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

99–516 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–243 

ECONOMY-WIDE IMPLICATIONS OF 

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S AIR AGENDA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 

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 FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RYAN JACKSON, Majority Staff Director 

BETTINA POIRIER, Democratic Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 1 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 4 

WITNESS 

McCabe Hon. Janet, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, United States Environmental Protection Agency ................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Inhofe .................................................................................................. 21 

Senator Boxer ................................................................................................... 37 

Senator Wicker ................................................................................................. 38 

Senator Fischer ................................................................................................. 41 

(1) 

ECONOMY-WIDE IMPLICATIONS OF 

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S AIR AGENDA 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 

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

The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James Inhofe [chairman 

of the full committee] presiding. 

Present: Senators Inhofe, Boxer, Barrasso, Capito, Wicker, Fischer, Sullivan, Carper, Whitehouse, Merkley, Gillibrand and Markey. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. The meeting will come to order. 

I have shared this with a couple of the members. Some of us just 

came up from the Armed Services Committee. There were seven 

Republicans on the one side that are members of this committee 

and members of the other. So I am going to be asking the staff to 

coordinate with all the members on both sides to find a time other 

than 10 o’clock on Tuesday. Because I have given up getting Armed 

Services to change theirs. 

So we have to very significant, we have the biggest overlap of 

any two committees in these two committees. So we are going to 

try to correct that. 

Acting Assistant Administrator McCabe, thank you for taking 

the time to be here to talk about two of the most expensive and 

intrusive Federal regulations ever put forward in the history of this 

Country: the National Ambient Air Quality Standard, or NAAQS, 

ozone and the recently finalized carbon standards for power plants. 

Your agency is attempting to restructure our entire energy system 

while simultaneously controlling economic expansion. 

These regulations would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, leaving stakeholders with an economic burden that will take generations to pay down. These regulations stand to impact every industrial sector and would skyrocket the price of doing business in this 

Country, making us non-competitive. These regulations would reduce the domestic investment in associated jobs, likely shipping 

them overseas to countries like China with less stringent environmental standards. 

I can remember when Lisa Jackson was first appointed to be the 

Director of the Environmental Protection Agency. She made the 

statement, in response to my question, if we have all these standards that we are going to meet in this Country, is this going to 

2 

have the effect of reducing emissions worldwide. She said no, because of course, this isn’t where the problems is. The problem is 

in China, it is in India. 

So I think we recognize now that it could actually, reductions 

here could cause our manufacturing base to go to countries where 

they don’t have any restrictions and it could have the effect of increasing and not decreasing it. 

Finally, these regulations could cause the most harm to low-income and minority families, as your agency forces a shift away 

from affordable, reliable electricity and limits access to jobs in the 

industry, manufacturing and transportation segment. 

This was brought to our attention several times by the chairman 

of the Black Chamber of Commerce, talking about the adverse effect on the very poor and the minorities that this have. Those individuals who spend a much larger percentage of their expendable 

income to take care of things that they have to have, like heating 

their homes. 

Overall, the costs and the benefits of these regulations are minimal at best. The final Clean Power Plan would cost hundreds of 

billions of dollars each year, while only reducing CO2 concentrations by 0.2 percent, global temperatures by one one-hundredth of 

a degree Fahrenheit, and sea level rise by the thickness of two 

human hairs. EPA’s ozone proposal would cost as much as $1.7 trillion over the life of the proposal and result in 1.4 million lost jobs. 

Up to 67 percent of the counties, and that is what we are talking 

about, when we are talking about ozone counties, as opposed to 

States, 67 percent of the counties would fail to meet the proposed 

lower standards. That is assuming the raise that they are talking 

about is between 65 and 70, I believe. In my State of Oklahoma, 

all of our counties, all 77 counties, are in attainment. If we went 

down to 65, none of the 77 counties, all 77 counties would be out 

of attainment. So it is a very significant thing personally, to me, 

and the State of Oklahoma. 

Like many of the EPA’s recent proposals, the carbon and ozone 

standards would have negligible environmental benefits, are based 

on questionable health benefits and come with unequivocal economic costs. Additionally, they are full of unreasonable assumptions and projections, including the EPA’s projection that renewable generation would account for 28 percent of electricity production by 2030, when the wind and solar currently accounts for less 

than 5 percent. So you see this is something that very likely could 

not happen. 

These regulatory actions are based on a dubious science and an 

accumulation of improper collusion with extremist environmental 

groups and their sue-and-settle tactics. These regulations face 

major legal obstacles and wide-reaching State opposition. For 

ozone, Colorado Democrats Senator Michael Bennet and Governor 

John Hickenlooper have joined Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear 

and others in voicing their concerns about impacts on local economies. Thirty-two States, 32 States oppose the proposed Clean 

Power Plan. Opposition is growing against the final version. It is 

very telling when you have a Democrat Senator who is generally 

supportive of the EPA’s efforts calling the final rule a slap in the 

face. 

3 

EPA is essentially cutting corners in a shameless attempt to promote President Obama’s environmental legacy. I am eager to hear 

why this agency is steamrolling ahead and requesting billions of 

taxpayer dollars be spent on proposals that are not only rejected 

by the States, which is happening today, but ignore the will of Congress, rely on unreasonable assumptions, cost billions and increase 

the cost of doing business and do nothing to impact public health 

and global warming. 

On that happy note, I will recognize Senator Boxer. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Acting Assistant Administrator McCabe, thank you for taking the time to be here. 

We are here today to talk about two of the most expensive and intrusive Federal 

regulations ever put forward in the history of this country: the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard for Ozone and the recently finalized carbon standards for 

power plants. Your agency is attempting to restructure our entire energy system 

while simultaneously controlling economic expansion. 

These regulations would cost hundreds of billions of dollars leaving stakeholders 

with an economic burden that will take generations to pay down. These regulations 

stand to impact every industrial sector and would make the price of doing business 

in this country more expensive. These regulations would reduce domestic investment and associated jobs, likely shipping them overseas to countries like China with 

less stringent environmental standards. And finally, these regulations would cause 

the most harm to low-income and minority families as your agency forces a shift 

away from affordable, reliable electricity and limits access to jobs in the energy, 

manufacturing and transportation sectors. 

For all of these costs, the ‘‘benefits’’ of these regulations are minimal at best. The 

final Clean Power Plan would cost hundreds of billions of dollars each year while 

only reducing CO2 concentrations by 0.2 percent, global temperature by1/100th of 

a degree Fahrenheit and sea level rise by the thickness of two human hairs. EPA’s 

ozone proposal would cost as much as $1.7 trillion over the life of the proposal and 

result in 1.4 million lost jobs. Up to 67 percent of counties would fail to meet the 

proposed lower standards, which means they would face a legacy of EPA regulatory 

oversight, stiff Federal penalties, lost highway dollars, restrictions on infrastructure 

investment, and increased costs to businesses. 

Like many of the EPA’s recent proposals, the carbon and ozone standards would 

have negligible environmental benefits, are based on questionable health benefits, 

and come with unequivocal economic costs. Additionally, they are full of unreasonable assumptions and projections, including the EPA’s projection that renewable 

generation would account for 28 percent of electricity production by 2030 when wind 

and solar currently account for less than 5 percent, which has taken decades to 

achieve and significant Federal subsidization. 

These regulatory actions are based on dubious science and are the culmination 

of improper collusion with extremist environmental groups and their sue-and-settle 

tactics. 

These regulations face major legal obstacles and wide reaching State opposition. 

For ozone, Colorado Democrats Senator Michael Bennet and Governor John 

Hickenlooper have joined Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear and others, in voicing 

their concerns about the impacts on local economies. 32 states opposed the proposed 

Clean Power Plan and opposition is growing against the final version. It’s very telling when you have a Democrat Senator who is generally supportive of the EPA’s 

efforts calling the final rule a ‘‘slap in the face.’’ (Senator Heitkamp’s response to 

the final Clean Power Plan). 

EPA is essentially cutting corners in a shameless attempt to promote President 

Obama’s environmental legacy. I’m eager to hear why this Agency is steamrolling 

ahead and requesting billions of taxpayer dollars be spent on proposals that are not 

only rejected by states, but ignore the will of Congress, rely on unreasonable assumptions, cost billions, increase the cost of doing business, and do nothing to impact public health or global warming. 

4 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks for today’s hearing, where we are going to example two 

critically important efforts to protect the health of our children and 

our families: a proposed rule to strengthen the ozone standards and 

the final standards to reduce carbon pollution from power plants. 

This week, EPA is expected to issue its final rule to strengthen 

the ozone standard. I am hopeful EPA will issue a strong standard 

that will protect American children, children like Jackson Woodward, an eighth-grader, 13 years old, from my State, Vacaville, 

California. Jackson, who suffers from asthma, wrote an opinion 

piece in the Sacramento Bee, explaining why a stronger ozone 

standard is important. This is just the way he finished his op-ed: 

‘‘I would like to continue playing outdoors and competing at a national level in track and field and cross-country. Having cleaner air 

will help me achieve my goals. I don’t want to have to keep telling 

the EPA to clean up our air. I just want to be able to breathe.’’ It 

was called A Plea for Clean Air, May 9th, 2015. I ask unanimous 

consent to put that into the record. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

5 


99516.041
6 


99516.042
7 


99516.043
8 

Senator BOXER. I just think that we all agree that this child who 

suffers from asthma should be able to live a normal life. But from 

some of our rhetoric here it seems like we are putting other interests ahead of the interests of children like Jackson. I don’t think 

that is what this committee is for. We are not a committee to represent polluters. We are a committee to represent families and 

fight for families. 

Now, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to set the maximum level 

of an air pollutant such as ozone that is safe for us to breathe. Setting an appropriate standard is crucial. Everyone has a right to 

know the air they breathe is safe. As I have said many times, 

maybe you have had this happen, I have not had one constituent 

come up and tell me the air is too clean, stop cleaning up the air. 

They don’t say that. On the contrary, they say, keep on fighting, 

keep on going. We need clean air, clean water, we need safe drinking water and the rest. 

