U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

97–799 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 113–758 

HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF JANET G. 

McCABE TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR 

FOR AIR AND RADIATION OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA), ANN 

E. DUNKIN TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR 

FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION OF THE 

EPA, AND MANUEL H. EHRLICH, JR., TO BE 

A MEMBER OF THE CHEMICAL SAFETY AND 

HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 8, 2014 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

APRIL 8, 2014 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 2 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 4 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 4 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 18 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 131 

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 154 

Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 154 

WITNESSES 

McCabe, Janet G., nominated to be Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ........................................... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 23 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 25 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 50 

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

Senator Boozman ....................................................................................... 67 

Senator Fischer ......................................................................................... 70 

Dunkin, Ann E., nominated to be Assistant Administrator for Environmental 

Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ........................................ 77 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 79 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 83 

Senator Boozman ....................................................................................... 84 

Ehrlich, Manuel H., Jr., nominated to be a Member of the Chemical Safety 

and Hazard Investigation Board ......................................................................... 85 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 87 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 91 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 93 

Senator Fischer ......................................................................................... 95 

(1) 

HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF JANET 

G. McCABE TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIR AND RADIATION OF THE 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA), ANN E. DUNKIN TO BE ASSISTANT 

ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION OF THE EPA, AND MANUEL H. 

EHRLICH, JR., TO BE A MEMBER OF THE 

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD 

TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in room 

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

the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Carper, Whitehouse, Markey, Vitter, 

Inhofe, Barrasso, Sessions, Crapo, and Fischer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. The committee will come to order. 

Today, we will consider three nominations. It is critical that we 

move forward with these nominations so that our Federal agencies 

can fulfill their mission to serve the American people, protect their 

health and safety. That is the role of this committee. 

The first nominee we will hear from today is Janet McCabe, who 

is being considered for Assistant Administrator for the Office for 

Air and Radiation at EPA. Currently, she is Acting Assistant Administrator and she previously served as that office’s Principal 

Deputy to the Assistant Administrator. 

Prior to joining EPA, Ms. McCabe was Executive Director of Improving Kids Environment, Inc., a children’s environmental health 

advocacy organization based in Indianapolis, Indiana. She was an 

Adjunct Faculty member at Indiana University’s School of Medicines, Department of Public Health. 

Ms. McCabe has a wealth of public service experience aimed at 

protecting air quality and the environment. Ms. McCabe’s extensive 

experience will serve her well and build on the important work 
2 

EPA has done to protect public health by keeping our Nation’s air 

clean. 

In 2010 alone, the clean air standards and programs under the 

Clean Air Act prevented 13 million lost work days, prevented more 

than 160,000 deaths from pollution, and prevented 1.7 million asthma attacks. 

Like her predecessors at EPA, Ms. McCabe will rely on science 

and peer reviewed studies to determine how best to protect America’s families under our landmark laws. 

The next nominee we will hear from is Ann E. Dunkin, who hails 

from my home State, California. She has been nominated to be Assistant Administrator for the Environmental Information Office at 

EPA. She brings over two decades of technology management experience in both the private and public sectors, including 20 years at 

Hewlett Packard. 

She is currently the Chief Tech Officer for Palo Alto Unified 

School District, Palo Alto, California, where she is responsible for 

managing all aspects of the district’s technology strategy infrastructure and operations. Her experience spans across disciplines of 

manufacturing, engineering, software quality, research and development and operations and information. 

If confirmed, she will be responsible for managing EPA’s information and technology investments and provide tech services in 

OEI, which collects, manages, provides and safeguards environmental information. 

The committee is also considering the nomination of Manuel Ehrlich to be a member of the Chemical Safety Board. Mr. Ehrlich has 

over 50 years of chemical industry safety and emergency response 

experience, including establishing a training team to assist in the 

management of emergency response incidents. 

As a member of the CSB, Mr. Ehrlich will be charged with investigating industrial chemical accidents, to protect workers, to protect 

the public and the environment. Mr. Ehrlich is very well qualified 

for this position because he has handled more than 7,000 chemical 

safety and emergency responses during his long career. 

The CSB plays a critical role in protecting our communities from 

chemical hazards and is part of a working group that President 

Obama established after the deadly chemical disaster in West, 

Texas. I know Mr. Ehrlich’s broad experience in the public and private sectors will be useful as the CSB and other working groups 

conduct a comprehensive review of Federal chemical safety and security programs and develop recommendations for improving these 

programs. 

This hearing is a very important step in forwarding to the Senate 

these three very, very qualified nominees whom I strongly support. 

I look forward to this hearing today. 

With that, I turn to Senator Vitter, my ranking member. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, for convening today’s hearing, and welcome to our three nominees. 
3 

While I appreciate everyone taking the time to join us today, I 

would like to focus on Ms. McCabe and her Air Office for the next 

few minutes. 

As you know, for some time we have been engaged in a sustained 

effort to bring greater transparency to EPA’s activities. Sometimes 

we have been successful but generally speaking, getting clear, understandable answers and data from the agency remains a challenge. 

Ms. McCabe has been at the EPA for a number of years, first as 

the now Administrator McCarthy’s second in command and currently as the Acting Assistant Administrator of the Air Office. She 

has enjoyed a front row seat during our prolonged efforts with EPA 

and should be well aware of the expectations of the role into which 

she is stepping, including about transparency. 

EPA says it is one of the most transparent administrations in 

history, so I think it is time to stop just talking about that and 

shed some much greater light on agency processes. 

There are many issues I could discuss today but I want to focus 

on three for the time being. First is electricity reliability. While we 

are dependent on a diverse generation portfolio including coal, natural gas and nuclear, EPA’s regulatory onslaught makes the future 

far less certain in terms of that broad base of support. 

American Electric Power’s CEO stated, ‘‘89 percent of our coal capacity slated for retirement in mid-2015’’ was providing the power 

necessary to meet current demand. EIA projects additional coal 

power plant retirement in addition to those already scheduled for 

2016. While existing EPA regulations contribute to these closures, 

the pending actions under the President’s Climate Action Plan dramatically increase those consequences, including negative consequences to reliability and affordability. 

The most damaging rules, greenhouse gas performance standards 

for power plants, 316(b) and pending revision to the ozone standard 

remain to be finished and imposed on the American consumer. 

The second topic I want to visit is the greenhouse gas emission 

performance standards for power plants. The rule for existing 

sources is going to affect over 1,500 fossil fuel plants in the U.S., 

including nearly 560 coal-fired power plants. The President set a 

deadline of June 1 that the agency appears on track to meet, yet 

none of us in this room know the exact contents of the proposal except perhaps the nominee. 

The rule for new sources had to be repurposed after receiving 

over 2 million comments. Clearly something was serious wrong. I 

cannot say that the new version is a rousing success either. Any 

contemplation of building new coal-fired plants will require the use 

of technologies that are not adequately demonstrated at a commercial scale and are based on three incomplete, inoperable projects 

funded by the government. In other words, EPA seems to be mandating a regulation based on fiction. 

Increased regulation by EPA through these performance standards has the potential of resulting in job loss across the country, 

serious electricity reliability issues and certainly increased electric 

bills. 

The third issue I want to touch on is the social cost of carbon. 

We have been over this a number of times, and it continues to con-
4 

cern me that direct answers to the simplest questions and requests 

on this remain unfilled. Why did EPA ignore OMB guidance and 

not run the social cost of carbon estimate at a 7 percent discount 

rate? Why did EPA not do an assessment of the social cost of carbon with respect to the U.S.? To date, the social cost of carbon is 

used in 28 EPA rules. It is a significant estimate that needs to be 

fully understood before being allowed to be used in such a dominant and perhaps haphazard manner. 

These are only a few of the issues I have with the EPA and how 

it runs things now. In each instance, the agency seems to be prepared to select the most difficult, most painful, least understandable and least transparent path. I certainly hope Ms. McCabe will 

work with us to change that positively. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks. 

Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thank you all for being here. Thank you all for 

your willingness to serve in these roles. 

My colleagues have heard me say more than a few times that 

practicing executive branch government by Swiss cheese; there are 

way too many vacancies in the executive branch of our Government 

across departments. It is wasteful and inefficient. It is foolish. 

I don’t care whether the President is George Herbert Walker 

Bush or Bill Clinton or George W. Bush or Barack Obama, this is 

not a smart way to go. 

Madam Chairwoman, I applaud you for bringing these names 

forward and for having this hearing today. I think we have some 

pretty good nominees. I look forward to talking with you and hearing from you and trying to move your nominations forward. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator, for your support. 

Senator Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

I want to than the nominees and congratulate them on their 

nominations. 

As stated before, I am from what I consider the most beautiful 

State in the country. Folks in my State believe we can balance our 

energy needs with our environmental needs. We are wonderful environmental stewards of the land. People in my State watch the 

EPA and watch what the EPA is doing. 

Yesterday Senator Enzi and I had a telephone town hall meeting, 

and call after call was about the EPA and Government regulations. 

People in Wyoming think this agency is behaving in an extreme 

fashion. Many of the policies coming out of the EPA’s Air and Radiation Office are the cause of the beliefs I am hearing from the people around the State of Wyoming. 

We have a nominee before us today, Janet McCabe, who has 

been nominated to head this very important office and is currently 
5 

serving as the office’s acting head. Any nominee tasked with heading up this office should be discussing what the best ways are to 

provide clean air while not harming the economy and economic 

growth. 

The only way to do this is to have a nominee who will work with 

us to chart a bipartisan path, consensus, sound science, transparency and accountability. The Air and Radiation Office at the 

EPA has presided over regulations and proposed rules on greenhouse gases, coal ash, ozone, mercury emissions and industrial boilers. 

Regulations and proposed rules have led to the closing of dozens 

of power plants in the United States and are costing our country 

thousands of jobs. Folks in those communities where those plants 

shut down are now without money, without jobs, without prospects 

for jobs and are at risk for serious health problems as a result of 

chronic long term unemployment. 

Studies show that children of unemployed parents will suffer significant negative health effects. The National Center for Health 

Statistics states that children in poor families are four times as 

likely to be in fair or poor health as children in families who are 

not poor. There are serious health risks and these go unnoticed by 

the Air and Radiation Office at EPA as they churn out more job 

crushing regulations with little environmental benefits. 

Any nominee to hold this position must pledge to look at these 

important health impacts. To date, the nominee has not taken this 

action in her current role as acting head of this office. To make 

matters worse, we find that some of these rules were developed by 

an EPA employee with no environmental experience who 

masqueraded as a CIA agent. No attempts have been made by the 

Air and Radiation Office, of which I am aware, to review and rescind the work of this great imposter. Any nominee to fill this position must pledge to do so. 

