U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

87–109 PDF 2014

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S CLIMATE 

CHANGE POLICIES AND ACTIVITIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 

Serial No. 113–82 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

Vice Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 4 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 8 

WITNESSES

Ernest J. Moniz, Secretary, Department of Energy .............................................. 9 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 204 

Regina McCarthy, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency ................ 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 219 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Report, ‘‘The President’s Climate Action Plan,’’ dated June 2013, Executive 

Office of the President, submitted by Mr. Whitfield ......................................... 39 

Invitations, dated August 6, 2013, and follow-up requests, dated September 

4, 2013, submitted by Mr. Whitfield ................................................................... 60 

Hearing memorandum, dated September 16, 2013, submitted by Mr. 

Whitfield ............................................................................................................... 108 

Supplement, dated September 2013, ‘‘Explaining Extreme Events of 2012 

From a Climate Perspective,’’ Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 94, No. 9, submitted by Mr. Whitfield 1

Charts from report, ‘‘International Energy Outlook 2013,’’ dated July 2013, 

Energy Information Administration, submitted by Mr. Whitfield ................... 113 

Article, ‘‘Making Energy Access Meaningful,’’ dated Summer 2013, by Morgan 

Bazilian and Roger Pielke, Jr., Issues in Science and Technology, submitted 

by Mr. Whitfield ................................................................................................... 116 

Report, dated September 17, 2013, ‘‘Revolution Now: The Future Arrives 

for Four Clean Energy Technologies,’’ Department of Energy, submitted 

by Mr. Tonko ........................................................................................................ 135 

Letter of September 11, 2013, from Jon Bruning, Attorney General, State 

of Nebraska, to Gina McCarthy, Administrator, Environmental Protection 

Agency, submitted by Mr. Terry ......................................................................... 161 

Report, dated August 8, 2013, ‘‘Human and natural influences on the changing thermal structure of the atmosphere,’’ by Benjamin D. Santer, et al., 

submitted by Mr. Waxman .................................................................................. 180 

1 Internet link to the supplement is on page 112. 

(1) 

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S CLIMATE 

CHANGE POLICIES AND ACTIVITIES 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:18 a.m., in room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Scalise, Hall, 

Shimkus, Pitts, Terry, Burgess, Latta, Olson, McKinley, Gardner, 

Pompeo, Kinzinger, Griffith, Barton, Upton (ex officio), McNerney, 

Tonko, Engel, Green, Capps, Doyle, Barrow, Matsui, Christensen, 

Castor, Dingell (ex officio), and Waxman (ex officio). 

Also present: Representative Schakowsky. 

Staff present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Gary Andres, 

Staff Director; Charlotte Baker, Press Secretary; Shawn Bonyun, 

Communications Director; Matt Bravo, Professional Staff Member; 

Allison Busbee, Policy Coordinator, Energy and Power; Patrick 

Currier, Counsel, Energy and Power; Tom Hassenboehler, Chief 

Counsel, Energy and Power; Brandon Mooney, Professional Staff 

Member; Gib Mullan, Chief Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, 

and Trade; Mary Neumayr, Senior Energy Counsel; Andrew 

Powaleny, Deputy Press Secretary; Peter Spencer, Professional 

Staff Member, Oversight; Tom Wilbur, Digital Media Advisor; Phil 

Barnett, Democratic Staff Director; Alison Cassady, Democratic 

Senior Professional Staff Member; Greg Dotson, Democratic Staff 

Director, Energy and Environment; Bruce Ho, Democratic Counsel; 

Roger Sherman, Democratic Chief Counsel; Ryan Skukowski, 

Democratic Staff Assistant; and Alexandra Tietz, Democratic Senior Counsel, Energy and Environment. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to call this hearing to order this 

morning. Today, the subcommittee is having a hearing to explore 

President Obama’s Climate Change Action Plan. And I certainly 

want to thank Secretary of Energy, Mr. Moniz; and Gina McCarthy, our new Administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency, for joining us this morning. And I want to be sure we start the 

clock so that I don’t speak forever because that would be pretty 

2 

boring for everybody. But I did want to thank you two for being 

with us this morning. 

I will tell you that I am extremely disappointed. We sent letters 

to the Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, Health 

and Human Services, Department of the Interior, Department of 

State, Transportation, Ex-Im Bank, National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the U.S. Agency for International Development because they are very much involved in this Action Plan as well, and they did not send witnesses 

to testify. 

Now, in June of this year, President Obama went to Georgetown 

University and he gave his speech in which he announced a Climate Change Action Plan for America. And in that speech he mentioned that he was tired of excuses for inaction. Now, I am just 

going to tell you I take exception to that because in his Action Plan 

he included many of the component parts of the cap-and-trade legislation that was considered by the Congress in 2009, the WaxmanMarkey bill. And that legislation passed the House but it did not 

pass the U.S. Senate. So, rather than inaction on the part of Congress, Congress made a decision, and that was that it did not want 

to adopt that legislation. 

So I understand the President’s view on climate change. And I 

would like to predicate this by saying worldwide CO2 emissions last 

year amounted to 800 gigatons. Of that, 30 gigatons are caused by 

humans. That is 3.75 percent of all worldwide emissions come from 

human activity. So the question becomes if you have a broad spectrum of action on this plan, and we know that it is one of the President’s priorities and we know that in the last 4 or 5 years we spent 

$70 billion on climate change, this year we expect to spend $22 billion. 

So what we are focused on this morning is we want to know 

more about the plan. Is it going to contribute to higher energy 

costs? Is it going to raise unemployment rates? Is it going to create 

obstacles to economic growth? Is it going to have an impact on our 

ability to compete in the global marketplace? 

And I specifically wanted to read from some headlines in newspapers around Europe and elsewhere about this issue. And all of 

these were within the last 3 months. ‘‘Support for the European 

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

Czech Republic became the latest member to denounce subsidies 

for clean but costly renewable energy and pledged to use more fossil fuels.’’ ‘‘Europe’s industry is being ravaged by exorbitant energy 

costs.’’ ‘‘Europe’s quixotic dash for renewables is pushing electricity 

costs to untenable levels.’’ ‘‘We can’t sacrifice Europe’s industry for 

climate goals that are not realistic.’’ ‘‘The European Union’s energy 

and climate policy is in disarray and losing credibility.’’ ‘‘Utilities 

are turning to coal and cheap lignite, emitting more CO2 than 

ever.’’ ‘‘Europe faces a crisis in energy cost.’’ 

As you know, the new government in Australia, as their first 

order of business, have decided to repeal the carbon tax legislation. 

They also plan to abolish the Climate Commission, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and the Climate Change Authority. 

3 

Now, so far in the year 2012, 375 coal units at power plants in 

America are closing, 294 of them because of EPA regulations. In 

the first half of 2013, 151 coal mines in America have closed. 

So this is a discussion today that we recognize we have different 

views on, but we are trying to make a sincere effort to understand 

the ramifications, the impact of climate change. As a Congress, we 

have the responsibility, with all of this money being spent, to get 

a better feel of what is the government really doing? Because it is 

comprehensive. It spreads throughout the entire government. And 

this hearing is about how we want to know what is going on, and 

we are going to back to every one of those agencies that I mentioned earlier, whether we sit down with them individually or as 

a committee. We want to know and understand precisely what is 

going on. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD

In late June, President Obama released his Climate Action Plan, which broadly 

outlined a variety of executive actions for Federal agencies to implement the administration’s climate policies. 

On August 6, I wrote thirteen of these agencies, including the White House 

science advisor’s office, requesting testimony and specific information about each 

agency’s climate-related activities and the coordination of that activity across the 

Federal Government. 

Despite six weeks’ notice, we will not get many answers today. Eleven agencies 

requested to testify—twice, I might add—did not provide a witness or submit information about agency activity to the subcommittee. That does not send a positive 

message for increased public understanding of what this administration is doing on 

an economically consequential policy matter. 

The point of my request was for the subcommittee to examine the scope of Federal 

climate change actions that have been tolling billions of dollars a year in spending 

and countless man-hours of work since the mid-1990s, reaching over $22 billion this 

year alone. The State Department reports that over the period 2010–2012, the U.S. 

provided over $7.5 billion in foreign assistance to address climate change. 

This is an oversight hearing. Congress needs specific information from the administration to evaluate the Federal Government’s current and planned regulatory actions. Without this information, the public is left out of the debate, without knowing 

the extent of agency activity, whether it effectively addresses the established risks, 

or what it really will accomplish. 

Whatever you think about managing future climate or global warming risks, oversight of theadministration’s plans to respond to those risks is critical for Congress 

to make sound economic and policy decisions. Federal agencies must account transparently for the effectiveness and impact of their actions—especially when a number 

of these actions collide directly with Americans’ efforts to develop our diverse energy 

resources, which are so vital to economic strength and competitiveness. 

Today we will hear from the heads of two Federal agencies, who I have a high 

respect for, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy—both of whom are aware of my serious concerns with the direction of the administration’s climate change policies, especially those being implemented by the 

EPA. 

The President’s global warming agenda being implemented through the EPA has 

been holding back the economy which continues to struggle. Since 2009, the agency 

has been busy imposing costly requirements on coal-fired electricity and other fossil 

fuels while targeting manufacturers with new regulatory burdens, only increasing 

to the economic uncertainty. This week, EPA is expected to release their proposal 

to control greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, one that is almost certain 

to further the economic uncertainty facing our Nation’s utilities and have devastating effects on our communities and most importantly, the consumers who pay 

their electricity bills every month. 

In my view, this is not a sound economic and climate policy. There is a better 

path forward, one that stops treating affordable domestic energy and a strong economy as part of the problem and embraces them as a vital part of the solution. 

4 

In a number of subcommittee hearings we have explored the ingredients for U.S. 

economic resurgence. This resurgence in good part depends upon access to affordable and reliable electricity, energy diversity, and embracing the tremendous opportunities presented with our new-found oil and natural gas abundance. 

We’ve begun to see early fruits of what this resurgence could be in the tremendous jobs creation and economic vitality from the shale gas revolution. IHS Global 

Insight recently reported that this energy revolution has already increased average 

household income by an average of $1,200 in 2012, a figure that is projected to grow 

to $2,700 in 7 years. Households are spending less on electricity and less on goods 

and services within the broader economy, all because of less expensive energy. 

Building on this momentum, we should set policies that ensure energy access and 

establish prudent future planning, through electric grid reliability, expanded energy 

infrastructures of pipelines, roads, ports, increased R&D for energy, agriculture, and 

increased coal, LNG, and nuclear exports that carry U.S. energy access the world 

over. 

Last week, a delegation from Bangladesh visited me to explain their need for U.S. 

expertise and help particularly in gaining access to coal-fired electricity. With only 

about 47 percent of their population having access to electricity, Bangladesh is one 

of the most energy poor nations on the planet, and one particularly susceptible to 

extreme weather events, but the World Bank, reflecting the administration’s climate 

policy, had recently turned down funding for Bangladeshi coal development. So 

today, I hope we can examine how agency priorities meet our positive vision and 

agenda for economic growth. 

I recently read an article that stated that the arctic ice had nearly a million more 

square miles of ocean covered with ice than at this time last year. But, this hearing 

is not about the failure of predictions that summer arctic would be ice-free by this 

year, the 15-year pause in global temperature rise, or the rush to call every horrible 

weather disaster an omen of climate doom. Clear away the gloom and doom tactics 

and there are serious issues to address, such as what is needed to build our economy or to bring meaningful energy access to Bangladesh, but you have to be serious 

about it. I look forward to hearing from our two agencies today on exactly what the 

administration’s climate plan entails for a vision of economic resurgence and energy 

access to all. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So, once again, Mr. Secretary and Madam Administrator, thank you for being with us. 

At this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today’s hearing is the first time in a long time that this committee is holding a hearing on climate change. I welcome this hearing, and I want to commend Chairman Upton and Chairman 

Whitfield for holding it. Climate change is the biggest energy challenge we face and a clear and present danger to the United States 

and to the world. 

I also commend the administration for sending Energy Secretary 

Ernie Moniz and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to testify. It 

is unusual to have two Cabinet Secretaries testifying at a subcommittee hearing. Your presence makes it clear how seriously the 

administration is taking this hearing. 

As Secretary Moniz explains in his statement, the scientific evidence is overwhelming. That is why the President released a comprehensive Climate Action Plan in June. His plan is reasonable, it 

is affordable, and it will protect our atmosphere for our children 

and future generations. It will make our country the global leader 

in the clean energy economy of the future. 

5 

In past hearings and markups and in debates on the floor, Republicans on this committee and in the House have opposed many 

elements included in the President’s plan. Last Congress, the 

House voted 53 times to block action on climate change. 

This Congress, the House has already voted to slash funds for research into clean energy and energy efficiency. House appropriators 

voted to eliminate funding for international negotiations on the climate treaty. And our committee even refused to listen to the scientists. Over the last 2 years, subcommittee Ranking Member 

Rush and I have written 27 letters requesting hearings on climate 

change. And until today, no hearing was ever scheduled. I hope 

today will mark the start of a change in approach. 

That is why my question for House Republicans is simple. What 

is your plan? If you don’t like the President’s plan, what is your 

proposal? The President has said he is willing to listen to other 

ideas for protecting our planet and fulfilling our moral obligation 

to future generations. What are yours? 

Yesterday, I held a forum with the members of the Safe Climate 

Caucus to hear from Americans who are already experiencing the 

impacts of climate change. From California to New York, from Iowa 

to Texas, we heard stories of wildfires, droughts, floods, sea level 

rise, and record temperatures. Their accounts were moving and 

powerful. These extreme weather events are happening now and 

they are costing lives, destroying livelihoods, eliminating jobs, creating billion-dollar disaster relief legislation. 

We need to start addressing this enormous threat now. The 

longer we wait, the more damage we will cause, the more deeply 

we will need to cut carbon pollution, the bigger the bill will be for 

taxpayers, and the further we will fall behind China and Germany 

in the race to develop the new energy technologies of the future. 

The President was right. We don’t have time for another meeting 

of the Flat Earth Society. Saying no to every solution is not a plan. 

Doing nothing is not a plan. If all the Republicans on this committee do today is criticize, they are either denying the science or 

ignoring it. No one can accept what the scientists are telling us and 

fail to support a plan of action. 

That is why I hope we can move past denial and start a constructive dialogue. Secretary Moniz and Administrator McCarthy have 

both told me they want to work with the stakeholders in implementing the President’s plan. They would welcome working with 

Congress, especially with this committee, which has vast jurisdiction over our Nation’s energy policies. 

We should listen closely to their testimony today. Where we disagree, let’s offer alternative solutions. The climate clock is ticking 

and too much is at stake for more politics as usual. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this chance for an opening statement. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Waxman. 

At this time, I would like to recognize the chairman of the full 

committee, Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

6 

Today’s hearing is about oversight of the President’s climate 

change policies and activities, and it is disappointing that 11 agencies, which had ample notice to identify witnesses, including scientists, and work with staff to accommodate them on different panels, chose instead to decline our request. Climate policy is a central 

feature of this administration’s energy policy, and given the tens of 

billions of dollars currently being spent on climate activities, there 

is no good reason for so many agencies to decide that they cannot 

testify before this committee. 

When the administration first attempted to impose its climate 

policies on the American public through the cap-and-trade legislation, we needed a reality check, and at that time, it was noted that 

without meaningful international participation, jobs and emissions 

would simply shift overseas and there would be no meaningful impact on global carbon emissions, or the temperature changes that 

may result from those emissions. Other nations would continue to 

seek to grow their own economies and would naturally take advantage of U.S. economic and manufacturing weakness. And we heard 

that first hand in this committee. 

Last week, the Labor Department reported that there are still 

11.3 million people unemployed, including 4.3 million long-term unemployed, and 7.9 million ‘‘involuntary’’ part-time workers, whose 

hours have been cut back or are unable to find full-time jobs. It 

makes no sense to impose an ineffectual and economically harmful 

energy policy, one I would remind folks that was rejected through 

the front door here in the Congress by Senate Democrats. 

Unfortunately, the administration is now working to circumvent 

Congress through the backdoor, seeking to regulate what it was 

unable to legislate no matter perhaps what the cost to jobs and the 

economy really is. Thoughtful oversight is necessary so that the 

public can understand more clearly what is happening and what 

the impacts of the administration’s climate policies may be. And I 

believe that it is a disservice to the public to suggest a policy approach will meaningfully address climate risks when in fact it will 

not, despite tens of billions of dollars spent and countless jobs lost. 

So today, with the help of the private innovation and America’s 

newfound energy abundance, the U.S. indeed is the envy of the 

world as it relates to energy access and the safe and responsible 

development of energy resources. We stand at the very threshold 

of profound economic opportunity for the Nation and its future generations. 

So we should pursue constructing a new architecture of abundance as a central feature for future economic strength and to provide the economic foundation to address climate risks. There 

should be no question that the economic wherewithal fostered by 

America’s energy resurgence will provide a wide avenue for innovation that will answer energy and environmental challenges of the 

future. 

Yes, it is good to have Secretary Moniz and Administrator 

McCarthy before us this morning. You two stand at the center of 

energy policy in this Nation and your agencies will play either positive or negative roles to ensure a strong, vibrant, and innovative 

energy sector in the future. 

7 

My interest is to understand how you intend to address the new 

realities of American energy abundance, and what your respective 

agencies’ roles should be in promoting access to abundant, affordable energy resources that are so necessary to meeting future challenges in making our Nation more competitive. I look forward to 

having that discussion. 

And I yield back my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Today’s hearing is about oversight of the President’s climate change policies and 

activities. It is disappointing that 11 agencies, which had ample notice to identify 

witnesses, including scientists, and work with staff to accommodate them on different panels, chose instead to decline our request. Climate policy is a central feature of this administration’s energy policy, and given the billions of dollars currently 

being spent on climate activities, there is no good reason for so many agencies to 

decide they cannot testify before this committee. 

When the administration first attempted to impose its climate policies on the 

American public via cap-andtrade legislation in 2009, we needed a reality check. 

