H.R. lll, THE ENERGY 

TAX PREVENTION ACT OF 

2011 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 9, 2011 

Serial No. 112–2 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

H.R. 

lll

, THE ENERGY TAX PREVENTION ACT OF 2011 

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

65–734 PDF 2011

H.R. lll, THE ENERGY 

TAX PREVENTION ACT OF 

2011 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 9, 2011 

Serial No. 112–2 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina 

Vice Chair 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

BRIAN BILBRAY, California 

CHARLIE BASS, New Hampshire 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

BOB LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

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 

JANE HARMAN, California 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

GARY ANDRES, Staff Director 

JIM BARNETTE, General Counsel 

KRISTIN AMERLING, Minority Chief Counsel 

(II) 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Chairman 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

Vice Chair 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

BRIAN BILBRAY, California 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

BOBBY RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(V) 

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. Bobby Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

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

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

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

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 9 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, prepared statement ...................................................................................... 23 

Hon. John Sullivan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, prepared statement ................................................................................... 308 

Hon. David McKinley, a Representative in Congress from the State of West 

Virginia, prepared statement .............................................................................. 309 

Hon. Cory Gardner, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 309 

Hon. Lois Capps, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 311 

WITNESSES

James Inhofe, U.S. Senator, State of Oklahoma ................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

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

Lisa Jackson, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency ........................ 26 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

Answers to submitted questions 1 ...................................................................

Greg Abbott, Attorney General, State of Texas .................................................... 72 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 74 

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

Harry C. Alford, President and CEO, National Black Chamber of Commerce .. 89 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 91 

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

Steve Rowlan, General Manager, Environmental Affairs, Nucor Corporation ... 99 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 101 

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

James Pearce, Director of Manufacturing, FMC Corporation ............................. 104 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 106 

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

Steve Cousins, Vice President, Lions Oil Company .............................................. 113 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 115 

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

Lonnie N. Carter, President and CEO, Santee Cooper ........................................ 129 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 131 

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

Betsey Blaisdell, Senior Manager of Environmental Stewardship, The 

Timberland Company .......................................................................................... 146 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 149 

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

Peter S. Glaser, President, Troutman Sanders LLP ............................................. 185 

Page

VI 

Peter S. Glaser, President, Troutman Sanders LLP—Continued 

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

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

Margo Thorning, Senior Vice President and Chief Economist, American Council for Capital Investment .................................................................................... 227 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 229 

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

Philip Nelson, President, Illinois Farm Bureau .................................................... 241 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 243 

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

Fred T. Harnack, General Manager, Environmental Affairs, U.S. Steel Corporation ................................................................................................................. 251 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 253 

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

James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board ........... 277 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 279 

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

Lynn R. Goldman, American Public Health Association ...................................... 287 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 289 

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

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

‘‘Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis 

for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act,’’ report by Alan 

Carlin, submitted by Mr. Barton ........................................................................ 312 

EPA White Paper, dated February 8, 2011 ........................................................... 408 

Letter of February 9, 2011, signed by 1,800 professionals from all 50 States, 

submitted by Ms. Capps ...................................................................................... 420 

‘‘American Lung Association Urges Congress to Reject Chairman Upton’s 

Clean Air Act Bill, press release, dated February 2, 2011, submitted by 

Ms. Capps ............................................................................................................. 438 

Communication from former EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to former 

President George W. Bush, submitted by Mr. Waxman ................................... 442 

Statement of Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford University, submitted by Mr. 

Inslee ..................................................................................................................... 486

Statement of David Gardiner, Executive Director, Alliance for Industrial Efficiency, submitted by Mr. Waxman ..................................................................... 497 

Statements and letters from various organizations, submitted by Mr. Rush ..... 504 

Statement of National Association of Realtors, submitted by Mr. Whitfield ..... 648 

1 Ms. Jackson did not respond to submitted questions for the record. 

(1) 

H.R. lll, THE ENERGY TAX PREVENTION 

ACT OF 2011 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:38 a.m., in room 

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

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Sullivan, Shimkus, 

Walden, Terry, Burgess, Scalise, McMorris Rodgers, Olson, McKinley, Gardner, Pompeo, Griffith, Barton, Upton (ex officio), Rush, 

Inslee, Matheson, Dingell, Markey, Engel, Green, Capps, Doyle, 

and Waxman (ex officio). 

Staff present: Mary Neumayr, senior energy counsel; Peter Spencer, professional staff member; Maryam Brown, chief counsel, Energy and Power; Elizabeth Lowell, legislative clerk;, Ben 

Lieberman, counsel; Cory Hicks, policy coordinator, Energy and 

Power; Phil Barnett, democratic staff director; Greg Dotson, democratic chief counsel, Energy and Power; Alexandra Teitz, senior 

democratic counsel; and Caitlin Haberman, democratic policy analyst. 

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. The topic of our hearing, it is a legislative hearing on the 

Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011. I certainly want to welcome 

the members of the subcommittee. I look forward to working with 

all of you as we seek to craft an energy and environmental strategy 

and policy that will be in the best interest of the American people, 

and I believe that can best be accomplished by Congress and the 

EPA working together. Congress intends to reassert itself in the 

statutory and regulatory process at EPA. 

I am pleased to be serving again with my friend and colleague, 

the ranking member, Mr. Rush. We served on the CTCP Subcommittee in the last Congress, and I look forward to working with 

him as well as all members of the subcommittee. 

I also want to thank our witnesses today and thank them for 

being here to help us look at this very important issue. We are 

going to have four panels of witnesses today, and all of them are 

2 

going to provide us with information that is going to be helpful as 

we move forward. 

Today’s hearing is going to focus on greenhouse gas rulemaking 

within the Environmental Protection Agency that many of us believe attempts to address an issue properly within the purview of 

the Congress, and then we are also going to be talking about legislation that has been introduced that would restore the proper balance to decision-making affecting greenhouse gases. 

The Obama Administration has been the most aggressive in recent memory. As a matter of fact, six rules were issued on Christmas Eve and there is a pipeline full of regulations waiting to be 

issued, and States frequently are not being given adequate time to 

reexamine and rewrite State implementation plans to respond to 

this aggressive pace. I, like others, have been besieged with calls 

from entities all over the country complaining about EPA’s attempt 

to regulate greenhouse gases. Congress has made its will crystal 

clear on this issue. Our esteemed colleague, Chairman Emeritus 

John Dingell on the Democratic side, who led the negotiations on 

the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, wrote, ‘‘I would have difficulty concluding the House-Senate conferees who rejected the 

Senate greenhouse gas regulatory provisions contemplated regulating greenhouse gas emissions or addressing global warming 

under the Clean Air Act.’’ As recently as 2008, Mr. Dingell warned 

that regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act rather 

than new legislation would lead to, as he said, glorious mess. And 

then on July 25, 1997, Senate Resolution 98 expressing the sense 

of the Senate that the United States not be a signatory to the 

Kyoto Protocol that would have required the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions was approved by the Senate by a 

vote of 95 to nothing. And when the 111th Congress revisited this 

issue last year, it responded with a resounding no to regulating 

greenhouse gases by not passing the so-called cap-and-trade bill. 

Although Congress has made its position abundantly clear not to 

regulate greenhouse gases, we now have a bureaucracy, unelected 

staff at EPA and the courts pushing the United States down a path 

that in my opinion will cost jobs and make us less competitive in 

the global marketplace. Furthermore, what is worse about this is 

that technology is not available to capture greenhouse gases, and 

we do not have any idea what the cost versus the benefits will be. 

And if the tailoring rule is determined to be a violation of the 

Clean Air Act, which is certainly possible, EPA applying the statutes permitting these thresholds has estimated that over 6 million 

sources in our country would need to obtain Title V operating permits and also it would lead to 82,000 permitting actions annually 

under the preventing significant deterioration formula, and it has 

also been estimated at EPA that doing that would estimate a cost 

of $22.5 billion it would cost permitting authorities in the United 

States. 

So good energy policy is about expanding choices. All of us know 

that our energy demands are going to basically double by the year 

2035 and we are going to need energy from all sources to meet the 

demands of this country. We are going to renewables, we are going 

to need natural gas, coal, nuclear, everything, and I do get the 

sense that sometimes those people who are pushing this country 

3 

down a quick pathway to green energy are more interested in putting fossil fuels out of business than they are working to solve this 

problem. We recognize that we have to have energy from all 

sources. 

So I am delighted that you are here today. We look forward to 

the testimony of all of you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD

Good morning, and welcome to Members of the Subcommittee. I look forward to 

working with all of you as we seek to craft energy and environmental policies that 

will be in the best interests of the American people. That can best be accomplished 

by Congress and EPA working together. Congress intends to reassert itself in the 

statutory and regulatory process at EPA and specifically the Clean Air Act. 

I am pleased to be serving again with my friend and colleague, the Ranking Member, Mr. Rush. We served on the CTCP subcommittee in the last Congress and I 

look forward to working with him and all members of this subcommittee. 

I would also like to welcome our witnesses, and thank them for being here and 

for their contributions to today’s discussions. 

Today’s hearing will focus on a greenhouse gas (GHG) rulemaking within the Environmental Protection Agency that many of us believe attempts to address an issue 

properly within the purview of the Congress, and legislation that would restore the 

proper balance to decision-making affecting it. 

The Obama Administration EPA has been the most aggressive in recent memory. 

Six rules were issued on Christmas Eve and there is a pipeline full of regulations 

waiting to be issued and states are not being given adequate time to examine and 

re-write state implementation plans to respond to this aggressive pace. 

I have been besieged with calls from entities all over the country complaining 

about EPA’s attempt to regulate greenhouse gases. Congress has made its will crystal clear on this issue. Our esteemed colleague, Chairman Emeritus John Dingell, 

who led the negotiations on the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments wrote, ‘‘I would 

have difficulty concluding that the House-Senate conferees, who rejected the Senate 

(greenhouse gas) regulatory provisions.contemplated regulating greenhouse gas 

emissions or addressing global warming under the Clean Air Act.’’ As recently as 

2008, he warned that regulating GHG’s under the Clean Air Act rather than new 

...legislation would lead to a ‘‘glorious mess.′′ 

On July 25, 1997, S. Resolution 98, expressing the sense of the Senate that the 

United States not be a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol that would have required the 

United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions was approved by a vote of 95 to 

0. 

When the 111th Congress revisited this issue last year, it responded with a resounding no to regulating greenhouse gases by not passing the so called ‘‘Cap and 

Trade’’ bill. 

Although Congress has made its position abundantly clear not to regulate GHG’s, 

we now have unelected staff at EPA and the Courts pushing the United States down 

a path that in my opinion will cost jobs and make us less competitive in the global 

market place. Furthermore, the technology is not available to capture greenhouse 

gases and we do not have any idea what the cost vs. benefits will be. If the tailoring 

rule is determined to be a violation of the Clean Air Act, EPA applying the statues 

permitting thresholds has estimated that over 6 million sources would need to obtain Title 5 Operating Permits and also that it would lead to 82,000 permitting actions annually under PSD, resulting in an estimated cost of 22.5 billion dollars to 

permitting authorities. 

President Obama and Administrator Jackson have said their efforts to regulate 

GHGs will be considerably costlier and less workable than the legislation Congress 

rejected last year. 

Good energy policy is all about expanding choices - including allowing the increased use of coal if the American economy needs it. There’s a role for alternatives, 

but only to the extent they can compete on a level playing field with conventional 

energy and don’t drive up energy costs for consumers and businesses. Many of us 

are concerned that EPA’s regulations are all about artificially raising the cost of 

using coal and other fossil fuels in order to drive them out of the marketplace - in 

other words, reducing energy choices. 

There’s a reason other manufacturing nations, including China, are not considering anything even remotely like these EPA regulations. They recognize the obviVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:01 Apr 26, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-2 020911\112-2 CHRIS
4 

ous fact that higher energy costs at home will send jobs abroad. Manufacturers in 

China are doing just fine without us handing them a comparative advantage with 

these EPA regulations. 

Let’s face it, these regulations and others from EPA amount to a war on domestic 

coal. Coal is the energy source America possesses in the greatest abundance. It provides half the nation’s electricity and 92 percent in my home state of Kentucky, and 

it does so because it is affordable. 

Without coal, residential electric bills would be higher, and many energy-using 

manufacturers would be at a global disadvantage compared to other nations that 

don’t hesitate to use it. 

For example, in Webster County, Kentucky, we have an aluminum manufacturing 

company, which molds aluminum for various products around the world. This facility employs 500 people in a county with a population of roughly 15,000. EPA’s regulations will most certainly raise electricity rates to a point where these smelters and 

those jobs will move overseas. 

In addition, without coal, hundreds of thousands of miners and others who derive 

their livelihoods from coal would be out of work, and many communities would suffer. In Kentucky, miners represent 17,000 people and the indirect impacts of coal 

keep the Commonwealth’s economic engine running. 

EPA’s global warming regulations are tailor-made to raise energy costs for customers of any utility or manufacturer that wants to use coal as a fuel source. But 

EPA’s war on coal goes beyond that. The agency’s decision to revoke a mine permit 

in West Virginia that had already been approved, coupled with burdensome new 

regulations under the Clean Water Act, raise troubling questions whether EPA has 

lost sight of its environmental protection role and is trying to set industrial policy. 

Of course, in order to meet our energy demand and continue to grow our economy, 

we need all energy sources, including coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear and renewables. 

I’m not going to support anything that threatens our economic recovery and I will 

oppose anything that will weaken our economy or make us less competitive in the 

global market place. For these reasons, I support the Energy Tax Prevention Act, 

which will properly reassert Congress’ authority in this area. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and I now recognize the Ranking 

Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Rush. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Illinois, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. 

Rush, for 5 minutes for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you 

very much for this opportunity. I want to congratulate you on your 

selection to become chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee. As you have indicated, I too enjoyed very much working 

with you when you were the ranking member of the Subcommittee 

on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. You and I worked 

together hand and hand to move a lot of legislation through the 

subcommittee in the 111th Congress, and I look forward to the 

same outcomes in the 112th Congress. 

Unfortunately, I can’t say that the discussion draft that we are 

taking up today exemplifies good legislation. Before delivering my 

opening statement, Mr. Chairman, I want to get a few things off 

my chest. I really have a bone to pick. I know that this is a new 

Congress and a new majority has come in with it. That said, our 

committee rules, procedures and decorum have remained substantially the same. Mr. Chairman, if we are not careful to set the right 

course of action moving forward, we will find ourselves lost in a sea 

of confusion, and we get our sea legs underneath us, we must try 

to do better. 

5 

I am extremely troubled by the Majority’s stubborn resistance to 

inviting credible witnesses at this hearing who think and believe 

the EPA has a duty and the authority under the Clean Air Act to 

regulate greenhouse gases. Stacking different cards with the same 

suit will rig the outcome before the first hand is even dealt. But 

that isn’t what the American people and the American taxpayer 

want, and that is certainly not what they deserve. This is the 

House of Representatives. We represent all the American people 

and all businesses and public interest, not just some of them or the 

ones who support what we and our little circles want to do and desire to do. 

As I said earlier, this hearing’s focus is on a legislative draft 

known as the Upton-Inhofe Energy Tax Prevention Act. The draft 

bill will eviscerate the EPA by repealing indispensable responsibility and authority the agency holds under the Clean Air Act to 

preserve and protect human health, our environment, and to promote more efficient use of energy. It would further overturn a Supreme Court decision affirming a lower court’s ruling that the EPA 

has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases and it would prohibit the State of California from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles as well as stop the EPA from taking further 

steps in reducing tailpipe emissions. Mr. Chairman, it goes without 

saying that this proposal before us overreaches by large limits, and 

Mr. Chairman, this gets me to what my big rub is today. What irritates me the most is the Majority’s refusal to invite the Administrator of the EPA, Ms. Lisa Jackson, to testify at today’s hearing. 

The only reason that Administrator Jackson is appearing before us 

today is because we here in the Majority had to kick and scream 

and scratch so that Madam Administrator could have her day and 

the opportunity to defend her agency’s findings and judgments here 

in the halls of Congress. How can we formulate good public policy 

or look at ourselves as fair and decent lawmakers if Congress as 

a body doesn’t solicit the expert views of the EPA on this legislation? And as a Member of Congress, I want to hear as many pertinent viewpoints as I am able to hear before deciding how to cast 

my votes on pieces of legislation that are critical to the welfare of 

our economy, our own safety as human beings and preservation of 

our planet. 

Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying that we should not have 

to push this hard to get key officials and important witnesses invited to hearings of this magnitude, and that is one reason why, 

Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to enter into the 

record a response dated December 8, 2010, to a Wall Street Journal 

editorial entitled ‘‘The EPA Permitorium.’’ Mr. Chairman, with that 

said, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I thank the gentleman for that opening statement, and we do look forward to hearing Ms. Jackson. She will be 

here on the second panel, and we all will look forward to her testimony. 

At this time I would like to recognize for 5 minutes the chairman 

of the committee, Mr. Upton of Michigan. 

6 

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

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a delight to be 

here, and I would just open my remarks by saying that it was the 

Minority that asked for Administrator Lisa Jackson to come, and 

we are delighted to have her, and with nature, she has got a good 

parking place right outside the door as well. In all seriousness, that 

was the Minority’s request and we are certainly delighted to make 

sure that it happened. 

This hearing really is about job creation. It is a simple goal but 

unfortunately one that Washington lost sight of in the last few 

years. No more. Cap-and-trade legislation failed in the last Congress in that it did not get through the Senate or to the President’s 

desk but now we face the threat of the EPA bureaucrats imposing 

the same agenda through a series of regulations. Like cap and 

trade, these regulations would boost the cost of energy not just for 

homeowners and car owners but for businesses large and small. 

EPA may be starting by regulating only the largest power plants 

and factories but we will all feel the impact of higher prices and 

fewer jobs. 

These regs go after emissions of carbon dioxide, the unavoidable 

byproduct of using coal, oil and natural gas that provides the Nation with 85 percent of its energy. These fossil fuels are such an 

important part of our energy mix because they are often the most 

affordable choice. EPA regs seek to take away that choice by making the use of these fuels prohibitively expensive. It is worth noting 

that for all the mentions of clean energy in the President’s State 

of the Union, he never once mentioned keeping energy affordable. 

Affordable energy is what keeps our economy moving. 

We live in a global marketplace filled with manufacturers working to produce high-quality goods at the lowest cost. I know American manufacturers can compete but not if they are saddled with 

burdensome regs that put us at a distinct, unfair disadvantage. 

Needless to say, the Chinese government and other competitors 

have no intention of burdening and raising the cost of doing business for their manufacturers and energy producers the way EPA 

plans to do here in America. Our goal should be to export goods, 

not jobs. 

To do that, we released a draft, and it is a draft, called the Energy Tax Prevention Act. This is a bill that would protect jobs and 

preserve the intent of the Clean Air Act. It is narrowly crafted. It 

specifically targets the EPA’s regs under the Clean Air Act that 

regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as related to 

climate change. It allows States to continue setting climate policy 

as they please, but prevents those actions from being imposed or 

enforced nationally. It leaves in place the tailpipe standards for 

cars and light trucks from model years 2012 through 2016, and allows NHTSA to continue to regulate fuel economy after 2016. 

I have mentioned what this proposal does, but let me also emphasize what it does not do. It does not weaken the Clean Air Act. 

It does not limit EPA’s ability to monitor and reduce pollutants 

that damage public health. I have looked back at the comments 

made by the authors of the revisions to the Clean Air Act in the 

7 

early 1990s, and I am confident that our bill actually restores the 

Clean Air Act to its intended purpose. 

I yield the balance of my time to Chairman Emeritus Joe Barton 

from Texas. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Job creation. It’s a simple goal, but unfortunately, one Washington lost sight of 

in the last few years. Well, no more. 

Cap and trade legislation failed in the last Congress, but now we face the threat 

of Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats imposing the same agenda through 

a series of regulations. 

Like cap and trade, these regulations would boost the cost of energy, not just for 

homeowners and car owners, but for businesses both large and small. EPA may be 

starting by regulating only the largest power plants and factories, but we will all 

feel the impact of higher prices and fewer jobs. 

These regulations go after emissions of carbon dioxide - the unavoidable byproduct 

of using the coal, oil, and natural gas that provides this nation with 85 percent of 

its energy. These fossil fuels are such an important part of our energy mix because 

they are often the most affordable choice. EPA regulators seek to take away that 

choice by making the use of these fuels prohibitively expensive. 

It’s worth noting that for all the mentions of ‘‘clean’’ energy in the President’s 

State of the Union, he never once mentioned keeping energy ‘‘affordable.’’ ‘‘Affordable’’ energy is what keeps our economy moving. 

