Statement ofJennifer Cassel StaffAttorney, Environmental Law & Policy Center Public Hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Carbon Pollution Standard for New Power Plants Chicago, IL, May 24, 2012 I appear here today on behalfofthe Environmental Law & Policy Centerto support the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed carbon pollution standards for new power plants. These standards represent a critical milestone: they are the first ever national carbon pollution standards for power plants, our nation's largest emitters ofcarbon dioxide. These standards will protect public health and the environment, and they will give the great wheels ofAmerican innovation a big push, spurring development ofbetter, cleaner technologies to spark our economy and power our country for generations to come. It comes as no surprise that over I million people have already submitted comments to EPA in support ofthese standards. With
more than a month left in the comment period, surely countless more Americans will make their voices heard in support ofthese essential new standards. Scientists agree that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, cause climate change, and the impacts ofclimate change are many, sometimes severe, and they are already happenin[;. For example, the evidence linking climate change to extreme weather events is rapidly mounting. The shifts in temperature associated with the changing climate can change the amount ofwater vapor in the atmosphere, and this can lead to major changes in the probability for extreme weather. In 2008, 2010 and 2011 -threetimes in four years- there were" 100-" or "500-year" floods in Iowa, Missouri and Wisconsin. As the Union ofConcerned Scientists has explained, floods such as those don't only damage property; they also can contaminate our water with chemicals, animal wastes, and sewage, making people who drink or swim in that water sick, and

1fill our soggy basements with mold, creating and exacerbating respiratory problems. 1 And floods arejust one example ofextreme weather events associated with climate change. Droughts have been connected to climate change,2 and scientific models are starting to suggest that disasters like the 2010 Russian heat wave, which resulted in the loss of50,000 human lives and billions ofdollars ofwheat crops, were likely related to human-induced climate change. These EPA standards will limit the carbon emissions that lead to climate change and set good things in motion. For example
• They will createjobs. A March 2012 study by the Department ofLabor found that the transition to cleaner energy and technology already has created 3.1 millionjobs3 As we move from carbon-intensive electricity generation toward increased production of cleaner, renewable energy, even morejobs will be created.
• They will improve our nation's security. Further research and development into cleaner electricity generation, spurred by these standards, will help our country become more energy independent and help our military minimize the dangerous transport offuel in combat zones, which has claimed the lives ofmany ofour troops4 Midwesterners have long recognized the harmful impacts ofclimate change, and have begun implementing a diverse array ofmeasures to keep those harmful impacts, and climate change itself, in check. The Chicago Climate Action Plan, the Iowa Climate Report, and the Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change lmpacts5 arejust a few ofsuch programs. These standards will complement and bolster those critical efforts. Importantly, EPA is well within its legal authority in issuing these landmark standards. As ELPC will further discuss in written comments, EPA's decision to set standards for power plants

1 Union ofConcerned Scientists, "After the Storm: The Hidden Health Risks ofFlooding in a Warming World" (March 2012). available at hup
..-.., 111 n lfL"!L'>tt \_ll :.;..- :t:---..ch:d(1L.llll!'-'11h:\doh;J! 11 :tr**tum~.-,** ..:!nnal,
..:-...:ll:Jn!-'...:-;11\d-!luudi**n~>** '-'_'\<...:L-"1!!11111 pdl (last visited May 23. 2012). 2 See lPCC. "Managing the Risks ofExtreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation" (2012). available at hup \\11 \\**tp...:vnc:~ ~.,~~~**  Sf{ L\_ ·lJH:I."'.-..:".·uplu:ld::-. S!H-._\-SP\lh\1;.,_-!HHC r· I\ -\L pdi' (last visited May 23, 2012). 3 llup 111111 hh _>!.\.)\ 'JhYI'>**r:.:Lh~..:·jxlt -~·"'.q---:l."\1**  pdl'(last visited May 23. 2012) 1See Natalie Pompilio. Yes Magazine. ''Tile Real Reason the Military is Going Green" (summer 2012) iJ[tp_ ..\\ \\ \\**~** L.'".l \!:! .::: i/iJ I<.:_**~)J** ,!.'_
.. h',!l(''l Ill:Ik l**f):~** -ll- )h)!)t(',' [IJC-J :...::1 {-I**(~!.".(\I!-** i1!..: -l! II !J (; !l-_1 -!"'.-**~** l)! !I_:.'**-~i** \..''-.'!!. 5 .See hup. 1\\\\\ \\!·...:;.:J \II";.: -:du:t;..'p(llt**~:(Jil** \\**ICCJ-I~cpurt.pdl** 2based on function, rather than fuel type, is a welcome and authorized manner to ensure that new power plants use the best technology to minimize climate-changing carbon emissions. Moreover, the law is clear that EPA may rely on reasonable forecasts ofthe types ofplants that will power our future, and reasonable forecasts ofthe types oftechnologies available to control pollution from those plants, in setting new source performance standards. EPA has done that here. The market has spoken in favor ofa lower-carbon future, 6 and EPA's proposed standards mark an important first step in ensuring that future becomes a reality. Thank you.

6 See sources cited by Lashof, "Financial Analysts, Private Economists_ and Government Forecasters All Agree: Market Realities, Not EPA, Driving New Power Plants Away from Coal," April 2012, http :-\\ik·hbLl;JJd ltnk.**L_)r;-!·bh_l,c~.">:db:--ll,)Llill;l!i\.'l;d ~!!l:il~"h**  pm;Jh..'**~.::..:t\** htllli. 3