So despite what some of my friends on the other side may claim 

today, scientists agree that EPA needs to adopt a stricter standard 

to protect the health of our people, especially our children and the 

elderly. If we can’t do that, what good are we? We have known 

since 2008 the current ozone standard does not provide the necessary health safeguards. 

According to a new American Lung Association poll, an overwhelming majority of voter, 73 percent across every party line in 

every area of the Country, supports stricter ozone standards. So I 

don’t care if one of my colleagues feels differently, that is his right. 

Good for him. But the important thing is to listen to the people, 

not to each other. Listen to the people. 

Fifty-two percent of Republicans support strengthening the ozone 

standards. So why don’t we start listening to the people? 

In addition to its efforts to strengthen ozone standards, the EPA 

is working to protect the American people from the dangers of unchecked climate change. This hearing comes less than a week after 

the Pope called on Congress to ‘‘avert the most serious effects of 

the environmental deterioration caused by human activity.’’ I hope 

we will not ignore his call. And this rule is a test as to whether 

we will heed his call. 

The Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan will help America 

lead the way to avert the worst impacts of climate change, such as 

sea level rise, dangerous heat waves, economic disruption. One critical way we can address it is to reduce the dangerous carbon pollution from the biggest source, power plants. The Clean Power Plan 

will reduce pollution from existing power plants and EPA’s New 

Source Performance Standards will ensure new power plants apply 

the best available technologies moving forward. 

This is a cornerstone of achieving our international commitments 

and the announcement President Obama made last week with the 

president of China shows that U.S. leadership on addressing climate change is working. But it won’t work if we are divided here. 

The American people again overwhelmingly support action. A Stanford University poll from earlier this year found that 83 percent of 

Americans, including 61 percent of Republicans, say that climate 

change will be a problem in the future if nothing is done to reduce 

9 

carbon pollution. And 74 percent of Americans say the Federal 

Government should take action to combat climate change. 

Our committee is really in a place where we can listen to the 

American people and move forward. The Clean Power Plan will 

save money, because by 2030, the estimates are that American 

families will save $85 a year on their electricity bills. My husband 

and I put a solar rooftop on our home. And we are paying about 

a quarter of what most of the people in the neighborhood are paying who haven’t done this. It works. I feel it in my pocketbook. 

A huge number of Americans commented on that proposed rule. 

And EPA has issued a strong final rule that will reduce carbon pollution by 32 percent over the next 15 years. 

So I commend EPA for issuing these first-ever carbon pollution 

standards for power plants. As I often say, if you can’t breathe, you 

can’t work or go to school. So people who say, oh, we are going to 

hurt the economy, just look at the last Clean Air Act. Look at GDP. 

Look at employment. It is all good news story. And I hope we can 

stop fighting and start working together. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.[The prepared statement of Senator 

Boxer follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Today’s hearing will examine two critically important efforts to protect the health 

of our children and families—a proposed rule to strengthen the ozone standard and 

the final standards to reduce carbon pollution from power plants. 

This week, EPA is expected to issue its final rule to strengthen the ozone standard. I am hopeful that EPA will issue a strong standard that will protect American 

children like Jaxin Woodward, an eighth-grader from Vacaville, California. Jaxin, 

who suffers from asthma, wrote an op-ed in the Sacramento Bee explaining why a 

stronger ozone standard is so important: 

‘‘I would like to continue playing outdoors and competing at a national level in 

track and field and cross country. Having cleaner air will help me to achieve my 

goals. I don’t want to have to keep telling the EPA to clean up our air. I just want 

to be able to breathe.’’ 

I think we can all agree with that. I ask unanimous consent to place this op-ed 

in the record. 

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set the maximum level of an air pollutant, 

such as ozone, that is safe for us to breathe. Setting an appropriate standard is crucial to protecting the health of millions of Americans. Everyone has a right to know 

that the air they breathe is safe—and science tells us we need a stronger standard. 

Despite what some of my Republican colleagues may claim today, scientists overwhelmingly agree that EPA needs to adopt a stricter standard to protect the health 

of the American people, especially our children and the elderly. We have known 

since 2008 that the current ozone standard does not provide the necessary health 

safeguards. 

According to a new American Lung Association poll, an overwhelming majority of 

voters—73 percent—across party lines and from every region of the country support 

stricter ozone standards. The poll found that 52 percent of Republicans support 

strengthening the standards. 

In addition to its efforts to strengthen the ozone standard, EPA is also working 

to protect the American people from the dangers of unchecked climate change. This 

hearing comes less than a week after Pope Francis called on Congress ‘‘to avert the 

most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity.’’ 

I hope we will not ignore this call. 

The Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan will help America lead the way 

to avert the worst impacts of climate change—such as sea level rise, dangerous heat 

waves, and economic disruption. 

One critical way we can address climate change is by reducing dangerous carbon 

pollution from the biggest source—power plants. The Clean Power Plan will reduce 

pollution from existing power plants, and EPA’s New Source Performance Standards 

10 

will ensure new power plants apply the best available technologies to limit carbon 

pollution moving forward. 

This is a cornerstone of achieving our international commitments to reduce harmful carbon pollution. The announcement President Obama made last week with 

President XI of China shows that US leadership on addressing climate change is 

working and that other countries are willing to act. 

The American people overwhelmingly support action. A Stanford University poll 

from earlier this year found that 83 percent of Americans, including 61 percent of 

Republicans, say that climate change will be a problem in the future if nothing is 

done to reduce carbon pollution. And 74 percent of Americans say the Federal Government should take action to combat climate change. 

The Clean Power Plan will save consumers money. By 2030, the EPA estimates 

American families will save, on average, $85 a year on their electricity bills. 

A huge number of Americans—4.3 million—commented on the proposed rule for 

existing power plants, and EPA has issued a strong final rule that will reduce carbon pollution by 32 percent over the next 15 years. 

I commend EPA for issuing these first ever carbon pollution standards for power 

plants, and I look forward to the final ozone rule fulfilling EPA’s obligation under 

the Clean Air Act to set a standard that will protect public health. 

I often say, if people can’t breathe, they can’t go to work or school. These two 

rules will cut air pollution—keep kids healthy and in school, keep people out of the 

emergency room and save lives. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

Administrator McCabe, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JANET McCABE, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, UNITED 

STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. MCCABE. Thank you, Senator, thank you, Senator Boxer, 

members of the committee. I am very pleased to be here with you 

this morning. 

On August 3d, President Obama and EPA Administrator Gina 

McCarthy announced the final Clean Power Plan, a historic and 

important step in reducing carbon pollution from power plants that 

takes concrete action to address climate change, as well as final 

standards limiting carbon pollution from new, modified and reconstructed power plants, and a proposal for a Federal plan and model 

rules that demonstrate clear options for how States can implement 

the Clean Power Plan in ways that maximize flexibility for power 

plants in achieving their carbon pollution obligations. 

Shaped by a process of unprecedented outreach and public engagement that is still ongoing, the final Clean Power Plan is fair, 

flexible and designed to strengthen the fast-growing trend toward 

cleaner and lower-pollution American energy. It sets strong but 

achievable standards for power plants and reasonable goals for 

States to meet in cutting the carbon pollution that is driving climate change, tailored to their specific mix of sources. It also shows 

the world that the United States is committed to leading global efforts to address climate change. 

The final Clean Power Plan mirrors the way electricity already 

moves across the grid. It sets standards that are fair and consistent 

across the Country and they are based on what States and utilities 

are already doing to reduce CO2 from power plants. It gives States 

and utilities the time and a broad range of options they need to 

adopt strategies that work for them. 

These features of the final rule, along with tools like interState 

trading and emissions averaging, means States and power plants 

can achieve the standards while maintaining an ample and reliable 

11 

electricity supply and keeping power affordable. When the Clean 

Power Plan is fully in place in 2030, carbon pollution from the 

power sector will be 32 percent below 2005 levels. The transition 

to cleaner methods of generating electricity will better protect 

Americans from other harmful pollution, too, meaning we will 

avoid thousands of premature deaths and suffer thousands fewer 

asthma attacks and hospitalizations in 2030 and every year beyond. 

States and utilities told us they needed more time than the proposal gave them, and we responded. In the final rule, the compliance period does not kick in until 2022, rather than 2020. The interim reductions are more gradual. States can determine their own 

glide path, and any State can get up to 3 years to submit a State 

plan. 

We heard the concerns about reliability. We listened and we consulted with the planning and reliability authorities, with FERC 

and with the Department of Energy. The final Clean Power Plan 

reflects this input and it includes several elements to assure that 

the plan requirements will not compromise system reliability. 

In addition, to provide an extra incentive for States to move forward with planned investments, we are creating a clean energy incentive program that will recognize early progress. Since issuing 

the final Clean Power Plan, EPA has continued to engage with 

States, territories, tribes, industry groups, community organizations, health and environmental groups, among others. To help 

States and stakeholders understand the plan and to further support States’ efforts to create plans that suit their needs, EPA has 

developed a variety of tools and resources, largely available on our 

website. We remain committed to assisting States with the development and implementation of their plans. 

I also want to mention that the agency, as has been noted, is in 

the process of completing another significant air pollution rule. Because the air we breathe is so important to our overall health and 

well-being, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to review the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards every 5 years to make sure that 

they continue to protect public health with an adequate margin of 

safety. Based on the law, a thorough review of the science, the recommendations of the agency’s independent scientific advisors and 

the assessment of EPA’s scientists and technical experts, in November, 2014, EPA proposed to strengthen the ozone standard to 

within the range of 65 to 70 parts per billion to better protect 

Americans’ health and welfare. We invited comments on all aspects 

of the proposal, including on alternative levels, and we will issue 

a final rule by October 1st. 

We are convinced by both our analyses and our experiences that 

both the carbon pollution reduction called for under the Clean 

Power Plan and the attainment of the ozone standard will extend 

the trajectory of the last 40 years when we cut air pollution 70 percent across this Country while our economy has tripled. 