We live in global marketplace filled with manufacturers working to produce high 

quality items at the lowest cost. I know American manufacturers can compete - but 

not if they are saddled with burdensome regulations that put us at an unfair disadvantage. 

Needless to say, the Chinese government and other competitors have no intention 

of burdening and raising the cost of doing business for their manufacturers and energy producers the way EPA plans to here in America. Our goal should be to export 

goods, not jobs. 

To do that, we have released a draft proposal called the Energy Tax Prevention 

Act. This is a bill to protect jobs and preserve the intent of the Clean Air Act. 

Our proposal is narrowly crafted. 

It specifically targets the EPA’s regulations under the Clean Air Act that regulate 

carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as related to climate change. 

It allows states to continue setting climate policy as they please, but prevents 

those actions from being imposed or enforced nationally. 

It leaves in place the tailpipe standards for cars and light trucks from model years 

2012 through 2016, and allows NHTSA to continue to regulate fuel economy after 

2016. 

I’ve mentioned what this proposal does, but let me also emphasize what it does 

NOT do. It does not weaken the Clean Air Act. It does not limit EPA’s ability to 

monitor and reduce pollutants that damage public health. Let me repeat that: this 

bill does NOT impact EPA’s ability to reduce pollutants that damage public health. 

I have looked back at the comments made by the authors of the revisions to the 

Clean Air Act in the early 1990s, and I am confident that our bill actually restores 

the Clean Air Act to its intended purpose. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BARTON. Well, thank you, Chairman Upton. 

Welcome, Senator Inhofe, former House member and good friend 

and senior member of the other body. We are glad to have your 

comments. I also want to welcome my Attorney General, Greg Abbott, my good friend from Austin, Texas, and the General Manager 

for Environmental Affairs of Nucor Corporation, Mr. Steve Rowlan, 

who has several manufacturing facilities in my district. 

The great Joe Louis, the heavy champion of the mid-1900s, was 

facing a difficult test with another heavyweight contender, and 

8 

made the comment, ‘‘He can run but he can’t hide.’’ Well, today we 

are going to use that in the legislative arena. The Environmental 

Protection Agency and the Obama Administration have decided basically just because they have the ability to decide as the executive 

branch that they want to put the American economy in a straitjacket and cost us millions of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars a year with these greenhouse gas regulations. They couldn’t 

get it through the legislative process. The Markey-Waxman bill in 

the last Congress barely passed the House and it did not go anywhere in the Senate so they tried to do it by a regulatory approach. 

It is not going to work. Chairman Upton and Subcommittee Chairman Whitfield have introduced this draft legislation, and I fully expect in the next month or two that it is going to pass the subcommittee and the full committee. 

So today we are going to start that legislative process. I am going 

to put into the record some comments from one of the EPA officials 

who had the authority at the time to take a look at the proposed 

endangerment finding, and I am going to read from the executive 

summary one sentence and then yield back the balance of Mr. 

Upton’s time. It says, ‘‘In many cases, the most important arguments are based not on multimillion-dollar research efforts but by 

simple observation of available data which has surprisingly received so little scrutiny. In the end, it must be emphasized that the 

issue is not which side has spent the most money or pushed the 

most peer-reviewed papers, the issue is whether the greenhouse 

gas CO2 hypothesis meets the ultimate scientific test: conformance 

with real-world data.’’ What these comments show is that in this 

case the ultimate test, the hypothesis fails. That is why we have 

put this legislation forward and that is why at the appropriate time 

it is going to pass and go to the House floor. 

With that, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON

Thank you Chairman for holding this important hearing. As Chairman Emeritus, 

I stand with Chairman Upton and Subcommittee Chairman Whitfield in support of 

denying bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the right to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act; and beginning to rebalance the 

power between the executive and the legislative branches. 

For the past 2 years, the Obama Administration has been using the EPA as the 

means to create an end that I, along with the majority of Americans, strongly oppose. This end results in a world where affordable, reliable, and American-based energy is no longer freely available. This end results in the loss of innovation and job 

opportunities at home and sends American-owned companies and their jobs overseas. This end results in increasing the cost of fuel, electricity, and other goods and 

services to the American public. 

For the past 2 years, the decisions of executive branch bureaucrats at the EPA 

have not been subject to congressional oversight and I am glad that this Committee 

is beginning to remedy that situation starting today. I hope this hearing is just the 

first in a series of hearings discussing legislation that addresses several of my concerns, including: the many flaws in the EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse 

gases; the unjustifiable economic harm being passed on to the American public at 

little to no proven benefit, health or otherwise; and the inconsistencies in the EPA’s 

approach and attack on individual states’ air quality standards and permitting requirements. 

I would like to offer a special welcome to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. 

Attorney General Abbott, along with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and countless other private sector and state representatives, has been fighting 

9 

a good fight and asking the EPA to explain and reconsider specific regulations regarding greenhouse gases and permitting issues and I look forward to hearing from 

Mr. Abbott and the other witnesses about their interactions and relationships with 

the EPA. 

I, like all Americans, want to breathe clean air and make sure that our children 

and future generations inherit the same beautiful country that we enjoy now. We 

already have laws on the books that protect our air and before Congress or federal 

agencies enact new laws we must examine the facts, the science, the needs of the 

American public, and the economic impact of new regulations. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the ranking member of 

the full Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from 

California, Mr. Waxman. 

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Today we hold a hearing on legislation that would rollback the 

Clean Air Act and block the Environmental Protection Agency from 

regulating dangerous carbon emissions from power plants, oil refineries and other large polluters. The underlying premise of this bill 

is that climate change is a hoax. That is the view of the chief Senate sponsor of this bill and it is also the view of our former chairman of this committee, Mr. Barton, and that is the foundation of 

this bill. This legislation says carbon emissions do not endanger 

public health and welfare. 

Mr. Chairman, you and the new Republican majority have a lot 

of power to write the Nation’s laws but you do not have the power 

to rewrite the laws of nature, and that is the fundamental problem 

with this proposal. 

In 2009, EPA found that carbon emissions endanger public 

health and the environment. That was a scientific conclusion that 

is supported by the National Academy of Sciences, the premier scientific organizations of all the world’s major economies. 

This legislation would overturn EPA’s endangerment finding. 

Now, this won’t stop carbon pollution from building up in the atmosphere. It won’t stop the droughts and floods that are spreading 

like an epidemic across the globe. It won’t protect the air quality 

of our cities when summer temperatures soar to record levels, and 

it won’t stop the strange weather patterns that have locked much 

of our Nation in a deep freeze this winter. 

What it will do, though, is gut the Clean Air Act and prevent 

EPA from addressing this enormous threat to public health and 

welfare. 

Protecting public health and preventing climate change should 

not be a partisan issue. In January 2008, Stephen Johnson, the 

former EPA Administrator under President Bush, sent a letter to 

President Bush. Administrator Johnson wrote, ‘‘The latest science 

of climate change requires the Agency to propose a positive 

endangerment finding. It does not permit a credible finding that we 

need to wait for more research.’’ And he said that the Bush Cabinet 

agreed with this position. 

The science hasn’t changed in the last 2 years, in fact, it has only 

gotten stronger. Yet somehow belief in science has become another 

partisan battleground. 

10 

This legislation is called the ‘‘Energy Tax Prevention Act.’’ This 

title is total nonsense because EPA has no authority to levy energy 

taxes. 

What this bill should be called is the ‘‘Big Polluter Protection 

Act.’’ The only beneficiaries of this legislation are the Nation’s largest polluters. The biggest backer of this bill is Koch Industries, an 

oil company that spent millions of dollars to elect Republicans to 

Congress. 

Now, members can have different ideas about how to reduce carbon pollution. I believe the steps that EPA Administrator Lisa 

Jackson is proposing under the Clean Air Act are moderate and appropriate. They are also remarkably similar to the measures that 

former Administrator Johnson recommended to President Bush. 

But I understand that members could reasonably have different 

views. Indeed, I preferred the market-based approach recommended by utilities and manufacturers that was the basis for 

the House-passed clean energy legislation last Congress. 

But what doesn’t make sense is the extreme approach in this bill. 

It will repeal the only authority the Administration has to protect 

our health and the environment without providing any alternative. 

That is another repeal but no alternative to replace it. Why replace 

it? The science is a hoax, we don’t need to solve the problem, there 

is no problem. That is the underlying assumption. Well, that will 

only make the problem worse. 

History will not judge this committee kindly if we become the 

last bastion of the polluters and the science deniers. When carbon 

emissions rise to record levels and our weather system goes haywire, the American people will ask why we acted so irresponsibly. 

I hope we will be able to tell them that we stood up for science and 

public health and rejected this extreme proposal. I yield back my 

time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Waxman. 

At this time we will introduce our first witness, who really needs 

no introduction. Senator James Inhofe from Oklahoma is the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public 

Works. Of course, he served in the House of Representatives. He 

is recognized as a real expert in the field of energy as well as other 

areas. We are delighted to have him with us today, and I might 

say that he is floating a discussion draft over on the Senate side 

very similar to our legislation we have on the House side. So Senator Inhofe, we are delighted to have you with us today and we recognize you for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR, STATE OF 

OKLAHOMA 

Mr. INHOFE. First of all, let me thank you for the invitation to 

be here. It is a joy. The only disappointment I have is that I am 

not sitting at the same table with Administrator Jackson. I know 

it surprises and disappoints a lot of people that she and I are really 

very good friends. I find her—a lot of liberals aren’t this way but 

in her case, she responds to a question, she gives you an honest 

answer, and I have always appreciated that. 

Much to the chagrin of my staff, I am not going to use my opening statement that they prepared, but so that they won’t be comVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:01 Apr 26, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-2 020911\112-2 CHRIS
11 

pletely overlooked, I would like to ask that it be made a part of the 

record, and I will go ahead and ramble just for a few minutes. 

Let me share a couple of thoughts that I have with you. First of 

all, this issue is a new issue to the House, relatively new. We have 

been dealing with it since Kyoto, since the middle 1990s, and I was 

in the middle of it back then and you are right, you quoted the 

statement that was made by some 95 to nothing in the Senate. 

Now, that statement to refresh memories here, was that we are not 

going to ratify anything that doesn’t treat developing nations like 

developed nations or that is devastating to our economy. However, 

most of the Senators at that time were believers, and I use the 

word ‘‘the alarmists.’’ I think most of them would fit that. 

And so we—and I have to admit, you know, confession is good 

for the soul. When I was the chairman of the subcommittee, I believe the Clean Air Subcommittee of EPW, I thought too that catastrophic global warming was caused by anthropogenic gases because everybody said it was, and it wasn’t until the Wharton 

School came out with, I think it was called the Wharton Econometric Survey, the question was this: should we ratify the Kyoto 

treaty, what would it cost the people of America, and the result 

was a range. That range was between $300 billion and $400 billion 

a year. Then I happened to think, you know, when you got up in 

the billions and trillions, it is kind of hard. You have to bring this 

back home. I remembered how outrageous it was when the ClintonGore tax increase of 1993 came through, and that was a $30 billion 

tax increase. I thought wait a minute, this is 10 times greater than 

that. So I thought at that time, let us at least look and be sure that 

the science is there, and I remember at that time there was a scientist by the name of Tom Wigley. Tom Wigley was commissioned, 

I believe, by then-Vice President Al Gore to answer the question 

that if all nations, all developed nations were to get together and 

agree to the Kyoto treaty and live by their emission standards, how 

much would that reduce the temperature in 50 years. The answer 

was something like seven one-hundredths of 1 degree Celsius. Well, 

of course, that was something that wasn’t even measurable. 

So when we started questioning the science, all of a sudden the 

scientists came out of the woodwork and they were coming in and 

giving testimonials about how they, the IPCC, would not consider 

any views that anyone had unless they themselves were an alarmist. Well, we started talking about that and then obviously we did 

not ratify. By the way, it is important to note that the ones who 

were really pushing the Kyoto treaty, that would have been the 

Clinton-Gore Administration, they never submitted to the Senate 

for ratification. So it is not our fault that we never had that before 

us but they wisely did not do it. 

Then we started coming up with the bills. We had McCainLieberman of 2003, McCain-Lieberman of 2005, the Waxman-Markey bill, the Lieberman-Warner bill, the Sanders-Boxer bill. Now, 

they were all very similar. Cap and trade is cap and trade. Now, 

you could argue, well, wait a minute—and I am sure Congressman 

Waxman would disagree with this—but all these bills along with 

the Kyoto treaty would cost in that range of somewhere between 

$300 billion and $400 billion a year. It is not just Wharton. MIT, 

Penn State and others have come in and talked about that. 

12 

I am going to mention too, I want to end my opening statement 

with two quotes or responses to questions by Lisa Jackson that I 

have a great deal of respect for. Well, we have made a decision 

some time ago as we were trying to defeat and successfully did defeat all the bills that I mentioned on the Floor of the Senate, and 

one of the things I did since at best the science is mixed, there is 

nothing conclusive in the science, but it is mixed, let us go ahead— 

and I did this, it might have been when we were debating the Waxman-Markey bill or it might have been the Sanders-Boxer bill, I 

can’t remember which one, but I said even though I don’t agree the 

science is there, let us stipulate to it so we can talk about the economics, and so we did, and then is when we started talking about 

the cost of this thing. 

I think that maybe in response to questions I can be more specific but this bill that I will be the sponsor in the Senate, it will 

be the same wording, I say to Chairman Whitfield, that is just one 

of the problems we are having right now with the overregulation 

of the Environmental Protection Agency. We have such things as 

the boiler and utility MACT—that is the maximum achievable control technology—ozone, the PM 10 dust, hydraulic fracturing, all 

these things to put American jobs either overseas or just kill them 

and destroy our economy. These things are happening right now. 

This is one part of it but a very important part of it. 

Now, what I am going to say within my time frame here and 

make two observations, and this came from Administrator Jackson. 

In one of our committee hearings, and I will tell you when it was, 

it was in December, a year ago December, right before, the day before I was going to go to Copenhagen. I was the one-man truth 

squad in Copenhagen, I might add, and before I left I said in a 

hearing, Mr. Chairman, I said, Madam Administrator, I understand and I believe that once I leave town you are going to have 

an endangerment finding, and she did not deny that and she kind 

of nodded and with her very pleasant smile like she always has, 

and I said when you do this, it has got to be based on some kind 

of science, what science would you base this on, and she said well, 

primarily it is the IPCC. That is the United Nations. Well, that 

was right in the middle of the time that they had been totally debunked. Now, they try to say that Climategate wasn’t a real thing. 

It was. They tried to play it down. Let me just real quickly, so it 

is in the record, talk about it. Atlantic magazine said the closemindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to 

go to any length to defend a preconceived message is surprising 

even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. 

The statement in the Daily Telegraph, this is the largest one in 

London, the scandal could well be the greatest scandal in modern 

science. So we have all of the facts that this is the science on which 

this is based, and I am hoping that people are going to keep this 

in the dialog, let people know how phony this was. 

The other thing was, and I am speaking now to the many people 

out not just in my State of Oklahoma but throughout America who 

think I am wrong on this issue, people who really believe, people 

who think that the alarmists are right, that in fact that anthropogenic gases are causing catastrophic global warming. To them I say 

this: If they are right, what difference does this really make? BeVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:01 Apr 26, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-2 020911\112-2 CHRIS
13 

cause when I asked the question to Administrator Jackson, I said 

if we were to pass this bill, I don’t know, I say to my good friend, 

Mr. Waxman, whether it was the Waxman-Markey or which bill it 

was, but I said if we pass this, will this have a reduction, result 

in reducing greenhouse gases. Her answer was no, because this 

only applies to the United States. 

I will carry it one step further. If we cause our jobs to go overseas as a result of having something like this, those jobs are going 

to go places like China and India and Mexico where they don’t 

have any restrictions at all, and so those people who say well, we 

have to set the example in America, that China is anxious to follow 

our great example. I say they are laughing at us right now. They 

are not going to do it. They are waiting for those jobs to come over. 

So with that, I would only say that I hope we will get a chance 

to realize that even if this ends up, those people out here that really believe this, what we take, the action we take whether it is 

through regulation or whether it is through legislation here in the 

United States is not going to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Inhofe follows:] 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES M. INHOFE

Thank you, Chairman Upton, Chairman Whitfield, and Ranking Member Rush for 

the opportunity to speak to the subcommittee this morning. It is an honor to provide 

testimony to the subcommittee on the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011. 

The draft bill, sponsored by me, Rep. Upton, and Rep. Whitfield, would repeal 

EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. We’re doing 

this for one simple reason: EPA’s regulations will impose enormous costs for no 

meaningful benefits-in other words, all pain for no climate gain. 

I have great respect for Administrator Jackson-she is doing what she thinks is 

right. But I think EPA is taking the wrong course. Let me explain. 

Congress didn’t allow EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. 

Administrator Jackson even agreed with the statement two years ago that the Clean 

Air Act ‘‘is not specifically designed to address greenhouse gases’’. 

We also know that EPA’s own analysis shows its actions won’t affect climate 

change, and the scientific basis of its endangerment finding, which the Administrator confirmed to me is the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or 

IPCC, is flawed. 

Now I’m not here to debate science. So let’s assume-as I did during the 

Lieberman-Warner debate in the Senate-that predictions of more droughts, more 

floods, more intense storms, and more cases of disease are true. What we know is 

that EPA’s regulations won’t affect any of this. 

EPA’s analysis of the Lieberman-Warner bill shows that, without aggressive action by China and India, cap-and-trade won’t reduce greenhouse gases by any meaningful amount. The EPA also found that its regulations covering CO2 from cars 

would reduce global temperatures by 0.006 degrees Celsius by 2100. In other words: 

no effect. 

Now what if we added actions by other countries? Dr. Tom Wigley of the National 

Center for Atmospheric Research found that full implementation of Kyoto, including 

action by the U.S., Europe, Canada, Russia, and others, would reduce global temperature by, at most, 0.21 degrees Celsius by 2100. In other words, the Earth would 

warm about 6 percent less than it normally would. We know from Wharton, MIT, and others that Kyoto would cost about $300 to $400 billion annually through higher gas, food, and electricity prices. In fact, that’s 

about the cost of all the cap-and-trade bills we’ve seen since 2003. EPA’s regulations 

will be no different. 

The point is this: it is unfair and unacceptable to ask the steel worker in Ohio, 

the chemical plant worker in Michigan, and the coal miner in West Virginia to sacrifice their jobs so we can reduce temperature by a barely detectable amount in 100 

years. 

Yet this is exactly what the EPA is doing. The Energy Tax Prevention Act would 

stop EPA and protect those jobs. It would ensure that America’s manufacturers can 

14 

stay here and compete against China. And it would put Congress back in charge 

of deciding the nation’s climate change policy. 

EPA’s actions under the Clean Air Act are part of the cap-and-trade agenda. That 

agenda wants higher energy prices for consumers, higher taxes for citizens, more 

regulations on small businesses, more restrictions on choices, and ultimately less 

freedom. Supporters believe these things will stop global warming. They won’t. 

EPA claims the Supreme Court forced it to act. Not so; the Supreme Court ruled 

that EPA possessed the discretion under the Clean Air Act to decide whether greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. EPA was given a choice, and it 

made the wrong choice. The Energy Tax Prevention Act is the right choice for jobs, 

for consumers, for a growing economy, and for the future of America. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. We appreciate your 

testimony. 

Mr. Waxman in his opening statement referred to this letter by 

former EPA Administrator Steve Johnson to President Bush about 

the endangerment finding, and I don’t know all the details about 

it so I am going to ask you about it, but it was my understanding 

that once they really got into the process of looking at that, a number of federal agencies came out very much opposed to an 

endangerment finding including Ag, Commerce, Transportation and 

Energy. Do you have any recollection of the letter that Mr. Waxman was referring to? 

Mr. INHOFE. I do, because first of all, I have a great deal of respect for Steve Johnson and I supported his being put in the position he was in. I would only say this. Those who want to quote him 

as was quoted in the opening statement here in this meeting need 

to talk about what he said since then. I want to quote him now. 

He said, ‘‘One point is clear. The potential regulation of greenhouse 

gases under any portion of the Clean Air Act could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that would have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy and touch 

every household in the land.’’ He went on to say, ‘‘I believe the 

ANPR demonstrates the Clean Air Act, an outdated law originally 

enacted to control regional pollutants that caused direct health effects, is ill-suited for the task of regulating global greenhouse 

gases.’’ 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thanks. 