At that time, it was noted that without meaningful international participation, 

jobs and emissions would simply shift overseas—and there would be no meaningful 

impact on global carbon emissions, or the temperature changes that may result from 

those emissions. Other nations would continue to seek to grow their own economies 

and would naturally take advantage of U.S. economic and manufacturing weakness. 

Last week the Labor Department reported that there are still 11.3 million people 

unemployed, including 4.3 million long-term unemployed, and 7.9 million ‘‘involuntary’’ part-time workers, whose hours have been cut back or are unable to find fulltime jobs. 

It makes no sense to impose an ineffectual and economically harmful energy policy—one I would remind folks that was rejected through the front door here in Congress by Senate Democrats. Unfortunately, the administration is now working to circumvent Congress through the back door—seeking to regulate what it was unable 

to legislate no matter what the cost to jobs and the economy. Thoughtful oversight 

is necessary so the public can understand more clearly what is happening, and what 

the impacts of the administration’s climate policies may be. And I believe it is a disservice to the public to suggest a policy approach will meaningfully address climate 

risks when in effect it will not, despite tens of billions of dollars spent and countless 

jobs lost. 

Today, with the help of private innovation and America’s newfound energy abundance, the U.S. is the envy of the world as it relates to energy access and the safe 

and responsible development of energy resources. We stand at the threshold of profound economic opportunity for the Nation and its future generations. 

We should pursue constructing a new architecture of abundance as a central feature for future economic strength and to provide the economic foundation to address 

climate risks. There should be no question that the economic wherewithal fostered 

by America’s energy resurgence will provide a wide avenue for innovation that will 

answer energy and environmental challenges of the future. 

It is good to have Secretary Moniz and Administrator McCarthy before us this 

morning. You two stand at the center of energy policy in this Nation and your agencies will play either positive or negative roles to ensure a strong, vibrant, and innovative energy sector in the future. 

My interest is to understand how you intend to address the new realities of American energy abundance, and what your respective agencies’ roles should be in promoting access to abundant, affordable energy resources that are so necessary to 

meeting future challenges. I look forward to having that discussion. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Tonko, for a 5-minute opening statement. 

8 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Chair 

Whitfield, for holding this very important hearing. 

The International Panel on Climate Change will soon issue its 

latest report summarizing the findings of recent climate science. 

That report is likely to reiterate the message they sent us 5 years 

ago. Greenhouse gases continue to rise in the atmosphere, the 

planet is warming, sea level is rising, and a significant degree of 

this change is attributable to human activities. We are seeing the 

impacts already. Higher sea levels create more perilous conditions 

when hurricanes approach the coast. Higher temperatures enhance 

drought conditions, creating significant losses for farmers and 

ranchers and set the stage for more intense, widespread forest 

fires. 

Our infrastructure, our communities, and our economy are all 

vulnerable to these changes. Add to these facts that our infrastructure is aging and we are neglecting to maintain the very systems 

that we rely on to support a modern, thriving society. We can continue along our current path leaving State and local governments 

to fend for themselves, patching things together as they wear out, 

are damaged, or are destroyed. Or we can use the tremendous intellectual and entrepreneurial resources that we have to address 

the challenge of climate change. 

Our current path of inaction leaves tremendous opportunities for 

job creation, for social progress, and for economic growth untapped. 

It wastes resources, especially human resources. President Obama 

realizes this and has offered a modest, balanced plan to reduce 

greenhouse gases and to rebuild and redesign the modern and resilient infrastructure that we require for the future. 

The administration’s plan seeks to realize the potential of new, 

cleaner energy technologies. At the same time, the plan recognizes 

the important role that fossil fuels play in our economy. We continue to use these fuels, as will other nations, but that does not 

mean we need to use them inefficiently or without regard to the increasing risk that they pose for the future of our planet. 

Our citizens could be employed building our 21st century transportation, energy, and water infrastructure. Our manufacturers 

could be supplying the parts and equipment for a modern electric 

grid, a high-speed rail, wind farms, combined heat and power systems, energy-efficient vehicles, fuel cells, and advanced batteries. 

Other nations are moving forward incentivizing and assisting their 

industries and positioning themselves and their citizens for the future. They are thinking long-term while we subject to our Nation 

to unnecessary austerity and an endless series of stop-gap funding 

bills. This is not the bold and inspired thinking that created this 

Nation and made it the great nation that it is. 

No one set out to change the chemistry of our atmosphere and 

a set our planet on a new climate trajectory, but it has happened 

and we must act, act now to slow this process and adapt to the new 

conditions. The President’s plan is a fine start. I am very pleased 

that we have Secretary Moniz and Administrator McCarthy here 

with us today. These two officials and their agencies are tasked 

with a great deal of responsibility for making this plan a success. 

9 

Thank you both for being here this morning. I hope this is not our 

last hearing on this topic and that we will have additional opportunities to hear from other Federal agencies. There is a lot of work 

to do and we have wasted too much time already. 

Thank you again, Chair Whitfield, for holding this very important hearing, and with that, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time, we will 

begin with Secretary Moniz, 5 minutes for his opening statement. 

And once again, Mr. Secretary, thanks for joining us this morning. 

Be sure and turn your microphone on. 

STATEMENTS OF ERNEST J. MONIZ, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; AND REGINA MCCARTHY, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

STATEMENT OF ERNEST J. MONIZ 

Mr. MONIZ. Thank you. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and 

Ranking Member Waxman, members of the committee. Thank you 

for the opportunity to speak about the President’s Climate Action 

Plan and in particular the DOE’s role in its implementation. 

I will start with saying, again, the evidence is overwhelming; the 

science is clear. The threat from climate change is real and urgent. 

And the basic science behind climate change is simple: carbon dioxide makes the earth warmer and we are emitting more and more 

of it into the atmosphere at a rate that has long been understood 

to have a material cumulative impact on a scale measured in decades, not centuries. 

This increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas above all from the 

combustion of fossil fuels is affecting the climate. Carbon dioxide 

is particularly important both because of the magnitude of the 

emissions and because it is long lived in the atmosphere. Again, all 

of this was known a long time ago. What was not anticipated was 

the pace at which energy needs would grow to serve 7 billion people on the planet with rapid industrialization. Every ton we emit 

now irreversibly commits our children and grandchildren to the 

risk of climate disruption. 

Now, while we cannot attribute any particular storm, for example, to climate change, cumulatively, we can say that rising sea levels, increasingly severe droughts, heat waves, wildfires, and major 

storms are amplified by a warming climate. This is already costing 

our economy billions of dollars a year, and common sense and prudence demanded that we take action. So that is the driving force 

behind the President’s Climate Action Plan, and its three pillars 

are to cut carbon pollution domestically, to prepare for the worsening impacts of climate change, and to lead international efforts 

to combat climate change and prepare for its impacts. 

My main focus today will be on what the U.S. can do domestically to reduce carbon pollution, and in particular, on DOE’s role 

in the Climate Action Plan. Of course, many other agencies have 

critical roles as well. First, we must use our energy more intelligently. I am committed to energy efficiency both to achieve reductions in carbon emissions and to reduce energy bills for families 

and businesses. The Department of Energy also plays a central role 

in developing the low carbon technologies of the future. Coal and 

10 

natural gas will remain significant sources of energy in the years 

to come, and that is why DOE has issued a draft solicitation for 

$1 billion in loan guarantees for advanced fossil energy technologies that reduce carbon emissions. In addition, DOE has already committed $6 billion on clean coal technologies all with the 

goal of enabling the use of fossil fuels and a carbon-constrained 

world. 

Some of the most impressive energy developments in recent 

years have been in renewable energy technology. DOE recently released a paper called ‘‘Revolution Now’’ that outlines some of these 

critical clean energy developments for wind, solar, LEDs, and EV 

batteries. The key message is the pattern of dramatic cost reductions, strong government RD&D and supportive policy, and rapidly 

increasing deployment, much like the story of unconventional natural gas production that unfolded over the last 30 years. 

A clear indicator of the Nation’s energy system transformation is 

the business model evolution taking place in the utilities sector in 

response to energy efficiency and renewable energy market trends. 

Changes in energy technologies take time, sustained investment, 

and stable policies. Even in this age of budget austerity we need 

to ensure that we continue to invest in clean energy. 

As part of the President’s Climate Action Plan, the Department 

of energy will also assist in the development of the Quadrennial 

Energy Review. 

Now, while we must take action to reduce the carbon pollution 

that causes global warming, impacts from climate change are already here and more are on the way. Let me highlight just one 

project that demonstrates how we are approaching this in terms of 

infrastructure resilience. In the aftermath of Sandy, the vulnerability of our electricity and fuels infrastructure to severe storms 

and flooding was evident. Recently, I was in New Jersey to sign an 

MOU with Governor Christie and the New Jersey Transit Corporation to design a micro-grid that will provide reliable distributed 

power for a critical transportation corridor. This is an example of 

the sort of smart infrastructure we will need throughout the country, and this can provide a first-of-its-kind example for the Nation. 

It also exemplifies our commitment to work more closely with State 

and local governments. 

The third part of the President’s plan is leading international efforts to address climate change. A global effort will be required to 

future climate damages. Here at DOE we are focused on helping 

countries around the world expand the use of clean energy, improve energy efficiency, and strengthen global preparedness and resilience to climate change. While the State Department has the 

lead on international negotiations such as phasing down HFCs, domestic clean energy success will allow America to lead by example 

and at the same time to open up business opportunities for U.S. 

companies as a huge global market for clean energy opens up over 

the next decade. 

In conclusion, history has repeatedly shown that we can grow the 

economy while making tremendous strides in reducing pollution. 

We will need our smartest scientists, our brightest engineers, and 

visionary policymakers to get this done. The President has put 

forth a smart and prudent plan to slow global warming, to prepare 

11 

for worsening climate impacts, and to ensure a safer, healthier future for our children and grandchildren. And I might add my 

grandchildren are 8 and 10 years old, so I am excited to be part 

of the President’s plan to reduce the risks of climate change. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moniz follows:] 

12 


87109.001
13 


87109.002
14 


87109.003
15 


87109.004
16 


87109.005
17 


87109.006
18 


87109.007
19 


87109.008
20 


87109.009
21 


87109.010
22 


87109.011
23 


87109.012
24 


87109.013
25 


87109.014
26 


87109.015
27 


87109.016
28 


87109.017
29 


87109.018
30 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

And Madam Administrator McCarthy, you are recognized for 5 

minutes for your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF REGINA MCCARTHY 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, Congressman 

Waxman, members of the committee. 

In June, the President reaffirmed his commitment to reducing 

carbon pollution when he directed many Federal agencies, including the EPA, to take meaningful steps to mitigate the current and 

future damage caused by carbon dioxide emissions and to prepare 

for climate changes that have been set in motion. 

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. 

Over 97 percent of climate scientists are convinced that humancaused climate change is occurring. If our changing climate goes 

unchecked, it will have devastating impacts on the United States 

and on our planet. Responding to climate change is an urgent public health, safety, national security, and environmental imperative 

that presents an economic challenge as well as an economic opportunity. Both the economy and the environment must provide for 

current and future generations. We can and must embrace cutting 

carbon pollution as a spark for innovation, for job growth, clean energy, and economic growth. The Nation’s success over the past 40 

years makes clear that environmental protection and economic 

growth do go hand-in-hand. 

The President’s Climate Action Plan directs Federal agencies to 

address climate change using our existing authorities. The plan has 

three key pillars: cutting carbon pollution in America, preparing for 

impacts of a changing climate, and leading international efforts to 

combat climate change. 

EPA plays a critical role in the plan’s first pillar, which is cutting 

carbon pollution. Over the past 4 years, EPA has begun to address 

this task. In 2010 EPA and the National Highway Transportation 

and Safety Administration along with the auto industry and other 

stakeholders, worked together to set greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for model years 2012 to 2025 light-duty vehicles. 

Over the life of those vehicles, the standards will save an estimated 

$1.7 trillion for consumers. It will cut America’s oil consumption by 

12 billion barrels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6 billion 

metric tons. 

EPA and NHTSA’s standards for model year 2014 through 2018 

heavy-duty trucks and buses present a similar success story. Under 

the President’s plan, we will be developing a second phase of 

heavy-duty vehicle standards for post-2018 model years. 

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

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

plants. 

EPA will soon propose carbon pollution standards for future 

power plants, reflecting new information and the extensive public 

comment that we received on our 2012 proposal. For existing 

plants, we are already engaged in outreach to States and a broad 

group of stakeholders with expertise who can help inform the development of proposed standards, which we expect to issue in June 

31 

of 2014. Using these standards, States will have the primary role 

in developing and implementing plans to address carbon pollution 

from existing plans, allowing us to capitalize on State leadership 

and innovation while accounting for regional diversity and providing ample flexibility. 

The plan also calls for the development of a comprehensive strategy to address methane emissions. EPA will work with other agencies to reduce these emissions through incentive-based programs. 

The President’s plan also calls for a broad array of actions to 

strengthen America’s resilience to climate impacts. EPA will incorporate research on impacts into implementation of our existing programs and we will develop information and tools to help decisionmakers, including States, localities, and tribes, to better understand and address the current effects and the future effects that we 

know are coming in a changing climate. EPA is working closely 

with our Federal agency counterparts on building national resilience, including developing the National Drought Resilience Partnership, ensuring the security of our freshwater supplies and protecting our water utilities. 

The President’s plan recognizes that we must couple action at 

home with leadership abroad. Working closely with the State Department, EPA will continue to engage our international partners 

in efforts to reduce carbon pollution through activities, including 

public-private partnership efforts to address methane emissions 

and other short-lived climate pollutants. 

In conclusion, the President’s plan provides a roadmap for Federal action to meet the challenges of a changing climate, to promote 

clean energy solutions that capitalize on American innovation and 

that drive economic growth. 

Thank you again and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:] 

32 


87109.019
33 


87109.020
34 


87109.021
35 


87109.022
36 


87109.023
37 


87109.024
38 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Madam McCarthy. 

And before I begin my questions, I would like to ask unanimous 

consent to introduce a few relevant documents into the record. I 

would like to enter, one, the President’s Climate Action Plan; two, 

the invitation letter sent to the Federal agencies requesting witnesses today, the majority committee staff hearing memorandum. 

In addition, I would like to enter the special supplement to the 

bulletin of the American Meteorological Society released this month 

and entitled ‘‘Explaining Extreme Events of 2012 from a Climate 

Perspective;’’ excerpts from the Energy Information Administration’s annual Energy Outlook 2013, including a chart reflecting 

world energy-related carbon dioxide emissions 1990 to 2040 and a 

table reflecting world carbon dioxide emissions by region and country for 1990 through 2040; and finally, an article entitled ‘‘Making 

Energy Access Meaningful’’ published this summer in the National 

Academy of Sciences’ publication ‘‘Issues in Science and Technology.’’ Without objection, the documents will be entered into the 

record. 

[The information follows:] 

39 


87109.025
40 


87109.026
41 


87109.027
42 


87109.028
43 


87109.029
44 


87109.030
45 


87109.031
46 


87109.032
47 


87109.033
48 


87109.034
49 


87109.035
50 


87109.036
51 


87109.037
52 


87109.038
53 


87109.039
54 


87109.040
55 


87109.041
56 


87109.042
57 


87109.043
58 


87109.044
59 


87109.045
60 


87109.046
61 


87109.047
62 


87109.048
63 


87109.049
64 


87109.050
65 


87109.051
66 


87109.052
67 


87109.053
68 


87109.054
69 


87109.055
70 


87109.056
71 


87109.057
72 


87109.058
73 


87109.059
74 


87109.060
75 


87109.061
76 


87109.062
77 


87109.063
78 


87109.064
79 


87109.065
80 


87109.066
81 


87109.067
82 


87109.068
83 


87109.069
84 


87109.070
85 


87109.071
86 


87109.072
87 


87109.073
88 


87109.074
89 


87109.075
90 


87109.076
91 


87109.077
92 


87109.078
93 


87109.079
94 


87109.080
95 


87109.081
96 


87109.082
97 


87109.083
98 


87109.084
99 


87109.085
100 


87109.086
101 


87109.087
102 


87109.088
103 


87109.089
104 


87109.090
105 


87109.091
106 


87109.092
107 


87109.093
108 


87109.094
109 


87109.095
110 


87109.096
111 


87109.097
112 

[The American Meteorological Society bulletin supplement is 

available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20130918/ 

101308/HHRG-113-IF03-20130918-SD011.pdf.] 

113 


87109.098
114 


87109.099
115 


87109.100
116 


87109.101
117 


87109.102
118 


87109.103
119 


87109.104
120 


87109.105
121 


87109.106
122 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And at this time I will recognize myself for 5 

minutes of questions. 

Recently, during the August break, I spent time at some universities in the State of Kentucky, and in talking to students, one of 

their major concerns was trying to find a job upon graduation. And 

I started thinking about that and I went back and I looked at the 

last 62 years the unemployment rate in America, and the last 4 

years, 2009 through 2012, the unemployment rate has been higher 

in America than at any time in the last 62 years except for 3 of 

those years. 

Now, in his speech to Georgetown University, the President specifically said that as we transition, try to make this transition, 

which we know cannot be done overnight, and the President frequently talks about an all-of-the-above policy, but America is the 

only country in the world where you cannot build a new coal-powered plant because the emission standards cannot be met because 

the technology is not available. And we know that regulations on 

existing plants are going to be coming out in 2014 in June. 

But in that speech, the President said in talking about his Action 

Plan, that we must provide special programs for people who lose 

their jobs. And as I quote it, there have been significant closures 

of electricity production plants using coal, and over 151 coalmines 

have been closed. So I would ask either one of you what are the 

special plans in the President’s Action Plan to help address these 

people who are losing their jobs because of these policies? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, let me begin. I just want to indicate that I think that I am sensitive and certainly the Environmental Protection Agency has been sensitive that as we pursue our 

mission to protect public health and the environment, we have to 

be sensitive to the economic consequences of our actions—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Then, Ms. McCarthy—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Particularly—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD [continuing]. Do you know specifically what plan 

is in effect? He talked about we are going to have the special plans 

to address the concerns of these people who lose their jobs. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am not familiar with the details of those plans, 

but I am familiar—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. From reading the Climate Action—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Plan that the President—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Sees this as both a challenge as 

well as an economic—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Opportunity for this—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, in looking at the organization chart for the 

Climate Action Plan, I notice that there is one chart under the Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy referred to as the Green 

Cabinet. How does the Green Cabinet differentiate from the regular Presidential Cabinet? 