Again, thank you to the committee for inviting me to speak on 

the agency’s work to implement our Nation’s environmental laws to 

protect public health and the environment. I look forward to your 

questions. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCabe follows:] 

12 


99516.001
13 


99516.002
14 


99516.003
15 


99516.004
16 


99516.005
17 


99516.006
18 


99516.007
19 


99516.008
20 


99516.009
21 


99516.010
22 


99516.011
23 


99516.012
24 


99516.013
25 


99516.014
26 


99516.015
27 


99516.016
28 


99516.017
29 


99516.018
30 


99516.019
31 


99516.020
32 


99516.021
33 


99516.022
34 


99516.023
35 


99516.024
36 


99516.025
37 


99516.026
38 


99516.027
39 


99516.028
40 


99516.029
41 


99516.030
42 


99516.031
43 


99516.032
44 


99516.033
45 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Director. 

Before we start the clock here, let me make three unanimous 

consent requests to be entered into the record at this time. The 

first is the Harvard poll of Young Americans, aged 18 through 29, 

which was just completed. It found that young Americans are often 

unsupportive of government measures to prevent climate change 

that might harm the economy. Less than 30 percent of young adult 

Americans agreed with the statement in a poll that ‘‘government 

should do more to curb climate change, even at the expense of economic growth.’’ Then it further quotes the poll, the Harvard University poll, ‘‘Not only are the newest voters less convinced of climate change. As a reality, they are also less likely to support government funding of climate change solutions.’’ 

The second one that I will ask unanimous consent to be in the 

record, this was a good one. This was Bloomberg, right after the 

visit of the Pope. And is it good, this good or bad direction for the 

church. They go through all these things. For example, the greatest 

thing that they are concerned about is suggesting the Catholic 

Church do more to harness the energy and compassion for women, 

84 percent of the people believe that. But last in line, chastising 

those who deny the human connection to climate change, only 33 

percent think that folks should be talking about that. 

Last, and this was a good one, Gallup, because Gallup does this 

every year. They had a poll, and I can remember when climate 

change, at that time before they changed the wording and put global warming, it was about always in first or second place. Now of 

15 concerns that people have in the most recent Gallup poll, the 

very last, number 15 is climate change. 

So I ask unanimous consent that these three polls be made a 

part of the record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

46 


99516.034
47 


99516.035
48 


99516.036
49 

Senator INHOFE. Ms. McCabe, in June we heard from Commissioner Mike McKee from Utah about the challenges addressing 

background and transport ozone. This is something that has been 

a concern for a long time. I think one thing we can all agree on 

is, you can’t control what comes into your State. Maybe what you 

generate yourself. 

Now, what can a State do to control naturally occurring and 

trans-continental ozone, since your agency has a poor track record 

in gaining the exceptional events and rural transport? These exceptions were in the Clean Air Act and the Clean Air exemption, 

which I hasten to say that I was one of the original co-sponsors of 

the 1990 Clean Air Act exemptions. So I have a lot of pride in the 

successes that we have had, huge successes. 

But what can a State do to control these things that fall into the 

category of exempt events and rural transport exceptions built into 

the Clean Air Act? What can they do? Is there anything they can 

do? 

Ms. MCCABE. Senator, you are correct, the Clean Air Act does 

not hold States responsible for pollution that is not generated from 

sources within their borders. And you have mentioned exceptional 

events, that is one very clear tool that is in the Clean Air Act to 

make sure that we can work with the States to exclude data that 

is the result of exceptional events. In the last few years, we have 

worked hard with the States to improve and streamline the process 

to be able to get those events documented and approved. And we 

will continue to do that. 

Senator INHOFE. So what you are saying is that in the event it 

is something that falls into this category that you are not going to 

have any kind of a punitive action against States who are unable 

to do something that falls into this category, is that correct? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is correct. 

Senator INHOFE. On the power plant rules, it is a little confusing 

on how we expect the States to submit their initial plans by a date 

certain, and we are talking about September 6th of 2016. Yet the 

formal State implementation deadline is 2018. 

I would ask the question, why are you requiring an initial plan 

to be submitted by 2016 and is there any chance that in the event 

that 2016 comes up and a State is not complying, prior to the time 

that 2018 is here that there is going to be a deadline and there 

could be Federal action against that? Could that happen or is that 

the intent? Why are we having this initial 2016 deadline? 

Ms. MCCABE. The way the final rule laid it out is that plans are 

due within 1 year. But we recognize that a lot of States have processes, not all of them, but many States have processes that will 

take longer than 1 year. So we set it up so that States would have 

the ability to ask for an extension of up to 2 years. 

Senator INHOFE. And that could happen, based on their ability 

to do something that would be impossible to comply with? 

Ms. MCCABE. Sure. So in order to ask for that extension, they 

submit an initial submittal in which they document three relative 

and straightforward things. 

Senator INHOFE. I think that is a good thing to have in the 

record. 

50 

Now, under your watch, EPA has released several air regulations 

to address emissions for power plants. I want to read some of 

these. Four hundred 11 coal-fired power plants totaling 101,000 

megawatts generation capacity will close by the end of 2016 as a 

result of the rules. Certainly Senator Capito is fully aware of that. 

The Mercury Rule will cause 55,000 megawatts of power to go offline and another 46,000 megawatts will close down due to the 

Clean Power Plan. With additional pressure from the new ozone requirements, a third set of power plants will close. 

Has the EPA conducted a cumulative impact analysis to determine the effect of all these rules cumulatively? We talk about that 

a lot. Have they? 

Ms. MCCABE. We do. 

Senator INHOFE. And who did that? 

Ms. MCCABE. We do talk about it a lot. Respectfully, Senator, I 

don’t accept your recitation of all of these, the choices that are 

made with respect to power plants all being the result of EPA’s 

rules. There are many things that go into a power plant’s decision 

about whether it is economical to continue running that facility. 

Undoubtedly, environmental rules are part of that, but there are 

many, many other factors. 

Senator INHOFE. So you have not put together a cumulative 

study about the cumulative effect of these rules? An of these rules 

that the EPA is either projecting or has come out with or has already completed? 

Ms. MCCABE. As part of our rulemaking, we do not do that. Although we take account of changes in the energy system and the 

energy mix. In each rule that we do, we keep up to date with EIA 

and FERC and other agencies that oversee the power supply. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. I do think that we are 

going to be talking about the cumulative effect up here, even 

though the EPA may not see that as advisable. 

Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I would like to also put 

two polls into the record. The American Lung Association poll, 

taken 2 weeks ago, showing 73 percent support stronger ozone 

standards; the New York Times Stanford poll, 77 percent say the 

Federal Government should be doing a substantial amount to combat climate change. If I may do that, without objection, I hope? 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

51 


99516.037
52 


99516.038
53 


99516.039
54 


99516.040
55 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. I appreciate that, because we now 

have dueling polls in the record, and people can decide which one 

is right. 

Senator INHOFE. The one from the American Lung Association. 

Senator BOXER. The American Lung Association. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. You like that? 

Senator INHOFE. Oh, I like it very much, yes. But also I like the 

fact that the Gallup poll is recognized as the accepted poll, more 

than a particular group that is looking at the one issue. 

Senator BOXER. Public support for the Clean Power Plan, and I 

know my colleague has named several colleagues and said several 

States are unhappy. I have heard and seen tremendous support in 

my State and other places for the Clean Power Plan. So Governors, 

attorneys general, mayors, even utilities, some of them support it. 

So what feedback has EPA gotten from stakeholders regarding that 

final Clean Power Plan? 

Ms. MCCABE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. You are absolutely 

right, that there is certainly a range of views. We have been spending a lot of time talking with people either in formal settings or 

less formal settings, and a lot of time talking with States. I understand that there are a range of views. But for the most part, the 

State officials that we are talking with are starting to dig into 

thinking about how they are going to put their plans together. 

Senator BOXER. And isn’t one of the reasons that you have given 

them tremendous flexibility, isn’t that correct? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, we have. 

Senator BOXER. Which I admire. Because one size does not fit all, 

is that correct? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is correct. 

Senator BOXER. Ms. McCabe, smog pollution has many health 

impacts, particularly for children and the elderly. I read that moving op-ed from one of my constituents, 13 years old. Can you describe the benefits of reducing smog pollution and the costs of not 

protecting people against smog pollution? Can you give me some 

numbers here on asthma and so on? 

Ms. MCCABE. Sure. There are about 23 million people in this 

Country that have asthma, Senator, as I understand it. Six million 

of those are children, one in 12 children across the Country has 

asthma. That is particularly true in certain vulnerable populations. 

Children in Puerto Rico, for example, have quite a high rate of 

asthma. 

Ozone pollution affects the respiratory system. It can exacerbate 

or bring on an asthma attack. It can cause other respiratory symptoms, even in healthy adults, especially when they are outdoors 

and exercising. 

When we bring ozone levels down, we reduce asthma attacks, we 

reduce visits to the emergency room, we reduce missed school days, 

we reduce missed work days, we reduce the costs that are associated with it. 

Senator BOXER. I am really glad you said that. Because I don’t 

think a lot of my friends factor this benefit into their thinking, and 

I am very pleased that you have that documentation. 

56 

Ms. McCabe, over the 40-year history, has been enforcing the 

Clean Air Act. I have the list here of the benefits, and I am just 

going to tell you what they are. If these are misstated, would you 

please let me know? 

Over the last 40 years, since that Clean Air Act, our national 

GDP has risen 207 percent. The total benefits of the Clean Air Act 

amount to more than 40 times the cost, 40 times the cost of regulation. For every dollar we spend, we get more than $40 of benefits 

in return. That is from a 2010 speech that was made about the 

Clean Air Act. Do you agree with those numbers? 

Ms. MCCABE. They sound right, Senator Boxer. I can’t swear to 

the precise numbers. 

Senator BOXER. OK. I am going to send this to you, and if you 

could respond. 

In 2010 alone, this particular source has said reductions in fine 

particle pollution and ozone pollution achieved by the Clean Air 

Amendments of 1990 avoided more than 160,000 premature deaths, 

avoided 130,000 heart attacks, prevented millions of cases of respiratory problems, like acute bronchitis and asthma attacks, 86,000 

hospital admissions, prevented 13 million lost work days, avoided 

3.2 million lost school days due to respiratory illness and other diseases. The source was an EPA study, and this was presented by 

Lisa Jackson. So if I send this to you, could you see whether or not 

there has been any difference in that since that speech? 