Mr. INHOFE. And this by way, you mentioned the Departments 

of Energy, Transportation, Commerce, Agriculture and probably 

some others have made this statement. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I was looking at the EPA Web site actually last 

night, and there was a comment on there right at the very main 

page. It said ‘‘We are working across the nation to usher in a green 

economy.’’ Now, we all recognize, as I said in my opening statement, to meet our energy demands, we are going to have to have 

renewables, we are going to have to have everything, but this Administration seems to be so focused on pushing a green economy, 

and I know that President Obama in his State of the Union address talked about this green economy is going to stimulate the 

economy and create the jobs. And I know from the research that 

I have done personally, one of the countries that has been a leader 

in green energy has been Spain, and I read an article just a couple 

of days ago that they have the highest unemployment rate in the 

industrialized world, approaching 20 percent. Do you have the 

15 

same concerns about this all-out push for green energy and the impact that that could have on our employment levels in America? 

Mr. INHOFE. Chairman Whitfield, it goes even further than that. 

One of the—I would have to, for the record, give you the name of 

which one of the Administration said this, I think it might have 

been the Under Secretary of Treasury, made the statement that we 

are going to have to do, they say take away the perks that are out 

there for the energy industry so that we can force people to concentrate on green energy. I think everyone here, I think every Republican and Democrat or the Republicans, anyway, they want all 

of the above. We want gas, oil, coal, nuclear, renewables, green, we 

want it all, but what is available now to run this machine called 

America? We have oil and gas. 

This is new information. As of just a year ago, we in the United 

States have the greatest, largest number of recoverable reserves in 

coal, oil and gas of any country in the world. We are not number 

2, we are number 1. Now, if you look at the shale opportunities 

that are out there and the fact that these are close formations, we 

have enough natural gas to take care of this country for 110 years. 

Now, yes, during that time perhaps technology will be here, we will 

have all kinds of green opportunities. That is great. I am all for it. 

But until then, you have got to run this country. 

The thing that bothers me over in the Senate, I hear from my 

good friends John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, they all talk about our dependence on foreign countries, for our oil, our energy, as if, you 

know, we shut down fossil fuels and somehow not be as dependent 

upon them. Just the opposite. You know, we have to run this machine called America and we can’t do it now without fossil fuels. 

If we could release all the political pressures that are on our resources out there, we wouldn’t have to be dependent upon any foreign country or the Middle East for one barrel of oil. I forgot what 

your question is but that is the answer. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. I thought it was a good answer. 

I recognize Mr. Rush for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUSH. I thought it was a good question but I didn’t think it 

was a good answer. 

Senator, I have the utmost respect for you. I want to thank you 

for taking the time out to come to this hearing. As you know, there 

are some vociferous and very disagreement with some of your conclusions, especially as it relates to job creation and also electric reliability. Administrator Jackson, she has pointed out in her White 

Paper that she released earlier that the environmental, technology 

and services sectors generated under the Clean Air Act an estimated $300 billion in revenue—that is $300 billion in revenue— 

and supported nearly 1.7 million jobs, and I think those are real 

jobs. That is certainly not chump change. Do you have any comments or any reaction to her conclusion? 

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, I do, Congressman. First of all, I have a Web 

site , Inhofe.Senate.gov, and if you go there you will find, I have 

talked about the money and the jobs that all these overregulations 

would cause. Now, you are addressing only the greenhouse gas, 

what is happening with the regulations that are subject of this 

committee. But I had mentioned in my opening statement, there is 

also all the MACT laws, the utility MACT, the boiler MACT, trying 

16 

to stop hydraulic fracturing, the ozone, all of these issues that are 

there, the PM10 dust, if you add those up, each one has a price tag 

in terms of dollars and the amount of the jobs that would be lost. 

Those jobs, that information comes from most of the labor unions 

in the United States along with, I might add, the National Black 

Chamber of Commerce, who will be testifying, I don’t know whether he is on today, but he is great. He has testified before our committee. And I want you to ask him that question because I think 

it is very specific. The jobs that would be lost, the costs that would 

be there are something that we can’t sustain in this country. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Senator. Senator, let me ask you, as I 

think you are the ranking member on, which committee now? 

Mr. INHOFE. Environment and Public Works. 

Mr. RUSH. I wanted to make sure I got it right. And as ranking 

member and during the course of that committee’s hearings, I am 

sure you had a number of different hearings on this particular subject. Is that correct? 

Mr. INHOFE. We have had hearings. 

Mr. RUSH. Has your committee conducted hearings with no scientists among the witnesses? Have scientists been included in your 

hearings? 

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, we have scientists there on both sides, as you 

well know, because you are going through this now. When you are 

a minority, you don’t get as many witnesses. 

Mr. RUSH. But do you find it strange that this hearing is being 

conducted with no scientists at all? 

Mr. INHOFE. We had scientists in our hearing. I would just use 

one, Richard Linzen, for example, from MIT is recognized as one 

of the very top individuals. He testified and—— 

Mr. RUSH. Senator, which I do understand, but do you find that 

it is strange that at this hearing of this importance that we have 

no scientists on the witness list at all for this hearing? Do you find 

that strange? 

Mr. INHOFE. I don’t know. You would have to ask the chairman 

that question. I do know that the Rules of the House and the rules 

of the Senate do provide for minority witnesses and so I don’t know 

how this was constructed. 

Mr. RUSH. All right. And lastly, Senator, Chairman Waxman and 

I on February 7th sent a letter to the chairman and asked him that 

the Republicans and the Democrats work together to write bipartisan legislation to establish a clean energy standard. Do you support similar activity in the Senate? 

Mr. INHOFE. Well, yes. We have been trying to do that for a long 

period of time. Unfortunately, CO2 has held hostage all kinds of opportunities. We had the Clear Skies bill. That would have been 

SOx, NOx, mercury. We could have passed the most restrictive bill 

in terms of emissions, of pollutants but it was held hostage because 

we don’t care about all that, we want to make sure that CO2 is 

there. So I do support programs that affect kinds of emissions and 

I strongly support it. I would say this, that we are going to go 

through the process, and I am hopeful that I can get my bill passed 

in the Senate and this bill passed here and we will see what happens. It could be we would have to override a veto. I don’t know. 

17 

But we may end up—things are going to change in a couple years 

so we will have to wait and see. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Rush. 

At this time I recognize Mr. Upton. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again Senator, I appreciate you being here, especially on a day that the Senate doesn’t 

have votes and I know you are trying to get back to snow-laden 

Oklahoma where they have, I am told, cross-country skiing. I am 

not sure you have got any hills for downhill but you have got a 

good 10 inches last night, and people at least can go straight forward. 

Two questions that I want to ask. One is, I mentioned in my 

opening statement, and I wanted you just to comment on, as regards to some groups that are offering criticism toward this discussion draft. In your view, does it in any way undermine the Clean 

Air Act? 

Mr. INHOFE. No, it is not going to weaken the regulation of air 

pollution that, you know, people are concerned about, asthma and 

heart attacks and all these long list of things, lung cancer. The 

Clean Air Act has reduced air pollution and has done so in conjunction with a period of economic growth. That is significant because 

during that period of time all these things have actually reduced, 

and I can’t see that this would have any effect on that. I did mention that things like the Diesel Regulation Act, Clear Skies, these 

are things that we have been trying to do and have done successfully, so we are addressing that and have been addressing that 

with such legislation as I just mentioned. 

Mr. UPTON. Now, I know that you are writing a book, and—— 

Mr. INHOFE. Guess what the name of it is? 

Mr. UPTON. Well, you can tell me in a second. I just want to 

know if you are going to talk in your book or you are planning to 

write in your book whether EPA has calculated the further reduction in temperature from the tailpipe rule at about one-hundredth 

of a degree Fahrenheit by the year 2100. 

Mr. INHOFE. I think what you are getting to here confirms what 

I said in my opening statement about the Tom Wigley report on the 

Kyoto treaty, that it is hardly detectable. I will tell you about my 

book. I did finish it last week on the 5th, although now I see we 

are going to have to go forward with it a little bit further. I won’t 

tell you what it is about but the name of the book is The Hoax. 

Yes, there have been a lot of things that—Don Rumsfeld is not the 

only one writing a book. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. At this time I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman. 

Mr. INHOFE. And he will be the first to receive an autographed 

copy. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I will be greatly honored. I receive a lot of books. 

In fact, I just got one that pointed out that Jack Abramoff was railroaded into prison by the establishment, so I am looking forward 

to reading both books. 

Senator Inhofe, it is my understanding you have said, and I 

think you said it very clearly a minute ago, that this climate 

18 

change idea is just a hoax being perpetrated on the American people. Is that right? 

Mr. INHOFE. That is right. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I am a lawyer, and I don’t have a scientific background. I understand your degree was in economics and you ran 

small businesses before you were elected to public office. Like me, 

you are not a scientist by training. Isn’t that right? 

Mr. INHOFE. That’s correct. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Now, I want to read you a quote from our Nation’s 

premier scientific organization, the National Academy of Sciences. 

According to the National Academy of Sciences, ‘‘Climate change is 

occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for and in many cases is already affecting a broad range 

of human and natural systems.’’ Senator, you disagree with the National Academy of Sciences. Is that right? 

Mr. INHOFE. Well, I disagree with that particular interpretation. 

I would add that there are several members, former members of 

the National Academy of Sciences, who are not there anymore because they disagreed—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, that is their conclusion and you disagree 

with it. 

Mr. INHOFE. And—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. No, Senator, it is my turn now. You are in the 

House and this is a 5-minute round so you know how that goes. 

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, sir. It hasn’t been that long. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Now, you disagree with that and the National 

Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Sciences is our Nation’s premier scientific institution. I don’t know why they would 

want to mislead the American people. But they are not alone. The 

American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society along 

with 15 other leading scientific organizations have concluded, and 

I want to quote, ‘‘If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically 

reduced.’’ Thirteen federal departments and agencies including 

NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense have reported that global warming is ‘‘unequivocal and primarily human induced.’’ And the leading scientific organizations in 

England, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, China, Brazil and India 

have all reached the same conclusion. 

Now, Chairman Upton and you have gone to the point where you 

say that this is not something we need to deal with. I think Mr. 

Upton says it is a problem that is occurring but he doesn’t accept 

it as human emissions that are causing climate change. Well, Mr. 

Rush raised this point. I think it would be important and I would 

request that we hold hearings on this fundamental issue of science 

before we vote on this legislation. The premise of the Inhofe-Upton 

legislation is that carbon emissions don’t endanger public health. 

Before we proceed, we should call the best scientists in the Nation 

before the committee so we can understand whether Senator 

Inhofe’s views or Chairman Upton’s are supported by the science. 

But it seems to me what you are saying is, even if climate change 

is real, we can’t do anything about it so we shouldn’t even try, and 

if that is the situation, I find that quite amazing. 

19 

Now, the reason this is under the Clean Air Act is because the 

Supreme Court by 5-4 said EPA must regulate if they have an 

endangerment finding. The Supreme Court by 5-4. There are a lot 

of Supreme Court decisions that went 5-4 that I didn’t like but this 

is one where the Court said that this is part of the Clean Air Act. 

I think that there is a fundamental flaw in one of the arguments 

that I have been hearing. When you calculate the benefits of action, 

there is an assumption that the United States and other nations 

will take only minimal steps to control emissions, but when you 

calculate the cost, there is an assumption, there is a completely different scenario that the United States will implement draconian 

control measures. I don’t think that is fair. A fair analysis will 

show that the modest measures that EPA is currently proposing 

will have little impact on the economy. In fact, EPA’s analysis 

shows our economy grows because we become more energy efficient. In other words, we are making a small step forward on climate change at virtually no cost to the economy. A fair analysis 

will show that if we adopt more far-reaching measures, we could 

have a major impact on climate change at a manageable cost. 

Last year the House passed the Waxman-Markey bill, passed out 

of this committee as well. That would have reduced U.S. emissions 

by 80 percent by 2050. Modeling of that bill proved that we could 

dramatically reduce pollution for only a postage stamp per day 

while cutting the deficit. Well, I think if we do nothing, and this 

bill is a repeal and no replacement. No replacement for dealing 

with this problem. If it is a real problem, let us acknowledge it and 

figure out a way to deal with it and resolve our differences on how 

to approach a constructive resolution. But if it is not a problem, 

then I think what we are doing is saying that we can’t do anything 

about the droughts, the floods, the storms, the public health and 

economic misery climate change will cause, so we simply should 

give up trying, and I don’t think that is the American way. Yield 

back my time. 

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. Chairman, I know his time has expired but he 

asked me three questions and I can answer them real quick. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Mr. INHOFE. First of all, I knew you were going to end up with 

the droughts and the floods and all that. It is the fear that has 

been driving this for so long. Let me just answer the three questions. 

First of all, the fact that if we were—the reason in my opening 

statement—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. What are the three questions you seek to answer? 

Mr. INHOFE. Well, I am answering them right now. One was 

about the reductions. The fact is—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. I asked you whether you disagree with the National Academy of Sciences. I asked you very specific questions. 

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, we should let our witness make a 

statement. Mr. Waxman talked for 4 minutes—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. BARTON. He basically gave an opening statement. 

Mr. WAXMAN [continuing]. The time now goes to whoever on your 

side is next, and they can yield their time for that purpose. But I 

will go along with whatever the—— 

20 

Mr. BARTON. We always let the witness answer a question—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I didn’t have a question pending. 

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, you did. 

Mr. WAXMAN. If the gentleman wants to respond to my statements, then that is up to the Chair whether that comes out of my 

time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I will tell you what let us do, Senator Inhofe. I 

am going to go to Mr. Barton and he can ask questions. We have 

a lot of other people, and I am sure that—— 

Mr. INHOFE. That is fine. 

Mr. WHITFIELD [continuing]. We will get to the issues. Mr. Barton, I recognize you for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Chairman. We do give our witnesses 

the courtesy at the end of their—when somebody gives a soliloquy 

or monolog like Chairman Waxman did to at least make a comment on it. 

Senator, you have participated in dozens of hearing on this issue 

in the other body, some as chairman and some as ranking member. 

Is that not correct? 

Mr. INHOFE. That is correct. 

Mr. BARTON. And you would consider yourself at least in that 

body to be knowledgeable on this issue? 

Mr. INHOFE. Not scientifically, as pointed out by Mr. Waxman, 

but yes. 

Mr. BARTON. You mentioned in your opening statement millions 

of jobs and hundreds of billions per year and studies that have 

been done by independent groups. I think the U.S. Chamber has 

done a study, Heritage has done a study. You mentioned MIT. 

Have any of those studies been refuted by the EPA or any other 

executive branch authority in the Obama Administration? 

Mr. INHOFE. No, they haven’t. The interesting thing is that there 

is a consistency here. It doesn’t matter whether you are talking 

about the Kyoto treaty or any of the other issues or bills that we 

considered including the Waxman-Markey bill, the amount is always in that range, $300 billion to $400 billion, and that is pretty 

consistent. 

Mr. BARTON. So there has been no refutation of those type order 

of magnitude numbers? 

Mr. INHOFE. I can remember when we have had witnesses from 

the EPA who have agreed with that. Some will not, of course. 

Mr. BARTON. And obviously if cap and trade had been implemented like Mr. Markey and Mr. Waxman wanted, or if these 

pending greenhouse gas regulations are implemented, we could expect that type of an impact and that would certainly be a tax, if 

not explicitly, implicitly, on the U.S. economy. Would you agree 

with that? 

Mr. INHOFE. I would say precisely the same difference in what 

they are attempting to do with regulations and what they are attempting to do with legislation so I think it would be the same, yes, 

sir. 

Mr. BARTON. Now, you indicated that you have got a draft bill 

that is either identical or very similar to Chairman Whitfield and 

Chairman Upton’s bill. Is that correct? 

Mr. INHOFE. That is correct. 

21 

Mr. BARTON. Does your legislation or this pending legislation 

that is in draft form, does it change the standard on ozone under 

the Clean Air Act? 

Mr. INHOFE. No. 

Mr. BARTON. Does it change the standard on particulate matter? 

Mr. INHOFE. No, it doesn’t. 

Mr. BARTON. Does it change the standard on carbon monoxide? 

Mr. INHOFE. No. 

Mr. BARTON. Does it change the standard on nitric oxide? 

Mr. INHOFE. No. 

Mr. BARTON. Does it change the standard on sulfur dioxide? 

Mr. INHOFE. No. 

Mr. BARTON. Does it change the standard on lead? 

Mr. INHOFE. No. 

Mr. BARTON. Those are the six criteria pollutants that are regulated under the Clean Air Act. Is that not correct? 

Mr. INHOFE. That is correct. 

Mr. BARTON. So if you don’t change any of those standards, to 

paraphrase former Chairman Waxman, you are certainly not gutting the Clean Air Act, are you? 

Mr. INHOFE. No, sir. 

Mr. BARTON. What you are doing, though, Senator, is saying that 

the Clean Air Act and its amendments were never intended to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. Is that not correct? 

Mr. INHOFE. Which is also what Mr. Johnson said, yes, sir. 

Mr. BARTON. And I think this is a true statement. I was on this 

committee when was passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990. I was a cosponsor. I participated in the debate. Chairman 

Dingell was the full committee chairman and was very fair in allowing what was then the Minority that I was a member of to be 

a full participant in those debates. I don’t remember that we put 

CO2 in any way in the Clean Air Act Amendments. Is that your 

recollection? 

Mr. INHOFE. That is correct. 

Mr. BARTON. Are you familiar with the comments of a scientist 

or at least a senior staffer at the EPA who has since retired named 

Mr. Alan Carlin? 

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, I am. 

Mr. BARTON. And are you cognizant of the report that he attempted to publish that was suppressed for some time by the EPA 

that basically said the endangerment finding put forward by the 

Obama Administration was totally incorrect? Now, I am paraphrasing when I say totally incorrect but he pointed out seven or 

eight basic flaws that says the hypothesis is not supportable. 

Mr. INHOFE. It was a career ender, yes. 

Mr. BARTON. He has since retired? 

Mr. INHOFE. Yes. 

Mr. BARTON. I am going to submit that statement, this report for 

the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. BARTON. It is about 50 pages, so I don’t know what the rules 

are on that lengthy of a statement being put in the record, but I 

would hope the Minority would allow us to. 

22 

And with that, I again thank Senator Inhofe and we look forward 

to working with you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

I am going to call on the chairman emeritus, Mr. Dingell, for 

questions, but before, Mr. Dingell, you ask your questions, Senator, 

it is my understanding that you are going to have to leave relatively soon. 

Mr. INHOFE. Well, we are having a problem now. I am trying to 

get back to Tulsa but there is a record snow and maybe they are 

canceling the flights, but yes, I do have to try. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Well, then Mr. Dingell, I am going to allow 

you—— 

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

will comfort you and I am sure Senator Inhofe. I have no questions. 

I wanted to welcome the senator. 

Mr. INHOFE. Could I use some of your time to answer the question from Mr. Waxman? 

Mr. DINGELL. Well, all I really wanted to do, Senator, is welcome 

you back. 

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you very much, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. Good to see you again. 

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Dingell, would you mind yielding your time? 

Mr. DINGELL. I am sorry? 

Mr. INSLEE. Would you mind yielding your time to a fellow over 

here? 

Mr. DINGELL. No, I really don’t want to. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dingell follows:] 

23 


65734.096
24 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you very much. 

Senator Inhofe, welcome to the committee. You were right on one 

thing. You were right on one thing. The alarmists should not be listened to because the alarmists are those pessimists who figure out 

that Americans aren’t smart enough to innovate our way out of this 

pickle, and we are in a pickle. And Senator, thank you for telling 

about your book. I am going to suggest a book you might want to 

look at. It is called Apollo’s Fire, a book I coauthored, and it tells 

you how we are going to grow our economy, an economy that the 

evidence shows we can grow. 

Now, the Americans are against this ‘‘Dirty Air Act,’’ and that is 

what it is, and I will explain why in a minute. They are against 

this Dirty Air Act three to one, and the reason is, they know that 

the Clean Air Act reduced pollution 60 percent over the last 40 

years while we grew our economy 207 percent. 

Mr. INHOFE. I agree. 

Mr. INSLEE. Americans get it that we can innovate our way out 

of this pickle. Now, this is why this is the Dirty Air Act. I hear my 

friends saying we don’t have anything against the Clean Air Act, 

we are not gutting the Clean Air Act. It is like saying they are not 

against the Antiterrorism Act, all we are doing is passing a bill 

saying the FBI can’t enforce it. Now, when you gut the EPA’s ability to enforce the law, you turn the Environmental Protection 

Agency into the environmentally pathetic agency, and that is not 

what Americans want. They want something rather than dirty air, 

and this Dirty Air Act hurts kids with asthma, it hurts seniors 

with respiratory problems and it hurts our economy. 