In addition, the Air and Radiation Office has not recognized the 

importance of addressing the issue of energy poverty. Coal is a domestic abundant fuel source. It burns 24 hours a day, 7 days a 

week. Coal is lifting millions out of poverty in Asia and the developing world. 

At the same time, this Air and Radiation Office is quarterbacking the war on coal, establishing a carbon capture and sequestration requirement for future coal-fired power plants that may 

never be achievable. Carbon capture and sequestration is a technology that is not currently and may never be commercially and 

economically viable. 

Regulations that do not allow coal to continue as part of America’s energy mix will only lead to one thing, poverty for low income 

families who spend a greater share of their income on energy. Any 

nominee to head the Air and Radiation Office of EPA must stop denying the technological limitations of CCS and the importance of 

reducing energy poverty in America. In her current role, this nominee has not done so. 

Again, I thank you, Madam Chairman, and look forward to the 

testimony. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 
6 

I ask unanimous consent to place in the record the American 

Lung Association Clean Air Survey completed in 2012. 

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

Senator BOXER. Seventy-three percent of voters say we don’t 

have to choose between air quality and a strong economy; 66 percent of voters favor EPA updating air pollution standards by setting stricter standards; and 72 percent of voters support new standards for carbon pollution from power plants. This was across the 

whole country. 

I will try to get your State separated out but it is very clear that 

there wasn’t any State that didn’t agree with these findings. 

Senator BARRASSO. Madam Chair, I also ask then to be put into 

the record my report on studies showing that EPA’s rules cost 

Americans their jobs and their health. 

Senator BOXER. Of course we will be happy to do that. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

Senator BOXER. In addition to that, we will also show what the 

EPA has done since the Clean Air standard just in 1 year alone in 

preventing 160,000 deaths from air pollution. 

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

Senator BOXER. We really have a different way of seeing the 

world but you can make up your opinions but you cannot make up 

the facts. That is the truth. 

Yes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this 

hearing. 

Welcome to all of the nominees. 

As the opening comments show, you have considerable diversity 

of views on this panel. I perhaps represent a State that is the opposite of Wyoming. Wyoming gets from coal, as I understand, about 

$1 billion a year in State revenue, so it is a very important economic driver in that State. 

Rhode Island gets asthma, we get ozone, we get days where the 

morning radio says that infants, elderly and people with breathing 

difficulties need to stay indoors. They become captive. We get 10 

inches of sea level rise that has been measured since the 1930s, 

which is a very big deal because when you are the Ocean State and 

you get hit with big storms like the famous hurricane of 1938 when 

there is 10 more inches of ocean to throw against the shores, there 

is considerably more devastation. 

It is only reasonable to anticipate that a storm that has actually 

occurred can be repeated. We need to be sensitive to that. Our bay 

is 3 to 4 degrees warmer in the winter, so fisheries like the winter 

flounder that were huge cash crops for our fisherman have virtually disappeared. There has been a better than 90 percent crash 

in the winter flounder population. 

It is really important when we look at this issue that we not look 

at a one-sided ledger. Senator Barrasso has his side of the ledger, 

and it is a real side of the ledger. I don’t dispute that there are 

significant benefits to Wyoming from continuing to mine and burn 

and sell coal. Those have to be addressed at any fair resolution. 

We simply cannot ignore the other side of the ledger. You cannot 

have one-sided accounting. If this were accounting, accountants 

would go to jail for only looking at one side of the ledger. On our 

side of the ledger, I have a State that is really very much at risk. 

We need the EPA to be defending us against the coal plants that 

are downwind that have dodged regulation for years that are 

pumping through 500,000 foot tall stacks so that it doesn’t hit their 

immediate area but comes down on us. 

We cannot regulate that through our State Department of Environmental Management. They don’t have the jurisdiction that far. 

We need the EPA. It is the only place we can go when we have kids 

in the emergency room with that thing on their finger measuring 

their blood oxygen levels and the mom who thought she was going 

to have a day at work stuck there with them while they try to get 

their oxygen levels under control and back to breathing right again. 
19 

That is nothing I am ever going to walk away from. I appreciate 

EPA’s support. Good luck navigating the differences between the 

two sides of the ledger on coal. 

I would ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my remarks be admitted. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

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

Senator BOXER. Now that you have seen the unity of this committee on issues of the environment, welcome. 

We are going to start with Ms. McCabe. We are going to ask you 

to stay to 5 minutes, please. After that, I will cut you off because 

I am sure we will have questions. 

Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JANET G. McCABE, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIR AND RADIATION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. MCCABE. Thank you, Chairman Boxer. 

Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter and members of the 

committee, thank you for holding this hearing. I am honored to appear before you and grateful for the time that you and our staff 

have spent with me prior to today. 

I would also like to thank the members of my family who are 

here with me today behind me, my husband, Jon Laramore and my 

children, Peter, Alice and Dan. I think of them every day and I am 

so grateful for their support. 

It is a great honor and very humbling that President Obama has 

nominated me to serve as Assistant Administrator for the Office of 

Air and Radiation. For the past four and a half years, I have had 

the privilege of working in that office to help fulfill EPA’s mission, 

to protect human health and the environment. 

After a career of almost 30 years working at the State level to 

improve air quality and to protect the health of American families 

and communities, this opportunity is an incredible honor and responsibility and one that I take very seriously. 

In the decades since the Clean Air Act was enacted, our air is 

cleaner and safer and our economy has grown and prospered. If 

confirmed, I will consider it my responsibility to work with all parties to continue that progress so that both the environment and the 

economy can provide for current and future generations. 

The Office of Air and Radiation has an important role over the 

coming years to continue to protect Americans from air pollution, 

especially the most vulnerable among us, including our children 

and our seniors. We also must take thoughtful and reasonable 

steps to address the threat of climate change. 

Responding to climate change is an urgent, public health, safety, 

national security, economic and environmental imperative that presents great challenges and great opportunities. 

As a Hoosier, I know this very well. Indiana has been and continues to be a strong manufacturing State. A reliable and affordable energy supply is vitally important to its economy and coal is 

a big part of that. In my 12 years at the Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management, I worked with industries across the 

State, as well as public health and environmental groups to imple-
20 

ment clean air laws in a common sense way that made progress in 

improving air quality and supported jobs and businesses. 

When I worked for Improving Kids Environment, a children’s 

health non-profit in Indianapolis, the significance of addressing air 

pollution and climate change for future generations hit home even 

harder as I worked one on one with families across Indiana wanting a healthy start and a healthy future for their kids. 

I would like to mention three things about how I will carry out 

my responsibilities if confirmed. First, working for State agencies 

in two States has taught me that government, at whatever level, 

works best when all perspectives are at the table, when there is 

openness to good ideas wherever they come from. 

I am proud that people from my home State from across the political spectrum were able to say when I was nominated that I was 

willing to listen. I am already applying this approach while serving 

as Acting Assistant Administrator and I will continue to do so if 

confirmed. 

Second, we must base our decisions on sound science, a transparent record and the law. I am proud of the strong scientific and 

technical expertise in the Office of Air and Radiation and throughout EPA and proud of the agency’s work with the scientific community to make sure that our decisions are appropriately grounded in 

science. If confirmed, I will make sure that we continue to do our 

work that way. 

Third, I will continue to bring to may my job my understanding 

of the State perspective. Implementing the Clean Air Act is a partnership—EPA and State, local and tribal governments and EPA 

must be mindful of those perspectives as it develops national rules 

and programs so that they will be able to be implemented and effective. 

I know from the conversations we have already had that the 

members of this committee and the other nominees beside me 

share a passion for public service. I look forward, if confirmed, to 

working closely with you the faithfully execute the Clean Air Act. 

We all want to serve the American people by providing a safe and 

healthy environment and the opportunity to enjoy it in a strong 

and growing economy. 

I am grateful for you considering my nomination. Thank you very 

much and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCabe follows:] 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Ms. McCabe. 

Ms. Dunkin. 

STATEMENT OF ANN E. DUNKIN, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION, 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. DUNKIN. Good morning, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member 

Vitter and other members of the committee. 

It is my honor to appear before you as President Obama’s nominee to be Assistant Administrator for Environmental Information 

for the EPA. 

Before I begin, I want to thank my partner, Kathleen, for her 

support today and throughout this process. I also want to thank my 

nephew, Dylan, whom I had the honor to raise, for taking time 

away from his first professional job to be here with us today. 

While they are no longer with us, I want to acknowledge my parents for making it possible for me to be here today. My mother 

started programming in the 1950s at the University of Pennsylvania, when there were only two women in her class at Wharton. 

She has been a lifelong role model for me. 

My father, who believed that all of his children, including his 

daughters, could do anything they set out to do, inspired me to pursue my dream, even in the male dominated field of engineering and 

technology. 

My father’s family is full of engineers and I have always loved 

technology, so it was no surprise that I studied engineering in college. I chose industrial engineering because I cared about people 

and systems as well as things. 

After graduating from the Georgia Institute of Technology, I 

joined Hewlett Packard where I worked for nearly 20 years. I started as a manufacturing engineer and quickly moved into manufacturing management where I learned the core values that were embodied in the HP way and that even today, guide my work as a 

leader, values such as treating people with trust and respect, always acting with integrity and accomplishing results through team 

work. 

Over time, I moved from manufacturing management to software 

quality to research and development, to operations and then information technology earning progressively more responsibility along 

the way. 

I worked on many exciting projects and programs running operations for HP’s Internet startup businesses during the dot-com 

boom to developing tools to support printer R&D to managing IT 

for Indigo, an Israeli digital press manufacturer that HP acquired. 

My final position at HP was back in R&D as the program manager 

for a major new printer development program. 

Throughout my time in HP’s technology intensive environment, 

I learned how to manage, lead and optimize technology functions. 

Since people are any organization’s greatest asset, I learned how 

to work with and lead people at the same time. From managing a 

small development team to leading a group of 500 programmers as 

a program manager, I developed my professional expertise in designing and running technical organizations at one of the best technology companies in history. 
78 

After I left HP, I joined the Palo Alto Unified School District as 

the Director of Technology and later, as the Chief Technology Officer, where I am responsible for envisioning, procuring, and supporting technology solutions to enable the work of 12,500 highachieving K–12 students, along with nearly 2,000 faculty and staff. 

While I loved building exciting new technology at HP, I found 

that working for the Palo Alto Unified School District and helping 

every student and staff member achieve their potential have been 

more meaningful to me. Working in the public sector has allowed 

me to contribute more profoundly to my community than working 

in the private sector. 

