appreciate that. Actually what I wanted to say 

is that it does sadden me, actually, that there are no Republicans 

on that task force. I have appeared before this committee several 

times over the years, before both Republican and Democratic chairmen. And it has never been as partisan as it is today. CO2 molecules in the atmosphere trap heat. They don’t have party affiliations. It is physics and chemistry, not partisanship, that should 

be informing the policy that we adopt. 

Let me turn to the President’s climate plan, because I think it 

is really a critical step forward. It will put us on the right track 

to cut dangerous pollution that threatens our health and wellbeing. It will help communities across the country prepare for more 

frequent and intense inclement weather. And it will position the 

United States to provide the leadership that the world needs on 

this issue. 

The central pillar of this plan is a set of standards under existing 

law, authorized by previous Congresses in the Clean Air Act and 

other legislation that if implemented ambitiously, can achieve a 

total reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 127 percent below 

2005 levels by 2020, which is the goal the President has set for the 

United States. It can do that through four major areas of action. 

First, power plants are the largest source of carbon pollution in the 

United States. They are responsible for 40 percent of our CO2 emissions. 

And as Administrator McCarthy discussed, EPA’s proposed carbon pollution standards for future power plants, that proposal is 

based on a careful review of industrial experience with large scale 

carbon capture technologies. 

Now, some have argued that the Energy Policy Act, and we 

heard this argument today, prevents EPA from setting standards 

based on CCS because there have been some Government-funded 

CCS projects. That is incorrect. The Energy Policy Act said that 

EPA cannot base its standard solely on projects that were funded 

by the Government. And EPA hasn’t done that. It has based its 

proposal on a wide variety of data. 

Just think about the proposition here. If the interpretation that 

says because the Government has supported some projects that use 

CCS means EPA can’t base standards on CCS, it would be an absurd situation where the Government is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in advanced technology and then we are not allowed 

to use that technology to improve the environment. That would not 

make any sense. So we should not do that. 
154 

But equally important, neither Government nor private forecasts 

actually anticipate the construction of any new coal plants in the 

United States, whether or not carbon pollution standards are established. So in fact, the biggest opportunity to reduce U.S. carbon 

emissions over the next decade is to set standards for our existing 

fleet of some 1,500 coal-fired power plants around the country. EPA 

is scheduled to do that in June. 

NRDC’s studies of a particular proposal that we offered about 

how to do that shows that we can actually get big carbon reductions at very low cost. The flexible system-wide approach that we 

have proposed could reduce emissions by 23 to 30 percent below 

2012 levels in 2020, while producing $30 billion to $55 billion in 

net economic benefits or more. 

So that is a very cost effective measure that we should move forward with. 

Second, the Administration needs to do more to reduce emissions 

of methane, particularly from the oil and gas industry. Third, another key initiative is phasing down the use of HFCs, both domestically and internationally. HFCs are hundreds of thousands of times 

more powerful on a pound for pound basis than carbon dioxide. The 

U.S. has joined with other countries, including Mexico and Canada, 

to propose a global phase-down. The President recently reached an 

agreement with the president of China, committing both countries 

to such a phase-down. So that is an example of how U.S. leadership 

can in fact achieve global action on a very important pollutant. 

Fourth and finally, we need further action to address the transportation sector, which is the second largest source after power 

plants. Building on the successful fuel efficiency standards which 

have been mentioned today, the priority for EPA now is to set 

stronger standards for freight trucks. And by doing so, the emissions of freight trucks could be reduced by roughly 45 percent by 

2025 for new trucks, compared with if we continue to use 2010 

technology. 

So in conclusion, carbon dioxide emissions have actually declined 

over the last 5 years as we use energy more efficiently and shift 

toward cleaner fuels, putting the 17 percent reduction target within 

reach. And we can achieve that goal through cost-effective standards to reduce CO2, methane, HFCs from power plants and other 

large sources. Doing that will create new markets for technological 

ingenuity and will put the U.S. on track to the much deeper emissions reductions needed for forestall out of control climate disruption and protect our health and the future our children inherit. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lashof follows:] 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Dr. Lashof. 

Our next witness is Dr. Curry. 

STATEMENT OF JUDITH A. CURRY, Ph.D., PROFESSOR AND 

CHAIR, SCHOOL OF EARTH AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 

Ms. CURRY. I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to present testimony this morning. I am chair of the School 

of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of 

Technology. I have devoted 30 years to conducting research on topics including climate of the Arctic, the role of clouds and aerosols 

in the climate system and the climate dynamics of extreme weather 

events. 

The premise of the President’s climate action plan is that there 

is an overwhelming judgment of science that anthropogenic global 

warming is already producing devastating impacts. Anthropogenic 

greenhouse warming is a theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. Multiple lines 

of evidence presented in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggests that the case for anthropogenic warming is now weaker than 

in 2007, when the Fourth Assessment Report was published. 

My written testimony documented the following evidence. For 

the past 16 years, there has been no significant increase in global 

average surface temperature. There is a growing discrepancy between observations and climate model projections. Observations 

since 2011 have fallen below the 90 percent envelope of climate 

model projections. 