Now, I want to suggest to you there is a fundamental problem 

here. That problem is that we are not listening to the scientists, 

and I am going to ask you a question when I am done here in a 

minute and I hope I give time you to answer. But the scientists are 

telling us that we have got a real health problems on our hands. 

We got a letter from 1,800 scientifically trained medical professionals yesterday. It says communities across the nation will suffer, 

not maybe, will suffer from poor—excuse me—still suffer from poor 

air quality. Low-income families face the impacts of toxic air pollution every day from smog causing asthma attacks to toxic mercury 

harming children’s neurological development. Far too many people 

face a constant threat from the air they breathe and the impacts 

of climate change. Now, that letter is signed by, among others, doctors, Dr. Guillermo Arnaud of Tahlequah, Oklahoma, Dr. Therese 

Kwan of Kingston, Oklahoma, Dr. Warren Teal of Carney, Oklahoma. Doctors across this country and scientists across this planet 

know that our health is adversely affected by these chemicals, and 

by the way, carbon dioxide is in the Clean Air Act. It is in section 

103, if you folks want to look at it. Carbon dioxide is in the Clean 

Air Act. And yet you are trying to take away the ability of Uncle 

Sam to protect our kids from asthma, and I have got a problem 

with that, and I am going to ask you this question because I think 

it is fundamental to this disagreement. I respect your opinion and 

right to have an opinion. But the National Science Foundation, 

these doctors, the IPCC, depending on science from the U.S. Navy, 

from Nobel Prize winners, none of whom are going to be called by 

this committee, by the way, and I think it is too bad we don’t have 

25 

real scientists up here, all of these people say that these things are 

bad for our kids’ health, and yet this committee, their first witness 

calls somebody, rather than listening to Nobel Prize winners, 

thinks somehow that he is smarter than the 2,500 scientists that 

are telling us this is a problem. 

Now, I want to ask you this question. You have got, I think, 

grandkids, and I trust that if your grandkids were having a health 

problem, if they couldn’t breathe, if asthma is affecting them, that 

you wouldn’t take them to a lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry, 

you would take them to a pediatrician. You would take them to a 

scientist. So the question I ask you is, shouldn’t we listen to the 

scientists here rather than the politicians and shouldn’t we trust 

people of science that have an overwhelming conclusion about this 

issue? And I will yield to you for an answer. 

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you very much. And that is essentially the 

same question asked, so I will respond to it. Yes, in the very beginning when people were listening just to the IPCC, as I said in my 

opening statement, that has been pretty much debunked now. I 

don’t know how anyone with a straight face is going to say that 

that should be the leading science. When you mention scientists, 

yes, many of them are saying this. If you go to my Web site , I have 

given five speeches on this science, very long ones, I might add. We 

started out with some 50 scientists, went up to 100 and up to several hundred. And so there are many scientists that have varying 

views. That is why I say, the science on this issue is mixed. The 

economics are not mixed. 

The last thing I want to mention, because somehow it has got to 

be in this record, and this is responding to Mr. Waxman, the Court 

did not mandate that the EPA regulate CO2, and this is words of 

the Court. The EPA can avoid promulgating regulations if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change 

or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot. 

Well, what they are saying is, they have three choices: either regulate it, don’t regulate it or do nothing, and that was not a mandate 

from the Court, and I believe that has to be in here at some point. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I might say that we did invite a scientist to testify. Mr. Chu was invited, and he declined our offer. 

Now, Senator Inhofe, do you have to go now or can you take 

more questions? 

Mr. INHOFE. I think I need to. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. You need to go? 

Mr. INHOFE. Yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. All right. Well, we appreciate very much your 

taking time to be with us, and we may very well have another 

hearing—— 

Mr. INHOFE. Let me thank you, because this is only the third 

since 1984 when I left this that I have been invited to appear—— 

Mr. RUSH. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. INHOFE [continuing]. And I appreciate it. 

Mr. RUSH. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that the 

record accurately reflects that Secretary Chu indicated that he had 

26 

a conflict in scheduling. He didn’t decline. It was just a conflict in 

his schedule. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, we advised Secretary Chu but he had a 

conflict in his schedule. Thank you. 

OK. We will now call our second witness. Thank you, Senator 

Inhofe. And our second witness is the Honorable Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 

and we are looking forward to her testimony. Ms. Jackson, thank 

you very much for taking the time to join us today. We are looking 

forward to your testimony and the opportunity to ask questions. 

With that, I am going to go on and recognize you for an opening 

statement. I will say that Senator Inhofe ended up taking almost 

7 minutes in his opening statement, so we would be happy to give 

you 7 minutes in your opening statement, so you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF LISA JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try not to 

take all seven. 

To you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank 

you for inviting me to testify about Chairman Upton’s draft bill to 

eliminate portions of the Clean Air Act, the landmark law that all 

American children and adults rely on to protect them from harmful 

air pollution. The bill appears to be part of a broader effort in this 

Congress to delay, weaken or eliminate Clean Air Act protections 

of the American public. I respectfully ask the members of this committee to keep in mind that EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air 

Act saves millions of American children and adults from the debilitating and expensive illnesses that occur when smokestacks and 

tailpipes release unrestricted amounts of harmful pollution into the 

air we breathe. Last year alone, EPA’s implementation of the Clean 

Air Act saved more than 160,000 American lives, avoided more 

than 100,000 hospital visits, prevented millions of cases of respiratory illness including bronchitis and asthma, enhanced productivity by preventing millions of lost work days, and kept American 

kids healthy and in school. 

EPA’s implementation of the Act also has contributed to dynamic 

growth in the U.S. environmental technology industry and its 

workforce. In 2008, that industry generated nearly $300 billion in 

revenues and $44 billion in exports. Yesterday the University of 

Massachusetts and Ceres released an analysis finding that two of 

the updated Clean Air Act standards EPA is preparing to establish 

for mercury, soot, smog and other harmful air pollutants from 

power plants will create nearly 1.5 million jobs over the next 5 

years. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court concluded in 

2007 that the Clean Air Act definition of ‘‘air pollutant’’ includes 

greenhouse gas emissions. The Court rejected the EPA Administrator’s refusal to determine whether that pollution endangers Americans’ health and welfare. Based on the best available peer-reviewed 

science, EPA found in 2009 that manmade greenhouse gas emissions do threaten the health and welfare of the American people. 

EPA is not alone in reaching that conclusion. The National Academy of Sciences has stated that there is a strong, credible body of 

27 

evidence based on multiple lines of research, documenting that the 

climate is changing and that the changes are in large part caused 

by human activities. Eighteen of America’s leading scientific societies have written that multiple lines of evidence show humans are 

changing the climate, that contrary assertions are inconsistent 

with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed 

science and that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts 

on society, including the global economy and the environment. 

Chairman Upton’s bill would, in its own words, repeal that scientific finding. Politicians overruling scientists on a scientific question: that would become part of this committee’s legacy. 

Last April, EPA and the Department of Transportation completed harmonized standards under the Clean Air Act and the Energy Independence and Security Act to decrease the oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of model year 2012–2016 cars 

and light trucks sold in the United States. Chairman Upton’s bill 

would block President Obama’s plan to follow up with Clean Air 

Act standards for cars and light trucks of model years 2017 

through 2025. Removing the Clean Air Act from the equation 

would forfeit pollution reductions and oil savings on a massive 

scale, increasing America’s debilitating oil dependence. 

EPA and many of its State partners have now begun implementing safeguards under the Clean Air Act to address carbon pollution from the largest facilities when they are built or expanded. 

A collection of 11 electric power companies called EPA’s action a 

reasonable approach focusing on improving the energy efficiency of 

new power plants and large industrial facilities. And EPA has announced a schedule to establish uniform Clean Air Act performance 

standards for limiting carbon pollution at America’s power plants 

and oil refineries. Those standards will be developed with extensive 

stakeholder input including from industry. They will reflect careful 

consideration of cost and will incorporate compliance flexibility. 

Chairman Upton’s bill would block that reasonable approach. 

The Small Business Majority and the Main Street Alliance have 

pointed out that such blocking action would have negative implications for many businesses, large and small, that have enacted new 

practices to reduce their carbon footprint as part of their business 

models. They also write that it would hamper the growth of the 

clean energy sector of the U.S. economy, a sector that a majority 

of small business owners view as essential to their ability to compete. 

Chairman Upton’s bill would have additional negative impacts 

that its drafters might not have intended. For example, it would 

prohibit EPA from taking further actions to implement the Renewable Fuels Program, which promotes the domestic production of advanced biofuels. 

I hope this information has been helpful to the committee, and 

I look forward to your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:] 

28 


65734.097
29 


65734.098
30 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Ms. Jackson, thank you very much. 

Before you came in, I had mentioned in my opening statement 

that Congress had specifically looked at regulating greenhouse 

gases on three different occasions: one in 1990 when the last Clean 

Air Act Amendments were adopted. They rejected it then. Number 

two, 1998, when the Senate voted 95 to 0 not to take up the Kyoto 

Protocol, objecting to the greenhouse gas regulations in the Kyoto 

Protocol, and then last when the U.S. Congress refused to adopt 

the cap-and-trade bill. So Congress on three separate occasions has 

spoken very clearly that in its opinion we do not need to regulate 

greenhouse gases. So I would ask you the question just your personal opinion, do you object to Congress having an up or down vote 

approving or disallowing EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I am here to explain the impact of our greenhouse gas regulations and then Congress is obviously going to 

make a determination whether—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So you wouldn’t object to Congress having an up 

or down vote on your regulations then, correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I would not presume to tell Congress its business. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. Now, I want to ask you, did your 

agency conduct an overall comprehensive assessment of the cost of 

the greenhouse gas regulations? 

Ms. JACKSON. We conducted assessments of costs of regulations. 

We did not conduct an assessment of the cost of the endangerment 

finding because it is a scientific finding. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But do you have any idea what the costs of the 

greenhouse gas regulations would be? 

Ms. JACKSON. As we propose regulations, for example, the cars 

rule that I mentioned in my opening statement, we do a regulatory 

impact analysis that is required—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And by the way, on the car thing, it is my understanding that cost $52 billion. Is that correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. The cost of the cars and trucks rule, I don’t have 

the exact number in front of me, but—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, my understanding—— 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. We also did—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD [continuing]. The light-duty vehicle rule, accord- ing to the information I have, cost $52 billion and will increase in 

2016 the cost of one of those vehicles by $948. Now, we recognize 

cost goes along with regulations but it is also the information that 

we have that by the year 2100, the greenhouse gas standards for 

the light-duty vehicle is expected to reduce global temperatures by 

.006 degrees Centigrade, $52 billion, and that is about mobile 

sources, and I don’t think anyone has any idea what the regulation 

of stationary sources will be. Would you give us a guess on what 

the cost would be on that? 

Ms. JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, just two points. The auto rules that 

you speak about were hailed by the industry, consumers, and environmentalists because of cost savings. There are efficiency rules for 

automobiles and trucks and so they pay for themselves, and as the 

price of gas increases, they pay for themselves in shorter and shorter periods. I believe at the time the estimate was somewhere between 3 and 4 years. So the money you save on gasoline—— 

31 

Mr. WHITFIELD. You know, another understanding that I have is 

that there really is no technology available to really reduce greenhouse gases other than efficiencies. Would you agree with that? 

Ms. JACKSON. There are emerging technologies for stationary 

sources but energy efficiency is thought to be the low-hanging fruit 

in terms of—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And that is my understanding, that we are getting ready to implement this tremendous greenhouse gas regulation. In fact, your air chief indicated that if your tailoring rule is 

determined to be illegal, that EPA is going to require 6 million 

sources to obtain Title V operating permits and would have to have 

82,000 permitting actions under the PSD program resulting in an 

estimated $22.5 billion just for the permitting authorities. 

Ms. JACKSON. It sounds like you agree with me, that the tailoring rule is a good idea to protect small businesses from—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But it—— 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. Unneeded regulation. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Doesn’t it explicitly violate the language of the 

Clean Air Act which says specifically if it is 100 or 250 tons per 

year emitting, that it must be regulated? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir, I don’t see it as a violation. I see it as looking—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But that is what the language says, doesn’t it? 

Ms. JACKSON. The legal theory—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And your tailoring rule says what, 25,000 tons, 

or is it 75,000 tons? 

Ms. JACKSON. It is 100,000 tons, equivalent of a railroad car—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Tell me about this—well, my time is expired. 

Thank you, Ms. Jackson. 

I recognize at this time Mr. Rush. 

Mr. RUSH. Well, Administrator Jackson, I am certainly glad to 

see that you finally arrived. It wasn’t easy getting you here but you 

are here. 

First of all, do you have a scientific or a technical background? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir, I am a chemical engineer by training. I 

have a master’s degree in chemical engineering from Princeton 

University and an undergraduate degree from Tulane University. 

Mr. RUSH. Well, I am glad to know that. I am glad to know that 

we do finally have someone with a scientific background here on 

the panel. 

Do you find it as amazing as I do that the subcommittee has not 

called any scientists, medical professionals, biologists, ecologists or 

any other scientists to consider this draft legislation? What do you 

think about that? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I think if this is going to be a referendum on 

a scientific question, it would be important to hear from the best 

scientists in our country. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much. The legislation we are considering today overturns your scientific determination that carbon 

emissions are dangerous, and I am concerned about the precedent 

that this would set. Whether carbon pollution is dangerous or not 

is fundamentally, I agree with you, a scientific question and not a 

political question. I believe that we should leave these types of decisions to expert scientists. Are you aware of any precedent for 

32 

Congress to overrule EPA or any other agency on a question of 

science like this? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am not aware of it, sir. 

Mr. RUSH. Chairman Upton said yesterday that he does not believe that climate change is caused by human pollution. That certainly is an extreme view that has been rejected time and time 

again by scientists, so now he is trying a different approach. He is 

asking this committee to approve legislation that says he is right 

and the scientific community has made a glaring mistake. I don’t 

believe that is the right way for us to proceed. We should be telling 

you to listen to America’s best scientists and not ignore them because Chairman Inhofe or Chairman Upton have decided that they 

don’t like their conclusions. Senator Inhofe testified earlier just a 

few moments ago that the science on climate change is mixed but 

that the economics are not. As I stated during my questioning of 

the Senator, the Clean Air Act has been the catalyst for creating 

close to 2 million jobs and creating an industry generating $300 billion in revenues. Are the economics as mixed as Senator Inhofe 

suggests, in your opinion? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, the history of the Clean Air Act’s implementation I think is consistent with what we would see for its implementation with carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas pollution, and that 

is that our economy can grow and thrive because of innovation 

while we reduce pollution and increase energy efficiency. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

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

Michigan, Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Administrator. You found a parking place okay? 

Ms. JACKSON. I didn’t find a parking place but I am here. 

Mr. UPTON. We had one right out there in the horseshoe. I 

checked with the police in advance. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you. 

Mr. UPTON. I want to ask one quick question on maybe an unrelated topic first, and that is the boiler MACT rules. As you know, 

you all asked for a 15-month extension back in December, and the 

court said no, we want them done by, I want to say the 21st of February. Would it be helpful, useful, constructive if we gave you a little assistance legislatively to extend that deadline? Yes or no. 

Ms. JACKSON. The EPA argued that we will need to make administrative re-proposal of the rule in order to increase the amount of 

transparency in the time that we have, and I am disappointed that 

we have to get the rule out but we will use the current administrative processes under the Clean Air Act to ensure that the American 

public and industry gets a chance to look at these new rules. They 

will be significantly different. 

Mr. UPTON. So would you like a little, sort of like—— 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe the Clean Air Act is strong enough to 

allow for that kind of transparency. 

Mr. UPTON. OMB is not here. You can say whatever you want. 

You can give the truth. Never mind. 

Let me go to this hearing. You have petitioned to set GHG standards for agriculture emissions. We have the Farm Bureau coming 

33 

on a later panel this afternoon. Do you intend to act on the agriculture emissions as part of GHG? 

Ms. JACKSON. The number of agricultural sources subjected to 

EPA’s reporting rule is zero. The number of agricultural sources 

that would face any regulation for greenhouse gas emissions under 

Clean Air Act permitting before July, 2013 is zero, sir. 

Mr. UPTON. There are GHG emissions from non-road vehicles, 

ships, boats, planes, railroads. Do you intend to set any standards 

for those types of vehicles? 

Ms. JACKSON. We have certainly, sir, been petitioned to do so. We 

have made no determination on a regulatory calendar that I have 

been briefed on. 

Mr. UPTON. My State of Michigan, there have been some reports 

that the implications of EPA GHG regs for the Michigan economy 

would do a number of things: reduce Michigan GDP by $18 billion, 

destroy 96,000 jobs, reduce household incomes by nearly $1,600 

and reduce Michigan manufacturing output by $2.3 billion. Those 

are independent estimates. Has EPA done an analysis of what the 

full costs of regulating GHGs under the Clean Air Act would be by 

State or by the entire country? 

Ms. JACKSON. We have done impact analysis and economic analysis as we propose and finalize regulations, sir, but the analysis 

you are referring to is of regulations we have yet to propose and 

implications that therefore would be unfair. We would actually 

have to go to industry and ask them to tell us what it is they are 

planning to do in order to tell them what the impacts might be so 

that is a very difficult hurdle and probably not one that industry 

would welcome. 

Mr. UPTON. A number of us have commented about the regulations that could be imposed in this country versus on employers 

overseas. Does EPA intend to look at the potential of jobs leaving 

the United States and going someplace else? Is that going to be a 

factor that is going to be considered as the regulations are pursued? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly part of our economic analysis is an impact on jobs, both jobs that could be lost but also jobs that could 

be gained, and you heard in my opening statement that there are 

potentials for our environmental and air pollution control industry 

jobs to actually have increases. 

Mr. UPTON. And that figure, what was it? How many jobs? I 

know you cited—did you say 96,000? 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe there was a study yesterday that talked 

about nearly 1.5 million jobs over the next 5 years. That was not 

an EPA study, that was University of Massachusetts and CERES. 

That is an independent study. 

Mr. UPTON. So if the Continuing Resolution which might be a 

funding freeze at 2008 levels is adopted, that would be—you would 

have a pretty difficult reaching that number of inspectors. Would 

these be EPA government jobs? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, this was an independent—— 

Mr. UPTON. Would they be contracted out? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, no. These are not government jobs in any way, 

and with respect to your question on budget, the EPA’s regulatory 

authority incentivizes and promotes innovation in the private secVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:01 Apr 26, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-2 020911\112-2 CHRIS
34 

tor. It promotes investments here. There are estimates that there 

is almost $2 trillion waiting to be invested in this country, and that 

is what that study is—— 

Mr. UPTON. I mean, what I am interested in is the net increase 

or decrease in jobs, and you may have more inspectors that are out 

there but at the same time you might not have nearly as many 

companies still producing goods here because they might go someplace else. I am more concerned about a dramatic net loss of jobs 

rather than an increase based on the proposal. 

So I see my time is expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. JACKSON. I just want to clear up for the record, I don’t know 

what net increase in inspectors you are speaking of. I do believe 

that we remain committed to enforcing the Clean Air Act but none 

of the jobs numbers that I speak about are public sector employment, they are private sector employment. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman from California is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Jackson, the Republicans have made the argument that you don’t have the authority under the Clean Air Act to 

do this regulation of greenhouse gases. Are they right? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir, they are not. 

Mr. WAXMAN. The Clean Air Act requires you to regulate carbon 

emissions? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. As the Supreme Court said, greenhouse gas 

emissions fit within the definition of pollution under the Clean Air 

Act. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Republicans further have made the argument that 

public health is not at risk from these greenhouse gases. Could 

that be true? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir, I don’t believe that to be the case. The 

endangerment finding is about that very issue, and in that finding, 

we determined that unchecked greenhouse gas emissions increase 

the intensity and duration of heat waves. That increases heat-related mortality and morbidity, especially among children, among 

the elderly, among the sick, people who work outdoors, people who 

can’t afford air conditioning or have never needed it because their 

climate was temperate enough. By raising temperatures, you also 

exacerbate the impact of smog, and we know the life-threatening 

impacts of smog on people who have compromised lung function, 

especially people with asthma and other lung diseases. Unchecked 

emissions are said by our best scientists to increase the severity of 

flooding, and having grown up in New Orleans and seeing the impacts of flooding on just one small part of the town, the part I 

know, I know that that also means more contamination, more pollution, more disease as we deal with the impacts of our changing 

climate. 