I come to work every morning knowing that my work and that 

of my team is improving the education of every child in our district. 

I am proud of what we have accomplished in the time have been 

with the district. 

If confirmed, joining the Environmental Protection Agency would 

be a natural next step in my personal, professional development as 

it would be an opportunity to contribute not just to my local community but to impact the entire country and help improve the quality of life for every American. 

While I have not yet worked directly in the environmental field, 

I have had a lifelong concern for environmental issues. Having 

grown up in the 1970s, I was part of a generation that experienced 

the Nation’s increasing awareness of the importance of caring for 

our environment. 

Hewlett Packard was an early leader in environmental stewardship and environmental considerations were always high on our list 

of concerns in both product development and operations. 

In Palo Alto, we emphasize environmentally sound practices such 

as safe technology recycling, reduced energy use and overall environmental sensitivity. 

I was thrilled to have been nominated to this job and look forward to the chance to bring my experience and expertise to bear 

for this country. Should I be confirmed, it would be my honor and 

privilege to serve as the Assistant Administrator for Environmental 

Information for the EPA and I would work every day to be worthy 

of the opportunity. 

Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter and members of the committee, for the opportunity to meet with you today. 

I am happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dunkin follows:] 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Mr. Ehrlich. 

STATEMENT OF MANUEL H. EHRLICH, JR., NOMINATED TO BE 

A MEMBER OF THE CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD 

Mr. EHRLICH. Thank you, Chairman Boxer. 

Good morning, Madam Chairperson, Ranking Member Vitter and 

members of the committee. My name is Manny Ehrlich, and I very 

much appreciate the chance to appear before you today as President Obama’s nominee to be a member of the Chemical Safety and 

Hazard Investigation Board. 

I have dedicated my entire career to protecting health and safety 

through prevention and investigation of chemical incidents, and I 

am humbled and honored to have been nominated to a position 

that will enable me to apply that experience in service to our country. 

I currently reside in northern New Jersey but very much look 

forward to relocating to the Washington area should I receive the 

honor of confirmation. I have spent over 50 years in the chemical 

industry in a variety of positions of increasing responsibility ranging from analytical bench chemist to Vice President of Health Safety and Relations, to general manager of the largest hazardous materials training response academy in the United States. 

I am currently a health safety and environmental consultant 

with a broad range of clients around the country. 

I have spent much of my career with BASF, one of the largest 

chemical companies in the world where I progressed from plant 

management to lead emergency response efforts across North 

America. In that capacity, I responded to, managed and investigated numerous hazardous material incidents in the United 

States, Canada and Mexico. 

During my career, I concentrated heavily on programs both inside and outside of companies that helped improve overall chemical 

worker safety. I have been very active in the American Chemistry 

Council, formerly known as the Chemical Manufacturers Association, participating in or leading many committees whose primary 

objectives were to develop and implement programs designed to 

train and educate members of the chemical community in improving response and protecting safety. 

Having matured, which is a euphemism for aged, to positions beyond the wearing of personal protective equipment, I have spent 

the last 15 to 20 years sharing lessons learned throughout my career with members of the chemical industry and emergency responders. My focus is primarily centered on accident avoidance and 

prevention, incident investigation and root cause determination 

which includes the critical practice of updating tools and techniques required to address each of these areas. 

I am currently the on-call chemist for the Chemical Transportation Emergency Response Center, also known as CHEMTREC in 

the United States, a 24-hour service that assists responders on the 

scene of chemical incidents. I am also a member of the National 

Fire Protection Association’s committee that develops competency 

standards for chemical emergency responders. 
86 

My background in chemistry, engineering and education has allowed me to take very complex subjects and present them to personnel at all levels in an easily understood manner so that maximum learning may be garnered by the audience. 

The CSB is nationally and internationally recognized for its excellence in investigations and preparation of technical information 

relative to those investigations. If confirmed, I will rely upon my 

half-century of experience to further the critical CSB mission in 

order to support the excellent work done by the board and its investigators. I have long shared their goals for making the chemical 

industry a safer place to work and protecting communities. 

Sadly, early in my career in the industry, I experienced the tragic loss of life of workers in facility accidents where I was employed. 

I made a commitment then and there to dedicate my career to preventing such accidents from happening to anyone else. Thus, my 

focus across the years has continued to revolve around the commitment to do all within my power to assure that employees return 

from work at days end in the same condition as they reported to 

work that day. 

Finally, this nomination is a watershed moment in my career. I 

can think of no better way, if confirmed, to continue to have a positive impact on the safety of the chemical industry, its workers and 

neighboring communities, by applying my skills and abilities for 

the betterment of my country. 

I want to thank Mona Holzberg, Joe Gehrum, and Tim and Toni 

Fay for coming to Washington with me today to lend support. My 

daughter, Beth Kanderski, texted me and said she is here in spirit. 

I want to thank you for allowing me to appear before you today 

and look forward to your questions. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehrlich follows:] 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 

Senator BOXER. Thank you all. I want to thank you all for your 

very good statements and very to the point. I am very proud of the 

quality of nominees. 

To all the families here, we really are so glad you are here because we know as people with families ourselves, we couldn’t be 

here without the support of our families. I am really happy you 

brought them. 

Before I get into my questions, I wanted to ask each of you to 

say yes or no to each of these questions. I will ask the question and 

then go this way around. 

Do you, if confirmed, to appear before this committee or designated members of this committee and other appropriate committees of the Congress and provide information subject to appropriate 

and necessary security protections with respect to your responsibilities? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, I do. 

Ms. DUNKIN. Yes, I do. 

Mr. EHRLICH. Yes, I do. 

Senator BOXER. Second, do you agree to ensure that testimony, 

briefings, documents in electronic and other forms of communication of information are provided to this committee, its staff and 

other appropriate committees in a timely manner? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, I do. 

Ms. DUNKIN. Yes, I do. 

Mr. EHRLICH. Yes, I do. 

Senator BOXER. Do you know of any matters which you may or 

may not have disclosed that might place you in any conflict of interest if you are confirmed? 

Ms. MCCABE. No, I don’t. 

Ms. DUNKIN. No. 

Mr. EHRLICH. No, I don’t. 

Senator BOXER. I will start my questions. 

Ms. McCabe, this is a report, I trust you are familiar with it, on 

our Nation’s air from 2010. The information in there is that since 

1990, the Clean Air Act has resulted in the average emission of the 

six common air pollutants, including particulate matter, VOx and 

NOx, dropping 59 percent, while the U.S. economy grew by 65 percent. Americans drove 40 percent more miles, the population grew 

24 percent and our energy use increased 15 percent. 

We have seen a reduction in the pollutants and a big rise in the 

economy. Are you aware of this study? 

Ms. MCCABE. I am, Senator. 

Senator BOXER. I assume from your testimony that you believe 

it is really important that as we move forward with regulations 

that we understand that we don’t want to stifle or hurt people in 

their jobs. I am assuming you are aware of that? 

Ms. MCCABE. Absolutely. 

Senator BOXER. But health comes first. I want to hold up a picture of what it looks like out the window in China. Anyone who 

says that this is what is good for America, they won’t say that but 

they go after the EPA with a vengeance even though 80 percent of 

the people support the EPA doing more. 

I just want you to know, we don’t need to speculate. We can see 

what happens in a country where the environment is thrown under 
98 

the bus. I don’t need your comments. I am laying those out here 

because the split on this committee is enormous. 

Even my dear friend who I am going to give 8 minutes to counter 

everything I have said, Senator Inhofe has stated that if he gets 

the gavel—he doesn’t say if, he says when, which he said for a long 

time—that his first thing is to go after the EPA because he says 

they are going after the petroleum industry. I don’t think that is 

the job of this committee to risk the public health of the people for 

any industry. 

We have to grow our economy and make sure we have prosperous businesses, while we cleanup the air. We know in eastern 

Europe when the walls came down, you couldn’t really see the air. 

The first thing they did was clean it up so they could have economic growth. 

[The referenced report follows:] 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 

Senator BOXER. Ms. McCabe, you said you would base all your 

decisions on science. Could you reiterate that? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, absolutely, Senator Boxer. Our decisions are 

based on sound science, following accepted and peer-reviewed 

methodologies. 

Senator BOXER. The issue has been raised that the rogue, crazy 

person who made believe he was a CIA agent, the catch me if you 

can guy, who is now in jail and has paid back money to the taxpayers, that in fact he was making all the clean air decisions over 

there. 

Isn’t it true that every decision is peer-reviewed and every rule 

is subjected to public comment before it becomes a rule? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is absolutely right. 

Senator BOXER. And that science is involved in all that? 

Ms. MCCABE. Absolutely, it is. 

Senator BOXER. At every step? 

Ms. MCCABE. Every step. 

Senator BOXER. Is it correct that the vast majority of public comments on the rules for new power plants, the vast majority of those 

are comments to limit carbon emissions from power plants? I understand the agency received over 2.5 million public comments, is 

that correct? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is correct. 

Senator BOXER. The vast majority supported EPA actions to limit 

carbon emissions? 

Ms. MCCABE. There were many, many comments in support of 

those limitations. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Ehrlich, can you describe how your background—all of you gave beautiful opening statements—in the 

chemical industry gives you the qualifications to do this job? You 

mentioned you witnessed a horrible accident. Where and when was 

that? 

Mr. EHRLICH. It was in Wyandot, Michigan, in 1978 or 1979. 

Senator BOXER. What happened there? 

Mr. EHRLICH. We had an explosion in a chemical plant that fatally injured my plant superintendent. I think one of the things 

that has been lacking, at least it was in my experience at this point 

in time, was information wasn’t passed along basically from generation to generation, if you will. 

I think that is a very important issue for the Chemical Safety 

Board. They have tremendous resources. They have tremendous information and it is important to get that information out to industry to people who are going to continue to work in the industry and 

make it a safer place to work. 

If nominated, I really hope that is one of my assignments. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, because we have so much information, for 

example, if the plant in Texas had had the right information. 

Last question. Ms. Dunkin, EPA plans to use more electronic filing of monitoring reports and other documents to support EPA in 

the States’ compliance. EPA and the States have had to do more 

with less these days and it is even more important than ever that 

agency staff and the public have access to monitoring reports to 

identify releases of toxic substances that may be harming people 

and the environment. 
131 

Will you work with the Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance to make sure that timely monitoring data is made easily 

accessible to the agencies, States and the public? 

Ms. DUNKIN. If confirmed, it would be my pleasure to work with 

that organization. 