The IPCC does not have a convincing or competent explanation 

for this hiatus in warming. There is growing evidence of decreased 

climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. 

And based on expert judgment in light of this evidence, the IPCC 

Fifth Assessment Report lowered its surface temperature projection 

relative to the model projections for the period 2016 to 2036. 

The growing evidence that climate models are too sensitive to 

CO2 has implications for the attribution of late 20th century warming and projections of 21st century climate change. Sensitivity of 

the climate to carbon dioxide and the level of uncertainty in its 

value is a key input into the economic models that drive cost benefit analyses, including estimates of the social costs of carbon. 

If the recent hiatus in warming is caused by natural variability, 

then this raises a question as to what extent the warming between 

1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural climate variability. 

In a recent journal publication, I provided a rationale for projecting 

the hiatus in warming could extend to the 2030s. By contrast, according to climate model projections, the probability of the hiatus 

extending beyond 20 years is vanishingly small. If the hiatus does 

extend beyond 20 years then a very substantial reconsideration will 

be needed of the 20th century attribution and the 21st century projections of climate change. 

Attempts to modify the climate through reducing CO2 emissions 

may turn out to be futile. The stagnation in greenhouse warming 

observed over the past 16 years demonstrates that CO2 is not a 

control knob that can fine tune climate variability on decadal and 

multi-decadal time scales. Even if CO2 mitigation strategies are 
170 

successfully implemented and climate model projections are correct, 

an impact on the climate would not be expected for a number of 

decades. 

Further, solar variability, volcanic eruptions and natural internal 

climate variability will continue to be sources of unpredictable climate surprises. 

As a result of the hiatus in warming, there is growing appreciation for the importance of natural climate variability on multidecadal time scales. Further, the IPCC AR5 and Special Report on 

Extreme Events published in 2012 find little evidence that supports an increase in most extreme weather events that can be attributed to humans. 

The perception that humans are causing an increase in extreme 

weather events is the primary motivation for the President’s climate change plan. However, in the U.S. most types of weather extremes were worse in the 1930s and even in the 1950s than in the 

current climate, while the weather was overall more benign in the 

1970s. The extremes of the 1930s and 1950s are not attributable 

to greenhouse warming. Rather, they are associated with natural 

climate variability. And in the case of the Dust Bowl drought and 

heat waves, also to land use practices. The sense that extreme 

weather events are now more frequent and intense is symptomatic 

of pre-1970 weather amnesia. 

The frequency and intensity of extreme weather events is heavily 

influenced by natural climate variability. Whether or not anthropogenic climate change is exacerbating extreme weather events, vulnerability to extreme weather events will continue to increase 

owing to increasing population and concentration of wealth in vulnerable regions. Regions that find solutions to current problems of 

climate variability and extreme weather events are likely to be well 

prepared to cope with any additional stresses from climate change. 

Nevertheless, the premise of dangerous anthropogenic climate 

change is a foundation for a far-reaching plan to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions and reduce vulnerability to extreme weather events. 

Elements of this plan may be argued as important for associated 

energy policy reasons, economics and/or public health and safety. 

However, claiming an overwhelming scientific justification for the 

plan based upon anthropogenic global warming does a disservice 

both to climate science and to the policy process. 

Good judgment requires recognizing that climate change is characterized by conditions of deep uncertainty. Robust policy options 

that can be justified by associated policy reasons—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Ms. Curry, in fairness to all the other witnesses, we have tried to keep everybody within a fixed timeframe. 

You are already a minute over. To the extent you could wrap up, 

it will be helpful to the committee. 

Ms. CURRY. My apologies. Robust policy options that can be justified by associated policy reasons, whether or not anthropogenic climate change is dangerous avoids the hubris of pretending to know 

what will happen with the 21st century climate. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Curry follows:] 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

And our next witness is Ms. Kathleen Hartnett White. 

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN HARTNETT WHITE, DISTINGUISHED SENIOR FELLOW-IN-RESIDENCE AND DIRECTOR, 

ARMSTRONG CENTER FOR ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, TEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION 

Ms. WHITE. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse, and thank you, 

Ranking Member Vitter, for the opportunity to testify before this 

committee. 

I am particularly grateful to share my perspective as a former 

State environmental regulator of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, which according to EPA is the second largest 

environmental agency in the world. And before I address specific 

components of the President’s climate action plan, I would like to 

note several very positive trends, and this is one of two graphs in 

my written testimony. According to the EIA, energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide decreased 3.7 percent in 2012, the lowest 

emission level since 1994. And as the graph depicts, as a measure 

of the amount of CO2 generated per dollar of economic output, carbon intensity, a metric that EIA uses, the U.S. economy has been 

steadily less carbon intense since 1949. And in 1 year, 2012, that 

carbon intensity declined 6.5 percent. 

And while part of that is a weaker economy than in previous decades and increased use of natural gas, I think it is really a remarkable trend, and I would credit it to the inherent efficiency in private markets that is always driving the business. 