Ms. MCCABE. Absolutely. 

Senator BOXER. Are you planning on doing another look back? 

Because that was 2010. I think it is time we take a look ahead. 

When are you going to do that? Do you know? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t have a specific plan for that, Senator. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I hope you will consider it. I will close with 

this. 

Ms. MCCABE. 

[Remarks off microphone.] 

Senator BOXER. The benefits are not thought about, really. And 

if you have a kid who is able to play sports and you don’t have to 

drag him or her to the emergency room, et cetera, that is a moral 

benefit and a financial benefit. My view is that is EPA’s job and 

it is our job here. That is why I keep stressing the health benefits, 

because I think they are overlooked. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. Senator Wicker? 

Senator WICKER. Thank you very much. 

I have a unanimous consent request, too, before we begin the 

questioning. The Center for Regulatory Solutions has issued a 

paper by Karen Kerrigan, Five Things You Should Know Before 

the Senate EPA Hearing on EPA’s Ozone Proposal. 

One of the things that the author mentions is about this Lung 

Association poll. They went back and recast the poll and asked an 

additional question about costs. Once costs were factored in, support for the EPA ozone proposal plunged. When asked if they would 

be willing to spend $100 per year, roughly half of the support vanished. And when informed that the study actually estimated that 

stricter ozone standards would cost $830 per year, a majority of 

voters opposed the EPA’s plan outright. 

57 

Also, I would point out that a number of experts have weighed 

in that the additional proposed drop in ozone standards does not 

have any effect on asthma, as has been alleged here. Roger McClellan, past chair of the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, 

wrote this: ‘‘The EPA and the environmental lobby claim a stricter 

ozone standard is needed to reduce asthma cases. But these claims 

rely on a much higher ozone level from decades ago which we don’t 

experience any more. Recent history does not support this claim 

connection. In fact, for well over a decade, asthma cases have increased by millions, while ozone concentrations have declined.’’ 

So Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to insert this 

paper into the record also. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

58 


99516.048
59 


99516.049
60 


99516.050
61 


99516.051
62 

Senator WICKER. Ms. McCabe, you indicated an unprecedented 

outreach effort was made to the stakeholders. I can tell you that 

folks at the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

didn’t notice this unprecedented outreach. They say there were a 

couple of internet-based seminars, there were some rarely held discussions concerning State-specific information. And they complain 

that you used regional data to impose requirements on the States, 

and did not equip them with actually the tools to do this. 

So let me ask you, what do you say, can you give me specific examples of how EPA worked with States? Because my State director 

says you didn’t. Also, why did you use the larger geographic regional data rather than State-specific data? Because the requirement is going to be placed on the States, not on some regional government. 

Ms. MCCABE. Senator, thank you for the question. I am very 

sorry to hear the reports from your DEQ, because it is really hard 

for me to imagine how any State can say that we did not make 

every opportunity available to work with them. I personally have 

been involved in dozens and dozens of conversations and meetings 

with State officials. And we have invited, any State that wanted to 

spend time with us has been afforded that time. So it is distressing 

that it would be reported that way. 

In your second point, let me make clear that in the Clean Power 

Plan, we use both regional and State-specific data to develop the 

final goals for the States. We looked broadly at the regions across 

the Country, especially the three interconnects, because that is the 

way the power system operates, that is the grid on which the utilities operate. Resources, as we know, our electricity resources are 

not confined within State borders. They flow across and among and 

between States. 

So in looking to see what opportunities were available to utilities 

to manage their assets, and indeed, many utilities operate in many 

States, that is the way it made sense to look at that data, because 

that is the way the system works. 

When we got to developing each State’s specific target under the 

Clean Power Plan, that is when we took each State’s specific mix 

of sources into account and applied our nationally consistent emission rates for coal and gas plants to each State’s particular mix of 

sources to get a tailored target for each State. 

Senator WICKER. Well, let me just say, my 5 minutes is expired. 

This is so complicated that it really doesn’t lend itself to a series 

of 5-minute question and answer periods. I am going to submit several questions for the record to you, outlining the objections of 

these people with a clean air agenda in the State of Mississippi, 

who feel basically you have given them something that cannot 

work for our State. 

Also, I have questions about one specific power association in 

Mississippi that simply would have to double, double its budget to 

comply with the solar powered requirements that are being put on 

them. I will submit questions for the record. I think we have a regulation coming at States and consumers that is going to absolutely 

explode the cost of power and be unachievable for people who are 

trying to work with your agency to do the right thing. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Wicker. Senator Carper. 

63 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent that an 

opening statement be submitted by the record by me. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper was not received at 

time of print.] 

Senator CARPER. Thanks so much. 

I am going to ask a favor, Ms. McCabe. Welcome, you have a 

tough job. We appreciate your willingness to take it on. I am going 

to ask as a favor if you would submit to Senator Wicker just an 

overview of the kind of outreach that the EPA has done to the folks 

in Mississippi. I think that would be interesting and enlightening 

and appropriate. If you would do that, that would be great. 

Ms. MCCABE. I would be happy to do that. 

Senator CARPER. I think we all want a couple of things. We want 

cleaner air. We want to have a stronger economy. And we wanted 

to involve the States and frankly, the business community, utilities 

in this, in an appropriate, thoughtful way. The other thing I would 

add is I think most of us want to do this in a way that where we 

treat our neighbors the way we would want to be treated. That is 

especially important for Delaware and some others who live around 

us on the east coast. 

Let me start with a review of the basics of the ozone rules. I understand that in laymen’s terms, this rule is all about using the 

latest science to determine what levels of ozone in the air makes 

us sick. Is that correct, yes or no? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is correct. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Over the years, as science has advanced, we have learned more and more about the human body, 

leading us to understand that lower levels of ozone in our air make 

us sicker than we once thought. Is that correct, yes or no? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator CARPER. The EPA only lowers the ozone health standard 

if the agency determines that the current standard is not protecting public health based on the best science available, is that 

correct, yes or no? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator CARPER. And once a new standard is in place, the EPA 

allows, as I understand, each State to find the most economical 

way to meet the new standard, is that correct, yes or no? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is correct. 

Senator CARPER. In the past years, EPA has tightened the ozone 

standard from time to time, and our economy has continued to 

grow, is that correct, yes or no? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is correct. 

Senator CARPER. And finally, it is my understanding that if EPA 

picks a standard at the top of the range proposed, that is 70 parts 

per billion, there are only an estimated nine counties in the Country, outside of California, that will be in non-attainment by 2025. 

I am going to say that again. My understanding is if EPA picks a 

standard near the top end of the range, 70 parts per billion, there 

would be only an estimated nine counties in the Country outside 

of California that will be in non-attainment by 2025. Is that correct, yes or no? 

64 

Ms. MCCABE. That is what our modeling shows, Senator, that is 

correct. 

Senator CARPER. All right. I would say to my colleagues, do you 

all know how many counties there are in America? I didn’t know. 

I asked my staff to find it out. There are over 3,000. In fact, there 

are over 3,100 counties in America. And what the science would 

say to us, if a standard is picked, 70 parts per billion, by 2025, 

there are going to be nine counties out of 3,000 across America that 

are going to be in non-attainment. Nine counties out of 3,000. 

Think about that. Doesn’t seem like a whole lot to me. 

We only have three counties in Delaware. And when I was Governor, we were in non-attainment. Not because of our pollution but 

because of pollution by States to the west of us. I could have shut 

down the State of Delaware. I could have shut our economy down 

when I was Governor. We would still be in non-attainment, because 

90 percent of our air pollution came from other places. 

And we had to breathe it. We are at the end of America’s tailpipe, us, Maryland, New York and New Jersey, Pennsylvania. It is 

not fair. Talk about the Golden Rule, treat other people the way 

you wanted to be treated, that is not the way we ought to treat 

anybody, including folks in our part of the Country. 

In my opening remarks, which I have entered for the record, I 

talked about how an estimated 90 percent of our pollution comes 

from out of State. Can you just take a minute or two, Ms. McCabe, 

and talk to us about how ozone pollution can travel across State 

boundaries and impact the air quality of places like my home, the 

first State, of Delaware, and our national parks that may have few 

or any emitters of ozone? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, Senator, that is certainly true. We have seen 

that over the years. Air pollution doesn’t stop at State borders. And 

the northeast corridor, as you have alluded to, is a classic area 

where downwind States receive pollution from upwind States. 

The Clean Air Act has a good neighbor provision in it to make 

sure that upwind States take steps to reduce the pollution that 

they are sending downwind that are causing or contributing to air 

pollution violations and poorer health downwind. 

Senator CARPER. Can you take just a second and talk to us about 

the impact of international ozone pollution and whether it should 

impact the decisionmaking on the ozone health standard, please? 

Ms. MCCABE. The ozone health standard is exactly as you described it, Senator. It is an information and message to the American people what level of ozone is safe for public health in this 

Country. That is a separate issue from the steps that everybody 

needs to take in order to get us there. 

And to the extent that there is internationally transported air 

pollution, the United States is involved in research and activities 

with other countries to try to make sure that those countries cleanup their air as well. But there is much that we contribute to our 

own poor air quality in this Country, and steps that we can take 

in a cost-effective and reasonable way over time to bring those levels down and improve public health. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thanks so much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thanks, Senator Carper. Senator Fischer? 

65 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms. 

McCabe, for being here today. 

Under the final Clean Power Plan rule, Nebraska faces a 40 percent reduction in its carbon emissions rate. That is a significant increase from the proposal that we saw where it was 26 percent reduction. So now Nebraska is categorized as one of the top biggest 

losers under this rule. 

You know we are the only 100 percent public power State in this 

Country. So when I say that Nebraska is one of the ten biggest losers, what I really am saying is that the citizens of Nebraska are 

ranked among the ten biggest losers under this rule. It is not some 

big corporation out there. It is not some big company out there. It 

is the citizens of Nebraska who are going to pay for this. As a result, within hours after the final rule’s release, our AG in the State 

said that the overreach of the Federal Government will have serious consequences by driving up electrical costs for Nebraskans all 

across the State. 