Senator BOXER. We will follow up with you on that. 

Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. I am going to defer to Senator Inhofe so he can 

get back to his other committee. I will follow Senator Inhofe. 

Senator BOXER. OK, that is fine. Senator Inhofe has 8 minutes. 

Senator INHOFE. If I can do an opening statement, can I have 5 

minutes for questions? 

Senator BOXER. You have 8 minutes. That is what your staff 

asked for, and that is what you were given. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. OK. I am going to talk to my staff then. 

Ms. McCabe, it is good to see you again. Thank you for taking 

time to come to my office last week. I enjoyed our visit. We had 

some disagreements. I expressed grave concern over the EPA’s distortion of the cost of regulation. 

The cost of regulation is something that has to be considered. 

During the Obama administration, the agency regularly understated the cost and overstated the benefits of the EPA’s rules so 

that it can get away with more expensive regulations that are actually allowed. 

Now that we are 5 years into the Administration, we are starting 

to see the true impact of the President’s and the EPA’s war on fossil fuel. When you compare what has actually happened to what 

the EPA said would happen, it is quite startling. 

With the utility MACT, for example, the EPA said it would result 

in the retirement of fewer than 10,000 megawatts of electricity generation. This is substantial in its own right if it is 10,000. Reality 

is proving it far worse. 

In direct response to the EPA’s rules, power generation companies have announced plans to shutter 51,000 megawatts of generation. Most of these would be closed down during the next 53 weeks 

as the compliance deadline for the utility MACT will arrive. 

If this were not bad enough, the EPA in the new 2 weeks will 

go final with the 316(b) rule for water intake cooling towers according to the NERF. This rule is expected to take another 40,000 

megawatts of electricity generation. 

If you add that together, 51,000 and 40,000, that is 91,000 

megawatts of electricity. Together the real world impact of these 

regulations is causing massive risk to our Nation’s electricity reliability. In fact, one commissioner at FERC recently said we are 

likely to see rolling electricity blackouts during the summer months 

in just a few years. He went on to say this could very likely and 

will very likely happen the summer after next. 

Everyone seems to agree these risks are being caused by the 

EPA. We all understand that. Rolling blackouts are coming and it 

is because of this Administration and its policies. The Administration is not stopping there. These figures are concerns and concerns 
132 

do not even take into account the new greenhouse gas regulations 

that EPA is rushing to enact. 

The new source performance standards, NSPS, on new and existing power plants are going to make it economically impossible to 

maintain any diversity in our electricity and fuel supplies. This will 

make us even more vulnerable to supply shortages and to price 

shocks. To make matters worse, the Administration is making 

strides to regulate hydraulic fracturing and methane emissions 

from the natural gas production and transmission process which 

could further drive up the price of energy and electricity. This kind 

of regulatory onslaught is no way to run the machine called America. 

During our meeting, Ms. McCabe, you told me that you were designing your regulations to give States flexibility as they begin to 

implement these policies. But the flexibilities allowed only point to 

renewable fuels, which are neither reliable nor affordable. Americans cannot run on renewables alone but that is where the war on 

fossil fuel leads. 

The impacts we are beginning to see are extremely negative. The 

Administration and the EPA don’t seem to care about that. The 

electricity affordability and reliability is no part of the EPA’s 

thought process. 

I made this commitment yesterday. I am going to have a Congressional Review Act and I am going to use that on every one of 

these regulations because the problem you have here is it all 

sounds very good here in this committee but when it gets down to 

it, the people who are elected need to be participating in the process. 

You, Ms. McCabe, are able to do it. You are not elected, you are 

taking over and you are a very quality person. I have enjoyed 

working with you in the past but you are not elected and these 

guys are. 

The CRA is an ability to make sure that people understand the 

penalties we pay for these excessive regulations, the cost in terms 

of money, in terms of employment and they can get involved in the 

process. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Ms. McCabe, it is good to see you again. Thank you for taking time to come into 

my office last week. I enjoyed meeting you. 

During our meeting I expressed grave concern over the EPA’s systematic distortion of the cost of its regulations. During the Obama administration, the agency has 

regularly understated the costs and overstated the benefits of the EPA’s rules so 

that it can get away with more expensive and onerous regulations than are actually 

allowed. 

Now that we are 5 years into the Obama administration, we are starting to see 

the true impact of the President’s and the EPA’s War on Fossil Fuels. And when 

you compare what’s actually happening to what the EPA said would happen, it’s 

quite startling. 

With the Utility MACT rule, for example, the EPA said it would result in the retirement of fewer than 10,000 MW of electricity generation. 

This is substantial in its own right, but reality is proving to be far worse. In direct 

response to EPA rules, power generation companies have announced plans to shutter 51,000 MW of generation. Most of these will be closing down in the next 53 

weeks as the compliance deadline for the Utility MACT rule arrives. 
133 

And if this were not bad enough, the EPA—in the next 2 weeks—will go final 

with its 316(b) rule for water intake cooling towers. According to the NERC, this 

rule is expected to take another 40,000 MW of electricity generation offline. 

Together, the real world impacts of these regulations are causing a massive risk 

to our Nation’s electricity reliability. In fact, one Commissioner of FERC recently 

said that we are likely to see rolling electricity blackouts during the summer months 

in just the next few years. What everyone seems to agree on is that these risks are 

being caused by the EPA. 

So this is what is already happening. Rolling blackouts are coming, and it’s because of the Obama administration. 

But the Administration is not stopping there. These figures and concerns do not 

even take into account the new greenhouse gas regulations the EPA is rushing to 

enact. The New Source Performance Standards on new and existing power plants 

are going to make it economically impossible to maintain any diversity in our electricity fuel supply. This will make us even more vulnerable to supply shortages and 

price shocks. 

To make matters worse, the Administration is making strides to regulate hydraulic fracturing and methane emissions from the natural gas production and transmission processes, which could further drive up the price of energy and electricity. 

This kind of regulatory onslaught is no way to run this machine called America. 

During our meeting, Ms. McCabe, you told me that you were designing your regulations to give States flexibility as they begin to implement these policies. But the 

flexibilities allowed only point to renewable fuels, which are neither reliable nor affordable. They may work in some scenarios and as part of our broader energy portfolio—but America cannot run on renewables alone. But that is the world where the 

War on Fossil Fuels leads. 

The impacts we’re beginning to see are extremely negative, but the Administration and the EPA do not seem to care. Electricity affordability and reliability clearly 

have no part in the EPA’s thought process. 

But this is something I want to change, and it’s why I’m committed to using the 

Congressional Review Act on any significant EPA regulation that comes out until 

the EPA gets honest about the cost accounting it uses in its rules. Because if the 

agency is not going to be honest, then the EPA, the President, and the Members 

who support their policies need to own them, which in the Senate means up or down 

votes on whether to keep or get rid of the EPA’s regulations. 

Senator INHOFE. With that, I would ask you, Ms. McCabe, when 

the EPA put out its utility MACT rule, it estimated it would result 

in retirement of fewer than 10,000 megawatts at power plants. 

That was 2 years ago. Do you stand by that assessment? 

Ms. MCCABE. Senator Inhofe, let me first say how much I enjoyed meeting with you the other day and look forward to working 

with you. 

As I recall from that record, what was estimated as part of that 

record was that less than half of a percent of coal-fired generation 

would retire as a result of the MACT’s rule. 

Senator INHOFE. In spite of what they have said, a recent report 

concluded that 51,000 megawatts of generation as a direct result 

of this regulation and most of this will occur in the next 53 weeks, 

as I said in my opening statement, when you add to that the 316 

rule. 

FERC Commissioner Moeller recently said these reductions to 

our baseload electricity generation could result in rolling blackouts 

in the next few years. If we find ourselves in that situation of 

blackouts and you are in the position you own right now, will you 

admit that this the fault of the EPA and its regulations? 

Ms. MCCABE. I am not familiar with the specific statistics that 

you are citing, Senator. I will tell you that we work very closely 

with the Department of Energy and with FERC. 

Senator INHOFE. That’s fine. This was 1977 or whenever it was 

the Clean Air Act was passed or the amendments, section 321(a) 

says the Administrator shall conduct continuing evaluations of po-
134 

tential loss or shifts of employment which may result from the administration or enforcement of the provisions of this Act and applicable implementation plans. 

You said in my office, when I read this to you—to me this is very 

specific—what is vague about this statement? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t think I suggested anything was vague about 

the statement, Senator. The agency does conduct ongoing reviews 

and inquiries into the expected impacts of the rules through the 

regulatory impact assessments that we do with every single rule. 

Senator INHOFE. If you are doing that, you are doing it internally 

because nobody knows this is going on. Since you made that statement, let me ask this question. 

I have a Senate bill, we now have quite a number of co-sponsors, 

that will put teeth in 321(a) because I don’t believe you have been 

complying with this. The bill that we would have, the amendment 

I would have that we are going to try to get through would say you 

have to do it before you pass or bring forth any more regulations. 

In other words, it puts teeth in it, says you have to do it. Would 

you support that? 

Ms. MCCABE. I am not going to take a position on the bill, Senator, but I will tell you that through the rulemaking process, which 

is a public and open process, we do conduct economic analyses. 

Senator INHOFE. If that is true, then why would you not want to 

support legislation that makes it a requirement because you may 

be gone some day and someone else may be in there and they may 

not be as cooperative as you are? 

Senator BOXER. Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Let me briefly respond to some of the Chair’s comments in her 

time. 

First of all, the report she highlighted, I just want to point out, 

that half the time period covered by that report covers EPA under 

Republican leadership, so that report reflects EPA under half Republican and half Democratic leadership. 

Second, let me ask Chairman Boxer’s staff to hold up the smog 

poster. I just want to state for the record no Republican supports 

anything like that situation and certainly we have supported and 

will support regulations that always avoid that and reduce that 

sort of risk. 

Third, let me point out that we are probably going to talk 99 percent of our time today about carbon and greenhouse gas issues that 

have nothing to do with smog and particulate matter, nothing at 

all. I just wanted to point that out. 

I know a lot of political debate in Washington is pretty 

cartoonish, but I would hope that in the committee of jurisdiction 

for the EPA, we can get beyond that and talk about facts and substance in a meaningful way. That is what I am going to try to do. 

Ms. McCabe, electricity reliability, yesterday, as I am sure you 

know, Administrator McCarthy noted that EPA needs to closely 

align with DOE and FERC when designing the greenhouse gas 

emissions proposal for existing power plants. 