The President’s climate action plan, I counted a mixture of at 

least 50 Federal programs or initiatives that most exist already. So 

many of them are reinforcing what already exists. Several components of which I think are quite alarming, particularly without congressional approval of such bold, bold projects. My overall assessment would be that in general a plan of that scope and inevitable 

cost that really deals with a policy of major national consequence 

must be, must be something that our voice in the U.S. Congress 

approves and is not merely a result of executive action. 

I will turn the rest of my comments to the carbon pollution 

standards, the so-called new source performance standards that 

EPA, one of which is already proposed for the second time, and for 

new coal-fired power plants, the second of which is well underway 

as a plan, and from the standpoint, again, of spending 6 years implementing Federal law in air quality permits in Texas. It is from 

that basis and quite a bit of familiarity with how new source performance standards operate. 

These new source performance standards are unquestionably the 

most aggressive action taken under the endangerment finding that 

CO2 endangers human health and welfare. And they are the first 

direct regulation of carbon dioxide. I could give examples of previous indirect means but not time. 

EPA uses, as has been mentioned by several today, carbon capture and control technology as the basis for which to craft the numeric limit. In my judgment, that standard is unquestionably infeasible for coal-fired power plants to attain, because carbon capture and control technology is not at all commercially dem-
187 

onstrated. This is really an unprecedented expansion of EPA’s authority, because the net effect is to force fuel switching from coal 

to natural gas or from any fossil fuel generation to non-emitting 

generation such as renewables. I find nothing in the Clean Air Act 

that can authorize EPA to engage in what becomes really centralized energy planning. 

To me, the Clean Air Act, which is a wonderful law, enshrines 

economic freedom, which is at the basis of this democracy. It allows 

private actors, not the EPA, to choose energy source, process and 

product. EPA, as has been repeatedly mentioned today, EPA’s authority is limited to requiring best pollution control technology that 

has been commercially demonstrated for the industrial process in 

question. There is not one single successfully operating power plant 

in the United States for any length of time that has used CCS. 

There have been a number of pilot projects, they either failed or 

are incomplete. The EPA lays weight on the Southern Company’s 

project in Kemper County, Mississippi, which is under construction 

and just was forced to acknowledge that its cost overruns went 

from something like $2.3 billion to over $4 billion. 

Coal remains the largest source and the central mainstay of 

baseload electricity in this country. The infrastructure surrounding 

it has evolved over a century. And the coal industry has spent, in 

the last probably 10 years, an estimated $100 billion to install all 

kinds of elaborate pollution control technology to reduce by many, 

many times emissions of traditional pollutants. 

And the pain, I think, is already occurring in this country and 

others. I see my time is about to run out, but I hope the U.S. Congress and EPA will look very, very carefully at what is going on 

in the European Union and countries that have made a rush to renewables. Der Spiegel reports in Germany, mainstream media, 

over 600,000 to 700,000 families in Germany are now cut off from 

electricity. Another headline in the U.K. was something to the effect, as referenced in my testimony, 24,000 elderly individuals in 

the U.K. may die this winter because they no longer have access 

to heat. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. White follows:] 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Ms. White. 

I have the gavel, and so by definition I am going to be the last 

Senator in the room. So I will let my colleagues precede me in 

order to allow them to move on to their schedules. 

I will begin with the ranking member, Senator Vitter, and then 

we will follow him with Senator Boozman and myself. So it looks 

like it is down to the three of us. Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you very much. 

I want to get back to this push for us to talk in a fairly precise, 

disciplined way about the science and not be cartoonish about it. 

And certainly, folks in the Congress are a lot more guilty of that 

than anyone at the table. So I don’t mean to level that criticism 

at you all. 

Dr. Curry, you say ‘‘Claiming an overwhelming scientific justification for the plan,’’ meaning this particular climate action plan, 

‘‘does a disservice both to climate science and to the policy process.’’ 

Why don’t you expand on that a little bit more and explain what 

you mean? 

Ms. CURRY. There is a great deal of research that needs to be 

done to better understand climate variability and change. Everything from the sun, climate connections, natural internal variation, 

the role of oceans and so on, there are a lot of things that we don’t 

have adequate understanding to. And to think that all we need to 

do is leap to the impact assessment part of the problem I think 

does a disservice to the science, and we could end up with misleading conclusions if we don’t really keep trying to understand 

these aspects of the climate system better. 

Senator VITTER. One of my biggest pet peeves in this regard is 

the growth in the last 10 years of the mantra, the rallying cry of 

extreme weather. Because there are a few trends and there aren’t 

a lot of trends. Certainly for obvious reasons, I am from Louisiana, 

I care a whole lot about hurricanes, and I have lived through way 

too many. But we had a hearing before this committee that dealt 

with, among other things, extreme weather. And it was the consensus of every witness, I don’t think there was any disagreement, 

that in terms of historical record and observation, there is no observation, there is no historical record of increasing hurricane or tornado activity, both in terms of frequency and in terms of strength. 

I point to those two things, because those are the things that are 

most often talked about in terms of this extreme weather narrative. 

Do any of you disagree with that in terms of the historical 

record, the metrics about hurricanes and tornadoes? 