There seems to be an underlying theme of uncertainty and confusion among my State officials and the local stakeholders as well regarding this rule. Senator Wicker alluded to that in Mississippi. 

We face that in Nebraska. Providing consumers with affordable 

and reliable energy requires long-term investment plans. 

But the EPA has indicated it could be 3 months between when 

the rule was released in early August to when it appears in the 

Federal Register. Our director of the energy department in Nebraska feels that this really is unacceptable. If it is the same rule 

that has been released in August, what is taking so long to publish 

it in the Federal Register? I share that frustration. 

Can you shed some light on why it is taking us so long to get 

that published? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, thank you, Senator. Before I do, I will respond 

to the earlier question about Mississippi. But my staff reminded 

me that we held two specific calls with the State of Mississippi—— 

Senator FISCHER. Don’t use my time for Mississippi. 

Ms. MCCABE. OK. My apologies. In terms of getting a rule to the 

Federal Register, there is a standard set of steps that happens. The 

rule was signed on August 3d. We submitted it to the Federal Register on September 4th. That is actually quicker than a number of 

other major rules from EPA. And we put every effort into getting 

that submitted just as quickly as possible. 

Senator FISCHER. And the language will be the same? 

Ms. MCCABE. There is a process of doing corrections like grammar and typos and that sort of thing, but yes. The substance of the 

rule is the same. 

We then work with the Federal Register office as they get the 

materials ready to publish and we have been doing that back and 

forth in a very routine but from our perspective expeditious manner. 

Senator FISCHER. According to Nebraska Public Power District, 

which services 86 of our 93 counties in the State, the EPA failed 

to show an emission limitation which is achievable or adequately 

demonstrated in the State of Nebraska. NPPD also stated that 

achieving a 6 percent efficiency rate for existing coal plants is virtually impossible and it lacks the transportation capacity to run its 

66 

gas-fired generators at 70 percent statewide as mandated by that 

rule. 

Can you describe some of the calculations that were used when 

you set Nebraska’s target reduction, particularly in relation to efficiency and utilization? 

Ms. MCCABE. First I want to make clear that there are absolutely no mandates in the rule. There is no requirement that any 

utility do anything specific, nor any State, other than meet an overall target. 

Ms. FISCHER. Nebraska is now 40 percent reduction. 

Ms. MCCABE. Every State has an emission reduction target, Senator. Every State has a goal that in 2030 is lower than the historical emissions in 2012. Those rates vary depending on the mix of 

sources in those States. The way the final rule works is that every 

coal plant across the Country has the identical emission rate. This 

is the way the New Source Performance Standards are traditionally set. And every gas plant has the same rate. 

But within the flexibility allowed under Section 111(d), and within the flexibility that the interState grid allows, utilities will be 

able to trade and average and use resources that they have access 

to in order to achieve those reductions. 

Senator FISCHER. You say there is no mandate. Doesn’t the 

Clean Power Plan call for increasing Nebraska’s renewable generation from 4 percent to 11 percent by 2030? 

Ms. MCCABE. There are projections that we use in part based on 

information that we get from other agencies that study these 

things that make projections about increases in renewable energy 

across the Country. But there is no specific requirement that any 

specific State or utility use a specific percentage of renewable energy. 

Senator FISCHER. So in our States, specifically in Nebraska, we 

can continue to build our own balanced portfolio with renewables 

at the pace that the people of the State choose? It doesn’t have to 

be increased from 4 percent to 11 percent? 

Ms. MCCABE. We believe that States will be able to design plans, 

working with their utilities, to achieve that 2030 goal and the interim goals in ways that accommodate the kind of planning that 

they want to do. 

Senator FISCHER. But the goal itself of 11 percent is mandated 

by the EPA, is that correct? 

Ms. MCCABE. There is no goal of 11 percent renewables for the 

State of Nebraska. 

Senator FISCHER. I see my time is up. I have some questions on 

ozone which I would like to submit to you for the record. Because 

we did have a hearing in Nebraska on that. 

Again, I have some concerns about very sparsely populated counties in my State that will be affected. When we look at the Ranking 

Member’s State of California, I understand her concerns there because of the non-attainment and the exclusion and waivers that are 

provided to California over, I believe it is a 20-year period. Because 

those standards cannot be met. Yet we have very sparsely populated counties in Nebraska with less than one person per mile 

where we are going to have to be meeting those. So we will submit 

those for the record. 

67 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Fischer. Senator Markey? 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

The Clean Air Act is one of the most effective public health laws 

in American history. The original 1963 version initiated by President Kennedy and signed into law by President Johnson empowered the United States Public Health Service to address air pollution, 6 years before the creation of the EPA. 

The Clean Air Act’s success comes from its requirement to use 

science to protect public health and welfare. The Clean Power Plan 

and the new ozone standard are both cases of the EPA acting to 

protect public health and welfare from proven hazards. 

The scientific community has shown the connection between 

ozone and respiratory health problems for decades, and has called 

for an ozone standard of 60 parts per billion since 2006. Ground 

level ozone and smog threaten the health of kids and other cardiovascular-compromised people. It even has negative impacts on 

healthy adults and agriculture and wildlife. Each time science advisory boards have been asked to review the latest research on ozone, 

they find a growing body of evidence of its health hazards. 

Then we have the Clean Power plan, first big step toward reducing U.S. carbon pollution. The plan will help protect the public 

from the health impacts of climate change and other pollutants like 

sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides that will also be reduced as a 

result. 

Earlier this summer, the U.K.’s top medical journal, the Lancet, 

published a major health study that identified climate change as 

the most significant global health threat of the 21st century and offered up a number of prescriptions of ways to reduce carbon pollution and shift to cleaner sources of energy. The Clean Power Plan 

is one way that we can follow the doctor’s orders. The science is 

clear about the ozone and it is clear about carbon pollution. These 

crucial Clean Air Act measures we are discussing today will promote health and stimulate our economy. 

Before the 2008 ozone standard was finalized, we heard that the 

standard would cripple the economy. But this was just not true in 

Massachusetts. Both air quality and GDP increased, even as the 

ozone standard tightened. I am expecting that this trend will continue in Massachusetts as we work to meet the new ozone standard. 

Do you believe that other States will also experience economic 

growth while solving their pollution problems? 

Ms. MCCABE. Senator, we have seen nothing to suggest that improving air quality doesn’t improve the economy as it improves 

public health. 

Senator MARKEY. I look forward to the long-awaited ozone standard that will improve life and productivity of families impacted by 

respiratory health problems. I am concerned, however, that the 

standard will stop short of providing the required productions. A 70 

parts per billion standard would still lead to hundreds of thousands 

of asthma attacks and thousands of preventable deaths each year. 

Once the ozone rule is finalized, do you believe that an adequate 

margin of safety which is required by the Clean Air Act will be 

achieved? 

68 

Ms. MCCABE. That is our job, Senator, to recommend and for the 

Administrator to make a decision that protects the public health 

with an adequate margin of safety. I don’t believe she would sign 

a rule if she didn’t feel that is what she was signing. 

Senator MARKEY. Many studies have shown that low-income individuals have the least ability to protect themselves from the effects of climate change, including air quality, sea level rise, flooding, water scarcity, food prices and changing economies. The Clean 

Air Plan does include programs for low-income families. Do you 

think the plan will have a net benefit for those poor families? 

Ms. MCCABE. We think both the Clean Power Plan and the ozone 

standard are particularly important to protect vulnerable, low-income and other populations that are particularly affected by these 

issues. 

Senator MARKEY. And does the history of the Clean Air Act environmental regulation show that it does lead to innovation, that 

new emissions technologies emerge that solve the problem at a 

much less expensive cost that had been anticipated, even by the experts? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is absolutely true, Senator. 

Senator MARKEY. So we have seen that in the automotive sector, 

we have seen it in other sectors and I think it is highly likely to 

continue in this sector as well. And to those who wonder whether 

or not a goal which is not established for Nebraska or any other 

State might be met, let’s just look at the facts. Just in America in 

2015 and 2016, we are going to double the total amount of solar. 

It is going from 20,000 to 40,000 total installed solar capacity. And 

why is that? It is because the price is collapsing. 

The same thing is true on the wind side. We are adding 28,000 

new megawatts of wind just in this 2-year period. And between 

wind and solar, by the end of 2016, we are going to have 133,000 

megawatts of wind and solar installed in the United States, largely 

because of the advance in the technology and the collapse in price. 

So I think people should be optimistic that each of the States, 

with the great flexibility you are providing, will be able to meet the 

standard. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Markey. Senator Capito? 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Administrator McCabe, for coming. I understand you were in West 

Virginia yesterday. 

Ms. MCCABE. I was. 

Senator CAPITO. At the Greenbrier. So I know you found it great. 

Ms. MCCABE. It is absolutely beautiful there, Senator. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. We have had a lot of talk about 

costs and benefits. I noticed the gentleman’s comments earlier 

when he talked about the cost. He didn’t talk about the costs to the 

lower and middle income of the price of energy. According to studies under this plan, in our State of West Virginia, the cost of energy will rise somewhere between 17 and 22 percent. Right now, 

we have 430,000 low and middle income people in the State of 

West Virginia whose pay, take-home pay is $1,900 a month, they 

spend 17 percent of their take-home money to pay for their energy. 

69 

When this goes up, say, 20 percent, this is going to have a cost to 

them, a human cost to them. 

What kind of transparency has EPA brought forward to folks 

who live in areas like my areas that will be deeply affect? What 

kind of transparency have you actually stated is going to result in 

the rise in their energy costs on a daily basis? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, Senator, of course there are a lot of numbers 

out there that people are citing. 

Senator CAPITO. I am asking for EPA numbers. 

Ms. MCCABE. I know, but the numbers that you cited are not 

EPA numbers. I don’t know where they come from. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. That is why I am asking you. 

Ms. MCCABE. We did an analysis as we do for every major rule 

where we looked at expected impacts on both the price of energy 

and on bills. Because what matters is how much you write that 

check for every month. And our analysis is all laid out in our regulatory impact analysis. 