Last week, importantly, at FERC, there was a discussion about 

how the sizable increase in electricity demand in January was 

served mostly from coal-fired generation while natural gas genera-
135 

tion actually declined. Have you reached out to FERC to discuss 

those findings since it is relevant to the greenhouse gas emission 

discussion? 

Ms. MCCABE. We do communicate with FERC and with DOE on 

an ongoing basis about our rules. 

Senator VITTER. Do you personally talk to FERC about this 

issue? 

Ms. MCCABE. I have not personally talked to FERC about the 

issue to which you just referred. 

Senator VITTER. Has your staff directly talked to FERC about 

their presentation last week and the consequences of that? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t know, Senator. 

Senator VITTER. You can supplement the record on that. 

Ms. MCCABE. Sure. 

Senator VITTER. Do you agree that this scenario illustrates the 

need for additional sources of reliable energy in major quantities 

besides natural gas or electricity generation? 

Ms. MCCABE. I agree that we need to pay close attention to making sure that we have reliable energy supply and that a diverse energy supply is important to this country. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you. 

I want to move to the Endangered Species Act. EPA’s proposed 

NSPS rule will likely force a shift away from coal-fired energy toward many things that are much more land intensive sources of 

energy. In addition, things like wind have the potential to kill endangered species like the California condor. 

According to Fish and Wildlife Director Dan Ashe, his agency has 

an obligation to consult when there are potential impacts to endangered or threatened species. Yet, EPA and his agency are not consulting on that NSPS rule. What are the specific legal and policy 

reasons behind EPA not consulting with Dan Ashe and his agency 

about that while consulting, for instance, on 316 rulemaking which 

would seem to have a much less serious potential impact? 

Ms. MCCABE. I am familiar with the Endangered Species Act requirements. I want to emphasize that we are early in the process 

of this particular rulemaking. Before we finalize any rule under 

this program, we would make sure that we satisfied our obligations 

under the Endangered Species Act. 

Senator VITTER. Would that include formal consultation, which 

has not yet been triggered, with Fish and Wildlife? 

Ms. MCCABE. If that is determined to be required, Senator. 

Senator VITTER. Why wouldn’t that be appropriate given what I 

talked about, given the shift toward much more land intensive energy sources and wind which has consequences on birds? 

Ms. MCCABE. I think as we move through the rulemaking process, we need to evaluate exactly what is required under the Endangered Species Act and that is what we intend to do. 

Senator VITTER. Finally, on social cost of carbon, as you know we 

discovered last November that your office provided technical assistance for modeling on this ongoing effort. I have three related questions. 

One, did you participate in the interagency working group? Two, 

did you sign off on any contributions made by your office, including 

the technical assistance and modeling provided? Three, in our con-
136 

tinued effort to bring transparency to a process that seems very 

closed, would you commit to providing the committee with names 

and vitals of those in your office who participated or signed off on 

EPA’s contributions to the development of the social cost of carbon 

estimates and if so, by what date? 

Ms. MCCABE. I did not personally participate in those discussions. That is a process that is not run by the Office of Air and Radiation, nor by the EPA, so I am not in a position to commit to providing information about it but I will be glad to take that question 

back. 

Senator VITTER. If you could answer the other parts of the question for the record, did you sign off on the work that did come out 

of your office related to this? Will you provide names, titles, participation levels of anyone out of Air and Radiation on this project? 

Ms. MCCABE. I am sorry, I thought I caught most of the parts 

of those questions. I did not officially sign off in writing on participation. Certainly EPA scientists and technical experts do participate in various interagency workgroups, so I was aware of that. As 

I said, I would be glad to take back your request that we provide 

more specific information. 

Senator VITTER. The request is specifically about your office. 

Ms. MCCABE. I understand. 

Senator VITTER. It is fully within your bailiwick. We are trying 

to understand this process which has been quite hidden, quite 

frankly. We just want to know who is in it and what their involvement was. 

Ms. MCCABE. I understand your interest, Senator. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Ms. McCabe, nice to see you. 

Thanks for visiting with me here recently. 

I have been following the status of renewable fuel standards and 

our progress toward advanced biofuels. It is a matter of great interest to us in Delaware. 

On November 15, 2013, last year, the EPA issued proposed renewable fuel volume standards for 2014. As you are well aware, 

these standards were supposed to be finalized I believe last year 

in 2013 before the compliance year begins. Recently, we heard 

these standards will not be out until June 2014, so I have a couple 

questions. 

The first one is do you have a better idea today when new standards will be released? If in June, do you expect the industry will 

ask for additional time for compliance similar to what happened 

this year? 

Ms. MCCABE. I do expect those rules will be finalized in June. 

As we said previously, we will certainly consider the needs for compliance time as we finalize those rules. 

Senator CARPER. My question is, is this the new norm? Do you 

expect future rules to be implemented this late in the game? 

Ms. MCCABE. It is very much our desire to be timely with the 

issuance of these rules. In fact, in this particular rulemaking, we 

laid out some alternatives to set up a more routine process. We understand that certainty and predictability is really important to the 

industry and would very much like to be able to get onto a path 
137 

where we are meeting those timely obligations in a routine way. 

Hopefully we will be able to lay out a more routine approach. 

Senator CARPER. To my colleagues, to the extent that we want 

to make sure the industry, those who count on these rules actually 

being developed and promulgated, to the extent we can actually vet 

nominations and where they find favor, approve them, confirm 

them, we actually provide that certainty. I urge my colleagues to 

keep that in mind. 

Staying on the subject, what has EPA done to increase transparency in the REN markets and does the EPA intend to do more? 

Ms. MCCABE. We do provide information on our Web site and our 

data base about the REN market. We understand the interest in 

that. We have a rule working its way through the process that addresses inappropriate development and sale of REN, so we are very 

mindful of the need for greater transparency. 

Senator CARPER. I am going to channel George Voinovich for a 

minute, our former colleague and Governor, and here on this committee for a number of years. George and I worked with a number 

of my colleagues, including Jim Inhofe, Democrats and Republicans 

on diesel emission reduction and legislation, one of our proudest accomplishments over the last dozen or so years. 

I was encouraged by much of what was in the President’s Climate Action Plan. However, I was surprised and in fact, disappointed to see what was not included and that is to support our 

efforts to reduce black carbon here at home. 

Recent studies have shown, as I think you know, black carbon 

was the second most damaging greenhouse agent behind carbon dioxide. The most effective way to reduce black carbon is by cleaning 

up diesel emissions. Do you believe the Diesel Emission Reduction 

Act and other domestic clean diesel programs should be part of our 

strategy to address climate here at home? 

Ms. MCCABE. These are very important programs for public 

health in this country. I agree. 

Senator CARPER. Why didn’t the Administration include it? 

Ms. MCCABE. There were some very, very difficult choices that 

needed to be made in the President’s budget this year, Senator 

Carper, and that unfortunately was one of them. 

Senator CARPER. It was a bad choice. We are going to do everything we can to reverse that. 

I want to ask you a question, Ms. McCabe, about reaching out 

to business. Since you have been at EPA, what have you done to 

make sure that all stakeholders are heard during the regulatory 

process, especially those that will be impacted the most? 

Ms. MCCABE. This is extremely important. As I said in my opening statement, we can’t make good decisions without having everybody at the table. 

With respect to the power plant regulations we were discussing 

a minute ago, we have had over 300 meetings, even before a rule 

is out on the street, a proposal, to make sure that we are hearing 

from everyone. 

I and my staff are very regularly in contact with stakeholders of 

all sorts, including business and industry on any rules with which 

we are proceeding and other programs because we do a lot in the 
138 

Office of Air and Radiation that is not regulatory to make sure that 

we have them at the table and that we are getting their good ideas. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks so much. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. McCabe, I always have concern about loss of electric generation capacity in the country as a result of closures of coal-fired 

power plants. I don’t know if you have done anything to evaluate 

in terms of what gets retrofitted versus what just closes in terms 

of energy generating capacity, will the decisions be made to retrofit, go to the expense of that versus just close a power plant 

based on greenhouse gases, ozone, mercury, whatever. 

Could you give me an estimate of what electric generation capacity you think is going to get closed rather than retrofitted as a result of the EPA’s new and proposed rules under the Administration? 

Ms. MCCABE. We do pay a lot of attention and we have particularly in the mercury and air toxic standards. We consulted with 

those in the energy field to try to get a sense of what the effect 

would be on the industry. There are many, many things that go 

into a decision of a power plant closing. 

Senator BARRASSO. Cumulative impact, though? Do you have an 

idea of what kind of generating capacity is going to be lost cumulatively for the country as a result of the rules and regulations? 

Ms. MCCABE. In each rule that we do, we look at the impacts of 

that rule in the context of the rules that have gone before it. 

Senator BARRASSO. Do you have any idea of the cumulative impact of what is being proposed and what has been proposed on actually closing electric generation for the country? 

Ms. MCCABE. It actually would be very difficult to estimate the 

closures versus retrofits due to environmental regulations alone because there are so many factors that go into those decisions. I will 

tell you that the facilities we see making the decisions to close 

right now tend to be the older, less well controlled and less used 

power plants. 

Senator BARRASSO. There is not an assessment of the overall loss 

of electricity generation potential. 

The President, when he was running in 2008, talked about the 

issue of coal. Under his plan, he said electricity rates wouldn’t necessarily skyrocket. I look at all the States where there are coalfired power plants and the impact on people’s electric bills. I guess 

the question is where is the same affordable and reliable replacement power for all of those folks who I worry about going into energy poverty in short term? If the coal-fired power plants close, 

what happens in this country? 

Ms. MCCABE. Senator, this is a very important issue. As I mentioned in my opening, I come from Indiana where people rely on 

coal—90 percent I think of the State’s power comes from coal. 

Senator BARRASSO. That is what Senator Evan Bayh used to say, 

so it is important in Indiana, yes. 

Ms. MCCABE. I am glad that I agree with Senator Bayh. 

We looked at the expected effects on electricity costs when we did 

the mercury and toxic rules in consultation with DOE and other 
139 

agencies. We estimated that electricity prices might go up by 3 percent which is well within the range of normal fluctuations in electricity prices. This is an issue that we look at. It is in our regulatory impact assessment process so is open to public comment and 

review, as is every rule that we do. 

Senator BARRASSO. The EPA stated in their proposed rule for 

new coal-fired power plants that carbon capture and storage for 

coal is commercially available. I strongly disagree. I believe as industry has stated, technology is not currently and may never be 

commercially available. 

My question is, are you aware of any effort or have you participated in any conversations in your office to consider carbon capture 

and sequestration standards for new and existing natural gas-fired 

power plants? 