Mr. WAXMAN. So this is really a threat to the public health, and 

if we don’t regulate we are allowing that threat to become greater? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is the nexus of the endangerment finding. It 

is a threat to our public health as Americans and our welfare, sir. 

Mr. WAXMAN. You have been criticized for this finding that 

greenhouse gases endanger the public. Mr. Abbott, the Texas Attorney General, claims that the finding is arbitrary and legally 

35 

flawed. We learned yesterday, however, that your predecessor in 

the Bush Administration looked at the science and apparently 

reached the same conclusion you did. In a private letter to President Bush, Administrator Johnson stated, and I quote, ‘‘The latest 

science on climate change requires the Agency to propose a positive 

endangerment finding as was agreed to at the Cabinet-level meeting in November.’’ According to Mr. Johnson, ‘‘The latest climate 

change science does not permit a negative finding nor does it permit a credible finding that we need to wait for more research.’’ And 

I gather Mr. Johnson didn’t like to have to say that because he is 

not happy about the proposals that you have made, but as a matter 

of fact, what you have proposed is very similar to what he would 

have had to propose as well. Are you surprised that the predecessor 

in the Bush Administration privately reached the same conclusion 

that you have? 

Ms. JACKSON. I think that the letter which I saw yesterday when 

it was released is proof that it is not me sitting in the administrator’s chair who looks at the science and makes a finding of 

endangerment but clearly past administrators have felt and have 

believed the same based on their—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, once you have reached those findings, once 

you have reached the conclusion that this is not a hoax but that 

public health and welfare are endangered, then the question is, 

what do we do about it? And the Republican approach is not to let 

anything be done, not to pass legislation—they didn’t offer an alternative to our bill last year—not let EPA act. In fact, they would 

go so far as to say that you can’t even allow some of the voluntary 

efforts to report and try to reduce carbon emissions. You are being 

vilified for proposing the same measure that your Republican predecessor called ‘‘prudent, responsible, cost-effective, and practical.’’ 

Both Republican and Democratic Administrators saw the same 

science and reached the same conclusion. Unfortunately, President 

Bush and his people told Administrator Johnson don’t move forward on it. You represent a President that wants to protect the 

public health, safety, and well-being and he has allowed you to do 

your job. I think that Congress ought to allow you to do your job 

as well. And if we have an alternative, let us hear what it is, but 

saying there is no problem, it is all a hoax, is not a responsible answer. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I recognize the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Minority seems to be of the impression that we didn’t want 

you to attend, Madam Administrator. We are delighted you are 

here. If I knew you better, I would come down and hug you. I can 

assure you that Chairman Upton and Chairman Whitfield and 

Chairman Stearns are going to invite you numerous times, you and 

your deputies, to come before this committee and its various subcommittees for the next 2 years. So welcome, and we do appreciate 

your attendance. 

I need to educate the subcommittee briefly before I start asking 

my questions because there is an attempt by Chairman Waxman 

and perhaps by yourself to rewrite history. The Clean Air Act does 

36 

not specifically mention CO2 as a criteria pollutant. The reference 

that Mr. Inslee made talks about ozone, not carbon dioxide. The 

court case in Massachusetts v. EPA was a 5-4 decision in which the 

majority of the Supreme Court said that since it did not explicitly 

prohibit CO2 being regulated under the Clean Air Act, it might 

could be, and the EPA needed to—I don’t think the EPA needed to 

but it said the EPA could make a decision. 

As you well know, when your Administration, Mr. Obama, President Obama, came into office very quickly issued an endangerment 

finding, saying that CO2 should be regulated. Mr. Waxman alluded 

to a private letter that has miraculously come forward in the last 

day or so for this hearing, and I would emphasize the term ‘‘private.’’ I would hope that maybe we could get Carol Brown’s private 

correspondence and some of the other Obama officials’ private correspondence. We do have some e-mails from the direct supervisor 

of Mr. Carlin back and forth to people in the White House in which 

Mr. Carlin is explicitly told stop investigating whether CO2 is a 

danger, the decision has been made, the White House has decided 

that they are going to issue a endangerment working, stop working 

on this report. I don’t have those e-mails with me but they are 

available. 

So I am going to ask you the same question that I asked Senator 

Inhofe. Under the Clean Air Act, which is the law of the land, as 

amended, does anything in Mr. Whitfield’s and Mr. Upton’s pending legislation change the standard on ozone? 

Ms. JACKSON. The—— 

Mr. BARTON. The answer is no. 

Ms. JACKSON. Would you like me to answer, sir? 

Mr. BARTON. Well, I am willing if you will go through it quickly. 

I have got a minute and 50 seconds here. 

Ms. JACKSON. I see. Well, what I would say is that I am concerned that there needs to be an analysis to ensure that there 

aren’t unintended consequences. My belief is that there is no intention in the legislation—— 

Mr. BARTON. But the legislation does not change the standard on 

ozone, it does not change the standard on particulate matter, it 

does not change the standard on carbon monoxide, it does not 

change the standard on NOx, it does not change the standard on 

sulfur dioxide and it does not change the standard on lead, does 

not change the enforcement criteria, does not change the quantities, does not change any of the Clean Air Act on the criteria pollutants that this committee amended and passed back in 1990. Is 

that not correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe the intent is only to gut portions of the 

Clean Air Act, sir, not—— 

Mr. BARTON. That is the Clean Air Act. 

Ms. JACKSON. But it is changing, gutting portions of the Clean 

Air Act—— 

Mr. BARTON. How? 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. For certain pollution, some of which 

is pollution—— 

Mr. BARTON. CO2—— Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. Not only because it is a greenhouse 

gas. 

37 

Mr. BARTON. Madam Administrator, CO2 is not mentioned in the 

Clean Air Act. It is a 5-4 decision that it might be. It is your Administration’s position that it should be. I respect that. I respect 

that. But that doesn’t mean that it has to be, and unless you can 

refute all these cost-benefit analyses that have been done independently about the millions of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars per year, I would say that the Congress as an independent 

arm of the Federal Government has an obligation to clarify what 

the Clean Air Act really does regulate. That is our obligation. Do 

you have an objection to that? 

Ms. JACKSON. Again, sir, I would not presume to tell the Congress its business in any way. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, my time is expired. I am going to yield back. 

I am going to ask you some specific questions in writing about 

what you are doing in Texas. You have denied every existing air 

permit issued since 1992, and we are going to ask some specific 

questions about that. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I recognize the gentleman from Michigan for 5 

minutes of questions. 

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

Madam Administrator, welcome to the committee. I have a number of questions on which I would like, if possible, to get yes or no 

answers, and I say that with respect. 

EPA has already issued regulations under Title II of the Clean 

Air Act. It has issued its determinations for regulations under the 

Title V permit program and it is also for under sections 111 for the 

prevention of significant deterioration, and in addition to that, it 

would appear that EPA can issue regulations under the National 

Ambient Air Quality Program. Is that correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. So we have a potential here then for at least four 

different sets of regulations plus State implementation plans which 

could also cover these questions? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. So you have an unholy complicated mess here if 

you are going to regulate greenhouse gases. Is that right? 

Ms. JACKSON. Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, those are all requirements, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Madam Administrator, what other provisions 

of the Clean Air Act can EPA use to issue regulations in the next 

5 years in terms of greenhouse gas emissions? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, did you mention the new source performance 

standard provisions of the Clean Air Act? EPA has already announced the schedule to put forth new source performance standards for utility sector and for the refinery sector. I know you said 

5 years, but those are in the next 2 years. 

Mr. DINGELL. This gives you an unbelievably complicated process, especially if you are going to bring the States into the matter 

as required under the state implementation plans. 

Now, Madam Administrator, how many different regulations to 

introduce greenhouse gas emissions could this add up to? I don’t 

think you can tell us here this morning, and I am not sure anybody 

including the prophet Esau can give us that number. But would 

you please submit for the record the number of potential regulaVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:01 Apr 26, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-2 020911\112-2 CHRIS
38 

tions and the number of potential regulatory sources under the 

statute that are going to be used here. 

Now, Madam Administrator, so it is clear that these regulations 

could add up to a great multiplicity of stationary and mobile source 

controls. Isn’t that right? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir, but I do want to point out that the purpose of tailoring rule was to manage that workload in a way that 

ensures that the vast majority of sources would not be caught—— 

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Administrator—— 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. Under the Clean Air Act. 

Mr. DINGELL [continuing]. This is not to criticize you, it is to try 

and dig you out of an intolerable hole in which I find you, and I 

am looking forward to your help in achieving that very important 

purpose. 

Now, under the provisions of the bill before us, should this legislation become law, it would repeal the endangerment finding. Does 

that put the national standards at risk? Yes or no. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir, I would think it would invite litigation on 

past standards, and future standards are explicitly prohibited 

under the draft. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Madam Administrator, do you and the Administration firmly support a national standard for auto fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions, and are you committed to a 

single national standard for the model years 2017 to 2025? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir, we are very much committed to working 

collaboratively with the industry and the States and staying at the 

table as we did for the standards that we put out in May of 2010. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, does the draft legislation prevent EPA from 

enforcing greenhouse gas reporting rule which contains information 

that could inform the Congress relative to the Congress’s future action? Yes or no. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Madam Administrator, EPA’s endangerment 

finding, let us refer to that, was that or is that a scientific finding 

or a political finding? 

Ms. JACKSON. It is a scientific finding, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Madam Administrator, could EPA have found 

otherwise than it did? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, I do not believe so, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Administrator, did your predecessors in 

the previous Administration, that of Mr. Bush, find or propose otherwise than you have done? 

Ms. JACKSON. An endangerment finding was prepared and sent 

to the White House but the White House did not open the e-mails. 

Mr. DINGELL. OK. We have done it with 7 seconds overrun. 

Thank you. 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, may I correct one inaccuracy in my answer? 

National ambient air quality standards and State implementation 

plans are not required for greenhouse gases at this time. We have 

been petitioned with respect to that matter. Thank you. 

Mr. DINGELL. But I should be somewhat concerned that a court 

which would make a finding that the Clean Air Act affected greenhouse gases, that they might insist that that also be used on the 

State implementation plans. Isn’t that so? 

39 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. I just wanted to be clear on the current 

state of—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Shimkus. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Administrator Jackson. Just so we don’t get into a debate next week when we have our hearing on the environment and 

job creation, I am formally asking you if you would like to return 

to talk, to address my subcommittee that deals with a huge portion 

of the portfolio and also jobs. This hearing is about jobs, and that 

is why we are focused on it. So I will give you time to think about 

it, but I am formally asking you if you would like to join us next 

week at our hearing. 

This hearing is about jobs, and there is a chart on the screen, 

and I don’t know if you have ever seen it, the National Environmental Policy Act and Environmental Protection Agency were both 

first authorized in 1970. Have you ever seen this char? Has it ever 

occurred to you that there appears to be a cause and effect between 

U.S. oil imports and these policies? If you look, what it is up there 

is production and imports, and as we have been involved with, and 

a lot of us would agree, important Clean Air Act amendments, it 

has affected jobs and our reliance on imported crude oil. Have you 

ever seen that, and do you think there’s a relation? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, it is the first time I am seeing this particular 

chart, and what I do know is that the energy efficiency and ability—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But you wouldn’t dispute that our importation and 

our ability to produce has declined? I mean, those are just Energy 

Information Agency. Timeliness with the Clean Air Act and Clean 

Air Act Amendments, it has had an effect on our energy production. Well, let me move on. I will give you a chance to look at that, 

and maybe next week—— 

Ms. JACKSON. I don’t see anything on that chart that talks about 

the Clean Air Act, sir, but I would be happy to—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, it is related to the time frame on the bottom 

with 1970, so this is a timeline from 1920 to 2000, so—— 

Ms. JACKSON. I am sure there are a lot of things that happened 

in 1970 that can’t be attributed—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me just go back now to other issues. This is 

about job creation and the effect that the Environmental Protection 

Agency has, and we are going to hear the testimonies when we 

have the next panel. Let me—you recognize these folks, right? And 

my friends on the other side. These are the folks that were affected 

by the 1992 Clean Air Act Amendments. This is from Kincaid Mine 

in my district. One thousand miners’ jobs were closed because of 

the Clean Air Act. The reason why we could not pass into law 

through the Senate Waxman-Markey is because we successfully 

made the argument that this would create higher cost energy and 

jobs would be destroyed, and these folks should be awarded a 

medal for stopping the job-destroying aspects of the Waxman-Markey bill. Illinois lost 14,000 jobs during the last round, and Ohio 

lost 35,000 jobs during the Clean Air Act Amendments. 

And so this hearing is about jobs and the effects of jobs, and I 

think we can make an argument on carbon dioxide not being a criVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:01 Apr 26, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-2 020911\112-2 CHRIS
40 

teria pollutant under the Clean Air Act and that we have gone 

around the legislative ability by using the courts and using regulatory authority to regulate something that should not be regulated 

but let us assume you all are successful. I have in front of me a 

power plant that is being built, 1,600 megawatts. If we mandate 

them to reduce carbon dioxide emittance by 60 percent, what 

amount of the energy that they produce will have to be used to capture that carbon? Do you know what that is? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I am sure you are going to give me the number. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. It is 22 percent. The energy that they are going 

to put on the grid will now have to capture. If they go to 85 percent, do you know how much energy that would require? Thirty 

percent of what they were going to put on the grid to sell. Do you 

believe in the law of supply and demand? 

Ms. JACKSON. Do I believe in the law of—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Supply and demand, economics 101. 

Ms. JACKSON. The economic principle of supply and demand? It 

is not a tenet of faith, sir. It is a—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. No. Do you believe it? 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. An economic model, and I was trained 

in it. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Do you believe it? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, I believe that it is generally—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That if you constrain a product and there is a high 

demand, that costs go up? 

Ms. JACKSON. It depends on the elasticity of the cost curves. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I would say that here is an example of us having power on the grid that this regulation is now going to constrain 

because we are going to have to use energy to capture carbon 

which is not energy we can put on the grid so the people who are 

going to buy this have to buy, what, higher power. You know what 

the capital expense for this power plant is if they are going to build 

new facilities to capture carbon, what is the new capital expense 

at 60 percent? It is $1.8 billion. If it is 85 percent, their capital expense, this is new spending, $2.3 billion. 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, under the—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Do you know where they have to go to pipe the 

carbon capture and sequestration, how far? We think the closest 

might be 70 miles. Who is going to pay for the pipeline? And then 

how big a sequestering facility has to be there? The point is, this 

regulation is going to skyrocket electricity costs, which will destroy 

jobs. 

I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, may I respond to just a few things for the 

record? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Sure. 

Ms. JACKSON. The first is, under the Clean Air Act, which is a 

public health—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to, if she would yield, 

I would address this the same way that Chairman Waxman addressed Senator Inhofe and not allowing him, so if my colleagues 

41 

on the other side want to give her time, they should do it on their 

time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Very good point. 

Mr. Inslee, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. I think this is interesting, a 5-4 Supreme 

Court decision was good enough in Bush v. Gore to be settled law. 

A 5-4 decision in United Citizens was good enough to allow corporations to run America. But all of a sudden a 5-4 decision of the 

Supreme Court that you expect the EPA and us to just ignore. 

Now, I want to make sure that we are clear about this. The Supreme Court, which binds all of us who have taken an oath to the 

Constitution at the moment, says, ‘‘Carbon dioxide, methane, nitric 

oxide and hydrofluorocarbons are without a doubt physical and 

chemical substances which are emitted into the ambient air. The 

statute is unambiguous.’’ The statute is unambiguous. Madam Administrator, is it clear that you are bound by this decision and that 

we have got to regulate CO2? 

Ms. JACKSON. Absolutely, sir. 

Mr. INSLEE. And I want to tell you the last witness, Senator 

Inhofe, we appreciate him coming here. We know he is a person of 

strong beliefs. He tells us he is writing a box called The Hoax. 

Now, I haven’t seen it but I think it is about the alleged Apollo 

moon landing on the lunar surface because we know there are people that are still out there doubting that. They are doubting that 

the National Academy of Science has confirmed we landed on the 

moon. They are doubting the IPCC that confirmed we have landed 

on the moon, but there are still those who doubt. 

And I want to ask you about the status of science on this. Could 

I have the picture of the Arctic put up, please? This is a picture, 

I am afraid it is not as visible as I would have liked. This is a picture of the current status of the Arctic ice cap in September. It is 

difficult to view, but there is a red line showing what the Arctic 

ice cap used to look like before we started dumping millions of tons 

of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and what it shows, that the 

Arctic ice cap has now shrunk about 40 percent by mass. Now, several years ago thought it was going to disappear in its entirety, and 

this is the air conditioner for the world. This is what controls the 

ambient air, bounces light back, and it is going to disappear. Now, 

scientists thought it was by 2040. Now we think it might be within 

this decade actually being gone. 

Now, my understanding of the status of the science, National 

Science Foundation, National Academy of Science, International 

Panel on Climate Change, 2,500 sciences who sent this committee 

a letter dated a couple days ago saying that this science is clear 

by compelling, cogent and consistent evidence in the peer-reviewed 

literature that we are having an impact on climate, visibly in 

many, many manifestations, this being just one of them. 

I have not been able to find—and I understand for political purposes people are trying to drum up questions about this. I understand politics. But I have not been able to find a peer-reviewed scientific study that challenges this finding of the consensus of scientists in America, including those who work for the United States 

Navy, and they do a pretty good job on our submarines. Is it a fair 

42 

statement that there is wide, wide consensus about the science 

upon which you have made this finding? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir, it is very broad and based on multiple 

lines of research. 

Mr. INSLEE. And are you aware of any single peer-reviewed scientific journal which has questioned the foundations of the relationship between our actions on earth and the increase in CO2 in 

the atmosphere? Because I am not. 

Ms. JACKSON. I am not, sir. 

Mr. INSLEE. Now, I tell you what, I hear a lot of political flacks, 

I hear a lot of people on television saying the science is questionable, but we can’t find one single peer-reviewed research study that 

has questioned this science, and I hope the people who are distributing information at this hearing will point out that the Republican 

Party that wants to pass this Dirty Air Act will not produce one 

single peer-reviewed scientific piece of literature which questions 

the finding of the Environmental Protection Agency. I think that 

is pretty stunning that they want to put our kids’ health at risk 

and won’t produce one peer-reviewed piece of research to support 

their conclusion. 

One last question on the economy. In fact, the research has 

shown that we increase our economy by a factor of three or four 

every time we make an investment under the Clean Air Act, and 

I want to put in the record, and you made reference to this. It is 

a study by industry and institutional investors. It is called New 

Jobs, Cleaner Air, and it finds as a result of your proposal, there 

will be an estimated job gain in Illinois of 122,695 jobs associated 

with the new construction jobs, the new scientific jobs, the new jobs 

in utilities associated with making the air cleaner. Is it a fair thing 

to believe that as we make our air cleaner, we can grow our economy? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. 

Sullivan. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I would like to state that this hearing is not about science, it 

is about the destructive economic impacts of the EPA trying to use 

the Clean Air Act for what it was never designed to do: regulate 

greenhouse gases. 

Administrator Jackson, thank you for being here today. I have 

several companies my district ranging from chemical companies, 

manufacturing, energy companies, and they are scared to death of 

the EPA’s pending rules on greenhouse gas. The energy industry 

in my State employs over 320,000 workers, and I intend to see that 

number grow by vigorously supporting this legislation. The Oklahoma Farm Bureau is also concerned with the GHG rule as they 

are the second largest industry in my State. Heck, Administrator 

Jackson, I even have churches that are concerned about this. 

You have been petitioned to set GHG standards for agriculture 

emissions. Do you intend to act on this? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, as I stated earlier, there are no agricultural 

sources subject to EPA’s mandatory reporting rule and no agriculVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:01 Apr 26, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-2 020911\112-2 CHRIS
43 

tural sources that need to address greenhouse gas emissions in 

Clean Air Act permits before July of 2013. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. So that would be no, just no? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Has EPA done an analysis on how much greenhouse gas regulations will impact the cost of producing food on 

farms and the price that American families will have to pay at the 

grocery store? We have a lot of people concerned that spend a lot 

of their money on groceries, you are taxing the food they eat that 

keeps them alive. 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I just mentioned that we are not going to be 

regulating agricultural sources. They are not even subject to our 

mandatory reporting rule for greenhouse gases. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. But did you do any analysis on how it would affect the price of food at all? You don’t do any of that, huh? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir. When we analyze our regulations or, for 

example, as we analyzed legislation pending before this committee 

last year, we analyzed changes in potential energy costs, and of 

course its impact on the economy. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Do you think it would be a good idea to require 

an economic analysis on how these rules impact family farms and 

the price of groceries? Is it that you don’t know what the total economic impacts will be on the agricultural sector? All tolled, 17,000 

farms nationwide are impacted by the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations. 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, we will do economic analysis of regulations as 

they are proposed and finalized. That is a process required under 

the Clean Air Act already. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I am concerned that we have no idea what the avalanche of greenhouse gas rules will cost, costs that could shift and 

shatter the economy. The Obama Administration has come out recently with an initiative for regulatory reform seeking to be more 

business-friendly, stating that our regulatory system must take 

into account benefits and costs. On paper, we agree. Has the EPA 

done an analysis of what the full costs of regulating greenhouse gas 

under the Clean Air Act will be? 