Mr. MONIZ. Mr. Chairman, so the Green Cabinet denotes that 

there are occasional meeting of principals from the agencies who 

123 

have special responsibility in the climate action plan so we can get 

together and discuss coordination of programs, make sure there are 

not duplications. So it is a subgroup of the Cabinet who again 

meets periodically together with key White House presidential assistants to discuss the general set of issues—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Um-hum. 

Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. Around climate change. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And who is the person at the Department of Energy responsible for the coordination of all the task forces relating 

to climate change in the government? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, of course, I consider myself as having ultimate 

responsibility—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, but—— 

Mr. MONIZ. The action officer—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD [continuing]. You have designated a—— 

Mr. MONIZ. The action officer, if you like, is my Chief of Staff, 

Kevin Knobloch, who is keeping track of all of our responsibilities 

under the CAP. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Kevin Knobloch? 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And, Ms. McCarthy, who is your designated person for this? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Again, I have ultimate responsibility. We have 

two primary components. We have a mitigation strategy, which we 

are managing out of our office in Air and Radiation primarily. That 

would be Janet McCabe, who is currently the acting assistant administrator. On the adaptation side, which is looking at climate resilience and preparedness we had our Office of Policy that is directed by associate administrator Michael Goo. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, I noticed the GAO or in the budget there 

is $22 billion allocated for climate change Action Plan for 2013. 

How much of that money will be allocated to EPA? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am sorry. Could you repeat the question, Mr. 

Chairman? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. There is 22 billion planned to be spent in fiscal 

year 2013. How much of that money was allocated to EPA? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I can’t answer that question, sir, but I am happy 

to follow it up. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Do you know from the Secretary of Energy’s 

position, Secretary Moniz, how much of the 22 billion—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, I think the problem, first of all, is how one 

counts. For example, if we count our energy efficiency programs, 

which of course have the objective of saving money and also—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. Would be part of the solution for climate 

change, well, then, let’s add 1 billion there. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Mr. MONIZ. So if we talk about all the programs that are helpful 

for climate change—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes. 

Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. Then we are talking about $5 billion—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. Mostly in our R&D budget, but as I say, 

most of that is for, you know, efficiency, nuclear power—— 

124 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Um-hum. 

Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. Clean technologies, actually, we can 

throw in fusion. The one exception one might say is the substantial 

resources we devote to carbon capture and sequestration specifically to make coal competitive in a low-carbon world. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. My time is expired. I recognize Mr. 

Waxman for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Secretary Moniz, in your testimony you describe 

the dangers we face from climate change. Is it too late to protect 

the planet from the worst effects of climate change? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, first of all, I think it is clear we cannot avoid 

implications. We are seeing them today. In my view this decade is 

the critical one that we need to move out smartly and smartly—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. How much time do we have? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Can we afford to wait to act? 

Mr. MONIZ. It will be a long-term commitment, but we have to 

act in this decade because, as I said, the CO2 problem is cumulative and every ton we emit, you can check it off against our children and grandchildren. 

Mr. WAXMAN. My concern is that we are facing this urgent 

threat, but all Congress is doing is getting in the way. 

This Congress has rightly been called the do-nothing Congress. 

But on climate we are doing worse than nothing. We are affirmatively obstructing progress. 

Administrator McCarthy, you have been accused of leading a war 

on coal. But in 2009 the President supported market-based legislation to make major carbon pollution reductions while investing $60 

billion to develop clean coal technologies like carbon capture and 

sequestration, isn’t that right? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is my understanding. 

Mr. WAXMAN. The chairman said that this is the only country in 

the world where new coal plants cannot be built. You haven’t released any regulations to prevent coal plants from being built, have 

you? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have not, no. 

Mr. WAXMAN. At the time, our bill was criticized for being too 

generous to the coal industry. But virtually all the Republicans on 

this committee and the coal industry opposed the legislation despite its massive investment in that industry. We wanted to invest 

in innovative approaches so that coal could still be used, but Republicans opposed us. 

Last year, I tried a different approach. I wrote an op-ed calling 

for an emissions fee that would put a price on carbon. I even said 

that I would support using the revenues raised to reduce other 

taxes. But Republicans in the House also opposed this approach. 

Republicans outside the House, some of them, supported it. In fact, 

House Republicans opposed every idea that has been raised for addressing climate change. 

Administrator McCarthy, you promulgated regulations last Congress reducing carbon pollution from cars and trucks. House Republicans voted to strip you of the authority to regulate those emissions, isn’t that right? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is my understanding. 

125 

Mr. WAXMAN. They also voted to strip EPA of authority to regulate carbon pollution from power plants, isn’t that right? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is right. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Secretary Moniz, I have heard some Republicans 

say that they like the idea of energy efficiency. But when I look at 

their record, they voted to block enforcement of requirements for 

energy-efficient light bulbs and they have reported a budget for 

your department for next year that would cut funding for energyefficiency programs. The same is true for investments in research 

to develop the solar, wind, and other clean energy technologies of 

the future. 

Secretary Moniz, within your department there is a division 

called ARPA–E, which invests in advanced energy research 

projects. It is widely praised by the scientific and research communities for finding breakthrough technology. Yet this year, the House 

Appropriations Committee voted to slash its budget by over 80 percent, isn’t that right? 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes, that is correct, sir. 

Mr. WAXMAN. In this committee I often hear Republican members argue against U.S. efforts to do anything about reducing emissions because our Nation would be at a competitive disadvantage. 

They say we need a global approach. 

But then the House Appropriations Committee votes to defund 

the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is the 

international body charged with negotiating an international climate treaty. Last Congress, House Republicans also voted to 

defund not only our international efforts but defund our government’s lead climate negotiator. 

Add it all up, what do you have? House Republicans have voted 

against climate change legislation, they voted against climate regulation, they have voted against climate research and development, 

and they voted against international climate efforts. 

It is an appalling record. And it is why my question to them is, 

What is your plan? It is easy to criticize other people’s solutions. 

But if all you do is criticize, you are either a climate denier because 

you don’t think anything needs to be done, the science doesn’t warrant it, it is not happening, or they are ignoring the warning of scientists. Secretary Moniz told us that we have a very narrow window to act. We should be starting to act now, and that is why we 

need to stop ignoring the scientists and start listening to them, Mr. 

Chairman. 

So tell us what your plan is, don’t just criticize, because we are 

facing a serious problem not for the future but right now with extreme weather events. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Upton, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, I think that it is important as we conduct oversight 

of agency actions on climate change and energy that we also reflect 

on the statutory frameworks of the agencies implementing such 

policy. And as an example, a point that I like to make is, as we 

reflect back on DOE’s energy coordination role, it was developed 

frankly back at the time of energy constraints, way back in the 

126 

1970s. I think you would agree, Dr. Moniz, that we are currently 

in a new era of North American energy abundance. Now, where I 

believe, and I think the stats will show that as well, that we can 

actually be energy independent for North America by using all of 

our resources that are available. And I would like you to comment 

on that as part of the record. 

Mr. MONIZ. And certainly, Mr. Chairman, the President and I 

both are very supportive of all-of-the-above energy strategy within 

a world where we are working to reduce CO2 emissions. 

Mr. UPTON. And I know on page 10 of the President’s Climate 

Action Plan, the natural gas bullet, it refers to natural gas as a 

bridge fuel. And is it the policy of DOE to consider natural gas as 

a bridge fuel? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, our policy is to do what we can to support 

clean, safe production of natural gas, and I might add also of socalled unconventional oil. 

Mr. UPTON. So as we look at what you may be doing as an agency to approve or consider export applications for LNG, is it bridge 

fuel? Is that part of the discussion or the debate? 

Mr. MONIZ. No, sir, that has not been part of the discussion to 

date. I mean our approach to the LNG exports is by law to approve 

them unless we rule an application as not in the public interest. 

A public interest determination has many facets. We have just 

given, as you know, another two applications conditional approvals 

recently. I should emphasize that the final approval will require 

the environmental review through FERC and then coming back to 

the Department of Energy. 

Mr. UPTON. I just know as I look at the situation, particularly 

as we try to become North American energy independent, the new 

discoveries and fields that we have been able to find of natural gas 

are an exciting, positive change. We look at the advent of the manufacture of vehicles, passenger vehicles perhaps using natural gas. 

We look at some of the large fleets some of our businesses, whether 

they be UPS or AT&T and others being able to convert those vehicles to natural gas. I have a major manufacturer in my district, 

Eaton, which is looking at natural gas trucks for their fleet. We 

even look at locomotives, our railroads, looking at perhaps a very 

positive transition from diesel to natural gas and the work of, I 

know, Caterpillar and General Electric producing those and seeing 

if in fact it will have a very positive impact on our economy and 

to real change. 

Ms. McCarthy, does EPA consider natural gas abundance as a 

bridge fuel? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. EPA views natural gas abundance as a positive 

for air quality as an opportunity for us domestically to be safe and 

secure in our energy supplies. Our responsibility is to ensure that 

that is done as safely and responsibly as we can working with the 

industry. 

Mr. UPTON. You know, one of the concerns that I hear, particularly as I talk to the railroad folks and they are looking at this potential change conversion to natural gas is that they are concerned 

as they look at purchasing these, if in fact they work, that the regulations may change, thus impacting the ‘‘payback period’’ as it relates to the—is EPA considering new regulations to do that? 

127 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Any regulations that EPA would consider are 

going to be thoughtfully proposed and commented on. Right now, 

sir, I think it is safe to say that EPA is investing very heavily in 

opportunities to understand the sector, to gather data, to work with 

the industry in a collaborative way. We see this as a very positive 

collaboration moving forward. We see this as a significant opportunity to reduce air pollutants and to move forward in a safe and 

effective domestic supply. And so I am very encouraged about the 

relationship we are building with the gas industry, the rules we 

have already put out. I see no reason for concern that that situation is going to change and people won’t be able to rely on this as 

a cleaner fuel moving forward. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. I know my time is expired. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. At this time, I 

recognize—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Mr. Chairman, may I just add a footnote with your 

permission? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MONIZ. I just want to say to Chairman Upton I would add 

to your list marine applications, and also in fracking, replacing diesels with natural gas engines there as well, less oil use and better 

air quality. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 

McNerney, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to explore two things in my 5 minutes. First is the 

confidence that you have that climate change is taking place as a 

significant threat and as caused by a large degree by human activities; and secondly, if actions taken to combat climate change will 

harm or benefit the economy. So, first, Secretary Moniz, would you 

address the first question? How confident are you that climate 

change is taking place, that it is a significant threat, and that it 

is caused to a large degree by human activity? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, again, first of all, of course the scientific community overwhelmingly endorses those statements and I personally 

do. As I have said in a previous hearing for this committee, I think 

my confidence in those statements does not rely just on the results 

of some very complicated computer models but some very simple 

arithmetic in terms of what has been known for a long time about 

the strength of CO2, the greenhouse effect, and that the amount 

that we are emitting is of the scale that within decades we would 

reach areas such as doubling preindustrial emissions, which have 

always been viewed as being highly, highly risky. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Administrator McCarthy, I would 

like to address my second question to you in this form: How have 

higher standards such as those as fuel efficiency helped drive innovation and create jobs? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we have been working with the auto industry in particular over the past few years to understand what they 

need to have certainty moving forward on air quality standards, on 

fuel efficiency, on greenhouse gas standards. We have worked together. And as a result of our rules, we have been able to support 

the industry in a robust sort of reemergence of that industry both 

128 

domestically and internationally. We are proud of the work we 

have done together. We are delivering fuel-efficient vehicles for 

consumers in the way they want them. We are saving them money. 

We are reducing greenhouse gases. And we believe we are part of 

the auto industry’s efforts to gain a competitive advantage that is 

to a great advantage for jobs and economy in this country. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So you believe the Detroit has become more 

competitive with these higher fuel standards—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We believe so. 

Mr. MCNERNEY [continuing]. Thereby creating more jobs? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We know that certainty is important moving forward. We have provided this industry a path forward until 2025. 

That gives them an opportunity to do research, to develop new 

technologies, and to have a solid footing moving forward. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. MONIZ. If I may just add—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Sure. 

Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. Sir, on the auto side, I think it is actually even a bigger story going back to when the auto industry in 

this country looked like it was on its last legs, a whole combination 

of issues from support for GM and Chrysler assuming they had 

proper restructuring for the future, to loan guarantees for Ford and 

Nissan; Nissan built a plant in Tennessee because of that loan 

guarantee—to preparing for the future with electric vehicle markets and the great success story of Tesla, we could talk about 

Fisker, which we all know is a different issue today, but overall, 

this portfolio has taken us to an incredibly vibrant auto industry 

that is growing faster than the Chinese auto industry. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Are there any other technologies or items that 

energy efficiency or work toward renewable energy has created jobs 

that you would like to point to? 

Mr. MONIZ. Certainly. We could go through lots and lots of those 

stories. First of all, on again the autos, Tesla is a story of 3,000 

jobs in California. That is way above even their business plan. 

Take the solar PV business and I will go back to our loan guarantee program. When there was no debt financing available, those 

loans supported the first six utility-scale PV projects in this country. There have subsequently been 10 with pure private financing. 

That is jobs all the way from manufacturing, to supply chain, to 

the installation and operation. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, do you see grid modernization playing a 

role in helping reduce climate change and also in creating jobs? 

Mr. MONIZ. Grid modernization is a very, very high priority. It 

has multiple benefits. One would be the integration of renewables 

into the system. A second is that it can provide with intelligence 

embedded in the grid. It can provide new consumer services and 

higher efficiency, lower bills. And finally, it will be needed, as the 

example I gave in New Jersey, to provide resilience against the extreme weather events that we are seeing more and more of. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

129 

I want to welcome our two witnesses and give you the red badge 

of courage for showing up. We invited 13 agencies and I don’t know 

if you all drew straws and got the long straws or whatever, but you 

two are here and we are glad you are here. We didn’t hear from 

Department of Agriculture, Defense, HHS, Interior, State Department, Transportation, Export-Import Bank, NASA, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, Office of Science and Technology 

Policy, or U.S. Agency for International Development. For some 

reason they couldn’t make it, but you two are and you all have 

been here before and we are glad you all are both here. 

Each of you and the other 11 agencies got a letter dated August 

the 6th, 2013, asking you to attend, and it asked you to answer 

nine questions. Now, when Mr. Waxman was speaking in his Q&A 

he said that the Obama administration has spent about $60 billion 

on climate change. The number I had was 70 billion, but we will 

go with Mr. Waxman’s 60 billion number. And this is really an effort to let the Obama administration put their best foot forward. 

So we asked nine questions and I asked the staff if your agencies 

had answered these questions. And I am told that they had not. So 

I am going to read them into the record and then give each of you 

briefly a chance to see if you can get us these answers. 

The first question that we asked your agency was to describe the 

climate change-related research and technology programs that you 

are actively engaged in, including programs or activities undertaken with other Federal agencies. We didn’t get an answer to that. 

We asked you to describe the climate change adaptation, mitigation, or sustainability-related activities engaged in, including activities undertaken with other Federal agencies. We didn’t get an 

answer to that. 

We asked you to identify all the climate change-related interagency task forces, advisory committees, working groups, and initiatives in which your agency is currently participating and or has 

participated in since January of 2005, didn’t get an answer to that. 

We asked you to identify all climate change or clean energy-related funding, grants, or financial assistance programs which your 

agency is currently participating or has participated in and the 

amount of climate change or clean energy-related funding, grants, 

and financial assistance distributed by your agencies since January 

of 2005, didn’t get an answer to that. 

We asked you to identify all the climate change-related regulations or guidance documents, including regulations or standards to 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions issued or proposed by your agency 

since January 2005 or under development, didn’t get an answer to 

that. 

We asked you to identify all the climate change-related international negotiations, agreements, partnerships, working groups, 

or initiatives in which you currently or have previously participated since January 2005, didn’t get an answer to that. 

Provide the approximate amount of annual agency funding attributed to climate change activities of the fiscal years 2005 

through 2012, didn’t get an answer to that. 

Describe the actions that your agency has undertaken to respond 

to the Executive Order by the President, 13514, including the approximate cost, personnel, and other resources dedicated by your 

130 

agency to implement that Executive Order, didn’t get an answer to 

that, Mr. Chairman. 

And last but not least, to provide a list of each sub-agency, division, and/or program office within your agency that is currently engaged in climate change-related activities and to provide an estimate of the approximate number of your agency employees and/or 

contractors engaged part-time or full-time in climate change-related activities. Guess what, didn’t get an answer to that. 

Now, Mr. Waxman has been asking this committee and the subcommittee to hold hearings on President Obama’s climate change 

efforts all year long. We asked nine questions. We didn’t get one 

straight answer. Are you trying to hide something? Are you embarrassed by it? Or you just don’t care to respond to the Congress? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, I will answer first at least, Mr. Barton. Thank 

you. 

Look, I am very happy to come and discuss any and all of those 

questions. I will address a few of them now if you would like. Certainly, well, for the Department of Energy, for example, the question on regulations, et cetera, standards, that is clear. It is efficiency standards is what we do in this regard. 

In terms of the programs, as I said earlier, I would say our last 

budget, fiscal year 2013 enacted, the question is ambiguous, but if 

we take all of the programs that help address climate change, even 

if they have other objectives like efficiency, then that count would 

come to about 5.4 billion. But as I say, there are multiple objectives. There is fuel diversity, nuclear energy, fossil energy, et 

cetera. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, my time has expired. 

Mr. MONIZ. OK. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And I think, Mr. Secretary, we do appreciate 

your making an effort to answer, but I do hope that you all would 

get with your staffs and try to respond to us because, as was indicated, we asked these questions—— 

Mr. MONIZ. We will do that, sir. 

Mr. WHITFIELD [continuing]. Some time ago and we would appreciate you all responding to that. 