Ms. MCCABE. When we put out the proposal under 111(b) for 

new power plants, we looked at the information that was available 

for both coal-fired and gas-fired power plants. We have to go 

through a very well established process to determine the best system of emission reduction. For the coal sector, because of the availability and use, in some cases for decades, of carbon capture and 

sequestration technology, we felt that it had been adequately demonstrated for the coal industry. 

We did not find the same information available for natural gas 

which, as you know, is already much lower emitting. 

Senator BARRASSO. Do you believe the technology is there for 

natural gas for carbon capture and sequestration? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t believe that we have a record to show that 

it is the best system of emission reduction as required under the 

law. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. I am going to call on Senator Whitehouse but before I do, I am going to put a couple of things in the record I think 

Senator Barrasso would find interesting. 

In December 2013, Michigan’s DTE Energy announced it was 

lowering rates for retail customers by 6.5 percent in 2014 because 

of lower fuel supply costs. The average residential customer would 

see a savings of $80 a year and business rates will drop. 

AEP, American Electric Power, on January 14, proposed a rate 

reduction to Ohio customers beginning in the summer of 2015 because of falling prices for electricity in the wholesale market because of decreased demand. 

It goes on and I will put the rest of that in the record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
140 
141 
142 

Senator BOXER. It is also important to note—as you defend coal 

which is your absolute right and I respect you totally for it—that 

the Koch Brothers said so much natural gas has been discovered 

from shale drilling that gas is very, very cheap now, so electricity 

from gas is cheaper than electricity from coal. 

Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, said ‘‘The new climate rule is 

in line with market forces. Anyway, we are not going to build any 

coal plants. In any event, you are going to choose to build gas 

plants every time regardless of what the rule is.’’ There are other 

quotes backing that up. We will put that side by side with Senator 

Barrasso’s comments. 

I will turn to Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Ms. McCabe, I was encouraged to see that the carbon pollution 

standards for existing power plants have been sent to OMB. I believe that happened last week. 

The Presidential memorandum on power sector carbon pollution 

standards instructed EPA to work with the States while formulating those standards. What can you tell us now—I understand it 

is over at OMB and the text of the bill has not been made public, 

the standards have not been made public—what can you tell us 

about how you have reacted to the instruction to work with the 

States while formulating these standards? 

Ms. MCCABE. Since late last summer, I personally, as well as my 

staff and the Administrator, have had dozens and dozens of meetings, phone calls, conference calls and opportunities to discuss 

these rules with the States. It has been an incredibly helpful and 

fascinating process. 

Actually there is a lot of commonality among what we are hearing from the States, even though there certainly are differences in 

State views about these issues. They are things like we need to 

make sure we provide as much flexibility in the rules as we can 

for States to develop their plans. Of course this is built into 111(b); 

it is all about EPA setting the national expectation but then States 

building a plan that can be suited to their particular State situations. 

Having been a State regulator myself, I am very aware of the 

State’s role and responsibility and opportunity in that partnership, 

in that element of the Clean Air Act. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. If a State wished to step in, it could engage under these rules to reduce carbon in ways beyond simply 

what including plants could do in terms of reducing their emissions? 

Ms. MCCABE. Many States are very forward looking right now in 

things they are doing to reduce the carbon intensity in their States. 

They would certainly be able, we hope, to write guidelines that will 

provide them as much flexibility as allowed by the law to pursue 

those sorts of things. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. When you are looking at the economic effects, you are allowed to look at economic effects, are you not? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is right. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. When you look at the economic effects, do 

you look broadly at the economic effects with concern on the one 
143 

hand there may be some increases in power costs to individuals as 

a result of changes to different industries. 

On the other hand, I was just in Iowa and they have, I want to 

say, 28 percent of their power coming from wind. They are manufacturing turbines at a company called TPI in Iowa. I think they 

have manufactured 100,000 blades. They are paying farmers thousands of dollars to locate the wind turbines on their farms. You can 

farm up to within 20 feet of them, so it doesn’t interfere too badly 

with the farmer’s use of his land for agricultural purposes. 

These are local jobs in Iowa and they are important enough to 

Iowa that the Iowa legislature unanimously—not just bipartisan 

but in unanimous fashion—passed a resolution asking us to continue the production tax credits to help support this industry that 

is so important to Iowa. 

Would those types of considerations come into your economic 

analysis as well, the local jobs, local industry and local economic 

growth that can be created when you move away from fossil fuels? 

Ms. MCCABE. To the extent that there is data and that there are 

approved methodologies available for us to evaluate those sorts of 

impacts, we certainly will, Senator. I want to mention that those 

windmills are becoming more and more prevalent in my home 

State as well as you see across the corn fields. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We hope they are going to be prevalent off 

the shores of Rhode Island fairly soon as well. We have some going 

in offshore. 

My final comment to you is I would ask that you not be deterred 

from doing what is the right thing to do administratively under the 

theory that this should be handled by Congress and the Administration shouldn’t act under its administrative authorities while 

Congress isn’t acting legislatively. 

I think, frankly, that is an unfair comment when people make 

that because the polluting industries have basically got Congress 

locked down. It is very hard to negotiate with somebody over a 

good carbon bill when they are pretending that carbon pollution 

doesn’t cause climate change, when they are pretending that the 10 

inches of sea level rise we have seen off Rhode Island isn’t real or 

doesn’t matter. 

Until people are willing to come out of their bunker and say OK, 

this isn’t real, let’s negotiate, we are not going to get anything 

done. They shouldn’t both stop negotiations in Congress and then 

tell you that you shouldn’t act until Congress has taken this up. 

They are the ones who are causing Congress not to take it up. I 

hope you will go ahead boldly and follow the facts and science. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you so much. 

Senator Vitter made a good point when he showed the great 

progress that the Clean Air Act has achieved—amazing, lives 

saved, working days saved, children’s visits to the emergency room 

saved—since 1990 and the Clean Air Act amendments. Senator 

Vitter makes a point. Half of those were controlled by Republicans, 

half were controlled by Democrats. 

It is true but I remember the days when this committee was led 

by a Republican, John Chaffee, who was so pro-environment and 
144 

from Rhode Island. The environment was a bipartisan issue. It 

breaks my heart to see what has happened. 

In this committee, when it is infrastructure, we are really on the 

same page and I am so grateful for that. We work very well together. On the environment, it is so difficult. I would argue to my 

friend that because it is no longer a bipartisan issue, things have 

changed. 

I would put in the record an executive summary of a report that 

showed in the 112th Congress, the last Congress, there were 95 

votes to undermine the Clean Air Act protections, including votes 

to repeal the health-based standards that are the heart of the 

Clean Air Act and block EPA regulation of toxic mercury and other 

harmful emissions from power plants. Those all passed. 

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

Senator BOXER. Then in the 113th, and we are still in it, the 

House has voted 20 times to weaken the Clean Air Act. This has 

nothing to do with climate change. This is direct assault on the 

Clean Air Act. Unfortunately, we stopped it in the Senate and it 

didn’t go anywhere. Even if it did, the President would definitely 

veto that. I am convinced of that. Just by the grace of God we have 

been able to stop the repeal of all the very important Clean Air 

Act. I won’t even go into the Clean Water Act. 

The last point I am going to make is this. My colleagues are very 

astute, and every time I show a picture of China—let’s show it 

again—they point out what does this have to do with us? We don’t 

want to do that. Of course they don’t want to do that. It is the result of what they are trying to do to the Clean Air Act that would 

eviscerate it. 

I remember in Los Angeles, we had 110 days, I think, a year of 

alerts. We had that there. I don’t want to make it up; I want to 

show you the absolute truth—166 days in Los Angeles before the 

Clean Air Act kicked in, where you couldn’t go outside and now it 

is zero. Now hold up the picture of China. This is not rhetoric, this 

is proven fact and science. 

My friends always say whenever we talk about climate change 

that climate change has nothing to do with these kinds of air quality problems. I went back and looked at the endangerment finding 

which the draft was written by George Bush’s Administration and 

passed by the Obama administration and upheld by the Supreme 

Court. 

Listen to this. ‘‘Climate change is expected to increase regional 

ozone pollution with associated risks in respiratory illnesses and 

premature death.’’ That is in the Federal Register, 66525. Then 

there is this one. ‘‘Climate change can affect ozone by modifying 

emissions of precursors, atmospheric chemistry, transport and removal. This is consistent. There is now consistent evidence from 

models and observations that 21st century climate change will 

worsen summertime surface ozone in polluted regions of North 

America compared to future with no climate change. 

‘‘In addition, there is an expectation there will be an increase in 

levels of ambient ozone leading to increased risk of morbidity and 

mortality from exposure to ozone.’’ 

All of these are the effects of climate. I hear this whole argument 

from my friends on the other side—climate change, that’s carbon, 
145 

that doesn’t hurt anything. Just read the science and the Supreme 

Court decision that said absolutely carbon is a pollutant under the 

Clean Air Act. As much as you want to, you can’t separate dirty, 

filthy air from carbon because that is part of the problem. 

I want to say to you because my time is running out, I don’t have 

a lot of questions for the three of you and I will tell you the reason. 

I just think you are eminently qualified and I am proud of these 

nominations. I am proud of your motivation, each of you, in accepting this challenge. It is hard to put yourself out here, it is hard to 

be the recipient of some of these questions on both sides. We are 

tough, I admit that and part of your job is to respond and you have. 

You have responded with dignity and the facts. 

Thank you very much. 

With that, I will call on Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. I have just a brief rebuttal. 

Chairman Boxer, again, I think to hold up the poster from China 

and suggest that result is a Republican agenda is absurd and it is 

completely irresponsible. 

Senator BOXER. Let me correct the record. 

Senator VITTER. Can I please have my time undisturbed as you 

did? 

Senator BOXER. No, no, no. I will give you an extra 3 minutes. 

Senator VITTER. And you will continually interrupt which is unprofessional. 

Senator BOXER. I am not unprofessional. 

Senator VITTER. You are interrupting me. I gave you uninterrupted time. It is my time to speak. 

Senator BOXER. I am the chairman. You characterized my comments and when one person characterizes the comments, the other 

person has the right to rebuttal. I will give you an additional 3 

minutes. You will have 8 minutes. 

Senator VITTER. Uninterrupted? Will it be uninterrupted? 

Senator BOXER. Yes, I will reserve my time for when you are 

done, if I have to respond, but I would urge you not to characterize 

what I said. I never said it was the Republican agenda. 