Senator CAPITO. What did you find? Just generally. 

Ms. MCCABE. We found that by 2030, the average cost of a person’s electric bill would go down by about 7 percent, and that is as 

a result of increased energy efficiency that we see coming into the 

system. So even though electricity prices might go up a little bit, 

bills will actually go down. That is what our analysis shows. 

Senator CAPITO. This study is from NERA, respected consultant 

and analysis firm. I am sure you are familiar with them. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Senator CAPITO. And I would take exception to if it goes up a lit- tle bit, 20 percent, when you are bringing home $1,900, is a significant amount. 

My next question is, on your first rule, from the time of the first 

rule to the second rule, 22 States saw an increase, some a major 

increase. West Virginia went from 20 percent reduction to 37 percent reduction. Why was that decision made to make it the hardest 

hit of those regions that are the energy exporters, such as West 

Virginia, Wyoming, Kentucky, North Dakota? 

Ms. MCCABE. So this is all laid out in our discussion, Senator. 

It is all based on the data that we had and that we received during 

the public comment period and on the design of the rule, which follows the way the Clean Air Act tell us to do these rules, which is 

to set expectations on industry that are uniform across the Country. 

So all the information that we had showed the different things 

that utilities were doing to reduce carbon. And so we set an expected emission rate for coal plants across the Country. 

Senator CAPITO. Yes, which no coal plant in my State meets that 

target. Not one. 

Ms. MCCABE. But they are not required to meet them tomorrow. 

They are required to meet them overall, over the whole system, 

and by 2030. Using the types of approaches that many States are 

already using and utilities are already using, that are bringing 

those CO2 emissions down, we feel confident that every State will 

be able to achieve that. 

Senator CAPITO. Let me ask you this. If the State implementation plan is not put forward you said they get a 2-year extension. 

70 

What happens in 2016 if they put forward their idea of a State implementation plan? Is there an implementation of a Federal implementation plan after 2018 if the State doesn’t submit? 

Ms. MCCABE. What the Clean Air Act says is that if a State 

doesn’t put forward a plan under 111(d), then EPA should step in 

and do a Federal plan. 

Senator CAPITO. So that would be in 2018 or 2016? 

Ms. MCCABE. It would be when a State fails to meet a requirement under the rule. 

Senator CAPITO. So if you don’t submit a State plan in 2016, are 

you subjected to the Federal implementation plan? 

Ms. MCCABE. If a State submits this initial plan that the rule 

asks for and a request for a 2-year extension, that is complying 

with what the rule requires. 

Senator CAPITO. I know you are well aware that there are many 

States that are considering, many Governors are considering not 

even submitting a State implementation plan at all. So are you 

saying then if they don’t submit any kind of implementation plan 

in 2016, they would be subject to the Federal implementation plan? 

Ms. MCCABE. Following the requirements of the Clean Air Act? 

Senator CAPITO. Yes. 

Ms. MCCABE. If a State doesn’t submit a plan as required, that 

would trigger the obligation for EPA to do a Federal plan. 

Senator CAPITO. One last question on the ozone rule. We talk 

about non-attainment. I am happy to report we are in attainment 

in the State of West Virginia. But we are very rural, as the 

gentlelady from Nebraska was talking about. So if we reach a point 

where we are not in attainment, we have no offsets to really offer 

to get ourselves into attainment, where maybe a more congested 

area or a larger metropolitan area, larger manufacturing area 

would have some offsets to offer. 

Is this something you are considering, how to help rural areas 

meet these standards when they are fully implemented? 

Ms. MCCABE. Congress actually thought about this, and they included something called the Rural Transport Area in the Clean Air 

Act for areas that truly are rural and where the emissions creating 

the high ozone are not from within their county, they can be designated a Rural Transport Area. That greatly reduces the expectations on that area. 

Senator CAPITO. So of the nine counties which are not in compliance, or let’s say, of the other counties that are in compliance, not 

the nine that Senator Carper was talking about, are they considered, some of them, Rural Transport Areas? 

Ms. MCCABE. We don’t actually, I believe, have any areas that 

are so designated now. I actually don’t think that we would be 

looking at extremely rural areas in West Virginia under a future 

ozone standard that is in this range. But the nine counties that are 

mentioned, we don’t currently have any Rural Transport Areas, but 

that tool would be available in the event that a county that meets 

those criteria had ozone levels higher than whatever the standard 

is. 

Senator CAPITO. OK, so just so I understand, is the reason that 

designation is not used is because all of rural America is meeting 

the ozone standard that is set right now? Is that the reason? 

71 

Ms. MCCABE. There are no counties, most rural counties meet 

the ozone standard. Let me put it that way. Most rural counties 

meet the ozone standard. And for any that could be considered 

rural, depending on how you identify that, if they are part of an 

ozone non-attainment area, it is because it makes sense for them 

to be part of that, that there are emissions that are contributing 

to local air quality. 

Senator CAPITO. OK, I think I get that. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Capito. Senator Merkley? 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Thank you for your testimony. The report yesterday, the news report was that based on the commitments that nations are making 

the Paris conference in December? The temperature of the planet 

would still increase by more than 6 degrees Fahrenheit, so essentially above the target that has been around, the 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit or 2 degrees Celsius target. Is it the opinion of the U.S. Government that 6 degrees would be catastrophic? 

Ms. MCCABE. I think that there is a lot of concern about temperature rise at those levels, Senator. 

Senator MERKLEY. And much of the conversation has been about 

avoiding that, one has to control both carbon dioxide as an air pollutant and methane as an air pollutant. I applaud the Administration for trying to control fugitive methane as a byproduct of drilling 

for natural gas. 

But essentially, the conversation has been, if you are going to reduce enough, you have to leave a lot of the identified fossil fuel reserves that have been identified in the world in the ground, leave 

it in the ground, roughly an estimate of 80 percent of those. Does 

the Administration share that perspective? 

Ms. MCCABE. I am not familiar enough with that kind of calculation, Senator, to confirm that or not. 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, I say that as a framework because essentially the Clean Power Plan is a subset of our Nation’s efforts 

to control carbon dioxide, because of this broader framework of 

planetary stewardship, which is so important. 

Yesterday Shell announced that they were discontinuing their 

plans for drilling in the Arctic. I would like to thank all those who 

advocated that drilling the Arctic makes little sense. Is there a possibility that the United States will use its chairmanship of the Arctic Council now to encourage the Arctic Council nations to leave the 

Arctic off limits? 

Ms. MCCABE. Senator, I really can’t speak to the position on the 

Arctic Council. But I would be happy to take that question back 

and get you a response on it. 

Senator MERKLEY. I would like to encourage the Administration 

to do that. There is a window of opportunity here that is important 

as part of this worldwide perspective, leave it in the ground. You 

can do all you want in terms of the Clean Power Plan. But if one 

is opening up additional fossil fuel reserves to being exploited and 

burned, it is counterproductive and the pieces don’t fit together. 

One of the conversations has been that the United States 

shouldn’t necessarily act if it is acting alone. Are we seeing more 

engagement by other nations around the world coming to the table? 

72 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, we are. In fact, when the Clean Power Plan 

was proposed, it was the talk of the circles internationally. There 

was a lot of attention on the U.S. stepping forward and putting 

some concrete action on the table that we think has been very, very 

helpful in those international discussions. 

Senator MERKLEY. I was noting that a lot of times people say, 

well, China is not doing anything. But China has committed to deploying as much renewable energy in the next 15 years equal to all 

the electricity generated by the United States currently, which is 

sizable. I was struck by the numbers. Their goal is to go from 33 

gigawatts of solar this year to 70 gigawatts 2 years from now, and 

to go from about a little over 100 gigawatts of wind energy now to 

150 gigawatts 2 years from now. Does this exceed the rate of expansion of the solar and wind that is occurring in the United 

States? 

Ms. MCCABE. Gosh, I am not sure. But it is significant growth, 

and very welcome to see the Chinese commit to this. 

Senator MERKLEY. They have also announced that they are 

launching a cap and trade system nationally in 2017. Specifically, 

they had proceeded to do seven pilot projects in cap and trade, subnational regional projects. And they are taking experience from 

that, the last of those was launched in 2014. So they have seven 

projects on which to draw information to launch this national cap 

and trade system. 

So they are planning to use markets the same way we used markets to control sulfur dioxide successfully. Are there any insights 

in this for the United States? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is a very welcome announcement from them. 

They have been looking at this and come forward with this plan 

and we are very encouraged by it. 

Senator MERKLEY. It has been commented now that every major 

carbon producer has put forward a plan except for India. India announced that it is going to submit a plan on October 1st emphasizing renewables. Do you have any advance information you would 

like to share with us about what India is going to announce? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t, actually. 

Senator MERKLEY. OK. Well, we will look forward to that. I think 

it is impressive how many nations have now under this voluntary 

framework, we had this shift from trying to go from an international treaty in which there were mandatory reductions to asking each nation to put their best foot forward. It seems like nation 

after nation is saying that yes, as part of the global community, we 

have to take on a significant role in global stewardship. 

Ms. MCCABE. It is very encouraging, and I think you are right, 

that there is that sense that people are taking responsibility for 

this and realizing that we have to take responsibility. 

Senator MERKLEY. It is in that context that the U.S. should not 

only do its part but be a leader in the stewardship of the planet 

and basically saving us from ourselves. Thank you so much for 

your role in that. 

Ms. MCCABE. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator INHOFE. I am going to make an observation, of course, 

I would welcome Senator Boxer to make one too, in fairness. Right 

now there is a hearing going on that we are missing in the Armed 

73 

Services Committee. The whole hearing is about how China, what 

they are doing to us in cybersecurity, how they haven’t kept their 

word on any of this stuff, and now we are lauding the virtues of 

China, who is making all these commitments on what they are 

going to do. It is kind of interesting. What do you think, Senator 

Boxer? 

Senator BOXER. Well, I don’t trust China. On the other hand, 

that is not my statement. On the other hand, the people on your 

side of the aisle have said, do nothing until China pledges to do 

something. And China pledges to do something and you are the 

same old Johnny One Note here. 