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, the point I am trying to make is we 

are trying to have a good faith effort here to have a real dialogue, 

but in order to have the dialogue, we have to have the facts. And 

we are being stonewalled, which means the American people are 

being stonewalled. These are not complicated questions and they 

are not trick questions. If the Obama administration has this great 

Climate Change Action Plan, every one of these questions should 

be able to be answered in detail and in glowing terms. So I would 

hope that you two representatives of the Obama administration, 

you know, first of all, both of you are good people. You are smart, 

you have got integrity, you have worked with this committee. Get 

us the straight facts and then we will have a debate with the other 

side—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BARTON [continuing]. Over what those facts mean. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Barton, will you yield to me just to correct a 

statement—— 

Mr. BARTON. If I have time, I will be happy to yield. 

131 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, you quoted me as saying the $60 billion has been spent, but my statement was that we proposed $60 billion to 

go to be spent under our legislation. Secondly, it is unprecedented 

to have to Cabinet-level officials who have the primary burden of 

dealing with the climate change issue come before a subcommittee. 

I hardly call that stonewalling. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Actually, CRS said 70 billion over the last 4 

years but—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, we are talking about different—he quoted me 

as saying 60 billion. I wasn’t saying it was 60 instead of 70. My 

statement about 60 billion was what we proposed to spend in the 

cap-and-trade bill. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Dingell, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy. 

Administrator McCarthy, welcome back to the committee and 

congratulations on your new position as EPA Administrator. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. DINGELL. We wish you great good luck as you take on this 

new position. 

And also, Mr. Secretary, we welcome you to the committee. 

Gentlemen and ladies, these questions will be yes or no and I 

will request that you give us some additional information as a response after the response has been made. 

So for both of our witnesses, does EPA or the Department of Energy see a future for coal as a viable energy source in light of the 

impending greenhouse gas regulations? Please answer yes or no 

and then submit additional information for the record. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, Congressman. 

Mr. MONIZ. I agree. Yes. Um-hum. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Administrator McCarthy, I understand that 

there will be a different proposal for modified sources, i.e., units 

that have been updated, and also for existing sources that have not 

been modified. Can you tell me if EPA is reaching out to all stakeholders concerned about both components of the greenhouse gas 

rule? Please answer yes or no. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. To the best ability we can, yes, we are. 

Mr. DINGELL. Would you please also, Madam Administrator, submit more information for the record? 

Now, is EPA thinking about a unit-by-unit compliance goal for 

the existing and modified source carbon standards? Please answer 

yes or no. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We are thinking about that and a number of 

other different flexible strategies. 

Mr. DINGELL. Would you submit such additional comments for 

the record as you deem appropriate? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, the debate about climate change is not just 

about air but it is also about water. I am sure that both you and 

the Secretary understand this. 

Administrator McCarthy, you do all know that the Great Lakes 

contain 20 percent of the world’s freshwater. Luckily, our water 

levels are up slightly this year after years of inadequate ice cover 

132 

on the lakes and too little precipitation, rain and snow. Lower lake 

levels affect not only shipping and boating and recreation but also 

make it easier for algae blooms to form, endanger fish habitats, 

and threaten drinking water sources, as well as industrial and cooling water intakes. Madam Administrator, do you believe that the 

President’s Climate Action Plan provides the direction for EPA to 

deal with the unique problems of the Great Lakes? Please answer 

yes or no. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. MONIZ. Sir, may I—— 

Mr. DINGELL. Will EPA under your leadership continue to work 

with other Federal and State agencies to address climate-related 

problems on the Great Lakes? Yes or no? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. In dealing with water quality, do you believe that 

EPA has adequate clarification of its jurisdiction under the Clean 

Water Act to ensure protection of water sources? Please answer yes 

or no. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Not as yet but we are certainly working on that. 

Mr. DINGELL. I want you to give us some additional response on 

that because that is a matter of deep concern, I think, to you, and 

it is to me, too. 

Now, Madam Administrator, as these problems on the Great 

Lakes become more frequent, do you believe EPA will need further 

clarification of its Clean Water Act jurisdiction? Please answer yes 

or no. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, I do. 

Mr. DINGELL. And I believe you are finding, Madam Administrator, that the actions taken by the Congress to foreclose you and 

EPA from getting us additional work in terms of rules and regulations clarifying the Supreme Court decision are extremely 

unhealthy, am I correct? Yes or no? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We find them very difficult. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, I am sure you have seen a recent map published in the National Geographic showing what would happen if 

all the world ice were to melt. While this is a somewhat drastic scenario, it shows almost all of Florida and all of New Jersey submerged. It was not the map, however, that intrigues me most. The 

map showed little or no effect on the Great Lakes. Do you believe 

that EPA along with other Federal agencies have the tools necessary to predict what affects climate change might have on the 

Great Lakes basin and the region in which they exist? Please answer yes or no. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Would you submit additional information for the 

record as you deem it appropriate? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I will. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, I would like to have a submission from you, 

Mr. Secretary, about what it is you are going to do about potential 

shortages and whether we have shortages coming on electric power 

because of the actions that are going to have to be taken with regard to global warming and matters of that kind and how that is 

going to affect our future in terms of the reliability and availability 

of electric power. 

133 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

If you would submit that for the record, please. 

Mr. MONIZ. And I will just note, sir, that we have a report of 

vulnerabilities of the energy infrastructure that will answer many 

of your questions. I might just add one factoid that there are projections that in an unconstrained world in terms of greenhouse gas 

emissions, we could see about a 2-foot drop in the level of the Great 

Lakes in this century, which would of course be very, very disruptive. 

Mr. DINGELL. Industry is going to make a large number of retirements of plans because of—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. DINGELL. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Hall, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

And the argument about whether or not climate change is taking 

place, I know one thing by the argument that Mr. Barton had with 

the gentleman from California, something that is taking place and 

taxing the hard-working people of this country is taking place. 

And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your opening statement when 

you set out, and it wasn’t an estimate on your part. This is from 

the Congressional Research Service—they usually are pretty accurate—that the climate change funding for climate science technology, international assistance, and adoption was approximately 

70 billion for the period 2008 to 2012. 

Now, Mr. Barton, you got better answers. I counted, I think, 12 

or 15 of those people that didn’t give you any answer it all. By no 

answer you got a better answer than I had received from Mrs. 

McCarthy about a year ago in the Science Committee if you remember coming before our committee there. And I may have asked 

you a question you didn’t like and your answer was I am not in 

the business of creating jobs. That is out of the record itself. And 

I left word there if you wanted to apologize to the many millions 

of people that were unemployed and many of them hungry. And I 

have never seen that apology to this day. 

Actually, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent 

to submit more of my questions in writing. I have more than the 

5 minutes lets me make here. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection. 

Mr. HALL. That is taking place at 20 billion per year and we can 

figure that up however we want to. And I yield back the time. I 

thank both the witnesses for appearing. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 

time. 

At this time I would recognize the gentleman from New York, 

Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Secretary Moniz, if we were going to reduce our carbon pollution, 

we need to deploy more clean energy and boost energy efficiency. 

Yesterday, the Department of Energy released its report showing 

that wind and solar power, LED lighting, and electric vehicles are 

growing rapidly in this country as a result of well-designed Federal 

and State incentives and investments in research and development. 

134 

That being said, the report finds that as a result of these measures, 

‘‘the historic shift to a cleaner, more domestic, and more secure energy future is not some faraway goal. We are living it, and it is 

gaining force.’’ I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter this 

report into the record, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

135 


87109.107
136 


87109.108
137 


87109.109
138 


87109.110
139 


87109.111
140 


87109.112
141 


87109.113
142 


87109.114
143 


87109.115
144 


87109.116
145 


87109.117
146 


87109.118
147 


87109.119
148 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. The report contained a particularly striking graph about the cost and deployment of wind energy in the 

United States. Wind capacity has skyrocketed in our country, and 

I believe the committee has that graph. OK. We are posting it on 

the screen. Thank you. 

[Graph.] 

Mr. TONKO. Secretary Moniz, what has been the key to wind 

power’s success? As you see, we have the graph itself on the display 

screen. 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, I think the story, as I alluded to earlier, it is 

actually the same story that we saw decades ago with unconventional natural gas. We had investment from the Federal Government, we had public-private partnerships, and we had time-limited, 

well-crafted incentive that has these things taking off. We are seeing the same thing now with wind. As we can see, the deployment 

is very, very striking. And of course the cost certainly in good wind 

areas are quite competitive with other sources. 

The report has similar graphs, same kind of message, with 

photovoltaics. Solar energy, it is not fully appreciated how competitive solar is already in the right conditions, which is typical for this 

stage of a technology penetrating the market. 

Mr. TONKO. So is the response for solar as strong as this wind? 

Mr. MONIZ. Perhaps stronger. 

Mr. TONKO. Super. What can we do to—— 

Mr. MONIZ. And also, if I may, in LEDs it is totally incredible. 

It has gone from, I don’t know, 50,000 to 20 million deployed in the 

country in a very short time, and the cost has gone from $50 to $15 

and the lifetime savings from one LED is over $100. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. What can we do to ensure that today’s 

R&D is utilized fully into emerging energy technologies so that we 

can achieve these same levels of success? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, first of all, we need to, as I said earlier, we 

need a sustained commitment to maintain the research development demonstration and deployment push. That is absolutely required. And these will be market-competitive technologies again 

sooner rather than later. 

The other thing is, of course, we would like to capture the full 

value of these developments and that involves other things that we 

are doing such as, for example, the advanced manufacturing partnership to really help establish the cutting-edge manufacturing capacity and training in this country. 

Mr. TONKO. Um-hum. Energy efficiency is a key part of the 

President’s Climate Action Plan. Energy efficiency is one of the 

cheapest and most cost-effective ways to reduce carbon pollution 

while saving consumers money, and it is a big part of the Department of Energy’s responsibilities under the President’s plan. Mr. 

Secretary, the President’s plan calls for new energy efficiency 

standards for appliances and equipment. Why are energy efficiency 

standards a good way to reduce carbon pollution? 

Mr. MONIZ. These standards apply to reducing all of our emissions, carbon emissions, as well as conventional pollutants by reducing the energy needs quite substantially. But I really want to 

emphasize all of our rules have a cost-benefit test and they also 

149 

save money for consumers. The upfront marginal increases are 

overwhelmed by the energy savings at the consumer level. 

Mr. TONKO. Well, some believe that taking action to address climate change will kill jobs and cost consumers money. Is that an 

accurate description of these energy efficiency standards? 

Mr. MONIZ. No, we believe that they create jobs for one thing by 

saving money in the economy that can be devoted to other purposes. 

Mr. TONKO. Um-hum. 

Mr. MONIZ. And in addition it gives us products that we can sell 

globally. 

Mr. TONKO. Um-hum. I see that my time is up, Mr. Chair. I will 

yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Shimkus, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, welcome. I am glad to have both of you here today. 

Secretary Moniz, any serious plan for reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions substantially must have a strong nuclear component. Do 

you agree with that? 

Mr. MONIZ. I am sorry. Could you repeat that? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Nuclear power is critical and obviously having a 

greenhouse gas plan—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes, we are supporting nuclear power. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Do you consider nuclear programs to be a critical 

part of this administration’s plan? 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes, it is all of the above, and nuclear is strongly 

there. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So you probably weren’t interested in following the 

last licensing case before the NRC and the only person who voted 

against licensing? That was the then-Chairman Jaczko, who was 

appointed by this President. So the concern is the conflicting signals we are seeing. You have got the presidential-appointed chairman of the NRC casting the only ‘‘no’’ vote for licensing a new nuclear power plant in this country. And so that leads to the other 

questions. 

Under this administration how many nuclear reactors have 

closed down? 

Mr. MONIZ. I believe there are five—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. It is actually six. We have got one in New Jersey, 

Wisconsin, California, Florida, and Vermont. 

Mr. MONIZ. And five being built. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Right, without the vote to license by the chairman 

of the NRC, who was appointed by the President. So I will give you 

that point, but you have to give me a point on jobs that a lot of 

jobs have been lost by the shutdown of these nuclear facilities. 

Under the President’s Climate Action Plan, EPA is expected to 

propose a rule later this week setting greenhouse gas standards for 

new power plants that will require CCS technologies for any new 

coal plant built in the U.S. This is effectively, as many of us fear 

and Administrator McCarthy knows where I stand on this, a ban 

on new coal-fired power plants. Do you believe, as the Secretary of 

Energy, that it is defensible for the EPA to impose regulations that 

150 

essentially ban the building of new coal-fired power plants in this 

country? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, I certainly am not going to comment on the ongoing—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But from an energy position of the baseload demand or the requirements of this country in low-cost power, obviously removing coal-fired power plants from the fleet will raise 

costs? 

Mr. MONIZ. Again, our job at the Department of Energy is to—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Hopefully—— 

Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. Support the—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS [continuing]. Production of low-cost energy for our 

consumers—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Making technologies—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS [continuing]. And our manufacturers and the like. 

Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. For coal in a low-carbon world. And I 

might add there is lots of activity already—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, we are going to keep following on that course 

of questions. Is the DOE aware of any U.S. commercial-scale power 

generation plant using coal as a fuel that captures, transports, and 

permanently stores carbon dioxide? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, as you know, there have been a number of 

demonstrations. There is the commercial—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That is not the question. The question is is there 

one today—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Commercial plant 75 percent complete and Mississippi—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But it is—— 

Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. And also although—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS [continuing]. Not generating and not storing. 

Mr. MONIZ. But if I may add, it is not a power plant, but I think 

we should not ignore the fact—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That is another good point. 

Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. That 12 years we have the Great Plains 

Weyburn project, 20 million tons have been used for EOR, and it 

is running on a commercial basis. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. All right. The point, as you know, CCS takes billions of dollars. There is no commercially available technology to do 

it. It is not being conducted right now for—and I am going to turn 

to the administrator, who is a friend—but for these new rules to 

be promulgated, it is a signal that we are not going to build new 

coal-fired power plants until there is at least a demonstrated ability to have this technology, and the concern is the costs are going 

to be great. 

Administrator McCarthy, has EPA ever established a new source 

performance standard for an emissions source on the basis of technology that has not been commercially proven by operation at commercial scale? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have in the past, for example, our use of 

scrubbers was seen as an innovative but—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But it was commercially available at that time? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It was—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That is the whole difference between the clean air 

debate and the greenhouse gas debate is in the clean air debate 

151 

technology was available. In the greenhouse gas debate it is not 

available. That is really the number one concern that we have. Do 

you want to—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I mean do you agree with that or—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Congressman, the rule has yet to be issued, but 

I will say that this is an issue that was heavily discussed. That is 

the reason why we are reproposing. We will have a full debate 

about this when the rule goes out, but I would indicate to you that 

this rule is not about existing facilities. It is about the future 

plants that are being constructed. And there are four plants that 

are planning on and designing in CCS at levels that would beat 

anything that we had proposed in our earlier proposal. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I hope you are right and I hope it is successful. The point is it will be costly. 

I am going to end on this, Mr. Chairman. 

And I think you have litigation issues that are unknown. The 

State of Illinois is applying for this, as you know. Mr. Secretary, 

you are doing your research there. There are other issues just than 

being able to, you know, get this down in deep sequestration 

aquifers. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Ms. McCarthy, will you provide us a list of those 

four plants you just referred to? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Certainly. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And like my colleagues, 

I would like to welcome Administrator McCarthy and Secretary 

Moniz and thank you both for appearing today and look forward to 

our discussion. And I have enjoyed it so far. 

Administrator McCarthy, I have been concerned in the past that 

EPA has not taken DOE’s concern about reliability seriously when 

developing utility rules. Can you commit to giving deference to 

DOE on grid reliability when drafting a rule for existing power 

plants? Is that part of the consideration with EPA? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have worked hand-in-hand in developing this 

proposal and we certainly will on the evaluation of comments in 

moving any rule forward. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. And I see the Secretary shaking his head, too, 

so I am glad you all are working together because even though we 

want as clean air as we can, we still want to be able to turn on 

the lights. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GREEN. And particularly in Texas have our air-conditioning 

in the summer. 

I generally support the research and international efforts to address greenhouse gas emissions that the administration is undertaking. When it comes to regulating carbon from our industrial 

services, I do see that Congress should move past its gridlock and 

develop a regulatory plan instead of the EPA. I think Congress 

ought to do our job and particularly the Supreme Court said the 

EPA already has the current authority. But until Congress starts 

152 

to legislate again, we can’t sit here and just complain about the 

EPA are doing what the Supreme Court said it has the authority. 

Climate change is real and it is something that Congress should 

act on. 

Secretary Moniz, where are we with the CCS technology? I know 

that the plant in Mississippi may be up and running in the next 

year, but even that is not guaranteed. When do you reasonably expect CCS to become technologically and economically feasible? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, I think we should talk about carbon capture 

and sequestration. Certainly carbon capture, whether it be for combustion plants or for gasification plants, is demonstrated technology. We continue to invest in new technologies that will further 

reduce cost, but those are used technologies in various places, well, 

certainly in the petrochemical industry, in the former case, Great 

Plains plant in the second case. 

And on sequestration side, storage side, as I said earlier, this one 

plant, this one field in Weyburn for enhanced oil recovery has already stored 20 million tons. And largely in Texas actually we are 

using 60 megatons a year for producing 300,000 barrels of oil. So 

this is a growing concern so the components are all there. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, and I think some of our concern is that we 

don’t want the requirements to get past what either the technology 

or what you can capitalize to be able to deal with. And so there 

needs to be coordination there if that technology is there and there 

are examples of it. But is the plant up in Mississippi? Do we have 

a timeline on when they are going to actually be up and running? 

Mr. MONIZ. I believe they are operating in 2014 or 2015. It is 

quite close. It is a gasification plant again, and again, the CO2 will 

go to enhanced oil recovery in local fields. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, and there has been success in, you know, the 

Midland area, the Permian basin for, you know, enhanced oil recovery and we even have a pipeline from Mississippi to the Gulf coast 

to use so—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN [continuing]. There are examples. 