Could you hold up the picture? What I said was, when you try 

to repeal 28 times various portions of the Clean Air Act, when you 

try to stop a rule that will cleanup coal-fired plants and that rule, 

by the way, isn’t even done yet Senator McConnell is trying to repeal it before it is even put into place, you don’t intend for this to 

happen. Trust me, the leaders in China didn’t either. This is not 

good for them. 

We have seen what happens when you don’t have Clean Air Act 

protections in place. I never said it was part of the agenda; I said 

it would be a consequence of repealing all of these landmark laws. 

Now I will turn it over to Senator Vitter for 8 minutes. 

Senator VITTER. Uninterrupted, thank you. 

Again, you are saying that poster is a consequence, that poster 

which is laughable is a consequence of Republican proposals. That 

is exactly what you said and that is ridiculous, cartoonish and irresponsible. 

We just passed in this committee four environmental bills on a 

broad bipartisan basis. The graph you just showed of bad air days 
146 

declining in California in 1976 is under Republican national governance as much as Democratic national governance. 

To talk about amendments to the Clean Air Act, yes, the Clean 

Air Act is, in fact, where the whole carbon debate is centered. That 

is the vehicle inappropriately, in our opinion, for this administrative onslaught. Yes, of course there are going to be proposals about 

the Clean Air Act. Nobody is trying to repeal the Clean Air Act. 

Folks are trying to move forward with the Clean Air Act according 

to its intention, in my opinion, and that agenda. 

To suggest that somehow that is the same as smog and particulate matter and we are trying to repeal the Clean Air Act is just 

completely cartoonish. For the committee of jurisdiction to sort of 

dip that low to create a cartoon debate, I don’t think serves anyone 

well at all. 

Senator BOXER. You are done? 

Senator VITTER. Yes, I’m done. 

Senator BOXER. Is Senator Markey going to speak? 

As long as I have some time, that photo is not a cartoon. 

Senator VITTER. Thanks, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. You’re welcome. 

That photo is not a cartoon, it is the reality for people who live 

in a country where the environment has been thrown under the 

bus. 

House Republicans even voted to rescind EPA’s regulation to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide from power 

plants that cause ozone and particulate matter violations in downwind States. 

People can walk out, it is their right. They can say I reached a 

new low by showing a picture that is clearly not made up or a cartoon but is reality, or a chart. They can do that but here is the 

deal. I am going to tell the truth and here is the deal, the truth. 

I am reading from a report, Energy and Commerce Committee, 

House Republicans voted to repeal a rule that will prevent up to 

34,000 deaths, 15,000 heart attacks, 400,000 cases of aggravated 

asthma, and 1.8 million lost work days each year and produce 

health benefits of up to $280 billion annually, outweighing its estimated annual cost by as much as 350 to 1. 

That is unbelievable. That is just one regulation, reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. 

Senator Markey was over in the House through a lot of these 

votes. I know he knows what they are. This is real. Say what you 

want, colleagues, or leave, it doesn’t matter. The facts are the facts 

and the American people want their air clean and they want their 

water safe. They don’t want chemicals exploding. 

I am sorry to say and reiterate what has happened in this country until the people demand it to change. The environment has become a partisan issue and it hurts me to say it because when I 

started in politics, it was totally a bipartisan issue. As a matter of 

fact, the leader in my home county was a Republican named Peter 

Behr who was a beloved senator, a State senator, whom I supported, who was the leader on a clean and healthy environment. 

It saddens me that we have to face vote after vote, 28 times, 38 

times, 48 times, environmental riders. It is wrong. I won’t be intimidated. 
147 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much. 

We welcome our nominees. You are each eminently qualified and 

we thank you for your willingness to serve our country in these enhanced roles. 

Ms. McCabe, you worked up in Massachusetts over the years, 

and that is going to qualify you to be the one that can understand 

and translate Administrator McCarthy’s Boston accent for the others at EPA. I think that is going to be a very important role for 

you. 

Ms. McCabe, you have an important task before you in setting 

standards to reduce carbon pollution from power plants in the 

United States. I am confident that it can be done in a way which 

is good for the environment and good for the pocketbooks of the 

people in our country. 

I am confident because of what I have seen happen in my own 

State of Massachusetts. There has been an 11 percent annual 

growth in the clean energy sector in the creation of jobs as the 

State has invested almost 90 percent of the proceeds from the regional greenhouse gas actions into energy efficiency, helping to 

make our State amongst the most energy efficient in the Nation. 

In addition to working with States that primarily produce fossil 

fuels, will you also be working with States that are innovating new 

ways to cut carbon pollution while growing their economies as you 

craft new standards for carbon pollution with power plants? 

Ms. MCCABE. We certainly will, Senator. You are absolutely right 

that States like Massachusetts are leaders on energy efficiency and 

other very innovative and positive ways to reduce the energy we 

use in ways that save people money. 

Senator MARKEY. We are a small State but we now have 5,000 

companies with 80,000 jobs in the clean energy sector in Massachusetts. Most of that is just in the last 5 or 6 years, tremendous 

growth and it reflects the innovation that can happen as we move 

to these new technologies of the 21st century. 

I also wanted to focus on methane emissions from natural gas, 

which also impact the climate, public health and the energy bills 

of most Americans. I would just note for my Republican colleagues 

who have expressed concern that protecting people’s health might 

increase the cost of electricity, that they should be concerned that 

exporting America’s natural gas overseas will also raise electricity 

prices and harm the manufacturing resurgence and job growth 

America has been experiencing in the last few years. 

The explosion in Harlem in March tragically underscored the 

threat that old natural gas distribution pipelines can pose. A report 

I released last summer found that gas customers in Massachusetts 

paid up to $1.5 billion in extra charges from 2000 to 2011 because 

of the leaking gas pipelines. 

The cost to consumers nationwide was in the tens of billions. Besides wasting money, this leaked natural gas, which is primarily 

methane, is a potent climate pollutant. 

Ms. McCabe, the Interagency Methane Strategy that was recently released raises concerns about methane leaks on the distribution side of the natural gas system. Is that something the EPA 

will be looking at further? 
148 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, in cooperation with the Department of Energy, 

which has significant responsibilities in these areas. The Office of 

Air and Radiation doesn’t have as much responsibility on those 

particular aspects, but we will certainly be working with the Department of Energy on those issues. 

Senator MARKEY. Finally, Ms. McCabe, just a quick comment on 

ongoing work at the EPA on bioenergy. In 2011, the EPA granted 

a 3-year exemption from regulation under the Clean Air Act for 

carbon emissions from bioenergy facilities. EPA then commissioned 

an expert panel of the Science Advisory Board to review the agency’s proposed bioenergy carbon accounting framework. 

They found that EPA’s framework needed to account for the important ongoing role that forests play in sequestering atmospheric 

carbon dioxide and that we cannot automatically assume biomass 

energy is carbon neutral. Basically, you can’t cut down a 150-yearold forest, burn it and assume there are no net carbon impacts. 

In 2012, my home State of Massachusetts published final carbon 

accounting regulations using a methodology very similar to those 

recommended by the Science Advisory Board. I would encourage 

EPA to incorporate these key science-based recommendations into 

whatever new rules are established to govern carbon emissions related to bioenergy. 

Ms. MCCABE. We will make sure to take a look at those. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. I thank all of you so much for your 

service. 

The planet is running a fever. There are no emergency rooms for 

planets, so we have to engage in the kind of smart, forward looking 

activities that help us to avoid the worst, most catastrophic consequences of global warming. 

You are on the front lines of doing this but being smart as you 

are doing it. I think there is a way we can move forward that actually creates hundreds of thousands of new jobs in our country. I 

think that should be our goal. 

I thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you so much. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I have two additional committees at this very moment so it is a 

good panel and I appreciate you being here. 

An abstract of a recent article linking climate change to extreme 

weather may be a powerful way to motivate people. The IPCC has 

tended to over generalize its research results and accentuate the 

negative side of climate change. This is somebody who supports the 

climate change agenda. 

Taken together, considerable evidence suggests that the international mainstream media and pro-environmental organizations 

have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage 

caused by climate change. 

In this article, we suggest that information manipulation, which 

is generally overlooked in the literature, can be a novel and helpful 

mechanism for resolving the climate problem. 

Ms. McCabe, it seems to me it says quite plainly, these are professors from Singapore, I believe, maybe not as politically correct 

and sophisticated in western concerns, but it seems to me that it 
149 

suggests what we have been seeing, an exaggeration of many of the 

complaints about global warming. 

My question to you is do you believe this is justified? If you are 

confirmed to this important office, will you tell the American people 

resolutely the truth as it exists according to the best science that 

you have, yes or no? 

Ms. MCCABE. I am not a climate scientist myself. I work with climate scientists and I will do my best to make sure that all of our 

programs and policies are based on the best available science that 

is thoroughly debated in the public. 

Senator SESSIONS. Let me ask you this. Have hurricanes increased in intensity or number in the last 50 years around the 

world? 

Ms. MCCABE. Senator, I am not familiar with exact statistics. I 

am aware that when the climate warms, which it is, that creates 

more energy in the atmosphere that can lead to more extreme 

weather events as well as droughts and wildfires. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is a really good theory. That is what we 

are being told by the people that taxpayers pay to take high government office. That is what the President of the United States has 

said. I would agree. 

However, Dr. Pielke testified at that table last year it is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated 

with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on 

climate time scales either in the United States or globally. In fact, 

the IPCC says ‘‘current datasets indicate no significant observable 

trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the last century.’’ 

Does that not dispute what you just told us? 

Ms. MCCABE. Senator, I am not exactly familiar with what you 

are quoting from but there are numerous reports that have been 

put out by U.S. scientists, government scientists, and international 

scientists that have gone through extensive peer review. 

Senator SESSIONS. So you are going to continue to insist that we 

have had more hurricanes over the last 50 or 100 years when the 

numbers are plain? They are accounted for worldwide each year 

and their intensity is accounted for and all you have to do is add 

them up. If you do that and it shows you are incorrect, will you 

acknowledge that? 

Ms. MCCABE. Senator, the scientific evidence is out and available 

for the public for them to understand and use and talk to us about. 

Senator SESSIONS. You are about to take this office. I asked you 

this question in private and you said, and said it again as I understand it in public, you believe that we have had more storms and 

more hurricanes. 

Ms. MCCABE. I believe that the scientific record shows that over 

a long period of time and over broad geographic areas, there have 

been changes. 

Senator SESSIONS. You dispute then the IPCC’s recent finding 

that current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in 

global tropical cyclone frequency over the last century. That is the 

International Panel on Climate Change. 