Ms. JACKSON. We do regular analyses, and of course, we will be 

complying with the Executive Order to do a cumulative review of 

all of our regulations. Under the Clean Air Act, we know that the 

benefits to costs of the Clean Air Act are 30 to 40 to one cumulatively, and in the regulations recently proposed are oftentimes at 

least double if not an order or two of magnitude higher. The benefits are higher than the cost. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. So you will be doing analysis. When will you be 

doing it? Do you know? 

Ms. JACKSON. We will do economic analysis as part of the rulemaking process, sir. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Has the EPA looked at the impact on jobs? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. Just yesterday EPA put out a White Paper in 

response to a question from a member of this committee on jobs 

and the Clean Air Act, and it confirms that which we heard earlier 

today which is that having regulatory certainty allows businesses 

to innovate and give us clean air and grow our economy at the 

44 

same time. That is the history and legacy of the Clean Air Act, sir. 

It is a very powerful piece of legislation. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Have you looked at the risk of manufacturing jobs 

overseas? I hear that all the time, that people are going to do it 

if this happens. Do you look at that? 

Ms. JACKSON. We do do an economic and jobs impacts analysis 

on regulations as part of the regulatory process, sir. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. But you haven’t done that yet? 

Ms. JACKSON. We do them for the regulations as they come out 

so—— 

Mr. SULLIVAN. When will you be doing it? 

Ms. JACKSON. The regulations are proposed for, for example, new 

source performance standards, we will do analysis as part of the 

regulatory process. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes? 

Mr. RUSH. I respectfully request that the White Paper that the 

Secretary mentioned be entered into the record. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I recognize at this time Mr. Markey of Massachusetts. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. 

This bill that we are considering, the Polluters Protection Act of 

2011, repeals the scientific finding that global warming pollution is 

dangerous. It ties EPA’s hands and prevents it from moving forward with any regulations to reduce global warming pollution. It 

even prevents EPA from thinking about global warming pollution 

as part of its other duties under the Clean Air Act. In George Orwell’s 1984, Big Brother’s faceless minions at the Ministry of Truth 

dispose of politically inconvenient facts by pitching them down a 

memory hole. Today, Big Oil and Big Coal have been working with 

the Republican thought police to comb through each and every reference to global warming pollution in the Clean Air Act and then 

disappear them, sending scientific consensus down the memory 

hole at the expense of public health and welfare. But their bill will 

create new jobs. The oil and the goal and the utility lobbyists who 

are here today and watching on the Web all across America, there 

are new people being hired in those industries to make sure that 

the EPA cannot do its job, and we congratulate you for that purpose. 

But what this bill also does is to bar EPA from doing anything 

further to reduce oil from cars, trucks, planes, boats or other 

sources. The legislation might even nullify the progress we have already made over at EPA in reducing demand for oil. The Republican bill could result in an increase in our dependence of more 

than 5 million barrels of oil per day by the year 2030, more than 

we currently import from OPEC. So that is what we are doing 

today. Tomorrow, in this very same subcommittee, we are holding 

a hearing on the impact of Middle East unrest and its impact on 

U.S. energy prices for consumers. That is like holding a hearing on 

repealing FDA’s authority to regulate tobacco and then holding a 

hearing the very next day on the dangers of tobacco in creating 

45 

lung cancer. Five million barrels of oil per day. At $90 per barrel, 

that is $164 billion a year we would send to OPEC if the Republicans are accurate. That would fund al-Qaeda. That would fund 

Hamas. That would fund Hezbollah. That would fund the Muslim 

Brotherhood. That is what this money would be used to accomplish. 

That is what their bill makes possible. 

Now, I understand why Arab oil sheiks and Oklahoma oilmen 

want the price of a barrel to continue to rise and to rise and to rise, 

but the consequences for American young men and women that we 

would have to send over there, the impact on our geopolitical status around the world would be devastating. Instead of holding the 

line so that we continue to back out that imported oil, the Republicans have offered us a unilateral disarmament policy that alQaeda and other groups around the world will be able to exploit 

as we send more money over there to import oil into our country. 

By repealing the endangerment finding, Republicans are endangering the current standards by opening up a litigation loophole in 

the current standards to reduce oil use in cars and light trucks, 

and Republicans are barring EPA from moving forward with any 

new standards at all. Do you agree, Madam Administrator, that 

this legislation would increase our dependence on foreign oil if you 

are prohibited from promulgating additional regulations to reduce 

our dependence upon that imported oil? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MARKEY. Doesn’t this bill also undermine the renewable fuel 

standards, which is driving the production of homegrown biofuels 

that will further our imports of oil from OPEC by 1.6 million barrels of oil per day? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir, I believe it does. 

Mr. MARKEY. Doesn’t this bill also prevent EPA from setting 

standards to reduce oil use in trains, boats, planes, large trucks 

and other industrial sources, sources that account for almost 40 

percent of all oil that we use each day? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir, I believe it would. 

Mr. MARKEY. So basically what we have here then is legislation 

that is a regulatory relief bill for oilmen in Oklahoma and at OPEC 

that would allow for a tightening of the noose around the neck of 

American foreign policy and consumers that will come back to 

haunt us in years ahead because we did not use America’s greatest 

strength, our technological genius, to improve the vehicles that we 

drive, improve the appliances which we use, improve the efficiency 

of the buildings within which we live so that we reduce dramatically the amount of energy that we have to consume and tell OPEC 

we don’t need their oil anymore than we need their sand. That is 

what this hearing is all about and that is why this bill has an historic place in terms of its undermining of our national security. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Woody is back in town. I want to talk to you about biomass first 

off. You testified, and the Administration testified in support of the 

Waxman-Markey bill, and I would just like to know your scientific 

underpinning for supporting the provision that treated biogenic 

46 

carbon emissions as if they were oil or gas when used in the production of renewable energy. 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I recently wrote a letter saying that we believe 

that there is only limited climate impact through the combustion 

of certain biomass. 

Mr. WALDEN. Now, that is interesting because the scientists at 

the State University of New York, College of Environmental 

Science and Forestry contend that woody biomass is a substantial 

CO2-neutral renewable resource that can be used as a fuel for a variety of sustainable, environmentally sound energy applications. Do 

you disagree with that finding? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, Mr. Walden. What I said is that I substantially agree that we need additional science because it may well be 

that many sources of biomass are neutral when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. 

Mr. WALDEN. Do you think that there is a difference between 

woody biomass that is used for renewable energy that is produced 

on private, State or county land versus that comes off federal land? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I don’t know what the difference would be except its source, and it would depend on the type of biomass. 

Mr. WALDEN. But if it were the same tree source, right? If you 

have a fir tree on one side of the line—— 

Ms. JACKSON. Scientifically, there is no difference on whose land 

the trees are. 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. So that is what perplexed me about your 

support for the Waxman-Markey bill that said woody biomass off 

federal land was different than the woody biomass off other lands 

when treated—when used to create renewable energy. It is a flaw. 

Now, in your tailoring rule—people in my district are real upset 

because there are a lot of rules, not just this one but others coming 

out that do affect the price of oil. I understand your agency just 

pulled the air permit on a Shell drilling operating Alaska that 

would have potentially reached into 35 billion barrels of oil. They 

have gone through 35 other permits. That one has been pulled. If 

you want to talk about accessing America’s great energy reserves, 

didn’t you pull that air permit? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir, actually we issued the permit. The 

courts—the Environmental Appeals Board ruled against the EPAissued permit, sir. 

Mr. WALDEN. So what is your plan going forward there? 

Ms. JACKSON. We have a motion to the Environmental Appeals 

Board for reconsideration, and we are working with the permit applicant to perfect the application and move forward as quickly as 

we can in response to the application. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. WALDEN. No, I won’t. I only have a minute ten, Mr. Chairman. Otherwise I would. 

Let us go back to the biomass issue because in the—a lot of us 

wrote you in a bipartisan way asking you to not move forward with 

the rule on biomass in the tailoring rules affecting biomass. You responded and said you are going to delay this for a couple of years. 

Now, the practical impact in a district like mine is, we have got 

a lot of people that want to invest in new high-tech biomass facilities, to turn woody biomass into renewable energy. They are conVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:01 Apr 26, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-2 020911\112-2 CHRIS
47 

cerned that you are going to come back in 2013 or later on with 

a rule that treats biomass as if it were coal or oil. Can you give 

us any indication that you won’t do that? 

Ms. JACKSON. I do know, sir, that the American Forest Products 

Association hailed the decision to defer for 3 years—— 

Mr. WALDEN. I am aware—— 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. To get the science, like the science you 

mentioned, to show the carbon neutrality of biomass fuel. 

Mr. WALDEN. But I want to get to my question. I know what they 

said. I know what I said. I was glad except I think we create this 

delay process where you are stifling investment. The President 

wants to see $2 trillion in private sector investment come off the 

shelves and get invested. It is rules like this that are causing the 

people trying to make those decisions to wait because they don’t 

know what your agency is going to do in a couple of years that 

might affect them if they make that investment today. Because you 

could go back under the new source performance standards, could 

you not, and say no, actually we are going to regulate the burning 

of woody biomass as if it were—— 

Ms. JACKSON. I support the delay to get the best science, sir, to 

give scientists a chance to do the studies to determine how best to 

deal with biomass and to determine whether all biomass is created 

the same. It was a delay to review scientific—— 

Mr. WALDEN. So you can’t give us any certainty. So we are on 

delay for a couple years? 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent 

that I be given 30 seconds to make a statement for the record. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Does anybody object? 

Mr. WAXMAN. I just wanted to point out to the gentleman from 

Oregon that his criticism of our bill would have applied to its initial formulation, but by the time we passed the House floor, the 

biomass provisions were changed, and I think even in Oregon the 

industry was for it. But your criticism was of the draft bill that was 

in the committee, not the bill that passed. 

Mr. WALDEN. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I might respond to that? 

Mr. WAXMAN. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. WALDEN. Indeed, there was criticism of the original language. However, the language that was adopted by this committee 

still left a real problem when you accept—if you go to section 15, 

I believe it is, and the new language still precludes material that 

would come off all kinds of federal lands—roadless areas, old 

growth, late successional stands—except for dead, severely damaged or badly infested trees. Those definitions, those were never 

defined. I had Forest Service employees ask me what is a severely 

damaged tree, what is a badly infested tree, because they said we 

are the ones who are going to get sued because—and so it still is 

not workable language in the real forest. 

Mr. WAXMAN. We thought we had corrected the problem. I just 

wanted to make that point. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Ms. Jackson, maybe we will have you back and 

we will talk about woody biomass in detail, at length. 

This time I will recognize Ms. Capps of California. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you. Before I get to my questions, I ask unanimous consent to place into the record a letter, and it is signed by 

48 

more than 1,800 physicians, nurses and other health professionals 

from all 50 States calling upon Congress to, and I quote, ‘‘resist 

any efforts to weaken, delay or block progress toward a healthier 

future for all Americans.’’ 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you. I also ask unanimous consent to place 

into the record statements from a number of public health organizations including the American Lung Association and the Trust for 

Americans’ Health rejecting the draft bill under consideration 

today. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Jackson, thank you for your testimony and for 

your patience this morning. I want to talk about the very real consequences for our public health, and you know my background as 

a public health nurse, if we do not act to control greenhouse gas 

emissions. One of the best documented impacts of climate change 

is the in ground-level ozone smog concentrations. This is a big 

problem for many of our metropolitan and suburban areas. Now, I 

know you were asked about and already talked about some of the 

harmful effects of this carbon pollution on people but can you be 

more specific or give some examples, if you will, from your data collection on kids’ respiratory health being impacted, the cases of 

asthma or heart problems or cancers? 

Ms. JACKSON. EPA’s work under the Clean Air Act to address 

smog is directed primarily at reducing ground-level ozone, which 

we know, which science does not dispute, increases the risk of asthma attack and premature death for people who have lung disease. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you. I know in my years of being a school 

nurse, we saw a dramatic increase in the number of children with 

asthma, which is the case today as well. 

Two years ago when you issued the endangerment finding, you 

considered these effects on human health. They were a part of your 

decision-making process, right? 

Ms. JACKSON. Absolutely. The unchecked emissions of greenhouse gas emissions would change the climate, thus exacerbating 

the effects of smog on asthmatic children and people with lung disease. 

Ms. CAPPS. Can you please also share with this subcommittee 

some of the other public health research and science that you reviewed in making this decision? I know that it was an extensive 

and thorough decision-making process in which you didn’t ask a 

few selectively chosen groups, that you went broad-based. Maybe 

we need to know how broad-based your research was. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, it was based on the peer-reviewed work of 

multiple research programs, both public research as well as private 

and academic research. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, 

for example, projects that the impacts we would see in America 

from unchecked carbon dioxide and global warming pollution would 

be tremendous. They would not be limited to urban areas. They 

would not be limited to arid areas. The Great Plains would experience more drought and increased infestation of pests. That means 

49 

more disease. The Southeast would experience declines in livestock 

production. The Great Lakes would have more frequent spring 

flooding and more frequent drought. That’s in addition to the more 

traditional public health impacts to people who oftentimes are least 

able to defend themselves: our children. 

Ms. CAPPS. Exactly. And, you know, we have heard today about 

the costs of implementation of the EPA and your endangerment 

findings and all the rest, but I have been able to make the case, 

and I wonder if you wouldn’t agree, that the benefits of the programs that you have implemented really do exceed and add greatly 

to balance over the costs of implementation, far and away. 

Ms. JACKSON. That is right. We are talking about the Clean Air 

Act today and history. Facts show numerous studies, 30 to one, 40 

to one, the health benefits for every dollar invested in this country 

in clean air technology. 

Ms. CAPPS. And finally, as your agency continues to do the work 

that you are doing, you are going to be making decisions based on 

the best public health research and science, I am sure, and I just 

want to make sure that we have, because it is in the record now 

as I have introduced, one quote from the letter that these 1,800 

health professionals submitted, and they say, ‘‘As health and medical professionals, we are keenly aware of the health impacts of air 

pollution.’’ Air pollution is linked to a wide range of health consequences including cancer, asthma attacks, heart attacks and 

strokes. The Clean Air Act guarantees all Americans, especially 

those most vulnerable, that the air be safe and healthy to breathe. 

Despite air pollution reductions, more progress is needed to fulfill 

this promise, and maybe you will close it out with 3 seconds illustrating that. 

Ms. JACKSON. I don’t know what better way to say it or from a 

more credible source. I like a recent quote I saw from a physician 

in the Missouri area who said it is just not conceivable that we 

wouldn’t our require not to pollute our air, not to make our air 

dirtier and our families less healthy in order to increase their profit 

margins. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. At this time I recognize the gentleman, Mr. Terry, 5 minutes. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Madam Administrator. Do you like puppies? 

Ms. JACKSON. Do I like puppies? 

Mr. TERRY. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, as long as somebody trains them for me, but 

I have a dog. 

Mr. TERRY. I just wanted to ask you because I felt like joining 

Mr. Waxman and Mr. Markey in asking you questions. 

Now, could you point to the area where in the Clean Air Act it 

lists—because I have looked at the Clean Air Act and it sets out 

rather lengthy lists of what is covered. So within the Clean Air Act, 

could you point to which section CO2 is listed? 

Ms. JACKSON. That determination was made by the Supreme 

Court, sir. 

Mr. TERRY. OK. Let us go to Massachusetts v. EPA. And by the 

way, I want to refute, not refute, but Mr. Inslee read a portion of 

50 

or a paragraph of the Court’s decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, that 

recognizes the fact that—I just put CO2 into the air and I appreciate that the Supreme Court recognized that when I exhale or 

there is CO2 emissions. I am not going to comment on any contribution by me of methane. That is humor, by the way, Ms. Jackson. Larry the Cable Guy is from Nebraska so we have a certain 

level of humor. 

But here is a compelling part or part of the Massachusetts v. 

EPA that is really the subject of the debate over this issue of 

whether or not the EPA has the power to do this, and I am going 

to read the full paragraph like Mr. Inslee did. It is in the order 

part, and it just says, ‘‘In short, EPA has offered no reasoned explanation in its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause 

or contribute to climate change. Its action was therefore arbitrary, 

capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law. We need not 

and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make 

an endangerment finding or whether the policy concerns can inform EPA’s actions in the event that it makes such a finding. We 

only hold that EPA must ground its reasons for actions or inaction 

in the statute.’’ 

The issue here is whether or not this Administration is grabbing 

power without congressional approval, and I would submit to you 

that the language in Massachusetts v. EPA does not say that the 

EPA has the power to start regulating CO2. Science and issues, as 

Mr. Sullivan from Oklahoma, where all evil oil men evidently reside, made the point, this isn’t a debate about science, this is a debate about whether the EPA has authority. Next week we are 

going to do the same thing with the FCC on whether they have 

unilaterally sua sponte performed a power grab without congressional authority. So that is what we are here to do today. And then 

I want to get to the Clean Air Act. If the Clean Air Act was amended and just added carbon dioxide to the section that lists all the 

pollutants specifically, isn’t it—well, then would you be able to say 

well, we are only going to apply CO2 if there is more than 100,000 

tons emitted within a calendar year? Would you be able to do that? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, are you asking about a potential change to section 111 of the Clean Air Act? 

Mr. TERRY. Well, I will have to look at 111, but the issue is that 

you said earlier in your testimony that the emissions that you 

would regulate would be for CO2 would be over 100,000. You said 

that in answering Mr. Whitfield’s question. 

Ms. JACKSON. Pursuant to the standards under the tailoring rule 

that we—— 

Mr. TERRY. Under the tailoring rule, but when reading the Clean 

Air Act under what triggers it, it is either 100 or 250 tons per year, 

250 being cited exemptions of which CO2 is not or its type of industry, so let us say coal industry. 

Ms. JACKSON. Right. So the United States Supreme Court, whose 

job it is under the Constitution to interpret our laws, ruled on 

whether or not EPA could ignore its need to make a finding—— 

Mr. TERRY. OK. So since you are saying that the EPA has already ignored that Congress didn’t give you the authority and now 

you are interpreting they did, that you can just continue to interpret—— 

51 

Ms. JACKSON. I am not interpreting. The United States Supreme 

Court—— 

Mr. TERRY [continuing]. Different sections saying that you—— 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. Ruled that—— 

Mr. TERRY [continuing]. Are going to redo the standards where 

you are able to regulate, i.e., 100 or 250, and you can arbitrarily 

set it at 100,000 for a coal-fired plant, correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, in an attempt to ensure that we—— 

Mr. TERRY. OK. You are not going to answer the question. 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. Minimize the number of—— 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you for your testimony. 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. Sources that were regulated, we have 

proposed and summarily adopted after public comment a rule that 

is intended to ensure that only the very largest sources—— 

Mr. TERRY. Madam Administrator, the Clean Air Act does not 

give you that authority. 

Ms. JACKSON. The United States Supreme Court says it does. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Green, 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Madam Administrator. I know there is an image here 

that there are only oilmen in Oklahoma. We have a couple in Texas 

and Louisiana and Alabama and Alaska and other places in our 

country. 

My first question was talking about new source performance 

standards, and you have answered that. I guess my concern is that 

there was a consent decree signed but there was no economic analysis except during the rulemaking process. It seems like we ought 

to look at that ahead of the rulemaking, but I know you have already answered that question. 

My question, though, concerns what happens if only the United 

States acts to reduce these emissions while major emitters like 

China or India, and China may overtake us if they haven’t already, 

do not follow suit? Can we really address climate change without 

strong mandatory reductions by other major emitters in other countries? 

Ms. JACKSON. We will not ultimately be able to change the 

amount of CO2 that is accumulating in the atmosphere alone, but 

that does not mean we should all start at the exact same time. 