Mr. MONIZ. On average in Texas it has been about a half-a-ton 

stored per barrel of oil produced. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. I appreciate it because it is a beneficial use. We 

can use it for—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mr. GREEN [continuing]. Enhanced recovery. You testified that in 

developing the GHG regulations for existing power plants you engaged in the outreach to a broad group of stakeholders with expertise who can inform development of proposed standards and regulation guidelines, which you expect to issue in June of 2014. You also 

said that for us to be successful, the policy to be developed would 

have to promote economic growth. Some people say that any policy 

to address climate change is only going to do harm to our economy. 

To what degree will utilities play a role in developing these regulations? Is there a formal process already scheduled that they participate in? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. EPA has already engaged in a number of utilityand energy-related forums talking about this issue and we will engage with the utilities every step of the way. It is my concerted beVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:38 May 19, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-82~1\113-82~1 WAYNE
153 

lief and I think you will see this as we talk to States that they are 

taking numerous actions already that are reducing greenhouse 

gases. There are so many States that already have renewable fuel 

standards, energy efficiency standards. They are working with 

their mayors to make their cities more efficient. There are ways in 

which we can recognize and understand how best we can shape 

these plans that States need to develop that will be beneficial to 

them from an economic perspective and beneficial to the U.S. and 

the world to reduce the threat of climate change. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I know I am over time, but these 

power companies are actually part of that process? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Very much so. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. 

Scalise, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding 

this hearing and, Administrator McCarthy and Secretary Moniz, I 

appreciate you all being here talking about climate change policies. 

And of course a lot of this comes in the context of economic policy, how these policies have an impact on families, how they have 

an impact on the economy. We hear all the time from small businesses I meet with, I know talking to my colleagues the same 

thing. Some of the biggest impediments they have to creating jobs 

right now are policies coming out of Washington, and frankly, Administrator McCarthy, the policies coming out of EPA seem to be 

at the top of that list, a lot of the threats are coming out of EPA. 

And I know you are new to the current job you have and that 

you have been at the EPA in different roles throughout the years. 

And I don’t know if you all recognize those impacts. We have 

talked about them before in our committee hearings, but when you 

look at the climate policies that you are proposing, I want to read 

a comment from you recently and get your take on it. I think the 

administrator said this recently. ‘‘Essentially, the President said 

that it is time to act. He said he wasn’t going to wait for Congress 

but that he had administrative authorities and that it was time to 

start utilizing those more effectively in a more concerted way.’’ 

And so, Administrator McCarthy, when you talk about the President’s task to you to act regardless of what Congress does, it causes 

a big concern not only to Members of Congress but to people across 

the country who believe in a democratic process where Republicans 

and Democrats work together. And Congress is the body that is 

supposed to shape law and then the President through his Secretaries, including you, are the ones who are supposed to administer 

the policies that Congress passed. 

And so when you are echoing the President, who says, you know 

what, I don’t care if Congress didn’t do it; it is time to act anyway, 

I hope you understand the chilling effect that is sent across the 

country. And I would like to get your interpretation of what you 

think the President means and what you think the authority you 

have to act is even if Congress chooses not to go down the path you 

want to. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Let me rephrase the issue in a way that hopefully is a bit more positive. I think the President—— 

154 

Mr. SCALISE. Because it is not positive when I hear those comments. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think the President has reached out and indicated that congressional action would be something that he would 

want to engage in and that he would welcome. I think what he has 

also told us to do is look at the laws that Congress has already enacted through their own public democratic process and what have 

they told the agencies that their responsibility is and their authority is. We are not doing anything at EPA or in the climate plan 

that goes outside the boundaries of what Congress has said is our 

mission and our authority. 

Mr. SCALISE. Well, and I would hope you would keep that in 

mind as you develop policies because we are concerned about some 

of the things that you are doing in terms of them going against 

wishes of Congress. And the cap-and-trade bill that was defeated 

when there was a super majority in the Senate, so clearly Congress 

spoke that that is not something that we wanted. Just a few weeks 

ago we in the House voted. The vote was 237 to 176 to reject a carbon tax, an actual vote—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. On the House Floor to reject a carbon 

tax and it passed overwhelmingly with Democrats voting with Republicans. And in fact Barbara Boxer was recently quoted saying, 

‘‘we don’t have the votes for carbon tax or carbon fee.’’ I would hope 

you would take all of that into consideration when you are looking 

at climate change policies. Not only did we say we don’t want it; 

we voted to reject a carbon tax. And so you need to take that into 

consideration. That is not an authority you have, and in fact, Congress has now said that is something that you don’t have an authority. We reject that. 

I want to also bring up when you look at the impacts of these 

kind of policies how they are working in other countries. And again 

it has a real impact on our economy when some of these rules are 

proposed, but some of these other countries across the globe have 

already tried to go down this road in terms of climate change policy 

that you are looking at. There was just a revolt in Australia in 

their government, a complete upheaval because of their carbon tax. 

In fact, there is a movement with this new government to repeal 

the carbon tax. 

Read from the Telegraph just a few weeks ago, ‘‘Brussels fears 

European industrial massacre sparked by energy costs.’’ The Business Report, ‘‘Merkel warns E.U. against tough carbon targets.’’ Financial Times, ‘‘European utilities warned E.U. over energy risks.’’ 

Special Online, ‘‘Germany’s Energy Poverty: How Electricity Becomes a Luxury Good.’’ It goes on and on. And the U.K. Express, 

‘‘3,000 pounds-a-year bills on the way as energy prices rise again.’’ 

The Telegraph, ‘‘Romanic Germany risks economic decline as green 

dreams spoils.’’ 

I hope you understand that in the countries that have tried this 

it is failing miserably. They are having revolts in those countries. 

So Congress has acted. Congress has sent a message to you. I hope 

you would respect those messages that have been sent not just here 

in Congress but look at what has happened in where they have actually gone down this road in other countries and they are seeing 

155 

dramatic declines in their economy, dramatic increases in energy 

costs that hurt real families. These are the concerns we have. As 

you are looking at climate policy in your agency, recognize the will 

of the people here in this country. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

This time I recognize the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Capps, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Will Mrs. Capps yield to me for 30 seconds? 

Mrs. CAPPS. Yes, I will. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I just want to point out that there is no reason you 

should be mindful of proposals that even passed the House if they 

are not law. You have got to be mindful of what the laws are. And 

what you have to do is enforce the laws. So this argument you 

should pay attention to what Republicans were able to pass 

through the House is not a law. 

Thank you for yielding to me. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. Thank you also from me, Administrator 

McCarthy and Secretary Moniz, for appearing today and for your 

testimony. 

Given the immediate and long-term threats posed by climate 

change, I am very encouraged that we are finally having a formal 

discussion on this pressing issue. With Congress’s inaction, the 

President’s Climate Action Plan is a welcome step forward and we 

need to debate it because we need to cut carbon pollution. We need 

to help prepare for the impacts of climate change. 

Last February, I wrote a letter to the President signed by 40 of 

my colleagues urging him to create a panel to help local communities to prepare for climate change impacts. One of our key recommendations in this letter was to fully evaluate the budgetary 

impacts of this problem. Climate change is already costing the Federal Government tens of billions of dollars in disaster assistance, 

right? By investing some of this money up front in resiliency measures we could minimize these costly impacts down the road and we 

could create jobs doing that implementation. So I was pleased to 

see the President included a similar task force on preparedness in 

his Climate Action Plan. 

Administrator McCarthy, can you discuss what the task force 

will be working on and to what extent it will be examining this 

budgetary impact? For example, will you be issuing findings comparing the long-term costs of inaction to those of building a more 

resilient infrastructure? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you for the question. As you recognize, 

the President’s Climate Action Plan focused just as heavily on the 

adaptation question as it did on the mitigation issues in the international component. I think he did that recognizing the extreme 

concern that communities are facing now and the public health impacts associated with not recognizing that the climate is changing 

and preparing for that and making our communities more resilient 

in a changing climate. 

He established a task force to look at these issues. We are going 

to be working with every State and community. There is support 

already that has been recently issued by the Department of the Interior to look at resiliency projects, $100 million as a result of the 

156 

Climate Action Plan moving this forward. We all have, each agency, developed Climate Action Plans. We are participating on both 

national forums as well as developing our own task forces to begin 

working with communities more effectively to integrate what we 

know about a changing climate into the work that we do. There is 

a great deal of work on going. It has been nurtured over the past 

few years, but it certainly has been given a boost in the action plan 

and will move this forward. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. 

Mr. MONIZ. May I just have a—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. Well, OK, but I have a question for you, too. Let me 

ask the question and then maybe you can weave that in. 

DOE currently focuses heavily on more mature technologies like 

solar and wind. While I support these efforts of course, I want to 

make sure we are not neglecting some other promising renewable 

technologies. For example, there are several companies, including 

Ecomerit in my district, which are developing exciting new technologies to reliably harness energy from ocean waves, tides, and 

currents. In fact, Ecomerit was recently awarded a $500,000 DOE 

grant to help develop its wave energy technology. This only 

scratches the surface, however, of public and private investments 

that are needed. 

So, Mr. Secretary, I was going to ask you, and you can respond 

any way want to, what does the President’s Climate Action Plan 

do to expand the development of marine and hydrokinetic energy 

technologies? 

Mr. MONIZ. Thank you. If I may just add—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. Sure. 

Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. A note to the earlier question that in addition to that task force, there has also been a specific Sandy task 

force led by HUD. The work that I described earlier on the microgrid comes under that umbrella and that will be translatable to 

other parts of the country. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Absolutely. 

Mr. MONIZ. Finally, under FEMA we also have responsibilities 

for DOE for, you know, energy infrastructure, other agencies for 

other parts of our national infrastructure. 

On your question to me—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. Yes. 

Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. It is very important that we not forget 

what are sometimes called the forgotten renewables, and that includes—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. Absolutely. 

Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. Hydrokinetic waves, tides, small hydro, 

advanced geothermal, and we are looking to increase our emphasis 

on those as we go forward. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. If I could follow up, I would love to have 

a written response on some of the ways that you want to do that 

that I could take back to some promising industries in my local district that would love some support like the one that was given to 

Ecomerit in terms of clean energy technology. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, for 5 minutes. 

157 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Moniz, you have recently taken over leadership at 

DOE and you understand the role of DOE in establishing and coordinating national energy policy. Can you tell us whether DOE is 

going to have an active role going forward in ensuring that the climate policies pursued by other Federal agencies do not negatively 

affect the affordability and availability of energy? 

Mr. MONIZ. Thank you for the question. The principal way in 

which we will be doing that over these next, say, 3 years is the socalled quadrennial review process. That will be convened out of the 

Executive Office of the President but the Department of Energy 

will be establishing the secretariat and the analytical 

underpinnings. And that will involve the entire administration. So 

that will be our principal role there. And I can also assure you, as 

I have in previous testimony here, that we view our job in technology development as being to innovate to keep lowering the costs 

of energy for our consumers and our industry. 

Mr. PITTS. So you will review climate policies, regulatory initiatives of EPA that have the potential to negatively affect the affordability and reliability of energy? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, for processes—and Ms. McCarthy can answer— 

I mean of course we have review processes. What we will do in this 

context is help provide the threads, some of the analytics to bring 

together all the agencies to discuss energy policy broadly, environment, security, economy. 

Mr. PITTS. Administrator McCarthy, I want to understand with 

all the climate change-related programs that your agency pursues 

such as research, technology development, grants, education, and 

outreach, does your agency determine at the outset what those programs are supposed to accomplish and then go back and evaluate 

whether they actually did accomplish what they set out to do? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We keep quite close track. And I would just add 

that many of the programs that we run are programs that Congress has specifically directed us to run and at specific funding levels. 

Mr. PITTS. Now, does EPA make information about what these 

programs have actually achieved available to the public? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Very much so. We are quite—— 

Mr. PITTS. Can you identify for us what or where that information is available? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I can certainly provide that to you. 

Mr. PITTS. Now, EPA has been implementing climate policies for 

a number of years. Have you evaluated what that work has actually accomplished in terms of meaningfully addressing climate risk 

and could you share that with the committee? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We certainly take a look at work that we do to 

understand what kind of greenhouse gas reductions might have 

been reduced, but as we all know, reducing climate risk is a global 

effort and the U.S. is participating in that effort as rigorously as 

we can. 

Mr. PITTS. Now, Ms. McCarthy, does EPA coordinate with other 

agencies when it evaluates the impact of its regulatory action relating to the power sector? 

158 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Very much so. In every regulatory process all 

agencies participate in the interagency review. Part of that is to 

look at the cost-and-benefit analysis that EPA produces and to 

comment on both of those. Those are—— 

Mr. PITTS. For example, have you consulted with the Department 

of Health and Human Services about the impact of energy poverty 

or higher energy prices on health or the ability to respond to extreme weather events? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, what we have done is to ensure that we 

do a complete analysis to the extent that it is available to us and 

appropriate on what the economic consequences are of our rulemaking, and we take great pains to make sure that we do not 

threaten reliability, nor do we put out rules that will significantly 

increase cost to consumers. 

Mr. PITTS. One other question, Administrator McCarthy. The 

President’s Climate Action Plan says on page 10 that ‘‘curbing 

emissions of methane is critical to our overall effort to address climate change.’’ And it refers to an Interagency Methane Strategy 

Group—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. PITTS [continuing]. That is identifying technologies and best 

practices for reducing methane emissions. I should also note that 

EPA’s Web site indicates that we can cut methane significantly by 

reducing reliance on landfilling and increasing use of modern 

waste-to-energy facilities like the one in my district, the Lancaster 

County Solid Waste Management Authorities facility. Will you recommend to the Interagency Methane Strategy Group or may I request that you recommend the importance of focusing on ways to 

increase the United States’ use of waste energy for managing nonrecyclable waste? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We will raise that issue but I think if you see 

the tone and tenor of the President’s remarks in the Climate Action 

Plan, it is an effort to understand where methane is being generated, how effectively to work with the industry on strategies that 

will reduce that methane and recapture it because it becomes a significant financial opportunity. Those are the kinds of things we certainly want to capitalize on. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you. 

Mr. MONIZ. If I may add, the $1 billion loan guarantee program 

that we will be issuing would include MSW technologies as a possibility. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is expired. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Doyle, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator McCarthy, it is a pleasure to have you here today. 

Secretary Moniz, I just want to say your recent visit to Pittsburgh was appreciated and well-received by all of us in attendance 

and we hope to have you back there soon. 

Well, your visit is very timely today because many of us are eagerly awaiting the first rule regulating carbon pollution from power 

plants, the single-biggest emitter of carbon in the United States. 

And though I think the legislation to address climate change 

159 

through a cap-and-trade system would have been an easier, more 

direct approach to limiting our Nation’s global warming impact, we 

tried that here in this committee, and unfortunately, we were unable to get it passed. 

But having said that, I want to point out that where I live in 

southwestern Pennsylvania we are witnessing coal plant retirements nearly every month, which is impacting the economy and 

many of our constituents and potentially the reliability of the electric grid. Now, whether that is because of low natural gas prices, 

environmental regulations, or old age, the fact is we are taking a 

lot of old power plants off-line and making it very difficult to build 

new ones. 

So the central tenet of the President’s Climate Change Plan is 

of course the new source performance standards for power plants. 

And it has been widely reported that the standard for new coalfired power plants would require some type of CCS technology to 

comply. Now, I am aware of and have supported the creation of 

several demonstration projects for CCS across the country, but I 

am not aware that there is anyone that would be considered BSER, 

you know, the best system of emission reductions, as defined by the 

Clean Air Act. Can you tell me how CCS is going to achieve that 

requirement that BSER be adequately demonstrated considering 

cost, energy requirements, and environmental impacts? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Congressman, first of all, it is good to be here. 

Thank you for the welcome. 

The first thing I would say is that relative to the retirements 

that you were discussing, we have been very strongly engaged with 

our energy colleagues to ensure that as retirements are happening 

that we work with our energy office and our agency and others to 

make sure that those issues are managed effectively, and we do not 

see that there is any gap in our communication system in ensuring 

that we can achieve those regulatory standards effectively without 

threatening reliability. 

In terms of the rule that is coming out, I do not want to speak 

exactly to what the rule is going to say. It would be inappropriate 

for me to do that. But I will say that on the basis of information 

that we see out in the market today and what is being constructed 

and what is being contemplated that CCS technology is feasible 

and it is available today. 

Now, that is not to give a signal about what is going on in the 

rule. That needs to be put in a broader as well as a more specific 

context and we will meet our regulatory obligation to look at what 

is possible and what we should be doing for new future power 

plants. Frankly, the challenge is that we need to provide certainty 

for how you construct a coal facility in the future that will allow 

investment in that technology and allow the technologies that you 

are investing in to grow and become more and more competitive 

and lower those costs. 

Mr. DOYLE. Let me ask you a little follow-up to that because I 

am aware of the Kemper plant in Mississippi that has been cited. 

Now, that plant is utilizing an innovative technique that pipes the 

carbon dioxide emissions to depleted oil fields and uses the CO2 to 

force oil to the surface. In Pennsylvania, that is a little less realVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:38 May 19, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-82~1\113-82~1 WAYNE
160 

istic for us unless we want to build a pipeline to Texas for our CO2, 

which I don’t think is quite practical. 

I am just curious. How is EPA taking into account the regional 

differences that there are from, you know, different places in our 

country as we look at these technologies? You know, this seems to 

be working but it is not something that could work in my neck of 

the woods. And are you going to, you know, create guidelines that 

recognize the diverse fuel mix of the country and specifically those 

regions like southwestern Pennsylvania that are still heavily dependent on fossil fuels? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I think we all recognize that the use of 

CO2 that is captured in enhanced oil recovery becomes very costbeneficial in the use of CCS. There is no question about that. And 

we also see part of that being as a result there are significant pipelines that are being constructed to take advantage of those cost 

considerations. 

Now, there is also an opportunity to sequester, which is, I think, 

demonstration projects and investments that the Secretary can 

speak to, but there are also products that are being produced at the 

end of these design systems that actually can be sold. So there is 

a variety of things that we see developing that make it very promising for coal to have a certain future as the President intends in 

an all-of-the-above strategy. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I see my time 

has expired. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Doyle, I may mention to you that this rule 

is expected out on Friday, I believe, by the 20th, and we will be 

having a hearing on the proposed rule. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. On Saturday afternoon. Will everybody be here 

on Saturday? 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. 