Ms. CURRY. I have testified twice previously on House committees related to hurricanes and climate change. There are in some 

regions observations of increasing intensity of hurricanes, in the 

Atlantic and the Indian Ocean since 1980. But there is absolutely 

no way to separate that out from anthropogenic causes versus natural climatic variability. 

For example, the hurricanes in the Atlantic are probably as intense in recent decades as they were in the 1950s. So there is just 

no way to separate it out from natural versus anthropogenic, although in a few ocean basins there is evidence of increased intensity in hurricanes. 
205 

Senator VITTER. Does anybody else want to comment about that 

specific subject? 

Mr. DESSLER. Yes, I mean, we do have evidence of precipitation, 

more intense events. Now, again, I don’t know what the attribution 

science is on that. But we do see more rain falling and more intense events. We are seeing more extreme heat waves. In some 

cases, those have been attributed, at least partially, to anthropogenic effects. So in certain things we can do some attribution. But 

you are right, there is a lot of uncertainty in some of these. 

But again, as I said in my testimony, I would encourage everyone 

to think about the things that we are certain about, instead of arguing about, well, we are uncertain. We are certain the temperature is going up. We are certain, or virtually certain, we can argue 

epistemological certainty and science. We are virtually certain that 

it is getting warmer, extreme heat events, the oceans are going to 

rise, the oceans are getting more acidic. These are certain, or virtually certain. 

Senator VITTER. I accept your testimony. I was specifically asking though because this is what is bandied about, at least around 

here and in the media all the time, hurricanes and tornadoes. Do 

you disagree with the discussion we have had about hurricanes and 

tornadoes and that historical record? 

Mr. DESSLER. No, I agree with what Dr. Curry said, and I agree 

there are a lot of foolish things that are said by a lot of people in 

the climate change debate on both sides of the debate. I think you 

are exactly right, we should really stick to the science and really 

see what the scientists say. 

Senator VITTER. And Dr. Curry, going back to you, you made the 

statement with regard to this in general, ‘‘The sense that extreme 

weather events are now more frequent and intense is symptomatic 

of weather amnesia prior to 1970.’’ Can you explain what you mean 

exactly? 

Ms. CURRY. It is just that people remember back a decade or two. 

But if you look at the actual records, the data records, there was 

much more severe weather in the 1930s and the 1950s in the U.S. 

That is a matter, you can look at EPA, plots, I think I cited one 

in my testimony about heat waves, the heat wave index was much 

worse in the 1930s than anything we have seen in recent decades. 

So almost all extreme events were probably, in the U.S., were 

worse in the 1930s and the 1950s. The one exception, which Dr. 

Dessler mentioned, was the 1-day extreme precipitation amounts. 

We see higher values of that since the 1990s. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you all very much. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Vitter. Senator 

Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Dessler, I agree with you, the science is settled in regard to 

smoking. Would you agree that there was a time, though, that the 

science was such that most scientists felt like smoking was OK? 

Mr. DESSLER. I am sorry, was there a time when they said smoking was OK? 

Senator BOOZMAN. Yes, when the medical authorities felt like 

smoking wasn’t a big deal and it was OK? 

Mr. DESSLER. Yes, I think probably in the early 20th century. 
206 

Senator BOOZMAN. The point I am making is, the idea, and I 

think you agreed to it a few moments ago, in the sense that the 

idea when people question things and then all of a sudden their 

motives and that they are crazy in questioning the scientific aspect 

of the day, because most of the time whoever made it such, made 

the discovery did the research and started questioning, many times 

those people were held in poor standing. 

So I don’t think that is healthy, and I think you would agree 

with that, is that correct? 

Mr. DESSLER. Yes, I think that free inquiry is one of the hallmarks of science. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I think the question is, in the smoking example, you solve that problem by not smoking anymore. In this problem, we can’t solve that problem by not having manmade CO2. We 

are going to create manmade CO2. So I think the question is, is the 

climate model science-settled, is the science settled as to how much 

people are producing, and is the science as to how much we can 

throttle back where we actually would have an impact, a measurable impact to reverse the process. 

So do you feel like those areas are settled? 

Mr. DESSLER. So, your question about how much CO2 we 

produce, that is settled. We have a really good accounting of how 

much carbon dioxide comes from fossil fuel combustion, cement and 

deforestation. There is some uncertainty, we understand that. 

Senator BOOZMAN. So when you add in all of the rest of the atmosphere, the solar aspect, the volcanoes, all of that, that is pretty 

well settled? 

Mr. DESSLER. We have good measurements of the output of the 

sun for the last few decades. You have to measure it from satellite, 

and volcanoes, you can see it from space. So we have pretty good 

measurements of the radiative force that comes from those. So 

there are not big uncertainties in that. 

There are some uncertainties in aerosols. But as carbon dioxide 

accumulates in the atmosphere, very soon it is going to be really 

the only game in town. 

Now, as far as your question about can do we something about 

it, it is interesting because I think Dr. Curry and I agree completely, we just said it in a different way. I agree with her that we 

have no control, no fine control over the climate. I agree that no 

matter what we do, we probably won’t see impacts for a decade or 

two or three. The climate of the next few decades is essentially already determined by other factors. 