Mr. GREEN. I am concerned that the regulations put our smaller 

manufacturers’ plants and refineries at an economic disadvantage 

compared to similar industries overseas, a disadvantage that several of our witnesses later on will outline, and what specifically can 

your agency do to address the concerns of these smaller facilities? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, the tailoring rule which I just mentioned was 

intended to give certainty that those facilities would not be subject 

to regulation. We are talking about facilities that emit more than 

100,000 tons of CO2 or its equivalent per year. You get that by 

burning over a railroad car of coal every single day. That is how 

large these facilities are. It was intended to be a reasonable first 

step, to start with the large sources, not with the small ones, and 

to rely heavily on energy efficiency because the belief was that if 

we are going to invest and make ourselves more competitive, making ourselves more energy efficient will help our bottom line and 

52 

put more money in the economy for us to spend on something besides oil, especially foreign oil, of course. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, I have to admit the hearing today is on potential legislation that would actually remove the EPA’s authority. I 

think we have to address carbon in our country. I just prefer it to 

be on the legislative level. And we made an effort last Congress. 

We know cap and trade didn’t pass during a Democrat Congress so 

it is not going to pass during a Republican Congress. But I would 

like to see Congress take that effort and maybe EPA doing it will 

push us. 

Would you agree that with the measures your agency is undertaking in an attempt to curb greenhouse gases, it will still be necessary to increase environmentally responsible production of domestic natural gas supplies to meet the short-term carbon reduction goals and keep these manufacturing jobs in the United States? 

Is natural gas part of the solution to carbon? 

Ms. JACKSON. Natural gas is much less carbon-intense than some 

other forms of fossil fuels, particularly coal, which is used for baseload electricity generation in this country. So it can certainly be a 

help, a very useful step in the right direction. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, and I have said it before and I think this is 

something we can agree on across party lines, is that the other side 

is nuclear power. Our country compared to both France and Japan 

is so far behind in utilizing nuclear power, but as we know, nuclear 

power has no carbon emissions except for the construction. But natural gas emits 30 percent less carbon dioxide than oil does. For our 

New Englanders who still use fuel oil to heat their homes, maybe 

they need to put a pipeline there for the natural gas. But it is 50 

percent less than coal. So I would hope this Congress would look 

at empowering cleaner burning fuels including the substantial expansion of nuclear. We are struggling, as you know, to get loan 

guarantees that were passed in the 2005 energy bill for the expansion of nuclear power in our country, yet here we are in 2011 and 

we still don’t have it. 

So I share your concern about carbon. I just am concerned that 

we need to do it in a legislative effort so we can do that economic 

analysis from the members, elected members instead of the agency. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess, 5 minutes. 

Dr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Administrator Jackson, for being here. I am going to 

ask you a series of, I think, six questions. They are detailed and 

complicated and I know they are going to require answers in writing. Some of these I submitted to you before. We are still awaiting 

answers. So what I am interested in this morning is getting affirmation that some type of response will be coming from your office 

on these issues. 

Now, north Texas, where I live, last week, a week ago today, we 

were subject to rolling blackouts of electrical power. Businesses, 

schools, hospitals were all affected. This was not because of tree 

branches weighted down by the ice and cutting power lines. This 

was simply an effect of the very cold temperatures that were in 

place in Texas last week. We do all recognize there are new regulaVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:01 Apr 26, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-2 020911\112-2 CHRIS
53 

tions coming down the pike, and can you assure us here at the subcommittee that these rules will not make instances of rolling blackouts more common? We would also be interested in the studies that 

are underway to look at the cumulative effect of all of the EPA regulations on electrical reliability, not just in Texas where we have 

our own reliability council, but across the country. 

A second area. Did the EPA consult with anyone at Office of 

Management and Budget or the White House before moving forward in taking over the Texas flexible permitting program under 

the Clean Air Act? The EPA is now issuing its own permits to utilities in Texas, displacing the State agencies that have been responsible for that historically, the first time to my knowledge that the 

EPA has taken over a State system. And did the EPA consult with 

Office of Management and Budget on regulations for the permits 

it is issuing in lieu of the State-based permits? And I would be interested in your development of that answer in light of President 

Obama’s recent Executive Order calling for greater scrutiny of regulations and streamlining of problems encountered with bureaucracy so areas where you and the EPA have identified regulations 

for streamlining. I would like to have your thoughts on that. 

Gene Green mentioned natural gas. It is a big industry. In my 

part of Texas, there is of course some controversy over the production of natural gas and there are issues that are being worked out 

at the federal, State and local level. Still your administrator in region 6 has made public statements that he is going to be much 

more actively involved in the regulation of this industry. It employs 

100,000 in my area of north Texas. So my question that I would 

like for you to provide some insight is, are there active discussions 

within the EPA to take over—we are talking about the Clean Air 

Act today but this could also involve the Clean Water Act. Is there 

going to be greater involvement at the federal level in these activities and how are you going to justify that with the President’s call 

for greater streamlining of burdensome regulations? 

The ethanol mandate that was accelerated in December of 

2007—E15 is now, we are told, going to be mandated by the EPA, 

15 percent ethanol. Can you provide us with the testing that has 

been done in both vehicles and small engines utilizing 15 percent 

ethanol? Can you provide us with information on the testing done 

to date and the testing methodology that was employed? And 

again, I am particularly interested in older engines, cars produced 

between 2001 and 2007, and the small engine—the snow blower, 

the weed eater and that type of activity. 

Under Title 42 of the United States Code, the section for the Department of Health and Human Services, it does allow for increased salaries for limited positions requiring specialized expertise, and I get that and that is not necessarily a bad thing, but it 

appears that EPA is also utilizing some of those 42 exemptions. 

Can you provide for the committee how many EPA employees are 

receiving pay under Title 42 exceptions? Have you placed a limit 

of pay under Title 42 and what is the total amount of the Title 42 

program costing the federal taxpayer within the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s budget? 

Now, this last question, perhaps you can address this while we 

are here today. The Business Roundtable in June of this year 

54 

under the President’s request submitted to the President some 

issues that they thought might help in job creation because this 

was an issue last June that the President was concerned about, 

and the Roundtable specifically mentioned the Environmental Protection Agency’s moves against Texas flexible permitting program 

as one of the major examples of the Administration’s hostility— 

their words—towards growth. So 6 months, what has your office, 

Office of Management and Budget, the White House done in response to the Business Roundtable’s suggestion to remove the 

EPA’s restrictions on the Texas flexible permitting program? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I will answer all the other questions in writing 

for the record, and I am happy to do that. I just want to point out 

one important fact. It was the Bush EPA, the Bush Administration 

that found out that under the Clean Air Act the Texas flexible permitting program was not legal. So when I became Administrator, 

I found a situation where businesses in Texas have no certainty 

that the permits they have protect them from lawsuits for emitting 

excessive pollution. We have worked individually with businesses 

in Texas to bring their permits into compliance with the law and 

that process will take some amount of time. But the answer certainly could not have been to look the other way as these businesses got permits that weren’t worth the paper they were printed 

on. 

Dr. BURGESS. If I may point out in the Business Roundtable report prepared for the President, similar rules exist in other States 

which have not been challenged by the EPA. This appears to be 

Texas specific, and if it is, that is wrong and I would like you to 

look into it, and I will await your answers. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize Mr. Engel from New 

York for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

As my colleagues have discussed, this legislation would repeal 

EPA’s scientific determination that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare, known as the endangerment finding. I happen to believe that carbon emissions are a serious threat to our Nation’s welfare. I mean, I know that some of us might wish that the 

earth is flat, and I understand that different districts have different needs, I understand my colleagues trying to protect industry 

in their districts, but the bottom line is, this is scientific research. 

This is proven, and we have decisions and we are supposed to 

abide by them. 

Ms. Jackson, let me first of all thank you for the excellent job 

that you are doing, and your testimony here this morning has just 

affirmed in my mind what a grasp you have of the issues, how determined you are to be on the right track, and I just want to thank 

you for your good work. 

Legislatively repealing that scientific determination directly conflicts with the consensus of climate scientists, including President 

Bush’s EPA Administrator, Stephen Johnson, and the world’s most 

authoritative scientific organizations which use words like ‘‘indisputable’’ and ‘‘unequivocal.’’ We talk about it killing jobs. Well, this 

is an interesting statistic. Since its adoption, the Clean Air Act has 

reduced key air pollutants by 60 percent while at the same time 

the economy grew by over 200 percent. So I don’t think that that 

55 

shows that jobs are being killed. From 1990 to 2008 alone, the 

Clean Air Act reduced key air pollutants by over 400 percent, and 

the economy grew by almost 65 percent. These pollution reductions 

save lives, improve health, particularly among children and seniors, and in 2010 alone, last year, according to a peer-reviewed EPA 

analysis, the Clean Air Act prevented over 160,000 premature 

deaths, 130,000 cases of heart disease, 1.7 million asthma attacks, 

86,000 hospital admissions and millions of respiratory illnesses. So 

I wanted just to state that for the record. 

I would like to explore with you, Madam Administrator, one 

question on the impacts of this legislation on the renewable fuel 

standard. As you know, in order to promote renewable fuels and reduce greenhouse gas pollution, Congress has required EPA to issue 

regulations to ensure that transportation fuels sold in the United 

States contain certain volumes of renewable fuel: advanced biofuel, 

cellulosic biofuel and biomass-based diesel. The volume of each type 

of fuel is established annually by the EPA and based in part of the 

availability of the fuel. Now, it appears to me that the new section 

330(b)(1)(A) would prevent the EPA from establishing these required annual volumes in subsequent years because it prohibits 

EPA from taking actions related to greenhouse gases. Do you have 

the same interpretation that I do of section 330(b)1)(A), and if so, 

what do you think that means for the renewable fuel standards 

specifically and the future of biofuels generally in the United 

States? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, as I said in my opening statement, I believe 

the draft bill would likely prohibit EPA from taking further actions 

to implement the renewable fuels program in the United States. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, I think that that is something that is really, 

really important and we really need to think twice before we want 

to do such a thing. I mean, I think that nobody at this point should 

conclude that carbon emissions are not a serious threat to our Nation. I mean, they are, and we ought to not put our heads in the 

sand. We ought to figure out a way where we can have cleaner air 

and at the same time have the least impact on business and creation of jobs but we shouldn’t eliminate all these restrictions just 

because we are concerned about these things with jobs. We don’t 

want our children to breathe filthy air. We don’t want it to go back 

to the bad old days. There are countries all around the world where 

literally people, the cancer rates are up because they don’t have the 

rules that we have adopted to prevent these things, and I don’t 

think we want to go back to the Stone Age. 

So I thank you for your testimony, and I look forward continuing 

to work with you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. A number of people have mentioned this renewable fuels issue, and as we move forward with this legislation, we 

are certainly going to try to address some of the concerns that you 

all have brought about it. 

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

Scalise, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome back, Ms. 

Jackson. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you. 

56 

Mr. SCALISE. I appreciate you coming to testify. And of course, 

today’s hearing is specifically focused on the Energy Tax Prevention Act and especially its impact on jobs and how if we are able 

to prevent, truly prevent your agency from going into an area 

where it hadn’t been before, we would also be able to save thousands of American jobs, potentially millions of American jobs along 

with billions of investment. 

First I want to go back to some comments and statements that 

the President made when he was a candidate. President Obama on 

multiple occasions has talked about cap and trade and this kind of 

regulatory scheme increasing the cost of electricity, and I will read 

one of his quotes. ‘‘Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.’’ That was then-Senator 

Obama as a candidate for president. Do you agree with that statement? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir. I think that statement is—— 

Mr. SCALISE. You disagree with the President’s statement that a 

cap-and-trade scheme would necessarily—— 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe his larger point was that a market-based 

program could ensure that energy rates while producers had the 

certainty they needed to move forward, the market through innovation would allow it to happen in a gradual fashion. 

Mr. SCALISE. A gradual fashion where electricity rates skyrocketed, though. That is the key point. The President said this. I 

am not saying this. I will give you Tim Geithner’s statement. Tim 

Geithner said cap and trade would increase the cost of energy. Do 

you agree with that statement? Yes or no. 

Ms. JACKSON. Controlling pollution is not free. 

Mr. SCALISE. It is a yes or no question. Tim Geithner made the 

statement, President Obama made the statement. 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I don’t know what cap and trade you are asking me to speculate about. We are here to talk about the Clean Air 

Act and—— 

Mr. SCALISE. We are talking about the regulatory scheme that 

your agency is currently undergoing that is costing jobs—— 

Ms. JACKSON. No, that is not true. There is no cap-and-trade 

scheme—— 

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. And the effects it would have on electricity rates. 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. Planned or provided—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Do you think that this wouldn’t have—— 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. For in the Clean Air Act. 

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. Any impact on electricity rates? 

Ms. JACKSON. There is no cap-and-trade scheme provided for 

under the Clean Air Act—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Your regulatory scheme for greenhouse gases—— 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. For greenhouse gases, I should say. 

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. Which your agency is currently doing. 

Are you currently doing this? 

Ms. JACKSON. What we are doing is—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Yes or no. 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. Enforcing the Clean Air Act—— 

Mr. SCALISE. I hate to put you on the spot. I know Mr. Dingell—— 

57 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. To reduce the emissions—— 

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. Got a lot of good yes or no answers. 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. Of greenhouse gases. 

Mr. SCALISE. I would appreciate the same courtesy to a yes or 

no question. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, no, if you are asking me about cap and trade 

for greenhouse gases because there are no plans for cap and trade 

at EPA, and there are no plans—— 

Mr. SCALISE. So is it safe to say you disagree with the President 

when the President said when cap and trade would increase, skyrocket the cost of electricity? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, what I do know is that we are not planning 

any cap-and-trade regulations or standards. That is not—— 

Mr. SCALISE. We both have limited time, and I appreciate that 

maybe you want to evade the question. It is a direct question. It 

is a pretty simple question that many in this Administration have 

been comfortable acknowledging. Many in business have acknowledged that this would increase the cost on families. It seems like 

for whatever reason you don’t want to acknowledge it, but if you 

then go to the next step of regulating greenhouse gases, do you 

think that if you regulate greenhouse gases in your agency that it 

would cost jobs? 

Ms. JACKSON. I agree with the President that investing in clean 

energy will make our economy stronger, will help our economy—— 

Mr. SCALISE. And I see you have made statements these standards will help American companies and create good jobs. The problem is, that flies in the face of what the Nation’s employers in 

America are saying about what you are doing, and I don’t know if 

there is a parallel universe going on but I will point to you a number of companies, and I have conversations as I am sure most of 

my colleagues do. The biggest impediment our job creators in this 

country tell us about is the threat of regulations coming from your 

agency and a few other agencies in this Administration as the impediments to creating jobs. So maybe you think that these policies 

will help create jobs. 

I will just read what one of our later panelists is talking about 

in terms of how it is costing American jobs. Nucor, which is a 

plant, a company based in America that is preparing to build a 

major steel plant in Louisiana, in our State, the CEO of that company—that is a $2 billion investment that right now is going to 

America hopefully. It was on hold during the whole debate on cap 

and trade. They said, and this is a comment from the CEO, ‘‘We 

are waiting to see what Congress does with global warming legislation.’’ They were holding back on a $2 billion investment. And then 

I will go on to say what the testimony that the environmental manager of the company who is here today is talking about. He said, 

‘‘But this project is not as large as the $2 billion investment we initially intended due to the uncertainty created by these regulations.’’ He is talking about your department, the uncertainty created by these regulations. ‘‘We made the difficult decision to delay 

the $2 billion investment also delaying the creation of 2,000 construction jobs and 500 permanent jobs that average $75,000 a year. 

Now, this is a company. 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, respectfully—— 

58 

Mr. SCALISE. This isn’t theory. 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. Based on EPA—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Do you recognize that—— 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. The proposed Nucor iron and steel facility in Louisiana has actually received the first-ever State-issued 

Clean Air Act construction permits—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Do you recognize that that costs jobs? 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. That will require control for greenhouse gases. They are a permitted facility—— 

Mr. SCALISE. And they said they haven’t created as many 

jobs—— 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. For greenhouse gases, so that would 

seem to be—— 

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. Because of your agency, and I just 

want to talk about that. 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. Exactly the opposite of them being 

held up. They have—— 

Mr. SCALISE. But finally, you made a statement about Katrina 

and flooding. You tried, to I guess, infer that flooding—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. Was related to—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. Greenhouse gases. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Point of order. 

Mr. SCALISE. I just want to point out the failure of the—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Hold on just one minute. OK, Mr. Waxman, you 

had a point of order. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Look, she was asked a question. The gentleman’s 

time has expired. She ought to be able to answer it. 

Mr. SCALISE. I asked her to answer yes or no, and she refused 

to answer a yes or no question multiple times. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I think that—— 

Mr. SCALISE. She did it for Mr. Dingell. I appreciate that. I just 

would like the same courtesy. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Are you going to have any questions that you are 

going to submit to her in writing? 

Mr. SCALISE. I will be happy to submit in writing the remaining 

questions, especially as it relates to the comment you made about 

flooding having an attribution to greenhouse gases as opposed to 

the federal levies in New Orleans, which I know you are aware was 

the real cause of flooding. 

Ms. JACKSON. Let me be clear because this is my hometown. I 

did not say that Katrina was due to greenhouse gas emissions. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. At this time I recognize—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you. 

Ms. JACKSON. I said it was horrible flooding—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD [continuing]. Mr. Doyle for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. Impacted that area in a way that is 

tragic. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Doyle, 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Jackson, welcome, and thank you for your patience today. As most members of this committee know, I have long 

59 

been concerned about manmade climate change and how it affects 

our climate, but this committee also knows how concerned I am 

that as we make efforts to address this serious problem that we 

don’t harm the competitiveness of American industry. During the 

comprehensive energy legislation that the House considered and 

passed last year, I introduced amendments to safeguard many of 

our industries from some of the effects of the bill because we are 

concerned that this not result in jobs being shipped overseas, and 

if I thought that was what was going to happen, I would be very 

concerned too. 

You know, initially many of us were concerned because the Clean 

Air Act had the potential to require numerous sources to obtain 

permits for greenhouse gas emissions, but EPA acted promptly and 

effectively to issue a tailoring rule and limit these requirements 

only to the largest sources. Administrator Jackson, could you just 

briefly explain what that tailoring rule did? 

Ms. JACKSON. The potential universe of sources could have been 

6 million. The tailoring rule took it down to a universe no larger 

than about 15,000 potential, but since you are only regulated if you 

are building a new facility or substantially increasing your emissions, we expect that there are a couple hundred additional permits 

that would be required a year, but that was intended to be a deregulatory action. 

Mr. DOYLE. So does this rule affect every large facility? 

Ms. JACKSON. It will only affect very, very large facilities, those 

that emit more than 100,000 tons a year and only if they are new, 

or 75,000 tons a year if they are going to have a significant increase in their greenhouse gas emissions. 

Mr. DOYLE. So right now if you are an existing factory or steel 

mill and you don’t expand or increase your greenhouse gas emissions by a significant amount, you don’t need to spend any capital 

or labor on controlling your greenhouse gas emissions. Is that correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is right, sir. 

Mr. DOYLE. So let us say a steel company or other manufacturer 

does want to build out on an existing facility or bring an entirely 

new one online. What do they actually have to do? Have you issued 

guidance on this to let sources know the rules of the road? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, we have issued that guidance, primarily for 

States, who are the permitting authorities, and they are implementing it. As you heard, Louisiana just recently implemented it 

to issue a permit there. 

Mr. DOYLE. So the permitting authority then basically selects the 

best available control technology through whatever options there 

are. Is it your statement that I heard earlier that in most cases the 

best available technology for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is 

likely to be efficiency? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is right. 

Mr. DOYLE. So to be clear, you expect that almost all new 

sources, the main thing they are going to have to do is just become 

more energy efficient? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is right. 

Mr. DOYLE. So couldn’t that actually save money over time as 

sources have fewer inputs and reduce their energy use? 

60 

Ms. JACKSON. Absolutely. It could increase the profits because 

you costs are lower going forward. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes, I mean, it just seems to make sense to me that 

when we build new facilities, they should be efficient, and I think 

that is something that industry is striving for because they realize 

it is good for their bottom line, and it certainly doesn’t appear that 

it would be too costly or drive new facilities overseas. 

But the other concern we have is, what if it takes too long for 

new facilities to get permits? Now, that could have cost implications even if the requirements are reasonable. So Administrator 

Jackson, what is the EPA doing to help ensure that these requirements don’t lead to permitting delays? 

Ms. JACKSON. The reason we got the guidance out to the State 

permitting authorities earlier is so that there would be no time 

lapse between when these requirements took effect on January 2nd 

and when people would be applying for and need these permits, 

and so EPA is offering technical assistance and guidance to step in 

for those States, and there are several who for whatever set of 

rules or legal obligations back home are not yet ready to implement 

the permitting requirements for greenhouse gases. But almost all 

States are moving in that direction. Many have already gotten to 

that point. 