Terry, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TERRY. What an unexpected surprise to go this early. I appreciate that. 

So I am going to start off by asking unanimous consent to put 

the letter of our Attorney General from Nebraska, his letter to 

Gina McCarthy and a white paper that was done with other AGs 

into the record. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

161 


87109.120
162 


87109.121
163 


87109.122
164 


87109.123
165 


87109.124
166 


87109.125
167 


87109.126
168 


87109.127
169 


87109.128
170 


87109.129
171 


87109.130
172 


87109.131
173 


87109.132
174 

Mr. TERRY. And the date of the letter is September 11, 2013. 

It is particularly, Ms. McCarthy, important to note that our Attorney General is involved in this because, A) it is an impact to our 

State, but B) we are a public power State so he is a lawyer, in essence, for our public power generators. And they have a concern on 

the rules that are being promulgated. I know they aren’t finalized 

yet but, nonetheless, in regard to coal as a new fuel, we have old 

coal-fired plants that probably aren’t going to make it. They aren’t 

going to be able to adhere to the new rules, so the issue is can we 

build new plants with coal since we are only a couple hundred 

miles from the Powder River basin, and this is by far the prominent feedstock for our generators? 

So he has a question and I have the same question and that is 

that does the EPA believe that it has the legal authority to eliminate coal as a fuel for nuclear electrical generation? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have the authority and responsibility to establish standards in the case of new facilities and guidelines where 

the individual States look at their own energy mix and come back 

to EPA with plans on how to comply. So I do think we believe that 

we are moving in a legally sound direction, but I would also caution you that one of the reasons we are re-proposing, Congressman, 

is because there were a lot of comments on our original proposal. 

There were comments on the technology, there were legal concerns, 

so I would ask that we have this conversation in a more concrete 

way when the new source rule comes out and to not also project 

what we are doing in the new source as being either appropriate 

or legally correct for existing facilities because neither is the case. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. And I appreciate that answer and it would 

be easier if we had the final rule. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we haven’t even proposed one yet, sir. We 

are planning to re-propose a rule. 

Mr. TERRY. OK. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. So we will have certainly plenty of time—— 

Mr. TERRY. Well, we certainly have concerns regarding our ability to use the cheapest and most readily available feed source for 

electrical generation—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Terry, I may just interject one moment. We 

were truthfully so shocked by the original rule that—— 

Mr. TERRY. Yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD [continuing]. We are anticipating what the new 

rule is, so, sorry. 

Mr. TERRY. Well, and to follow up on that though is with the 

newly to-be-proposed rule after the comments, is there still room 

for new coal electrical generation? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think that the rule will provide certainty for 

the future of new coal moving forward, and I think in terms of existing facilities, we believe that coal represents now and will continue to represent a significant portion of the energy supply moving 

forward for decades to come. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. How about there has been several questions regarding nuclear power as well, and can we even meet what 

the new greenhouse gas standards will be without nuclear power 

as part of the portfolio? 

175 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The new source standard isn’t designed to influence the existing portfolio. It is designed to ensure that future 

power plants that are being constructed to take advantage of technologies that will ensure that they are as clean as they can be and 

have a past certain and a future that will be carbon-constrained. 

Mr. TERRY. Well, it is important, I think, to have nuclear power 

which has basically zero greenhouse gas emissions—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think the President—— 

Mr. TERRY [continuing]. To be part of our portfolio and—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The President certainly shares your concern that 

we make room for all fuels and all power generation types. 

Mr. TERRY. Yes, we are going to grade on actions, not words. So 

I appreciate that. 

Mr. MONIZ. And if I may add on that, sir, I would note that we 

went through, in my view, a lot of years with words and not actions 

and we are now seeing actions and not words, $8 billion loan guarantees for nuclear new programs on small modular reactors. So I 

would say that we are walking the talk. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

At this time I recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank our distinguished witnesses for joining us today. 

I applaud the administration for taking on climate change, and 

I strongly support the goals of the President’s Climate Action Plan 

to cut carbon pollution and better prepare our country for the impacts of climate change. Human-caused climate change is real, it 

is happening now, and it will continue to produce devastating effects unless we take immediate action. Failure to act in an urgent 

manner is shortsighted and detrimental to our environmental and 

economic interests. 

Some say that addressing climate change will cost too much 

money but they neglect to consider the cost of inaction, as well as 

the tremendous economic benefits of positioning our country as a 

global leader in clean energy. Clean energy industries currently 

employ hundreds of thousands of Americans and the potential 

growth in this sector is enormous. My home district of Sacramento 

boasts 14,000 clean energy jobs. Throughout the United States, 

there are already 119,000 solar jobs and 80,000 wind jobs. Thousands more are employed in energy efficiency and other areas. This 

is a sector that could create millions of jobs and lead to faster economic growth. 

But we do have competition. According to the Pew Charitable 

Trust, last year, China invested $65 billion in clean energy compared to only $36 billion in the United States. The U.S. ranked 

10th in clean energy investments per dollar of GDP behind China, 

all of Europe, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and Japan. 

Secretary Moniz, these other countries recognize the economic 

potential of clean energy. What are they doing to capitalize on it? 

Mr. MONIZ. They meaning other countries? 

Ms. MATSUI. Yes. 

Mr. MONIZ. Clearly, I think people are seeing frankly, you know, 

trillion-dollar markets developing. They are developing now for 

clean energy to address climate, to address air pollution, just to adVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:38 May 19, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00179 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-82~1\113-82~1 WAYNE
176 

vance technology. And certainly a country like China, as you know, 

is providing significant incentives for domestic manufacturing capacity. 

Ms. MATSUI. Well, you know, the United States has always been 

a leader in clean energy technologies but clearly we are really facing these competitive challenges from abroad. The President’s Climate Action Plan is a critical step to ensure not just that we address the dangers of climate change but also that the United States 

can compete and lead in the clean energy economy of the future. 

Secretary Moniz, how will the President’s Climate Action Plan spur 

clean energy innovation in the United States and create new clean 

energy jobs here at home? Do you believe that the United States 

can once again lead the clean energy revolution? 

Mr. MONIZ. I certainly think we can and we must lead that revolution. And I will mention two ways in which we are moving forward. And the one is, for example, through our continuing loan program to bring, as I said earlier, many, many technologies to the 

fore. I mentioned utility-scale solar has been a huge success and 

California has been a big part of that but also the loan program 

for advanced fossil and for nuclear. It is across the board for these 

technologies. 

Another different kind of initiative I alluded to earlier are things 

like the Advanced Manufacturing Initiative where we want to capture things like 3–D printing, which can apply to new energy technologies, as well as a host of other technologies. So those are some 

of the things that we are moving forward. 

Ms. MATSUI. Um-hum. Well, thank you. Now, my Republican colleagues are quick to argue that tackling climate change will hurt 

the economy, but in reality, climate change itself poses an enormous economic risk, and failure to address it could be disaster for 

the global economy. 

In May CBO released a report concluding that delaying action to 

reduce carbon pollution would increase the expected damage from 

climate change by increasing the risk of very costly, potentially 

even catastrophic outcomes. The Clean Air Act provides a very 

good example of how we can make steady progress in cleaning up 

the air while growing the economy. Since its enactment in 1970, 

the Clean Air Act has reduced key air pollutants in the United 

States by 2/3 while the economy has tripled in size. Administrator 

McCarthy, what does the history of the Clean Air Act tell us about 

our ability to cut pollution while building the economy? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you for asking the question. 

We know that in our experience under the Clean Air Act we have 

been able to significantly lower pollution while at the same time 

GDP has risen and the economy has grown. We know that the economic goals do not have to conflict with our environmental standards, and we also know, in fact, that this country is where it is because we have both cleaned our environment, kept it safe and 

healthy for our families, recognized the public health value and environmental value that represents, while we develop an economy 

that respects those needs as well. We are asking for that same 

strategy to be employed as we tackle what I believe to be the most 

significant public health challenge of our time, which is climate 

change. 

177 

Ms. MATSUI. I thank you very much and I ran out of time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. 

McKinley, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think we can agree that the CO2 levels are undeniably increasing and some scientists and climatologists have concluded that 

their energy models reflect that CO2 levels coincide with temperature increases. Now, we were supposed to have some charts up 

here. These are the models that have been suggested by many of 

the scientists and climatologists, but however, as you well know, 

these models are key components of developing climate change policy, but unfortunately, as we are finding out, this is the projection 

but here is the reality of temperature changes over the last 40 

years. Actually, we can say over 40 years there has been almost no 

increase in temperature, very slight. In fact, the CO2 levels even 

with the increased greenhouse CO2 level emissions, the Arctic ice 

has actually increased by 60 percent as shown by the aerial view. 

Also that Antarctica is expanding. But more importantly, this report coming out of the United Nations, the IPCC report coming up 

is saying that most experts, most experts believe by 2083, and 70 

years, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm. 

That leads to the question today. What should be done about it? 

We hear the testimony from the Administration that all climate 

change is manmade and America needs to reduce its CO2 emissions. Let’s put this in perspective. Hypothetically, let’s assume 

that all coal-fired generation in America were curtailed, all coalfired generation were curtailed. According to the United Nations 

and the IPCC, this would reduce the CO2 levels of the globe by 

merely 2⁄10 of 1 percent by ridding all coal-fired power in the 

United States. 

The Administration also needs to remind people, as you heard 

from the chairman in his opening remarks, that manmade problems, if we could, only represent 4 percent of all the emissions of 

the globe. Natural emissions represent 96 percent. So as a result, 

this Administration is, by virtue of this stream of job-killing regulations, is putting our Nation at risk all in the idea of clinging to the 

notion that cutting 2⁄10 of 1 percent is going to save the world environment. 

Let me remind, the rest of the world is not listening. The President’s energy policy is not being followed. China, India, Russia, and 

Europe are all expanding their use of coal. The Administration is 

working now on a new global initiative, exporting uncertainty. According to the President, he is not going to allow low-interest loans 

to be made to developing nations around the world. Struggling nations to come out of poverty will continue to suffer. Lives will be 

lost. Children will be sick and perish as a result of this President’s 

support of this policy. 

One of the biggest moral responsibilities of the United States 

should be to help emerging nations come out of poverty. The most 

abundant and resourceful source of power is coal. For a nation to 

emerge from poverty, it must have access to energy, energy for refrigeration, for cooking, and commerce. 

178 

Just to give you an example, in the sub-Saharan of Africa, the 

total amount of power that they can generate in Africa is a 60 watt 

light bulb per person, a 60 watt light bulb for 3 hours a day, 60 

watt light bulb for 3 hours a day. Why should they be denied access to affordable energy so they can come out of poverty? Please 

take this message back to the President. 

This President must not prevent people around the globe from 

obtaining affordable, dependable energy. And threatening American jobs over 2⁄10 of 1 percent of the CO2 emissions is not an acceptable energy policy. Crushing America’s economy to reduce the 

CO2 levels by 2⁄10 of 1 percent is an abuse of his presidential authority. 

Now, if I could in just the time, I am just curious from both of 

you the issue now is we are 400 parts per million. Can you tell me 

what level do you want it to be? Is it what many people are promoting, 300 parts per million? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. You all can respond but his time is expired. 

Mr. MONIZ. OK. I would like to respond, Mr. McKinley. There 

were a lot of issues you raised there. If I may focus down for the 

sake of response, first of all, as I have said before in this committee, the issues in terms of the risks of climate change are not 

based just upon models, as I said. It is some pretty simple arithmetic. Number two, I don’t believe anyone has ever said that 

quotes ‘‘all climate change is manmade.’’ The statement is that the 

anthropogenic forcings from CO2 are clearly of the scale that have 

long been expected to produce the kinds of change that we are seeing and will see. 

Third, I think we should address—there are many things but let 

me focus on the hiatus, so-called, in the increase of warming temperatures. First of all, let’s not forget this decade is the warmest 

decade in recorded history. So it is not exactly like it has been cooling off. 

But secondly, the issues of decadal scale changes in the rate of 

increase are fully expected. El Nin ̃ o, La Nin ̃a, for example, are part 

of this. Those models at that time did not include other issues such 

as deep water warming, et cetera. 

I will give you an example. There is an article right now in Nature whereby looking at the observed surface water temperatures 

in the Pacific, putting them in in the East Central Pacific, putting 

them in, it comes completely with this hiatus and it is only a hiatus in the constant global warming. So I believe we have to say this 

is a misreading of the record. 

The statement stands that anthropogenic CO2 emissions and 

other greenhouse gas emissions are a driver at the level of multiple 

degrees centigrade in this century. We are up .9 so far. And that 

is very consequential. In fact, I remind you that we wouldn’t be 

here if it weren’t for the greenhouse effect of water vapor, which 

has provided 60 degrees Fahrenheit of surface warming. We are 

just tuning that by a few degrees centigrade at great peril. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. We are going 2 minutes and 35 seconds over 

so—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent that we put in the record a study by Dr. Benjamin Santer, atmospheric scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 

179 

where he says neither volcanoes nor the sun nor internal variability nor any combination of those natural factors can plausibly explain the atmospheric temperature changes we have actually observed from space since 1979. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

180 


87109.133
181 


87109.134
182 


87109.135
183 


87109.136
184 


87109.137
185 


87109.138
186 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And I also would like to put in the record your 

photo of how ice has expanded by almost a million square miles in 

the last year in the Arctic Circle. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Reserving the right to object. And I would like to 

be recognized on my reservation. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Absolutely, recognized. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think this illustrates why 

we need a committee where we bring in the scientists. I just 

thought the statements that the gentleman from West Virginia 

read to us were incredibly inaccurate and contrary to everything 

else everybody in the scientific community has to say, including 

Secretary Moniz, who is an MIT professor for 40 years, he was the 

Department of Physics’ head of the Linear Accelerator Center, undersecretary of DOE, a Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Stanford 

University. We need scientists to come in here and talk about 

science, not—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So, Mr. Waxman, are you objecting to this? 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I just want to make that point but I will not 

object. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Well, I won’t object to yours, either. 

And at this time I would like to recognize Dr. Christensen from 

the Virgin Islands for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am really 

glad we are having this hearing. 

And of course I support President Obama’s sensible plan to address climate change by reducing carbon pollution and helping 

communities to prepare for the impacts of climate change. 

In reading your testimony and hearing your testimony I applaud 

the open approach to setting the standards that has been engaging 

and will engage all of the stakeholders and their concern in the 

process. Despite this, we continue to hear a lot of criticism of the 

President’s plan from our Republican colleagues, and like our 

Ranking Member Waxman, I would simply ask, what is their plan? 

The President has said he is willing to work with anyone who 

wants to propose alternatives. And I am glad that if Congress won’t 

act, he will. And I am also glad that both of you included in your 

testimony that the economy also benefits from the prior responses, 

has benefited from prior responses to climate change. 

My district in the U.S. Virgin Islands and the other territories 

are really on the forefront of this issue of climate change. And like 

our panelists from the Safe Climate Caucus forum yesterday are already experiencing the impact of that change. In the Virgin Islands, we have already endured a serious coral reef bleaching event 

that significantly impacted our fisheries, and by extension, our 

tourism product and our economic stability. If we were to continue 

to do nothing, we could expect increased ocean acidification, sea 

level rise, which will impact our coastal infrastructure, and of 

course more intense storms, as much of the country is experiencing. 

So it is absolutely and abundantly clear that climate change is 

real and that we have to act. And it is important also, as was discussed with Congresswoman Matsui, that our country lead on this 

really vital issue. 

But as we respond, we also have to make sure that we transition 

to cleaner energy sources in a way that is workable, especially for 

187 

communities with the greatest economic challenges. In the Virgin 

Islands and the other territories, we rely still very heavily on diesel 

generation, and at 53 cents per kilowatt today, electricity prices are 

the highest in our country. So we really have a strong incentive to 

scale up affordable renewable energy and energy efficiency, but it 

is going to take some time. 

So, Administrator McCarthy, I think you have answered my first 

question. I think you have made it clear that the rule you propose 

on Friday will apply only to new power plants, correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. And next, you would start to work on a rule 

to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. So it is going to be particularly important for 

my constituents that we find cost-effective solutions that work for 

our specific circumstances and I think the same is true for all of 

the territories and the State of Hawaii given the high prices that 

we are already paying and the challenges related to being an island 

and where we are located. 

So I also have read in your testimony that you plan to work with 

the States and the territories to ensure that you understand our 

specific circumstances as we do these things. So under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, do States and territories have the flexibility to achieve carbon pollution goals in ways that work for them? 

Do you anticipate that that flexibility will be there? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK. And, Secretary Moniz, as we look to the 

future of our energy supply system, do you see promising technology-based solutions that will allow places like the Virgin Islands 

and the other territories to meet our electricity needs with clean 

as well as affordable power? And what do you see as the most 

promising areas? 

Mr. MONIZ. Um-hum. Yes, I do and I also recognize that in fact 

islands often have the biggest challenge in that combination of risk 

and high energy prices. That is where, first of all, I think not being 

dependent upon particularly oil imports is very important, and that 

is where renewables can be very important. And also I think there 

is at least one advantage in an island setting and that is transportation based upon electricity and/or natural gas can be more attractive because the driving range issues are not as important. So I 

think there is a real future for green islands and we would be delighted to work with you on that. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Where are we with ocean thermal conversion? 

Mr. MONIZ. With ocean conversion—— 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. It seems like it would be a good source. 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes, and so we continue to do research on that. That 

is a case where if you saw that curve that was shown earlier with 

cost dropping and deployment, we are still in the early stage of 

that curve. There is still a ways to go in terms of cost reduction. 

But the research is going on and there are some pilot projects in 

various parts of the world. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

188 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. 

Pompeo, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POMPEO. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. McCarthy, I want to ask a couple of questions of you. So one 

of the objectives today is to identify greenhouse gas regulations 

that already existed and those in the future and how they actually 

impact the climate change, right? So you would agree that we want 

to make sure we have a successful climate policy as a result of 

those sets of rules and regulations that you promulgate, fair? Fair 

baseline statement? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. In the context of a larger international effort, 

yes. 