So the bottom line is, I don’t trust China and I don’t trust them 

with the safety of the world and the planet. Therefore it is imperative that regardless of what China says or does that America, as 

the Pope said, not walk away from our responsibility. I am frankly 

shocked that the other side of the aisle thinks that we should give 

up our leadership until China and India step up. That has been 

your call. 

So now they say they are going to step up and now you say, well, 

we can believe them. Whether they step up or not, it’s God’s planet, 

we have to protect it. I am tired of ducking behind the skirts of 

China. Let’s step out and show what America is made of, which is 

true grit and the can-do attitude. 

I just want to close with saying this. My State, which has taken 

the lead, is going gangbusters here. We are doing absolutely great. 

And I am very excited about it. I think if you cling to the dirty old 

energies of the past, you are domed in this world. Because the people are not going to support dirty energy when they see what it is 

doing to the planet, to their lungs, to their families, to the economy. 

I wish that we could get out from under China’s skirts. I am glad 

they said what they did. I don’t trust them. I would rather they 

said they were going to do something. They said they were going 

to build a high-speed rail and they did it. So maybe they will do 

it. 

But whether they do it or not, America should lead. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, we should all trust China. 

Senator BOXER. Don’t change my words. I said don’t trust them. 

Regardless of whether they are going to do this, we should take the 

lead. It is our moral responsibility. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Merkley? 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The point has 

often been made here in this room that the U.S. acting alone will 

not have an impact or save us from global warming gases and global warming that results from that. This isn’t about trusting any 

one particular nation, but it is about observing that nations are 

making, other nations are making substantial commitments. It 

isn’t just into the future, we can see what has happened the last 

few years. China has had a dramatic increase in its renewable energy in the past few years. So it is on this trajectory that it has 

currently laid out. 

They also have enormous internal motivation to continue, because of the tremendous air pollution in that Country. They are 

worried about the citizens rebelling against the government beVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:45 Jul 28, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\99516.TXT VERN
74 

cause of that air pollution. It is a national security issue for them 

and an internal security issue as well. 

So not only is it becoming very economical in wind and solar as 

compared to fossil, but there is also a huge stability issue that is 

driving the government’s motivation. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Merkley. I will know better 

next time. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Sullivan? 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just feel a little 

bit compelled, I wasn’t going to mention anything, but since Senator Merkley brought it up, there are a lot of Senators who don’t 

think that was a good day yesterday in Alaska with what Shell decided to do. I think our regulatory system is largely to blame. 

Seven years, $7 billion to try to drill one well in America. The EPA 

certainly shares some of the blame. We are going to undermine our 

energy security, certainly undermine jobs that people need in this 

Country. 

But one issue that doesn’t come up, we are going to undermine 

the environmental protection in the Arctic. What are we doing? We 

are driving investment to Russia, to China, to countries that don’t 

have high standards like we do. SO I think when we are celebrating this, we need to actually have a better understanding of 

the environment. I certainly will oppose any maneuver by the Arctic Council to try to limit responsible resource development in the 

Arctic. 

Administrator McCabe, I want to talk, Senator Carper mentioned 

the importance of clean air, a strong economy, I agree with that. 

But I also think we should all be very concerned about making 

sure your agency follows the directions of Congress, follows the rule 

of law. Do you think that any statutory, or any action that you take 

from a regulatory standpoint has to be based in statute? 

Ms. MCCABE. Our regulatory actions are based in our statutory 

authorities, Senator. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Good. I am glad you think that. 

In terms of the Clean Air Act, you have actually lost a couple of 

pretty important Supreme Court cases recently, the Utility Air 

Regulator case, the Michigan v. EPA case. In the Utility Air Regulator case, the Supreme Court stated, ‘‘When an agency claims to 

discover a long-extant statute and unheralded power to regulate a 

significant portion of the American economy, we typically greet 

that announcement with a measure of skepticism.’’ They went on 

to say ‘‘The EPA’s interpretation is unreasonable because it would 

bring about an enormous transformative expansion of the EPA’s 

regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.’’ 

Do you think you have clear congressional authorization to undertake this rule? 

Ms. MCCABE. We do, and our authority has been supported by 

the Supreme Court finding that carbon pollution endangers public 

health. 

Senator SULLIVAN. So when you were getting ready to issue the 

WOTUS rule, I asked the Administrator if we could get the legal 

opinion that EPA undertook to show that you have that authority. 

She never granted it, never gave it to me. I think that is a clear 

75 

aspect of our oversight, she refused to do it. Do you have a legal 

opinion? I am not talking about your rule, but a detailed legal opinion that shows that you have the legal authority to issue the Clean 

Power rule? 

Ms. MCCABE. We do, Senator. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Can we get that? 

Ms. MCCABE. We have a legal memorandum. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Can we get that? 

Ms. MCCABE. Absolutely. It is available right now, today, it has 

been available since August 3d in the docket. We will be happy to 

provide it to you. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Great. In the Michigan v. EPA case, the Supreme Court ruled against EPA’s Mercury Rules 3 years after their 

issuance. As such, many power plants had already shuttered or retrofitted because of the rule’s requirement. 

Earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial suggesting that this might be a tactic of the EPA. Interestingly, Administrator McCarthy kind of insinuated that as well. She was on 

a TV show and she stated on the eve of this ruling, ‘‘We think we 

are going to win because we did a great job.’’ This is EPA v. Michigan, which you actually lost. ‘‘But even if we don’t win, it was 3 

years ago we issued the rule. Most of them are already in compliance, investments have already been made.’’ 

Do you think that is an arrogant way to approach the rule of law 

in our oversight, saying, hey, even if we lose, we are going to win 

because we forced this on Americans anyway? 

Ms. MCCABE. Senator, this agency acts within its understanding 

of the law. 

Senator SULLIVAN. What do you think of her statement? What do 

you think of that statement? Do you think that is an arrogant approach to our oversight or the American people? We lost, but you 

know what? The American people and businesses are going to have 

to abide by it anyway? 

Ms. MCCABE. If I can clarify, Senator, the decision from the Supreme Court spoke to one very narrow aspect of the Mercury and 

Air Toxics Rule. 

Senator SULLIVAN. No, I am talking about her statement. 

Ms. MCCABE. I understand that, and I am not going to comment 

about the Administrator. I didn’t hear her say it, I don’t know what 

she was intending to say. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I think that is an incredibly 

arrogant way to look at the rule of law, to look at our oversight of 

this committee. I think it is something we need to look at, because 

it is a flagrant disregard for the rule of law. 

Let me ask one final question. You talk about outreach. Thirtyone States, including Alaska, are suing EPA on the WOTUS rule. 

You are losing right now in Federal court. There has been an injunction saying it is like that you are going to lose. Thirty-two 

States have opposed the Clean Power Plan. 

Does this disturb you? You talk about all the outreach that you 

do, and yet the majority of the States in the United States consistently oppose what the EPA tries to do from a regulatory standpoint. Does it disturb you that 31 States are suing on WOTUS, 32 

are opposing the Clean Power plan, and 16 have already requested 

76 

a regulatory stay but they can’t do it because you haven’t issued 

the rule? Does that disturb you or the Administrator? 

Ms. MCCABE. Senator, I can’t speak to the WOTUS rule, because 

that is not within my area. 

Senator SULLIVAN. But you are a senior EPA administrator. 

Ms. MCCABE. I am. And our desire always is to work with States. 

There will always be disagreements among States. Even within the 

States that have taken action to litigate against the rule or have 

indicated that they intend to, we are having very constructive discussions with those States. 

I think it is oversimplifying to say that X number of States oppose the Clean Power Plan. 

Senator SULLIVAN. When the States sue you, that is usually a 

pretty good indication they don’t like the rule. 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t think 32 States have sued us. 

Senator SULLIVAN. They can’t sue you yet on this one, because 

you haven’t issued the rule. 

Ms. MCCABE. And attorneys general are taking certain positions, 

Governors are taking certain positions. But the vast majority of the 

people that I talk to understand, they appreciate the adjustments 

that we made in the final rule that were directly responsive to the 

concerns that they raised to us, like providing more time for States 

to get their plans, and providing more time for utilities to accomplish these goals. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do think it is a 

big issue, whether it is the arrogance that the Administrator shows 

by saying that, hey, even if we lose, we win, because the American 

people are stuck with it anyway. I think it is a really big issue that 

we need to look at to not allow for agencies, even when they lose 

in court, in the Supreme Court, to still force a rule down the American people’s through and have the Administrator essentially say 

that is part of her strategy, in public. I think it is outrageous. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

During this hearing, my colleagues have mentioned this report 

prepared for the National Association of Manufacturers that 

claimed that a standard of 65 parts per billion could cost as much 

as $140 billion per year. EPA had estimated that it would cost a 

fraction of what NAM estimates, less than 12 percent. 

The economic consulting firm SYNAPSE recently analyzed the 

NAM report and found that, ‘‘grossly overstates compliance costs, 

due to major flaws, math errors and unfounded assumptions. 

Among other things, NAM significantly inflated the emissions reductions needed to meet the 65 parts per billion standard through 

a series of unfounded and skewed assumptions. These assumptions 

and other flaws led NAM to overState compliance costs by more 

than 700 percent.’’ 

That is the document that my colleagues are relying on in this 

hearing. I ask unanimous consent that the debunking industry 

claims report be entered into the record. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

77 


99516.044
78 


99516.045
79 


99516.046
80 


99516.047
81 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Industry has a long history of muddling 

the science and manufacturing false data and exaggerating regulatory costs whenever the development of a new public health 

standard emerges. It is a standard industry game plan. We have 

seen this with climate change denial, we have seen it with efforts 

to address acid rain. We have seen it with efforts to cut toxic pollutants, such as mercury, and we have seen it with efforts to reduce smog. I am sorry that the National Association of Manufactures has associated itself with this unfortunate history and this 

particular report. 

Ms. McCabe, you have decades of experience working on Clean 

Air Act regulations. What is the track record of industry’s past 

claims about the cost of health standards adopted under the Clean 

Air Act? 