But the one thing we do have control over is, we have control 

over the climate in the second half of the century and in the century after that and for the next thousand years. So if we dial down, 

we will avoid the very large warmings that are predicted. 

Senator BOOZMAN. So the science is settled as to how much you 

dial down that will produce this or that happening? 

Mr. DESSLER. I would say that there is wide agreement on a 

range of climate sensitivities. 

Senator BOOZMAN. But it is not settled, is it? 

Mr. DESSLER. Well, it is settled, I would say it is settled on a 

range. And you know what I would encourage you to do is, don’t 

take my word for it. I would invite you to go to a meeting of cli-
207 

mate scientists. The AMS meeting is in 2 weeks in Atlanta. Dr. 

Curry will be there, I will be there. I talked to Marshall Shepherd, 

President of the AMS. He says you guys are more than welcome. 

Show up, talk to people. And you can find that most people would 

say there is a range of sensitivities. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Let me ask, and then we will go back if he 

will allow, do you agree with that? Is the science settled? 

Ms. CURRY. The significant thing, and this is in my written testimony, is that the range of sensitivity was, the likely range was 2 

to 4.5 degrees Centigrade in the Fourth Assessment Report. The 

range has dropped to 1.5 to 4.5. So it was lowered as a result of 

a growing collection of empirically based, observationally based 

studies that indicate lower values of climate sensitivity at 2 degrees Centigrade or lower. 

So, and for the first time, the Fifth Assessment Report declined 

to give a central number, whereas the Fourth Assessment Report 

said 3 degrees was sort of the central value. The Fifth Assessment 

Report gave no central value because this dichotomy of the low values from observations and the higher values from climate models. 

So I would say that sensitivity to doubling of carbon dioxide is now 

less certain than we thought it was at the time of the Fourth Assessment Report. 

Mr. DESSLER. Could I add one thing to that? That is, of the First, 

Second and Third IPCC Reports did not give a central estimate and 

their estimate of climate sensitivity was one and a half to four and 

a half. Only the Fourth moved it up to 2 degrees and gave a central 

estimate. 

And I agree, there is a range of evidence, you can argue about 

the range. But I would say that there is broad consensus, if you 

go to a scientific meeting, you talk to scientists, you will hear some 

say, yes, this is the range. There may be a few people who are 

outliers. But that is what it is. And given that sensitivity, you can 

then sort of project, OK, if we cut this much, this is the temperature. 

Senator BOOZMAN. The thing that I would like to know, we had 

comments about what is going on in Europe and things like that. 

They are really backing up. India and China have both said that 

they are not going to participate, they want their 200 years of industrial revolution. So as I said earlier, all pain with no gain. At 

some point we need to be honest with the American public as to 

what we are doing, what the cost is going to be, and what the result is as far as actually making a difference if the modeling is correct and all that, all those things which we are currently using. I 

think there is some question as to that. 

That is the only point I would make. 

Mr. LASHOF. The point I was going to make is that the policy 

question is, do we know enough about the risks to take certain 

steps to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. I think the answer to 

that is clearly yes. That doesn’t mean we should do crazy things, 

but it means we should take sensible steps forward and China also 

believes that. China is actually looking at capping their own emissions in the near future, and they recognize that the pollution, both 

of conventional pollutants and of carbon dioxide, is a huge threat 

to their economy and well-being in the future. So it is really, in 
208 

China now, just a question of timing. But if you look at the 

U.S.—— 

Senator BOOZMAN. So the Chinese, they are not building coalfired plants? 

Mr. LASHOF. They are building coal plants, but they are also 

building wind, they are also building solar. The issue is, you look 

at the individual policies in the President’s climate plan, do they 

make sense, I think the answer is clearly yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. For what it is worth, I just came back 

from China. I went there with Senator McCain. We met with the 

second highest ranking individual in the most important ministry 

in the Chinese government. And that is their climate minister. And 

in everything that we heard from him and everything that we 

heard from our embassy briefer as well, the Chinese are absolutely 

deadly serious about getting something done. They have to keep 

building coal plants for a while because their economy is growing 

so fast that they need the power, and they know that they can 

bring that online. 

They also know that that is their biggest risk of social upheaval 

and disruption. Because people are so fed up with the environmental consequences that they are experiencing across that country, it is the No. 1 thing, our embassy told us, that frightens the 

Chinese government about a green revolution type of thing that 

could upend their rule. 

As a result, they are investing very heavily for two reasons in 

new technologies. For instance, new nuclear technologies that are 

stalled here in the United States, developed here in the United 

States, they have decided to invest in them and they are planning 

to allow them to go forward, would allow them to actually burn 

spent nuclear fuel to create power. 

They also want, in the nuclear industry, in the wind, solar, battery storage, all the array of new industries that are going to 

emerge to make for the clean energy economy, competitive advantage against us. So they have a mercantile reason for doing it and 

a self-preservation reason for doing it. But I cannot tell you how 

strong the sentiment was, both from the embassy and from the 

Chinese officials we visited, including their very highly placed climate minister, that they are deadly serious about fixing this, and 

that it is vitally important to them for a whole number of reasons. 