Mr. POMPEO. You bet. And on your Web site you have 26 indicators used for tracking climate change. They identify various impacts of climate change so you would believe that the purpose of 

these rules is to impact those 26 indicators, right? So if you put a 

good greenhouse gas rule in place, you will get a good outcome on 

at least some or all of those 26 indicators? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I actually think that the better way to think 

about it, if I might, is that it is part of an overall strategy that is 

positioning the U.S. for leadership in an international discussion 

because climate change requires a global effort. So this is one piece 

and it is one step, but I think it is a significant one to show the 

commitment of the United States. 

Mr. POMPEO. Makes perfect sense, but you think it would be reasonable to take the regulations you promulgate and link them to 

those 26 indicators the you have on your Web site and say this is 

how they impacted them? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It is unlikely that any specific one step is going 

to be seen as having a visible impact on any of those impacts, a 

visible change in any of those impacts. What I am suggesting is 

that climate change has to be a broader array of actions that the 

U.S. and other folks in the international community take that 

make a significant effort towards reducing greenhouse gases and 

mitigating the impacts of climate. 

Mr. POMPEO. But these are your indicators, Ms. McCarthy, so 

these are—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. They are indicators of climate change. They are 

not—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Right. Precisely. 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Directly applicable to performance 

impacts of any one action. 

Mr. POMPEO. How about the cumulative impact of your actions? 

Certainly, you are acting in a way, you say these are the indicators 

of climate change. It certainly can’t be the case that your testimony 

today is that your cumulative impact of your current set of regulations and those you are proposing isn’t going to have any impact 

at all on any of those indicators? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think that the President was very clear what 

we are attempting to do is put together a comprehensive climate 

plan across the administration that positions the U.S. for leadership on this issue and that will prompt and leverage international 

discussions and actions. 

189 

Mr. POMPEO. So you are putting regulations in place for the purpose of leadership but not to impact the indicators that you, the 

EPA, says are the indicators of climate change? I am deeply puzzled by that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Congressman, we are working within the authority that Congress gave us to do what we can, but all I am 

pointing out is that much more needs to be done and it needs to 

be looked at in that larger context. 

Mr. POMPEO. So in 2010—it is in your opening statement—we 

have gotten rid of a whole bunch of greenhouse gas, about 6 billion 

metric tons. For example, one of your indicators is heat-related 

deaths. How many heat-related deaths have been eliminated as a 

result of the 2010 NHTSA rules? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. You can’t make those direct connections, Congressman; neither can I. 

Mr. POMPEO. Right. So there is literally no connection to the activities you are undertaking and to the—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I did not say that. 

Mr. POMPEO. Well, you said you couldn’t make the connection, so 

tell me what I am misunderstanding. Can you draw connections between the rules you are providing, the regulations you are promulgating and your indicators or is it just on a—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think what you are asking is can EPA in and 

of itself solve the problems of climate change. No, we cannot. But 

the authority you gave us—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Right. 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Was to use the Clean Air Act to regulate pollution. Carbon pollution is one of those regulated—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Right. 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Pollutants and we are going to 

move forward with what we can do—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes. 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Is reasonable and appropriate. 

Mr. POMPEO. I am actually not asking that question that you 

suppose that I am asking. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. OK. I am sorry. 

Mr. POMPEO. I didn’t ask if you had the capacity to solve greenhouse gas issues. What I asked was is anything you are doing 

doing any good as measured by the indicators that you have provided for—so is your testimony today that you just have no capacity to identify whether the actions EPA has undertaken has any 

impact on those indicators? This is about science—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. POMPEO [continuing]. Cause-and-effect. Is there any causal 

relationship between the regulations you have promulgated and the 

26 indicators of climate change that you have on your Web site? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The indicators on the Web site are broad global 

indicators—— 

Mr. POMPEO. They are not broad; they are very specific. 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Of impacts associated with climate 

change. They are not performance requirements or impacts related 

to any particular act. 

Mr. POMPEO. I actually like the indicators. They are quantifiable. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. They are great. 

190 

Mr. POMPEO. Heat-related deaths, change in ocean heat—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. POMPEO [continuing]. Sea level rises, snow cover—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. POMPEO [continuing]. Those are great, quantifiable things 

but—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. POMPEO [continuing]. Now what you are telling me is—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. They indicate the public health impacts associated with—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Exactly. 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Climate change. Yes. 

Mr. POMPEO. But what you are telling me is you can’t link up 

your actions at EPA to any benefits associated with those quantifiable indicators that the EPA itself has proposed as indicative of climate change? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think what we are able to do is to show—and 

I hope we will show this in the package that we put out for comment—is what kind of reductions are going to be associated with 

our rules, what we believe they will have in terms of an economic 

and a public health benefit. But it again is part of a very large 

strategy. 

Mr. POMPEO. Awesome. My time is up. Thank you. 

Mr. MONIZ. If I may just—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. At this time I 

recognize the gentlelady from—I am sorry. Did you have a comment? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, I was going to comment briefly that there is 

academic literature that does associate extremely hot days with 

mortality, and I would be happy to provide that paper. 

Mr. POMPEO. That would be great. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentlelady from 

Florida, Ms. Castor, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CASTOR. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very 

much for calling this hearing on the Obama Administration’s Climate Action Plan. And, Administrator McCarthy, thank you very 

much for your leadership and willingness to assume the challenges 

as EPA administrator and it is good to see you today. And, Secretary Moniz, same goes for you. Thank you for being here. 

Now, my Republican colleagues’ arguments today relating to carbon pollution and the changing climate are reminiscent of their arguments and the arguments of special interests in the past when 

it comes to updating our standards relating to pollution and health 

standards and a clean environment. They predicted as they always 

do we are going to have a rise in unemployment; the unemployment rate is going to skyrocket. They predict the economy will go 

into a tailspin if America tackles pollution and climate problems. 

It is an argument they raise every time America acts to set better 

standards for air, for water, for children’s health. 

All you have to do is think back to the 1970s. I am old enough 

to remember what the mornings were like before the Clean Air Act 

and how smoggy it was when you would come out of your house 

and you could smell it and taste it. And then the country had the 

wherewithal to adopt the Clean Air Act. And over decades, our air 

191 

has improved. Same can be said in the 1990s when it comes to acid 

rain. It can be said how America tackled the problem of 

chlorofluorocarbons that were depleting the ozone layer. The same 

can be said when it comes to cancer-causing chemicals in plastic. 

Plastic industry did not collapse, did it? There is probably more 

plastic around today than ever before. 

So I would say to my Republican colleagues: have confidence in 

America’s ability to innovate in the face of significant challenges, 

challenges like climate change. And coming from a vulnerable 

State like Florida, I think what we see clearly ahead of us is there 

is a greater cost to an action. 

Look at what citizens across my State and all across the country 

will face in rising insurance premiums when it comes to extreme 

event. We are debating flood insurance right now. And that is 

going to be tied more and more to the changing climate and sea 

level rise in the future. Think about what local governments and 

communities are going to have to do to invest in infrastructure. In 

the State of Florida we are investing a great deal now to protect 

our clean water supply and the drinking water supply from the rising bays and oceans that are going to intrude on the drinking 

water supply, the saltwater intrusion. Communities are having to 

invest now to protect infrastructure, just the plain old pipes under 

the ground that we need to operate as a normal community all up 

and down the coast. 

So I see in the face of more droughts, more floods, longer fire seasons, more intense fires, faster sea level rise, it is very important 

that we take action. The costs ahead of us will be inordinate if the 

Congress continues to ignore it. So I am glad that the Administration is taking leadership here. 

Secretary Moniz and Administrator McCarthy, in general, let’s 

talk about cost and benefits. When you propose a major rule, you 

are legally required to analyze the cost and the benefits of that 

rule, isn’t that correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Ms. CASTOR. In fact, hasn’t cost-benefit analysis been required 

for agency rulemaking ever since President Reagan signed an Executive Order on cost-benefit analysis in 1981? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is my understanding, yes. 

Ms. CASTOR. And it is called cost-benefit analysis because you 

are required to estimate both the cost and the benefits of government action, is that correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

Ms. CASTOR. If you didn’t look at both the costs and the benefits, 

the information wouldn’t help you assess the merits of a rule. If 

you only looked at cost, no rule would ever be worth it. In fact, Mr. 

Secretary, DOE recently issued a rule to require microwave ovens 

to be more energy efficient. As part of that rulemaking, DOE was 

required to estimate the cost and benefits of the new standards by 

reducing the use of electricity. The rule will reduce air pollution, 

including carbon pollution. That is one of the benefits of the rule, 

isn’t that right? Did the rule include an estimate of cost of the carbon pollution that would be avoided by the rule? 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes, it did. And indeed, the need to do that comes 

from a court ruling in 2007. 

192 

Ms. CASTOR. And how did you get to that number? Was it developed through an interagency process and was it based on peer-reviewed science? 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes, the process formally started in 2009. It is based 

upon three highly peer-reviewed models. There has been transparency on the models back in 2009/2010, every rulemaking that 

also opens up for comments going forward. The recent change in 

the numbers was strictly updating the peer-reviewed models using 

them with the same inputs used previously. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks 

very much for having the hearing today. And I also want to thank 

the Secretary and the Administrator for being with us today. I 

have appreciated the comments today. 

And, Mr. Secretary, if I could start with a question to you. As 

the chairman had earlier stated in his opening remarks, when the 

President came into office, Congress took into consideration what 

was essentially his climate plan. Congress considered whether we 

would embark on a complicated and expensive regulatory program 

that was intent on massively decarbonizing our energy supply and 

raising our energy costs. And we were told the U.S. must take the 

lead. 

Mr. Secretary, do you think it is economically wise for the U.S. 

to unilaterally implement policies that will result in more expensive energy costs for American households in manufacturing? And 

this question is really important for a district like mine because I 

have 60,000 manufacturing jobs. And I spend all my time on the 

road going through large meetings, small plants across my district. 

And what was happening here in Washington affects these plants 

and it affects jobs back home. So, again, do you think it is economically wise for the U.S. to unilaterally implement policies that can 

result in more expensive energy for these manufacturing facilities 

and for American households? 

Mr. MONIZ. First of all, in no small part due to the shale gas 

boom, we are actually seeing lower costs in many, many industries 

and a growth in many—— 

Mr. LATTA. Well, if I could just interrupt for a minute because 

in the State of Ohio 70 percent of our energy is coal-based. 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. Again, across the country certainly we are seeing more manufacturing, lower energy prices, and in fact in Ohio 

there is also the issue of developing shale gas now. 

Secondly, in terms of the U.S. moving forward, I would say that, 

number one, American leadership is indispensable if we are going 

to have international action. But secondly, there is very much, I believe, the self-serving interest of developing the new technologies 

that will in fact give us a strong position in a future multitrilliondollar market. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. Continuing on with that, if I could just continue 

on with the questions to you. Again, in the Climate Action Plan 

and also in your testimony, we are talking about the three pillars 

that you mentioned, and the third point being that the United 

193 

States needs to lead the international effort. And especially when 

we are talking about the climate issues, what does the Administration mean by the U.S. taking that leadership role and does this 

mean that we are supposed to be the first nation that decarbonizes 

our energy supply on a very large scale and expects the rest of the 

world to follow? Or what is that leadership? 

Mr. MONIZ. I would say it means that, first of all, we do lead in 

clean energy and I believe we do lead for sure in clean energy innovation. We have to help deploy it. We are working, for example, the 

Department of State in terms of the—if you like the policy level— 

has made tremendous progress in the G–20 context and with China 

in terms of HFCs. And at the Department of Energy we are working through a variety of mechanisms. 

For example, we lead what is called the Clean Energy Ministerial, which is advancing dialogues with other countries. For example, in many countries now we have active dialogues going on 

where our companies are working with companies in those countries. I will mention countries I have been in, Brazil, for example, 

recently, yesterday in Vienna, Monday with Turkey, et cetera. They 

are very interested in our technologies for industrial energy efficiency. This is a market for our companies to go out there, both 

services and technology. That is what we mean by leading. 

Mr. LATTA. Also I see from your testimony page 8 you talk about 

how you are finalizing the rule covering the standby power of 

microwave ovens and you go on with the proposals for the lamp fixtures, commercial refrigerators, and commercial walk-in coolers 

and freezers. And I guess the question is are there any other appliance rules that you see that are being planned in the future? 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes, indeed, and I would be happy to supply a list 

of those. The next one we have said—the next proposed rulemaking 

we hope to advance in November on electric motors. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. And if you have any other appliances that you 

see coming up in the future if you could supply that to the committee—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Certainly. I would be happy to write a list. 

Mr. LATTA [continuing]. We would appreciate that. 

Mr. MONIZ. And I might add that in addition to the rulemaking 

we are, when it is appropriate—for example, right now with set-top 

boxes, we are pursuing voluntary discussions because, frankly, 

when the industry and consumers can come together and agree on 

a rule that we think is good, that will actually get the rule implemented faster. So we work both on the rulemaking and on convening voluntary approaches to efficiency standards. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is expired and 

I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing. 

And like you and Chairman Emeritus Barton and many colleagues on my side of the aisle, I am disappointed that so many 

of the Administration’s experts that are working to justify and put 

out new carbon rules decided not to educate the public by testifying 

here this morning. The 2 out of 13 attendance ratio does not bode 

194 

well for the most open, transparent Administration ever. But I am 

sure we will find out where these people are, these people tomorrow that do their jobs after we leave here. 

But we do have the few and the proud. Secretary Moniz, Administrator McCarthy, welcome. My question will focus on refineries, 

the U.S. energy renaissance, and power grid issues in Texas. First 

of all, refineries: Ms. McCarthy, much of today’s discussion has 

been about the President’s carbon plan, and it has been about the 

power sector, but I also worry about EPA’s next steps for the refineries. 

Less than 1 month ago your EPA announced that the Houston 

area was on track to attain ground-level ozone standards by 2018. 

Your EPA put up ‘‘these reductions are even more impressive given 

Houston’s rank as one of the fastest-growing metropolitan areas in 

the country.’’ But rather than recognizing success, EPA is already 

working on more strict ozone and so-called Tier 3 rules. And we 

keep hearing rumors of new rules for greenhouse gases in the refining space. All this could mean billions of dollars, billions in compliance costs. These costs will hit families hard and be passed on 

to average drivers across the country in places like Sugar Land, 

Pearland, and Katy, Texas. 

So briefly—I say briefly because I am limited time here—can you 

tell me when to expect these carbon rules for refineries, what window of time frame, ma’am? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t have a time frame for you. 

Mr. OLSON. No time frame, OK. Will you commit to study the cumulative cost of all these rules when we consider the impacts of 

carbon regulations on refineries? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I will certainly commit to following whatever protocols we are required to do, sir. 

Mr. OLSON. In the following what I call the Chairman Emeritus 

Dingell rule, answering yes-or-no questions, yes or no, can you 

guarantee that your rules will not raise gasoline prices? Yes or no? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t know what rules you are referring to and 

I would never make guarantees to anything, sir. 

Mr. OLSON. OK. All right. A further line of question, this is about 

the U.S. energy renaissance. As you know, Ms. McCarthy, carbon 

emissions from the United States have fallen in recent years without these new regulations. And there are many factors, but a significant reason is the increased use of American natural gas. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Um-hum. 

Mr. OLSON. And again, the Dingell rule, yes or no, do you agree 

that hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have created an 

American energy renaissance that is helping to slash carbon emissions? Yes or no? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes or no, it is a complicated question. I will 

take it very short. I believe that certainly the new technology has 

advanced our ability to capture natural gas domestically. That has 

been a wonderful thing from both air quality as well as domestically, and I think that answers your question. 

Mr. OLSON. I will take that leaning yes. Yes or no, would carbon 

emissions be higher today if fracking were banned or regulated out 

of existence? Yes or no? No fracking, higher emissions? 

195 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I can’t make that direct connection, sir. You are 

asking me really complicated questions for yes or no. 

Mr. OLSON. OK. I don’t think it is that complicated but the answer is pretty clear you think it is yes. 

And one final question, this is for you, Secretary Moniz, as well. 

My home State, as you know, is in desperate need of new reliable 

power. At a time when we are looking at blackouts in 2014 and 

2015 without more power generation, the EPA is considering carbon rules that can essentially mandate partial carbon capture and 

sequestration. Now, I am not opposed to CCS. As we discussed earlier in my testimony, you came here a couple months ago, my district is actually home to one of the only CCS modifications in the 

country, the W.A. Parish plant outside of Needville, Texas. 

Mr. MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mr. OLSON. Again, another yes-or-no question. Secretary Moniz 

and Ms. McCarthy, do you believe that CCS technology is currently 

economic for most coal plants, not just the Parish plant in 

Needville, Texas, which is valuable because we have oil and gas 

right there, right on the property. They can get the carbon there 

quicker. 

Mr. MONIZ. As we said, sir, earlier, I mean the combination of 

the CCS with EOR is very attractive. 

If I may just have one thing, Mr. Chairman. Since this issue has 

come up many times about the two of us being here, I just want 

to say that, first of all, there has been no trouble occupying 3 hours 

with two of us, but secondly, I know my colleagues, our colleagues 

across the Administration would be delighted to have a conversation about all of these issues. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much. The gentleman’s time is 

expired. 

I will say to you that you are right, it took up a lot of time today. 

We are going to get back in touch with those other agencies and 

either meet with them individually or through letter exchange. So 

we are going to follow up with them. 

At this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you both 

for being here and for your service to your country and for the last 

few hours have given us. 

Secretary Moniz, I have heard you speak in favor of the President’s Climate Action Plan, and to that extent I understand the 

concerns surrounding the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions 

being expressed. That being said, statements from energy experts 

have said electrical prices are projected to have increased over 40 

percent since 2001, which is well above the rate of inflation, and 

it will continue to rise due to the requirements of EPA clean air 

and environmental standards. 

In addition to this, over 60 percent of our Nation’s clean power 

generation actually comes from nuclear power, which is virtually 

emissions-free, and I am very concerned with the efforts of your 

agency in regards to the future of the nuclear energy sector. I believe that any serious plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

must have a strong nuclear component, yet the number of nuclear 

plants that have announced their retirement this year has grown 

196 

to almost epidemic portions and more are expected in the near future. Let me just ask you first off, and keep it, you know, as brief 

as possible, what are your goals for the growth of the nuclear energy sector overall? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, first of all, I mean the closures obviously have 

a bunch of factors. In one case there was an equipment issue in 

California. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Sure. 