Ms. MCCABE. I would say, Senator, that we have often heard on 

the eve of a regulatory change that there would be significant economic impacts, and over time of course, we have seen that has not 

been true. Air quality has improved, public health has improved 

and the economy has also improved. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Industry frequently talks about the costs 

of a rule. And when they measure the rule, they talk exclusively 

about the cost to themselves, the cost to polluters of meeting the 

public health standards, while they ignore the costs of not meeting 

the health standards that everybody else has to pay for. They ignore the public benefit and only the cost. 

Now, EPA estimates the economic benefits from reducing premature deaths, asthma attacks, heart attacks and missed school 

days as high as $42.1 billion a year in 2025, significantly outweighing the costs. Does this NAM report quantify any, any of the 

societal benefits from updating the standard? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t believe it does. I think it focuses entirely 

on costs. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Do you agree that we should actually look 

at both sides of the ledger, the costs and the benefits together, in 

evaluating the merits of a rule? 

Ms. MCCABE. Absolutely, we should. 

In fact, if you were an accountant and if you looked at only one 

side of the ledger and made a report on it, you would probably end 

up going to jail, wouldn’t you? 

Ms. MCCABE. Me personally? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. No, the accountant who reported only one 

side of the ledger. 

Ms. MCCABE. That would probably not be a good way to do accounting. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And yet is the way that industry constantly behaves in this hearing room. 

We are a downwind State, Ms. McCabe. It is our oceans that are 

acidifying because of carbon dioxide. It is our coasts that are 

threatened by worsened storms. It is our fisheries that are moving 

away in order to seek the shelter of cooler waters to the north. It 

is our air that is affected by the ozone. 

Rhode Island from time to time has bad air days on a perfectly 

nice summer day, where elderly people and infants and people with 

breathing difficulties are advised to stay indoors. Don’t go outside 

82 

and play football, don’t go to the beach, stay indoors, so that people 

in other States, upwind of us, can continue to pollute. 

There is zero concern from the other side of the aisle about what 

any of that is costing. It is really astounding to me. Stage right of 

this hearing room, every time, every regulation, every member, always with industry, always against the environment. And I wish 

it would come to an end. We are really in a better place if we can 

work together to address real problems rather than pretend they 

don’t exist. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Senator 

Barrasso? 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it does seem, 

looking at a map of the places in non-attainment, that it is California where a lot of that area is in non-attainment. So if the Senator from Rhode Island states that things are moving from west to 

east, we can see the source of significant amounts of the problems. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. That is actually not correct. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, there are significant amounts of California that are not in attainment, if you look at a map that I looked 

at a few minutes ago. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But if you look at what is coming over 

Rhode Island—— 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Whitehouse, we are not going to interrupt each other. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am sorry, but when he mentioned me 

specifically I thought it gave me a right to respond. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. McCabe, I want to followup with some lines of questioning 

that I had with you on February 11th at the hearing on the President’s Clean Power Plan before this committee. I had asked you 

about the EPA’s claiming of co-benefits of reduction, sort of the 

double-counting that I believe is going on at the EPA. I asked if 

the EPA was double-counting health benefits, because it sure 

seems that way to me, in terms of reductions in particulate matter, 

since other EPA air rules claim the same reductions in particulate 

matter, claim the same health benefits. 

My point was, you can only reduce the dust once and accrue the 

health benefits of that reduction once, not over and over again to 

justify different rules. You stated that you were not double-counting, and you say we are very careful in all our regulations to make 

sure that we don’t do this. 

Yet when you take a look at the EPA’s own documents, you State 

that you are counting co-benefits of reducing the same PM 2.5 in 

other rules before a 111(d) rule for existing power plants was even 

released. EPA stated in its regulatory impact analysis for the proposed rule for existing power plants that it was possible that the 

benefits estimated in this RIA, the regulatory impact analysis, may 

account for the same air quality improvements as estimated in the 

illustrative NAAQS regulatory impact analysis. The same air quality improvements. 

That is what the EPA is saying, that the same air quality improvements from previous regulatory impact analyses are being 

counted again. To me that means double-counting. 

83 

So do you still stand by your testimony in front of this committee 

and reject your own agency’s statement about double-counting the 

same co-benefits and reductions of air pollutants like particulate 

matter? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, Senator, I am not sure exactly what you are 

referring to. But I assure you again that when we do each regulatory impact analysis, we acknowledge the effects of previous 

rules. But the benefits that we associate with each regulatory action are the benefits that accrue entirely and exclusively because 

of that regulatory action. They may then be additive, on top of 

prior rules that have come before. 

Senator BARRASSO. That is not what the documentation said that 

was sent to me. This sounds like Volkswagen accounting. I think 

government ought to be held to a much better standard than what 

we are seeing coming from this agency and this Administration. 

According to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, the EPA designated all of one of the counties in Wyoming, Sublet County, portions of Lincoln and Sweetwater Counties, as ozone 

non-attainment areas in 2012. Judge Gary Moore, President of the 

National Association of Regional Councils, testified at a June 3d 

hearing, said ‘‘Sublet County, Wyoming serves as an example of 

how the new standard,’’ he is referring to the new ozone standard, 

‘‘could impact economic development activities.’’ 

He goes through Sublet County, the number of residents that live 

there, all of the public land that is involved, a county highly dependent on oil and gas development, mining activities. ‘‘And if the 

ozone standard is tightened further,’’ he says, ‘‘Sublet County will 

likely be classified as fully in non-attainment, severe restrictions on 

industrial development which will limit jobs in the community.’’ 

So under your new ozone rule, it is likely that more counties in 

Wyoming, more counties around the Country will be in non-attainment, including the counties that have not yet achieved the previous level for ozone. So given the high cost in terms of jobs, regulatory burdens on struggling counties, the significant detrimental 

health impacts to people who lose their jobs, chronically unemployed, under what rationale do you believe you should be moving 

the goalpost on counties that have not yet even met the current 

standard? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, Senator, there is a lot in that question. I will 

try to answer a number of those issues. 

In Sublet County, there are increasing levels of ozone there that 

are occurring that are affecting the public health there. So that 

prompts the EPA to look at that county and work with the State 

there in order to address those issues. I want to make clear that 

under any new ozone standard, decisions about which counties do 

and don’t attain will be made based on air quality, some of which 

hasn’t happened yet, it will be based on future air quality, 2014 

through 2016. 

So looking at historic levels is not a predictor of which counties 

will and won’t be in non-attainment. I can tell you that with Wyoming in particular, we are working very closely with Wyoming on 

the emissions related to the oil and gas activities. Wyoming is a 

leader in terms of its State programs to encourage and require the 

companies there to conduct their activities in a way that is safe 

84 

and that minimizes air emissions in a cost-effective and very positive way. 

Senator BARRASSO. Since you bring up the State, in a February 

11th hearing, this will be my final question, Mr. Chairman, I asked 

of you if the States had the same access to crafting the Clean 

Power Plan rules as the environmental groups do, given the headlines about the NRDC’s involvement in crafting your rules in the 

EPA. You stated ‘‘I speak with States all the time, they have very 

good access.’’ Well, you didn’t really answer the question if the 

States were getting the same or better access than the environmental groups. 

So States are going to disagree with you, you say you talk to 

States all the time and they have access. Our own Department of 

Environmental Quality came and testified about what is happening. He says, ‘‘In the air programs alone, there have been dozens of new rules in the regulation of air quality. Therefore, EPA 

relies heavily on the states to carry out these initiatives. We are 

the boots on the ground that ensures the Nation’s priority is cleaning up the air, protecting human health is achieved. But State resources are being stretched even more, as EPA continues to propose regulations at their current pace, they must consider the ability of States to meet this demand.’’ 

That doesn’t to me sound like States are really getting heard in 

the process as you develop rules and work with the environmental 

extremist groups to develop those rules. 

Ms. MCCABE. Senator, we work with all groups, and they provide 

their input to us. We write the rules that we think are appropriate. 

I assure you that in my job, the States are my co-regulators, are 

our co-regulators. We take their input extremely seriously, as together we implement the National Clean Air Act. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. Senator 

Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is regrettable that this committee is meeting again to debate 

the Obama administration’s efforts to address climate change and 

protect the air we breathe from harmful pollution, including smog. 

Just last week, Pope Francis called on us in Congress to be courageous in protecting our environment and protecting the most vulnerable among us. 

It is often the most vulnerable who suffer the effects of poor air 

quality the most, children, the elderly and people with illnesses 

and disabilities. According to the most recent statistics, 7.9 percent 

of children in New York, approximately 315,000, live with asthma. 

The total cost of asthma hospitalizations in New York is $660 million. That is just New York. 

When talking about the cost of action, we must also talk about 

the cost of inaction, which is often borne by those who can least 

afford to pay. Protecting our environment and growing our economy 

is not a zero sum game. We should stop treating it as such. In 

transitioning to a clean energy economy, we can unlock the potential for innovation and create new, sustainable jobs. 

In New York, we are seeing the benefits already through the participation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI. By 

85 

participating in this market-based program, New York has reduced 

its carbon emissions form power plants by 45 percent since 2005. 

At the same time, New York’s economy is growing. Our employment is the highest it has been at more than 9 million jobs. 

Can you discuss the costs to the economy in terms of paying for 

natural disasters, damage to infrastructure, and increased resiliency measures if we fail to reduce our carbon emissions? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, I can, Senator. In fact, EPA in the spring, late 

spring or summer, put out a report exactly on that issue called the 

SERA report, which looked at a number of different metrics, and 

looked at the cost to our economy and to our society for infrastructure issues in the future and water quality issues in the future, 

and sort of compared how much more it would cost if we didn’t 

take action on climate change. 

So on a number of different metrics, it is very clear and documented. We would be glad to provide you a copy if you haven’t seen 

it. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. And who are the most vulnerable to experiencing the effects of ozone pollution, if we fail to act? 

Ms. MCCABE. In terms of ozone pollution, those who are the most 

vulnerable are children, the elderly and those whose respiratory 

systems are already compromised through some kind of respiratory 

disease. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. 

And thank you very much, Ms. McCabe, for your participation. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