Let me also just follow up with Governor Ritter. You opened your 

testimony with the phrase, you said bipartisan coalescing at the 

State level. Could you describe a little bit more of what you see as 

bipartisan coalescing at the State level and why you think bipartisan coalescing is happening at the State level while here in Congress this has become part of the culture wars and the deniers are 

forcing inaction? 

Mr. RITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won’t hypothesize about 

what is happening here, but what I can tell you at the State level, 

you take a State like Ohio where there have been efforts to undo 

the renewable energy standard, or the energy efficiency resource 

standard that seems to fail because the business community is able 

to approach Republicans and Democrats alike, in the State house 

as well as approach Governors, and make the business case for a 

clean energy economy. 
209 

If you look at the supply chain for clean energy manufacturing 

in Ohio, it is a great example of a place where there has been an 

economic vitality to that State in part because of clean energy. The 

same is really true, I think the Governor of Michigan understands, 

first of all, they are importing all of their coal. They have abundant 

wind and natural gas and the ability to, and actually solar, the 

ability to really mix that over time, increase their renewable energy standard, increase their reliance upon natural gas, lower their 

emissions and help their economy. 

There have been other States that have already been able to do 

that, and so some of these States are looking at the examples of 

other States. But at the State level where Governors actually have 

to compete every day with other States for economic vitality they 

don’t just talk about it, you actually have to do it. In those States 

I think that have looked around, they understand, it doesn’t matter 

if I am a Democrat or Republican, if I am not creating jobs in this 

State, and if I am not doing it in a way that also responds to environmental concerns or even climate concerns, then I may be out of 

a job. 

Governor Brewer in Arizona is a big champion of solar. And she 

isn’t a big champion of solar because she is Republican or Democrat, she happens to be a Republican, but because that economy is 

really going to rely heavily going forward on the solar industries, 

the variety of solar industries. In Colorado, where we made this big 

push around this aggressive renewable energy standard, even during the downturn, the one place in the private sector where our 

economy grew was in the clean energy, clean tech sector. So while 

it is still, while renewable energy is still a small part of the portfolio, certainly the natural gas or certainly the coal, I think we 

have seen the clean energy economies in States make an impact on 

those various State job creation abilities, the various economies. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And very often that occurs with the strong 

support of major American corporations. Since Senator Boozman is 

here, I will read from the Wal-Mart 2009 Sustainability Report. 

Here is what Wal-Mart published. Climate change may not cause 

hurricanes but warmer ocean water can make them more powerful. 

Climate change may not cause rainfall but it can increase the frequency and severity of heavy flooding. Climate change may not 

cause droughts, but it can make droughts longer. Every company 

has a responsibility to reduce greenhouses gases as quickly as it 

can. 

They continued by saying, that is why we are working in a number of areas to reduce our company’s carbon footprint and also 

working with our suppliers and customers to help them do the 

same. Currently, we are investing in renewable energy, increasing 

energy efficiency in our buildings and trucks, working with suppliers to take carbon out of products and supporting legislation in 

the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Wal-Mart may be our 

biggest company. If we have a bigger, it is Exxon, which is really 

no longer an American company, it is an international creature. 

Mr. RITTER. We have done a variety of things as well, Senator, 

with utilities. Utility CEOs and CFOs around the country understand as well their own sort of vulnerability, their own risks. They 
210 

do their own corporate threat analysis. They have their own shareholders. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. A number of big American corporations 

have actually imposed an internal price on carbon. 

Mr. RITTER. They have done an internal price on carbon. They 

also, like Wal-Mart, are going up the supply chain to look at consumer goods that come their way are produced and ask the question as it relates to greenhouse gas emissions. 

I actually spent some time in Bentonville with the sustainability 

team at Wal-Mart for a National Academy of Sciences panel that 

I am participating in, and had what I would consider a brilliant 

day in listening to Wal-Mart’s leadership discuss about their sustainability efforts around the country, and then thinking about how 

to do that as well with the supply chain. But it is a great example. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Great. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Curry, you are described very often when I look up your 

name as a contrarian climate scientist. What does that mean? 

Ms. CURRY. I have no idea. There is a lot of words that get bandied about in the political debate. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. This is not just in the political debate. 

This is like Google, news stories, all sorts of things. 

Ms. CURRY. Skepticism is one of the norms of science. The way 

that we test theories and ideas is to challenge them. And a good 

theory will be able to defend itself against challenges. 

When people try to defend their theory by calling people who 

challenge their theory by names, deniers, whatever, that is not a 

good sign that it is a strong theory. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Do you think the scientific theory is influenced by what a scientist is called? 

Ms. CURRY. No. I am just saying this is part of the public debate, 

not the scientific debate. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. I thought you were saying that you 

called into question the scientific theory what you were called. 

Ms. CURRY. I don’t know that Andrew would call me a 

contrarian. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And that doesn’t seem to be right. 

Ms. CURRY. I don’t think climate scientists would call me a 

contrarian. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Is it true that in 2007 you wrote in the 

Washington Post about climate change that if the risk is great, 

then it may be worth acting against, even if the probability is 

small, and that you have yet to see any option that is worse than 

ignoring the risk of global warming and doing nothing? Was that 

your Washington Post editorial from 2007? 