Ms. MCCABE. I can’t speak to that exact quote, Senator, but I 

know that the IPCC has made many findings relative to the effects 

of climate change around the world. 
150 

Senator SESSIONS. I am just going to tell you. I am going to submit this in writing to you and if you continue to insist that we have 

had more hurricanes in the last century and that they have increased as a result of global warming and climate change, I don’t 

see how I can support your nomination. I don’t see how I can support somebody who believes they can advocate against plain fact. 

My time is up. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Ms. McCabe, I didn’t hear you say there were 

more hurricanes. I heard you say that it is a scientific fact that 

when the air warms, it can create more hurricanes. Am I right? 

Ms. MCCABE. That’s correct. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Let the record show that. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is not what she told me in the office. 

That is not what is being said publicly. This is a clever alternative. 

I am going to ask you. Have they increased or not? That would 

be my question. 

Senator BOXER. Let the record show I was interrupted by Senator Sessions and I didn’t mind. 

Here is the thing. There is a stark divide between the parties on 

environmental issues. If anyone doubts that, all they have to do is 

watch this committee when we take up the environment. It is laid 

bare here which I think is important. We shouldn’t gloss over it or 

not respond to each other, so it is laid bare. 

All three of you are going to be working to protect global health 

and the environment, you, Ms. Dunkin, in a little different way by 

providing information stats and such, but particularly Mr. Ehrlich 

and Ms. McCabe. I know that you are going to do the right thing 

when it comes to protecting public health and safety because you 

are going to pay attention to the science. Am I right on that, Ms. 

McCabe? 

Ms. MCCABE. Absolutely, Senator. 

Senator BOXER. Am I right on that, Mr. Ehrlich? 

Mr. EHRLICH. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator BOXER. Ms. Dunkin, when you do your numbers, you are 

going to do them objectively? 

Ms. DUNKIN. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Here is the deal. Senator Sessions is extremely upset with some of the reports coming out and he cited two 

people in Singapore, which is his right. I would like to cite the 

leaders in America, my country. 

The U.S. Global Change Research Program is an intergovernmental agency effort led by the National Oceanic Administration. 

I have never heard them being attacked by name, so let’s be clear, 

the organization that is giving you, Ms. McCabe, this information 

on climate is the U.S. Global Change Research Program, not Singapore, not Pakistan, not France, it is the U.S. Global Change Research Program headed by NOAA, including in the interagency, the 

Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, NASA, the National Science Foundation and the Smithsonian Institute. 

They all reached agreement on the following statement I will put 

in the record and read into the record. ‘‘Global change is happening 

now. Increases in population, industrialization and human activities have altered the world’s climate, oceans, land, ice cover and 

ecosystems. In the United States, climate change has already re-
151 

sulted in more frequent heat waves, extreme precipitation, wild 

fires and water scarcity.’’ The source is U.S. Global Change Research Program, Our Changing Climate, 2013, a NOAA-led effort. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
152 
153 

Senator BOXER. My colleagues can rant and rave about this all 

they want. They have every right to rant and rave. I rant and rave 

with them, too. That is fine. The facts are the facts and the fact 

is the leading voices in America are warning us. 

This stark divide exposed today for all the world to see, which 

I think it is really important that the world see it, because the people don’t believe it when I speak at conferences about what it is 

like over here, is very regrettable. 

As I said before, it is totally different from when I got into politics. My first elected office was in 1976, I hate to say that, it was 

so long ago. It is ancient history and the young people are thinking, 

is she really that old? The fact is environment used to be bipartisan. It was wonderful. You could disagree on 50 other things but 

you came together because we all breathe the same air, a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, a Green, anybody. We breathe 

the same air and drink the same water. We need the protections. 

I just wanted all three of you to know I am sorry you had to be 

subjected to this difficult hearing. Because it was difficult, but I 

think it is healthy and important that people speak from their 

heart, wherever that leads them, and that people lay out what the 

differences are because the American people need to understand it. 

I hope the young people who were here, I don’t know where you 

come down on the issue of the environment, but I hope you will 

look into this more. I hope it will motivate you. If you feel that we 

need action on climate change, I hope you will push forward on 

that. Do something about that. Exercise your rights to make sure 

you breathe clean air and drink clean water. 

By the way, if you are on the other side, and you want to see 

these laws repealed, exercise that right. I hope you won’t, but it is 

your right, for sure. 

In California, we are going through this horrific drought. Our 

leaders in California say it is related in fact, most of them, some 

of them say they are going to wait and see, but I will tell you this. 

It is hurting our State. Thank goodness we had a few major storms 

in the last couple of weeks. It was really rare to see this rain late, 

but everything is changing. 

There are very serious consequences to the economy, to people’s 

health, to certainly our farm economy, our Silicon Valley people, 

and of course, our water users, our consumers. Eighty percent of 

our water is used for agriculture because we are the breadbasket 

in California, freely a lot more than the country, and in many 

ways, the world. 

It is a tough time but there are things we can do, but we can’t 

do them if we keep on fighting over the very fact that climate 

change is here as our own leaders are telling us. Our Supreme 

Court said, this Supreme Court that is a tough court for progressives, that in fact carbon pollution is covered under the Clean Air 

Act. It took 8 years to get that decision. 

I want to thank all of you for being here. The three nominees, 

you are great. I am going to do everything I can in my power to 

get you confirmed. Even though I know we will have a few opponents, I think we can get this job done because we need you in your 

jobs. 

Thank you very much. 
154 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[The following statements were submitted for the record:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Madam Chairman, thank you for holding today’s hearing to fill three critical positions within our Federal Government. I want to welcome the nominees to the committee. I greatly appreciate your willingness and interest to answer our President’s 

call to serve, and I wish you the best of luck and speed with your confirmations. 

EPA’s Office of Air is of critical importance to fulfilling the mission of the Federal 

agency responsible for keeping our communities safe and healthy from pollutants 

emitting into our environment. There was a time not too long ago that smog congestion in our cities was so bad you taste it in the air. There were summer days in 

this city and its surrounding suburbs, which I represent, that children and the elderly were advised to stay indoors because ground level ozone would reach such 

high and unhealthy levels. 

Because of the Clean Air Act, the frequency of bad air days has diminished significantly, and as I’m sure the chairman can attest to, you can actually see the sky 

again in L.A. 

The debates we have in this committee over the efficacy and stringency of these 

laws clearly demonstrate that some take this progress for granted. 

I for one don’t take it for granted. The Maryland Department of Environment reports that between 2001 and 2005 the State only achieved good to moderate air 

quality for 84.6 percent of the year, with the majority of the 15.4 percent of those 

bad air days occurring in summer when the heat is a major contributing factor to 

ground level ozone. Compare that to 2011, one of the hottest years on record, and 

yet despite the incredible heat that exacerbates bad air days, the percentage of bad 

days on the year was just 8.8 percent. 

So my message to Ms. McCabe is that I certainly appreciate the work EPA is 

doing to protect Americans from harmful air quality. 

I also want to encourage the nominee to keep working hard to finalize rules to 

address power sector sources of carbon pollution under the authorities of section 111 

of the Clean Air Act. If Congress lacks the will to act on the greatest threat to our 

environment, and given the Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, than I believe 

EPA must act to regulate carbon pollution. 

I also want to thank Ms. McCabe for our conversation the other day on the Renewable Fuel Standard. We discussed my efforts to reform the law and my interest 

in EPA’s revising its proposed 2014 RVO for advanced biofuels. I really appreciate 

her listening to me and having her commitment to work with me to address my concerns. Last, Mr. Ehrlich, I want you to know that January’s chemical spill in central 

West Virginia shined a clear spotlight on the importance of the Chemical Safety 

Board. I want to know how you will work to make the CSB more effective in protecting public safety from such incidents and situations in the future. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter, for holding today’s 

nominations hearing. Thank you, nominees, for being here and for your willingness 

to serve the public. I appreciate the opportunity to share with you the concerns of 

my constituents. 

EPA’s work is of great consequence to our country and to my home State of Nebraska—impacting everything from agricultural practices to energy production. I 

take very seriously my responsibility as a U.S. Senator to review and consider these 

nominations. 

A clean and healthy environment is important to us all. Over the past several decades, we have made great strides in improving our air and water quality and protecting our natural resources—while still growing our economy. In Nebraska, farmers and ranchers are growing more food and fiber in an increasingly responsible and 

sustainable manner. Our public power utilities are serving more customers than 

ever while reducing emissions. Businesses are innovating to provide better goods 

and services to enhance quality of life, as they maximize efficiencies and reduce 

their environmental footprint. 

As I travel around Nebraska, pleas for regulatory relief come from families facing 

higher electricity bills, businesses and utilities confronting the compliance costs of 
155 

new rules, and producers who are frustrated with a bureaucracy that simply does 

not understand the nature of their business. 

I am concerned about the increasing cost of compliance with environmental regulations for Nebraska’s public power utilities. Today, advanced pollution control 

equipment can account for up to 25 percent of the cost to build a new power plant. 

Nebraska utilities have spent tens of millions of dollars complying with air emissions regulations, and these costs are expected to continue to rise. These regulations 

lead directly to increasing electricity prices and the monthly bills of all Nebraskans. 

Nebraska utility providers work hard to provide low cost electricity that is clean 

and reliable. We rely heavily on coal-fired generation because for now it remains 

the least expensive way to generate electricity. The barrage of current regulations 

as well as those being proposed under the Clean Air Act will likely cause Nebraska’s 

utility producers to close some of our coal-fired power plants because of the cost to 

bring them up to the new emissions standards. 

Because greenhouse gas emissions are global in nature, we must examine what 

benefit we are seeking by limiting American utilities’ choice of power generation 

technologies. We know that strict measures will drive up electricity costs and customers’ monthly bills and jeopardize energy reliability. The people of the United 

States deserve affordable energy from our domestic energy producing natural resources. 

While EPA routinely claims benefits in excess of the regulatory costs, the benefit 

estimates are speculative at best. We simply must have more transparency and accountability when it comes to the underlying scientific justification of these rules. 

The people and public power utilities in Nebraska are poised to work with EPA 

to make reasonable and cost-effective changes that result in meaningful environmental improvements. What we cannot tolerate, however, is a lack of transparency, 

secret scientific findings, a failure to consider economic impacts, and increasing regulatory uncertainty. 

We must work together to pursue a path forward that continues both these environmental and economic achievements, one that encourages meaningful environmental improvements without stifling economic growth. 

I am hopeful that we can continue to make progress on these issues. Ms. McCabe, 

Ms. Dunkin, and Mr. Ehrlich, thank you again for being here today. I look forward 

to your responses about how we can work together to address these important objectives. 

Æ