Mr. MONIZ. In Vermont it is principally—— 

Mr. KINZINGER. But a lot of it is age. We haven’t built new 

plants—— 

Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. Natural gas—— 

Mr. KINZINGER [continuing]. In 20 years’ time. 

Mr. MONIZ. They are older. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Understood. 

Mr. MONIZ. But the Department of Energy, before I was there, 

have for years already been supporting things like life extension 

technologies, et cetera. So that is one direction. Another is we are 

still working on the provisional loan guarantee for the Vogtle 

plants. It is really important to get some of these new plants built. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Has the DOE actually closed any of those loan 

guarantees? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well—— 

Mr. KINZINGER. No. 

Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. On nuclear—— 

Mr. KINZINGER. Why not? 

Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. Just the—it is an ongoing negotiation 

and a—— 

Mr. KINZINGER. Because it has been a while, I know, so—— 

Mr. MONIZ. All I can say is—— 

Mr. KINZINGER [continuing]. I hear the discussion about it—— 

Mr. MONIZ. All I can say is that I have taken a direct interest 

in this. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK. Because I mean from our perspective I hear 

the Administration use, and in fact I heard you a number of times 

today use the loan guarantees as promise for, hey, we support it, 

but these are all conditional. They are not finalized. And when you 

have a number of plants closing because of the age of these plants 

and we are very slow to replace that capacity—and let me ask you 

this. Do you believe that the greenhouse gas targets set out by the 

Administration can be met without the use of nuclear power? 

Mr. MONIZ. Clearly, the 17 percent goal for 2020 is what you are 

referring to, which we are kind of almost halfway there. Clearly, 

if there are a lot of nuclear power plant closures in that time, that 

will certainly make it more difficult. 

Mr. KINZINGER. And I know this is just we are asking you to 

guesstimate, how many more nuclear plants do you think will be 

put out of commission before those targets would become unattainable? 

Mr. MONIZ. On that I do not know but I can tell you that I am 

hoping to have discussions with the industry to try to understand 

better where that is going. I mean nuclear power plants that exist 

still do have, you know, pretty low marginal costs, which would 

197 

make them attractive, but as we know, the lower natural gas prices 

has lowered the clearing price in many parts of the country. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Sure. Absolutely. And again, I want to make the 

point of what we were talking about earlier, that there are no loan 

guarantees in existence right now. They are conditional. 

And I will just say to finish up—I won’t take all my time; hold 

your applause, please—if the Administration was serious about addressing climate change, I think it would harness the clean energy 

from nuclear power, as we have been talking about. At a minimum 

it would follow the law. I heard a lot of discussion about following 

the law today. And it would reconstitute the Yucca Mountain program and provide a solid basis for the NRC to issue new plant licenses. 

And so I thank you for your time today. I thank you for your testimony. And, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, we are following the law. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time, you all may have noticed Ms. Schakowsky is over 

here, and we have sort of ignored Ms. Schakowsky. And she is a 

member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, but she is not 

a member of this subcommittee, so traditionally, we finish all the 

subcommittee members before we go to Ms. Schakowsky. And Mr. 

Griffith, Ms. Schakowsky, has said that he has noted you sitting 

over there patiently, so I would like to recognize you for 5 minutes 

if you would like to ask your questions now because he—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, I thank you both, especially Mr. Griffith 

for that courtesy. 

I believe that the threat to at least human life on our planet is 

the greatest challenge that humankind has faced. And I feel so 

strongly that this Congress, this Congress, is in a moment of such 

great opportunity where we could take leadership on behalf of the 

United States, on behalf of the countries around the world that we 

could benefit economically. This is a moment of great opportunity 

that I fear as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee 

that we are squandering. And I look at some of the young people 

in this audience; this is their century, and I feel an obligation that 

we try and do something about this. 

I would like to see if either of you have a comment about this 

issue of coal and this promulgated ruling that is about to come out. 

Some of the charges are that it would have basically an insignificant effect on climate change, and that it actually would jeopardize 

the economic opportunities of people in poor countries and further 

impoverish them. That is a pretty heavy charge. I wonder if you, 

Madam Administrator, could give us some answer to that—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I would be happy to begin. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY [continuing]. And Secretary Moniz. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. What I would say is that the reason why the 

power plant sector is one of the first places to go to regulate carbon 

pollution is because it is by far the largest industry sector in terms 

of its generation of greenhouse gases. The second reason is that 

there are opportunities to reduce greenhouse gases, and that will 

position us in the energy future. And I think there is every reason 

why we should want to tee up ideas and options for how to do that 

effectively, taking advantage of modern technologies that we can 

198 

take advantage of and escalate their introduction both in the U.S. 

as well as internationally. That is what is going to make significant 

differences, not just what we are doing here, but its impact in moving cleaner technologies forward. 

The issue of the international discussion I think that you will see 

that the language in the President’s Climate Action Plan is very 

detailed on this issue. It in no way steps back from both the intent 

of the United States and our obligation to work with the developing 

countries to ensure that they mature and provide energy for their 

citizens. And the language in here is not inconsistent with that 

goal. It will not minimize our efforts towards that goal. What it 

does say, however, is that we need to be careful about how we are 

investing and we don’t want developing countries to make mistakes 

that we might have made in not positioning themselves for the best 

technologies available in a carbon-constrained world. 

Mr. MONIZ. I would just add that the Climate Action Plan, as far 

as the things like the Ex-Im Bank, does have an exclusion for the 

least-developed countries. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I see. Let me just say how much I appreciate 

your being here and the fact of having the EPA Administrator and 

the Secretary of Energy at a single hearing, I am sure we will have 

and I hope you will have an opportunity to hear others, but, you 

know, that is not an everyday occurrence and I want to thank you 

for that. 

I also want to associate myself with Mr. Waxman’s plea that has 

been made more than once that we have scientists come in and 

talk to us. And we can, you know, have the kind of forum where 

the science could be challenged, could be questioned where if there 

is differing opinions, but I am wondering in the seconds I have is 

there really a significant difference of opinion about the science of 

climate change? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, again, I would argue that at the level of the 

broad impacts in my view there is none. I think there is again very, 

very simple arguments as to why this is expected. 

I also observed that the pattern of effects was predicted decades 

ago. This is not somehow being made up. Clearly, there are specific—when you start drilling down to specific issues, it is very complicated science. So earlier, we had a discussion about the last several years have seen a slowdown of warming. And as I pointed out, 

this is not out of the expectations on decadal scales, but that is a 

case where the scientists are still having some argument over the 

specific driver. 

Recent papers, as one example, have links essentially the El 

Nin ̃ o/La Nin ̃ a issues to that, but that is an example of something 

that still remains to be worked out. It does not obviate the overwhelming conclusion and the overwhelming support for what is 

going on in terms of global warming. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I did appreciate the comments about using as we move forward 

so that we don’t impoverish the other nations and impoverish our 

own Nation that we use modern technologies as we move forward. 

199 

The problem that I think we have and I would say that the countering plan is is that we ought to make sure those technologies are 

available first before we put regulations in place that then cause 

us to lose an entire segment of our population’s jobs and our energy 

production, et cetera. And that has been my concern all along. 

And coming from a coal-producing region, I can tell you that the 

policies already, not even counting the ones that are going to come 

out later this week or ones that may come out in the next few 

months, are devastating the economy of my district. And it is quite 

moving when you see these people. These are hardworking men 

and women who are out there trying to do jobs. It is not just the 

coalminers. It is the jobs that are relied upon, the coalmines, and, 

you know, every time I turn around there is another manufacturing company that was relying on the coal industry that is going 

out of business or needed affordable electricity that is going out of 

business. There is another coalmine about every other week and I 

am losing a coalmine in my district. Those are people who are making about $75,000 a year that aren’t making it now. 

And then probably the biggest blow that any of my communities 

has received, and while in fairness the two first factors they listed 

were the double-edged scissors of ObamaCare, they also listed the 

fact that the economy is so poor in the area, and it is a coal-producing part of my district. And we just lost a hospital in my district. And so now some of my constituents are going to have to 

drive an hour, hour-and-a-half to get to cardiac care and hospital. 

This is not a good thing. 

And when we look at the cost-benefit analysis, we don’t always 

look at the fact that if people don’t have the ability to afford the 

electricity in their homes that they then have to cut back on things 

and they have to cut back on some important things. If you can’t 

heat your home effectively in the wintertime—and in the mountains of Virginia, sometimes it gets pretty cold—that can affect 

your health. If you are having a problem with your heart and all 

of a sudden instead of being able to go to the local hospital because 

of policies enacted here in Washington, you have to drive an hour, 

hour-and-a-half to get to heart care, that is going to have an impact on your health. There is just no way around that. 

And I think that we need to look at these things, and when we 

say that, oh, this is all going to be grand and all going to be great, 

I think we have to get the science and the breakthroughs and the 

technological breakthroughs out there first before we say we are 

going to shut down a lot of coal-powered plants because the technology is not out there for everything that needs to be done in 

order to make them 100 percent. 

And when you look at poverty, and I noticed that the gentleman 

earlier referenced a German article, ‘‘How Electricity Became a 

Luxury Good,’’ I don’t think that the people of the United States 

of America consider electricity to be a luxury good, and I don’t 

think we want to be at the point where they have a minister, in 

this case you, Ms. McCarthy, in equal the German environment 

Minister Peter Altmaier giving out tips on how you don’t preheat 

your oven to do cooking and maybe if you lower the contrast and 

the brightness on your television, you can bring down your electric 

bill because the Germans have put themselves in a position where 

200 

people can’t afford it. I don’t want that for my country but it is hitting my district hard right now. And so I hope that you would take 

that into consideration. 

And along with those things, I know that the President outlined 

the goal of 17 percent reduction in 2005 greenhouse gas levels by 

2020, and he mentioned that also at a climate speech in June at 

Georgetown University, and I heard Mr. Secretary say earlier that 

we are about halfway there. I guess my question is is that from 

programs from the EPA or is that from plant shutdowns? And how 

much of the programs that the EPA has enacted brought down 

those greenhouse gases in the last 5 years? Can you quantify how 

much the programs have brought down? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Let me just put the goal in a little bit of perspective. I think that that goal clearly was stated in the Climate Action 

Plan but in no way does that Climate Action Plan say that those 

actions are going to add up to that 17 percent. It is a start at looking at the most economically viable opportunities—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And you know that the 17 percent—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. To grow the economy and address 

greenhouse gas—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And I apologize, my time is running out. The 17 

percent, was that just a number that was picked out of the air or 

was there some scientific basis for it and can you give me that 

basis? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I believe that it was an international goal that 

was stated. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. There was certainly some analytics but it was 

not directly associated with that plan, but it remains a goal that 

we would like to achieve. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I mean I understand we know we are going to try 

to reduce greenhouse gases, but do we know specifically how much 

each program will give us? And that being said, if you could get 

that to me later because my time is just about out. 

Ms. McCarthy, I truly believe when you are here to testify, and 

I have told people in my district that I think you do care about the 

plight of folks—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do. 

Mr. GRIFFITH [continuing]. And so I would ask you to commit 

whether it is my district or one of the other districts in central Appalachia that has been hit so hard, if we set up a trip, would you 

come down and see what is happening in the district of the people 

and where the jobs are just disappearing and there are lots of 

towns with empty storefronts and—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Congressman, I will follow up—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH [continuing]. It looks like a ghost town? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I will follow up directly with you on that. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. I appreciate that very much. 

And, Mr. Chairman, with that I yield back. 

Mr. MONIZ. If I could just say that about half of the reductions 

so far have been from the shale gas revolution, purely market-driven, and another part of it has been, especially in the transportation 

sector, the efficiency standards holding demand down. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is—— 

201 

Mr. WAXMAN. Which were based on regulations, isn’t that correct? 

Mr. MONIZ. Correct. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Engel, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me say that I am applauding our committee for finally having a hearing on climate change. I want to say that it is obvious 

to me and to everyone else the science is undeniable and it is time 

for us to act. And Congress has been ducking this issue even going 

so far as to deny the basic science behind climate change. I have 

seen the devastating affects right in my area when Hurricane 

Sandy hit New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, and my district 

suffered huge devastation. Rising seas, stronger storms, and greater flooding will only increase if we choose to do nothing. 

So if Congress unwilling to act on the issue, I am very happy the 

President has decided to act. And though some may deny the existence of climate change, the science is clear. If people object to the 

specifics of the President’s plan, then they should propose their 

own plan for curbing carbon pollution and climate change and the 

committee should actively pursue this matter. 

We also know from experience that government can regulate pollution without hurting the economy. In fact, many of the ideas that 

will help reduce carbon pollution will also grow new industries in 

renewables, carbon capture technology, and other new technologies 

that will help mitigate climate change. 

So, Secretary Moniz, let me ask you, you mentioned in your testimony the devastation that Sandy wrought upon New York, New 

Jersey, and Connecticut. One of the major issues arising from that 

was the loss of power and the length of time that it took to return. 

Can you speak to what the Department of Energy is doing in regard to electricity reliability and how that works with the President’s Climate Change Plans? 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes, thank you. I will mention two areas. One is in 

the context of our general work on kind of the electric grid of the 

21st century we are folding in very heavily resilience issues, as 

well as the kind of renewables and other drivers of that technology. 

And I mentioned earlier that one specific project we just had announced in New Jersey looking at a micro-grid to support a major 

transportation corridor, which by the way would also be an important evacuation route for New Yorkers. 

The second thing, which is very important, and we are working 

closely with industry with API, the American Petroleum Institute, 

and the EEI. What we learned in Sandy a little bit the hard way 

was how the electricity infrastructure and the transportation fuels 

infrastructures are so interdependent. So we are working on that 

and being positioned for any future event. 

Mr. ENGEL. So implementation of these plans is ongoing? We can 

expect that soon? 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes, it is. We hope to have a product that we will 

put out at the end of the month, for example. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. I have been a long supporter of alternative fuels for transportations. Besides electric vehicles that you 

202 

mentioned, what are other alternative fuels is the Department of 

Energy working on? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, we certainly support—and particularly for 

heavy vehicles—looking at the issue of natural gas as a transportation fuel. We of course have a very extensive program on advanced biofuels moving to cellulosic biofuels, for example. And 

these are again a case where costs are coming down quite dramatically, not quite there yet but coming down dramatically. 

And of course electrification again costs have dropped dramatically, not yet for the long-range vehicle for the mass market but 

the penetration is happening much faster than it did at the comparable stage for hybrid vehicles, looking very, very interesting. 

And then more to the future, the hydrogen economy and fuel 

cells, that remains kind of a little bit earlier in the development. 

But I would say alternative liquid fuels and electricity are looking 

actually quite interesting. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. I know you both have been here a long 

time so, Administrator McCarthy, I am going to submit a couple of 

questions for you and spare you from having to answer it. But I 

thank both of you—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thanks. 

Mr. ENGEL [continuing]. For your hard work—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Would the gentleman— 

Mr. ENGEL [continuing]. And—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman from New York, if—— 

Mr. ENGEL. Yes? 

Mr. WAXMAN [continuing]. You have completed your questions, I 

would like to just make a— 

Mr. ENGEL. Certainly. 

Mr. WAXMAN [continuing]. Yield to me the time? 

Mr. ENGEL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I just want to make a comment on the hearing, 

which I think has been an excellent hearing. 

We are at a critical crossroads in this country in our energy policy, and if we decide to do nothing, which I sense is what the Republicans want is to do nothing, it is going to lead to more carbon 

pollution, more droughts and floods, and other extreme weather 

events, more billion-dollar disasters and relief bills to pay for them 

by the taxpayers. If we take that path, history will not treat us 

kindly. We will be the generation that ignored the warnings of scientists and left future generations a violent and inhospitable climate. 

On the other hand, there is another path. We have a shrinking 

window for action but we still have a window to act. And Secretary 

Moniz told us that this is the critical, crucial time this decade. If 

we act now, if we invest in solar, wind, and other clean energy 

sources, if we unleash American ingenuity, we can stop carbon pollution and protect our atmosphere and create millions of new clean 

energy jobs. 

I want to thank the two witnesses who have been very, very 

helpful and terrific in being here all this time. I hope we will all 

put aside our partisan differences to help achieve these goals. They 

are very important ones for the future of our country and the rest 

of the world. 

203 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Engel. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Waxman. 

And I would also say how much we appreciate the two of you 

being here today. We do think it is a major accomplishment that 

our CO2 emissions are lower than they have been in 20 years. And 

as we move forward, I think we all want a balanced approach. We 

want to protect the environment but we also want to make sure 

that we have a strong, viable economy and that we don’t want to 

be left in a noncompetitive position in the world marketplace. 

And I hope that you all look as forward to being with us in the 

future as we look forward to being with you again here. We spent 

3 or 4 marvelous hours together. And that will—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We will be back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD [continuing]. Conclude today’s hearing, but I 

would remind Members that they have 10 business days to submit 

questions for the record, and I ask that the witnesses all agree to 

respond promptly to the questions that we submit to you all. 

So thank you again and we look forward to working with you as 

we move forward. 

Mr. MONIZ. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

Mr. MONIZ. We appreciate it very much. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. That concludes today’s hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 1:22 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

204 


87109.139
205 


87109.140
206 


87109.141
207 


87109.142
208 


87109.143
209 


87109.144
210 


87109.145
211 


87109.146
212 


87109.147
213 


87109.148
214 


87109.149
215 


87109.150
216 


87109.151
217 


87109.152
218 


87109.153
219 


87109.154
220 


87109.155
221 


87109.156
222 


87109.157
223 


87109.158
224 


87109.159
225 


87109.160
226 


87109.161
227 


87109.162
228 


87109.163
229 


87109.164
230 


87109.165
231 


87109.166
232 


87109.167
233 


87109.168
234 


87109.169
235 


87109.170
236 


87109.171
237 


87109.172
238 


87109.173
239 

Æ 


87109.174