Ms. CURRY. Yes, I wrote those words in 2007. A couple of things. 

My thinking has evolved somewhat since 2007, as I have seen increasing evidence. I still think that there is a real risk there and 

that we need to figure out how to deal with it. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You do think that there is a real risk 

there and that we need to figure out how to deal with it? 

Ms. CURRY. Yes. We may decide to do nothing and just to do local 

adaptation and to see what happens. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. That would probably be the worst option, 

though. Correct? 
211 

Ms. CURRY. I am not judging specific policy options. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. Well, as of 2007, you would have 

thought that was the worst option. 

Ms. CURRY. Yes, as of 2007. I had more confidence in the consensus, the IPCC consensus, I had more confidence in that process. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Let me turn to Ms. White for a moment. 

You opened your testimony by saying that you brought good 

news. And the good news was that carbon emissions and carbon intensity were both declining. 

Ms. WHITE. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Why is that good news? 

Ms. WHITE. It could be on a variety of levels, depending on the 

point of view. It is a measure of efficiency, energy efficiency in our 

economy. It is also a lot of the emission control technologies or 

methodologies for the traditional pollutants, the criteria pollutants 

listed in the Clean Air Act as well as toxins. The great efforts over 

the last 20 years that are in place now, those also just coincidentally reduce CO2. So I think you see in those, you see the general 

reduction of any kind of—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Any other reason that reducing carbon 

emissions is good news? 

Ms. WHITE. I think the reasons I just stated were very good. It 

is a measure of reducing all those others. I defer not to something 

that someone calls consensus science. I have tried to follow the 

science, been involved with my work in environmental regulation 

for 30 years. But I do not reach a conclusion. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So are the only two reasons that you think 

it is good news, that carbon emissions and carbon intensity are 

going because it shows that some emissions controls, technologies 

are working and the energy economy is becoming more efficient? 

Ms. WHITE. I think that is profound, that the continual efficiency 

of our economy, even as population grows and the economy grows. 

I think that is something—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. In terms of the carbon emissions having 

any effect on, say, the atmosphere or our oceans? Do you think it 

is good news with respect to the atmosphere and oceans as well? 

Ms. WHITE. Well, like I said, I don’t reach conclusions on that. 

But because there are—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Why would you not reach conclusions on 

that but reach conclusions on energy efficiency? 

Ms. WHITE. Because I am not as persuaded by the science as I 

understand it as layman than some others. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK, so you are just a layman with respect 

to carbon’s effect on the atmosphere? 

Ms. WHITE. Yes, with respect to science. I am—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK, well, I will end that there. 

Ms. WHITE. But if I could say one more thing, and this is 

that—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And then I will turn back to Senator 

Boozman, who would like another moment. 

Ms. WHITE. In response to Dr. Curry’s testimony, I am struck 

that there is a very significant need for more research on natural 

variability and the climate sensitivity to manmade CO2 in the con-
212 

text of natural, as you mentioned, in terms of aerosols and the sun 

and all of that. I think—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. The only thing I would say is that I think 

every company, every individual, all of us need to do a much better 

job of doing what we can, and we can, conservation I think is the 

key to this whole thing. We don’t talk near enough about it. Back 

when most of you all were growing up, like me, you simply did not 

leave a room without turning out the lights or your parents yelled 

at you and said, turn the lights out. We don’t do that anymore. 

The other thing is, the question is, with a potential problem, I 

think the question is, are we better off with coming up with a complex scheme like the cap and trade program that was passed in the 

House, which was overwhelmingly rejected by the American public, 

and I think you could argue that it was one of the major drivers 

for the Democrats losing the House that year, are we in the position to micromanage this thing up here with very complex schemes 

as we have done with other things. I think that the States are 

doing a good job. You have alluded to that. Senator Whitehouse alluded to the fact that industry was getting aggressive. 

And I do think that, I think Ms. Curry is very representative of 

the group of scientists who, in good faith, simply don’t feel like the 

science is settled. I think there is evidence in that regard. Certainly the modeling, the fact that we can just say, this modeling 

is perfect and this and that, and we can predict all these things, 

I think that it is OK, we need people to question these things. It 

is very, very important. 

The other thing is, if we are in a situation, and I think it is really up for grabs whether or not the Chinese or the Indians, the discussions I have had with them, they might be doing a better job. 

But the discussions I have had with them again, their attitude is, 

we will be responsible in 200 years after we have our industrial 

revolution. We have problems we have to deal with. And they 

might ratchet it down where they can actually see their hand in 

front of their face again, as opposed to now. 

But what I want to know, from all of you at some point in time, 

and I don’t think it is fair that the American people don’t understand this, what is going to be the cost? What we have to do as 

a country, if nobody else really participates at great length, if we 

do all these things, what is going to be the end result? What is that 

going to do to our environment, what is it going to do to whatever. 

There are certainly a lot of things that we can do and need to 

be doing, common sense things. We all want to protect the environment, and we can do a much better job of that. But when you really make it such that you are talking about significantly increasing 

electricity prices, what I want to know at some point is what is 

that going to do to jobs, what is it going to do to people who are 

retired on fixed incomes, what is it going to do to single moms, all 

of those kind of folks, when you are talking about significantly increasing their energy prices and their gasoline, electricity and 

things like that. 

And if somebody would comment that you can do that without 

significantly increasing energy prices, I would like to hear that. 
213 

Mr. LASHOF. We did analyze a proposal for achieving significant 

further progress, building on the progress which I think is quite 

significant over the last 5 years. To continue to reduce the CO2

emissions, particularly from the power sector, which is our biggest 

source. And we find that we can make another 23 to 30 percent reduction without a significant impact on electricity prices. 

Why? Well, partly because of energy efficiency, we are learning 

to use electricity much more efficiently and we have a lot more potential there. It doesn’t just happen by accident. The States have 

adopted policies that are driving an $8 billion industry in that. 

The other reason is the cost of renewables has come down remarkably in the last 5 years. Wind is now much cheaper than 

building a new coal plant, and is competitive with just operating 

some plants in some circumstances. Solar has come down by 80 

percent in the last 5 years. People haven’t really fully understood 

the revolution that has happened in the renewable energy industry 

over that period of time. We actually have a huge opportunity to 

get big reductions without driving up electricity prices in a significant way. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Let me thank the witnesses very much. 

Let me thank Senator Boozman for staying. 

I would respond on that that there clearly are costs if you apply 

what I proposed, which is a carbon fee. But if you make it revenue 

neutral, then every single dollar of it goes back to the American 

public. And so net, net, there is no cost. What you get is savings 

in terms of not having to fortify our coasts, for instance, against 

rising sea levels, not having to figure out how you deal with fishermen whose catches have moved either offshore or out in the deeper 

waters or into other States that they can’t reach any longer. 

What do you do with foresters whose forests are burned because 

the pine beetle climbed up higher because there was no cold snap 

to wipe them out, and so there are the red forests that Senator 

Merkley described. 

Then there is the competitiveness question which is that if we invest only in the fossil fuels, which are on the wrong end of the cost 

curve that Dr. Lashof described, solar and these technology based 

sources are going to continue to reduce, and fossil and extractive 

based are going to continue to be expensive. If we are on the losing 

end of international competition for those newer, I don’t want to 

buy that stuff from China. I don’t want to be buying it from the 

EU. I want our American industries to be the leaders in that. And 

if our fossil fuel industry is trying to sabotage our clean energy industry for immediate market share advantage, it is doing a long 

term disservice to the economy and to the well-being of our country. 

So I think that the cost questions are real ones, but I think they 

are answered in the context of how we do something intelligent 

about solving what is a very, very real problem. And I thank the 

witnesses for sharing their various views. We will keep the record 

of the hearing open for 2 weeks for anyone who wishes to add anything further to the record and for those who have been asked to 

provide something to provide it for the record. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues and I hope sooner 

rather than later, even with Republican colleagues, to address cli-
214 

mate change and carbon pollution. Because you can get into discussions about what climate modeling tells you, but you can’t debate 

the acidification of the seas. You can’t debate the 10 inches of sea 

level rise that my tide gauge in Newport, Rhode Island, has already seen. You can’t debate that Narragansett Bay is already 3 

or 4 degrees warmer in the winter. 

So you want to set aside the argument where there is modeling 

fights. Let’s look at the areas where we are really hurting ourselves, and then it is, as Dr. Dessler said, virtually certain with 

any, what was the word, epistemological certainty, I think you 

said. Good words to close by. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 1:12 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 
305 
306 
307 
308 
309 
310 
311 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 
317 
318 
319 
320 
321 
322 
323 
324 
325 
326 
327 
328 
329 
330 
331 
332 
333 
334 
335 
336 
337 
338 
339 
340 
341 
342 
343 
344 
345 
346 
347 
348 
349 
350 
351 
352 
353 
354 
355 
356 
357 
358 
359 
360 
361 
362 
363 
364 
365 
366 
367 
368 
369 
370 
371 
372 
373 
374 
375 
376 
377 
378 
379 
380 
381 
382 
383 
384 
385 
386 
387 
388 
389 
390 
391 
392 
393 
394 
395 
396 
397 
398 
399 
400 
401 
402 
403 
404 
405 
406 
407 
408 
409 
410 
411 
412 
413 
414 
415 
416 
417 
418 
419 
420 
421 
422 
423 
424 
425 
426 
427 
428 
429 
430 
431 
432 
433 
434 
435 
436 
437 
438 
439 
440 
441 
442 
443 
444 
445 
446 
447 
448 
449 
450 
451 
452 
453 
454 
455 
456 
457 
458 
459 
460 
461 
462 
463 
464 
465 
466 
467 
468 
469 
470 
471 
472 
473 
474 
475 
476 
477 
478 
479 
480 
481 
482 
483 
484 
485 
486 
487 
488 
489 
490 
491 
492 
493 
494 
495 
496 
497 
498 
499 
500 
501 
502 
503 
504 
505 
506 
507 
508 
509 
510 
511 
512 
513 
514 
515 

Æ