Mr. DOYLE. Now, the Upton bill here aims to stop you from 

issuing minimum standards for the two largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions, fossil fuel-powered plants and oil refineries. 

Is EPA currently developing minimum standards for any other sectors of the economy such as manufacturers? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir. 

Mr. DOYLE. OK. Thank you, Administrator Jackson. I am acutely 

aware of the challenges that our manufacturers are facing today, 

and I have to tell you that I was skeptical at first when investigating how this Clean Air Act would be used to regulate greenhouse gases, but it seems to me that when you strip away the rhetoric and the scare attacks that the approach and the scare tactics 

that the approach that you are taking to date seems extremely reasonable. We know our manufacturers are facing tough challenges 

but I really don’t see how repealing the Clean Air Act authority for 

greenhouse gases would help them in any way. In fact, the legal 

uncertainties actually make things a little bit worse. 

Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Would the gentleman yield briefly? 

Mr. DOYLE. Well, if I can, I will. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. His time is expired and we have a lot of witnesses, so Mr. Olson from Texas, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Administrator Jackson, for coming here today. I am going to follow up on 

some questions from my colleague, Mr. Burgess from Texas, about 

EPA’s taking control of the permitting process for refineries and 

power sources in my home State of Texas. This is a fundamental 

change. The feds under the Clean Air Act, the feds set the standards and the States and local governments are the ones who implement them through the SIPs, and to justify this change, EPA says 

it erred in the original approval of the SIP back in 1992, nearly 2 

decades ago, three Presidential Administrations because the SIP 

61 

didn’t contain the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, and that 

must be corrected. The mechanism to establish this correction was 

unilateral EPA authority to correct ‘‘minor technical errors.’’ The 

feds’ takeover of States’ authority to issue permits under the Clean 

Air Act is not a minor error. It is a radical departure from existing 

law, and under the Constitution that is not your job. That is our 

job. 

So the first question I have for you is twofold. Has any previous 

Administration used an error correction to overturn State authority 

to implement its SIP after it has been approved for 18 years? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I am happy to get you an answer, but again, 

I will point out that it was the previous Administration that determined that parts of Texas’s permit rules did not meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. It is EPA’s job to enforce the Clean Air 

Act and EPA stepped in because if we didn’t, Texas businesses 

would not be able to build or expand because they could not get a 

greenhouse gas emission permit in the State of Texas that was 

legal so they would have been subject to any number of lawsuits. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, ma’am, but the previous Administration did 

come in with a couple of month deadline for the Texas companies 

to comply. Usually this happens when there is a change in the SIP. 

As I understand it, there is about a 3- to 4-, 5-year process for the 

States to come through and propose what they are going to do to 

EPA. We are given less than a year, less than 6 months to do it, 

and that is something that is on this Administration. Is that—— 

Ms. JACKSON. We would prefer that Texas issue the greenhouse 

gas permits themselves but if Texas refuses to do it, as I am sure 

you will hear from the next witness, then EPA is stepping in to do 

so because the businesses in Texas still need permits under the 

Clean Air Act, sir. 

Mr. OLSON. Once again, how is changing the Clean Air Act with 

just using the technical corrections legislation, how is that not 

usurping the legislative branch’s authority to pass laws and regulate our environment? I mean, why do you get to be—under the 

Constitution, we should be doing that, not the EPA. How can you 

justify that? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, under the Clean Air Act, EPA’s job is to enforce the law and ensure that permits are the same all over the 

country, so a business in Texas gets a Clean Air Act permit, it is 

the same as Louisiana next door, and so what EPA has done is 

move in to ensure that just like the Nucor steel facility just got a 

permit from the State of Louisiana, if they wanted to build the 

exact same facility in Texas, they would need a permit for greenhouse gases and they cannot get one because Texas has refused to 

consider those permits at this time. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, ma’am. Well, there is one other question I have 

for you. Again, we have talked about what is happening in my 

home State and we have talked about, the other side of the aisle 

has been very vocal about scientifically based actions here, and I 

agree with that. We should do this if we are going to do it scientifically based. I think the science right now is very much in doubt. 

But the one thing that I am really concerned about from the other 

side of the aisle, at the end of the day the argument rests on what 

five Supreme Court justices decided, and that case did not say that 

62 

you had to regulate greenhouse gases. That was not what the decision said. I will read from the decision. The Court did find that 

EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide as an air pollutant but they said only if the EPA makes a finding of endangerment 

under that provision, section 202(a)(1). And the Court further stated that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the 

statute. So basically they gave you the ball. I guess my question 

to you is, was Massachusetts v. EPA a mandate for the EPA to implement global greenhouse gas control or not? Yes or no. 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, it was a mandate that we consider the science, 

and that only if we could come up with reasonable science, which 

I do not believe exists, that shows that greenhouse gases do not endanger public health and welfare, could we ignore it. They said it 

was arbitrary and capricious to simply ignore the science and 

choose to make no decision. So it did give us the ball in that it said 

we could not stick our heads in the sand. We had to, per the law, 

make a determination, and in making that determination, I reviewed our Nation’s best science by its best scientists and made a 

finding of endangerment. 

Mr. OLSON. Basically you have taken something else. It was EPA 

that made that decision, not the Court, and those comments here 

are erroneous. EPA did it, not the United States Supreme Court. 

Thank you for your time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Matheson, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Administrator Jackson, for coming today. 

I do think it is important that this subcommittee hold hearings 

on this issue. I think the challenge of climate change is real and 

I think that the legislative branch ought to be engaged. I have 

some concerns about legislation like Chairman Upton’s draft bill 

which does disprove the EPA’s endangerment finding and bans the 

EPA from regulation greenhouse gas emissions. I am concerned because I think it could substantially weaken the effectiveness of the 

Clean Air Act, and I think everyone in this room would argue that 

the Clean Air Act over the last few decades has been an undeniable 

success. It has been a success in providing cleaner air and contributing to public health interests. 

I also have concerns that the bill overrides the ability of the EPA 

to regulate emissions from motor vehicles, weaken the current fuel 

economy standards for cars and light trucks, which is important to 

reducing our dependence on foreign oil. But I do hear from folks 

in my State who are concerned about the implementation of the 

greenhouse gas regulations and other regulations coming down the 

pike from EPA and the potential costs associated with this uncertainty and growing regulatory burden, especially as we seek to 

grow our economy out of this economic recession. 

Administrator Jackson, I have heard from our State department 

of environmental quality, and I know you discussed this in response to Mr. Doyle’s questions, but the Utah DEQ has said that 

despite the best available control technology guidance issued to the 

States last fall, there remains a lot of uncertainty over what BACT 

decisions by States will ultimately be accepted by the EPA. In particular, I have been told that the BACT is still too vague to provide 

63 

any certainty to sources who are trying to plan for new construction or modifications. In his testimony, Mr. Carter with Sandy Cooper also made similar remarks. Can you elaborate on how EPA is 

working with States to implement best available control technology? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly, sir. Through our regional offices, we are 

offering technical assistance as States work through permit by permit. This is a permit-by-permit decision under the Clean Air Act, 

and essentially what you do is, you lay out the options for controlling greenhouse gases and you look at whether they are commercially available, whether they are available at reasonable cost and 

whether they are effective, and oftentimes we believe that is going 

to lead people straight to energy efficiency, which is a very much 

available way and certainly cost-effective way to reduce and make 

a real start on reducing greenhouse gases. 

Mr. MATHESON. Do you think there is a way to create additional 

certainty or predictability that you can provide to State permitting 

agencies? 

Ms. JACKSON. We are certainly happy to try and to continue 

working with Utah and the professionals there. 

Mr. MATHESON. Do you believe that your regional offices have 

the necessary resources, whether it is funding or staff, to work with 

the States on implementing these rules? 

Ms. JACKSON. We have made it a priority that the implementation of these rules for our air staff is priority number one, and I 

do believe, sir, that we have resources available to any State that 

needs them. 

Mr. MATHESON. Do you agree with assertions by many in industry and the utility sector that permitting uncertainty in conjunction 

with the additional EPA rules coming down the pike over the coming months and years is affecting current and future investments 

in plant modifications, upgrades and construction? 

Ms. JACKSON. I agree that one thing I hear often from industry 

is that they need certainty of regulation. I think the clean cars rule 

and the nationwide standard is a great demonstration of how 

knowing what the road ahead looks like from a Clean Air Act perspective has helped them to move forward and do what they do 

best, which is make cars. 

Mr. MATHESON. I will ask another question. The EPA has already announced the delay in implementation of efficiency rules for 

biomass facilities. Do you anticipate any delays in other covered 

sectors will be announced? 

Ms. JACKSON. I have nothing to announce right now, sir. We are 

trying to do what I said, which is move in a series of moderate 

steps that give people lots of warnings so there are no surprises 

about regulations that may come down the pike, and what we have 

announced so far is that the only two sectors that we are looking 

at for additional standard setting are the power sector, utilities, 

and refineries because they account for such a large percentage of 

our Nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. 

Mr. MATHESON. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I recognize the gentleman from West Virginia, 

Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

64 

I am trying to keep most of my questions to yes or no answers 

to the extent you can, and I have got a lot of others if you could 

submit some responses back to those at the appropriate time. Last 

summer, Senator Reid made a remark that said coal makes us sick 

and oil makes us sick. Do you agree with that? 

Ms. JACKSON. Only in that pollution makes us sick, so if they are 

the source of pollution, then yes, but it is the pollution that makes 

us sick. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I have heard a lot today about the health benefits, and I don’t want to diminish those concerns about the health 

benefits, but I have come to Congress 34 days ago with a bigger 

concern that there are 15 million out of work today in America, and 

a lot of it is attributed back to the actions of the EPA and some 

of their activities or overregulation. I am seeing in West Virginia 

a mine shut down that had a permit 3 years ago. Now 250-some 

people are out of work. I saw a mine just close in Pennsylvania by 

the EPA action. I have seen the issues of water quality in West 

Virginia and all other States east of the Mississippi that are more 

stringent than bottled water you can buy in a supermarket. I have 

seen fly ash being under attack and people using less of it and recycle. I am just so concerned that the EPA is, with all due respect, 

out of touch with what is going on in America, and I would like 

if you could please just cite one example of where the EPA has collaborated with a major industrial employer and they have increased their jobs in a significant way. Can you cite one example? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. The car industry has reduced their overall 

emissions over 40 years while the number of cars on our roads has 

continued to increase as our population got larger, and that is because of technological innovation that insisted that we not grow 

their profits at the expense of our health. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I am looking for one company that you have 

worked with, you collaborated with them and they have increased 

employment. 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly, sir. Any time an industry invests in pollution control, they are hiring workers, everything from engineers 

to technicians to people who design and implement and put on 

scrubber so that when you burn coal in a power plant, the emissions are clean. All of those jobs are part of the legacy—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. The remark you made earlier—— 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. Of the Clean Air Act and EPA’s—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY [continuing]. Madam Administrator, that—— 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. To protect the public health. 

Mr. MCKINLEY [continuing]. There were thousands of scientists 

and physicists across America that support this matter but yet 

there are thousands equally in opposition to that, such as physicist 

Hal Lewis, people within NOAA, people within the United Nations’ 

climate control panel. There are others that are supporting that 

and they conveniently seem to be ignored in this. Was Hal Lewis 

wrong when he said this was one of the greatest frauds being perpetrated on the people of America? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, I do not know Mr. Lewis, sir, but I will say 

that our best scientists in the country have reached a consensus, 

and it is unequivocal, that the science is clear that manmade emissions of air pollution and global warming gases are changing—— 

65 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Anthropogenic global warming—— 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. Our atmosphere. 

Mr. MCKINLEY [continuing]. Is still an issue that the scientists 

are still debating, and you know it and I know it. 

Ms. JACKSON. No, I do not agree with that. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I am an engineer and I—— 

Ms. JACKSON. I absolutely do not agree with that. 

Mr. MCKINLEY [continuing]. Can tell you, it has not been determined. 

Ms. JACKSON. I am an engineer as well, and I know to look to 

scientific experts to make decisions like this. I am not an expert 

on the climate so what we have done is look at people like the National Academies across—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Let me go back to a comment that perhaps it 

wasn’t worded, because I found the answer a little humorous. It 

said something to the effect that you didn’t presume to direct Congress how to act, so I am going to maybe—would you favor, do you 

support the idea that Congress may very well want to take action 

to—do they have the right to vote up or down on any major EPA 

regulatory offering? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, the laws passed that I implement were passed 

by Congress. The Clean Air Act was passed by Congress. So I understand and recognize that under the U.S. Constitution Congress 

makes laws and then the executive branch executes the laws, absolutely. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. So you would think Congress should have the 

right to approve any regulations before they are implemented? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir. Congress already has the congressional Review Act, which allows it to review every regulation that is adopted 

by not just my agency, so that is certainly already the law of the 

land. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Ma’am, I will get back with the other questions 

to you. Thank you very much. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The chairman recognizes Mr. Gardner of Colorado for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Administrator Jackson, for your time 

here today. I appreciate your willingness to be here, and I too have 

only been here for 34 days and it continues to amaze me how the 

scare tactics are thrown out as if everybody is speaking from the 

same page but the problem is, they are not, and I want to talk a 

little bit about criteria pollutants versus greenhouse gases. I think 

a lot of the scare tactics that we have heard in terms of the health 

concerns are criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas is not a criteria 

pollutant, and I think that is important to recognize, that a lot of 

the health concerns that have been raised here as scare tactics are 

based on criteria pollutants, and this bill does nothing dealing with 

criteria pollutants, the bill that we are discussing now. 

I want to follow up another question that some of the other members have asked. I met with a CEO of a company in Colorado who 

employs a thousand people directly, 2,000 people indirectly, and he 

mentioned to me at our meeting, this was just this past Friday, 

that he is very concerned about regulations because he is worried 

that the cost and reliability of energy and the energy and power 

66 

infrastructure, he is worried about the energy infrastructure and 

he is worried about the ability of our country to continue to 

produce affordable energy for consumers and for businesses, and 

that being said, I believe Chairman Upton asked an earlier question regarding whether or not the EPA had done an cost-benefit 

analysis of the impact of EPA regulations. I believe your response 

was that the EPA had not done so because such analysis would 

have required the EPA to reach out to businesses in order to gather information regarding the impact of the EPA’s regulations. Well, 

isn’t that the right thing to be doing is to reach out to businesses 

in terms of the impact of this regulation? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, I think that is not an accurate assessment of 

how the conversation went. I am happy to recount it for, it is in 

the record, but what I said was—— 

Mr. GARDNER. You don’t think you ought to be talking to American businesses about these regulations first? 

Ms. JACKSON. We talk to American businesses all the time, and 

I think that is the way to make smart commonsense regulations. 

Mr. GARDNER. And so the American business community agrees 

that this regulation is the way to move forward? 

Ms. JACKSON. The American business community has commented 

on the regulations as we move forward, and I would say that there 

are varying opinions. We have heard from small businesses who 

support the regulation because they believe it will help the clean 

energy sector. We have heard from several, I think 11 utility company, who said that this is a commonsense, reasonable approach 

to—— 

Mr. GARDNER. Have you heard from some—— 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. Help to make them efficient. 

Mr. GARDNER [continuing]. That they will lose jobs as a result? 

Ms. JACKSON. I think all businesses talk about, when I talk to 

them, they want to make sure that they have regulatory certainty, 

and they are worried about their bottom line. 

Mr. GARDNER. And they are worried about job losses? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly I have seen studies—— 

Mr. GARDNER. Do you think they need to worry about job losses? 

Ms. JACKSON. I think the President has made it clear that jobs 

are an absolute focus, sir, absolutely. Jobs are our absolute focus 

and we believe the clean energy sector is a place to grow jobs—— 

Mr. GARDNER. But what if they are not in the clean energy sector? Should they worry about jobs? I mean, this sounds like we are 

picking winners and losers and saying some jobs are better than 

others. 

Ms. JACKSON. I do know this, sir: the Clean Air Act is supposed 

to relieve their minds about pollution in the air that might make 

them and their families sick. 

Mr. GARDNER. That is a criteria pollutant, not greenhouse gas. 

Ms. JACKSON. No, no, no. The endangerment finding makes clear 

that greenhouse gases also endanger public health and welfare. 

Mr. GARDNER. But I think again we are confusing the issue of 

criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases. You mentioned earlier 

that ag would not be—there would be no imposition on agriculture, 

agricultural sources. I believe you put a timeline of 2013 on that. 

Will there be ag sources put under this rule after 2013? 

67 

Ms. JACKSON. I can’t speculate to that. I have made a commitment that there will be no regulations for permitting for agricultural sources until July 2013. 

Mr. GARDNER. But after that, there may be permitting requirements brought into this rule? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. It is my hope still that Congress will look towards legislation at some point. 

Mr. GARDNER. And on agriculture, I think it is important too 

when we talk about that agriculture is not affected by these rules 

and jobs in agriculture aren’t affected by these rules, I want to 

point out a letter that talked about the cost about running a sprinkler for farmers in my district. The estimated cost of certain greenhouse gas emission controls would cost the farmer in this particular rural electric association nearly $2,000 a year per meter. Do 

you think that will affect their ability to hire people and to grow 

their operation? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I don’t know what you are referring to. I am 

happy to review it, and I am also happy to again state what I said 

before, that as we put these regulations out, they are meant to be 

commonsense moves that in general will rely on energy efficiency 

and other moderate steps that will add up, that will get us started 

in moving towards reducing greenhouse gas pollution. 

Mr. GARDNER. Do you believe that agriculture is affected by increased costs of energy? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly. 

Mr. GARDNER. Do you believe agriculture is impacted by the increased cost of fertilizer? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly, sir. 

Mr. GARDNER. Do you believe that these regulations will increase 

the cost of farming equipment? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir, I don’t necessarily believe that because I 

am not sure what regulations we are talking about. We have regulations on the board right now, for instance, for cars that make 

clear that they pay for themselves essentially because of the savings in fuel. There are tremendous opportunities in rural America 

for the economy to continue to grow as it has thrived over the past 

several years and we are not looking to regulate—— 

Mr. GARDNER. The economy has thrived over the past several 

years? 

Ms. JACKSON. Rural America’s economy has done fairly well as 

the rest of the country has seen the housing market and economy 

really do poorly. 

Mr. GARDNER. Administrator Jackson, I would invite you to my 

district to meet with people who believe the economy has not 

thrived over the past few years. 

Ms. JACKSON. I would be happy to do that, sir. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I recognize the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. 

Pompeo. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Ms. Jackson, for coming today. In the 4th district of 

Kansas, we do lots of things. We have agriculture, and we make 

airplanes, a lot of airplane stuff, manufacturing. I came from that 

industry. The cost of manufacturing has driven lots of jobs. We 

have got unemployment in our aircraft manufacturing industry 

68 

that is enormous, and families are hurting. I heard Mr. Waxman 

and Mr. Markey talk about children. I have seen the impacts on 

families from what the regulatory environment that this Administration has put forward has caused. 

I want to ask you in response to something you said to Mr. 

Shimkus, a question. You acknowledged the existence of the law of 

supply and demand or the economic principle, and then you joked 

about price elasticity because you wouldn’t answer his question yes 

or no about what the price elasticity of something was. Tell me 

what you think the price elasticity of energy is as it relates to supply and demand. 

Ms. JACKSON. The price—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Is it zero? Does energy stay—as you impose regulations, does energy cost stay fixed? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I want to state here, I have not said that there 

are not potential costs to move to cleaner energy. What is at stake 

is making reasonable decisions on how to move to cleaner energy, 

less-polluting forms of energy but do it in a way that does not harm 

our economy, and I am committed as head of the EPA to enforcing 

and implementing the Clean Air Act to protect our public health 

but doing it in a way that is modest and moderate and that is 

mindful of our economy at the same time. 

Mr. POMPEO. I appreciate that. I will tell you that the folks that 

I talk to in the 4th district of Kansas don’t believe there is anything moderate or modest about the proposals that your agency has 

put forward. 

I will ask you this. You earlier cited statistics that said that the 

benefits of the Clean Air Act have been about 40 to 1. 

Ms. JACKSON. That is correct. 

Mr. POMPEO. It would seem to me then if we would just appropriate a trillion dollars, we could take out all the deficit because 

we get a 40 to one return on that investment. Is that what you are 

proposing in terms of return on invested capital? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir. What I am trying to propose is that for 

every dollar invested to control pollution and protect public health, 

that is $40 of health costs that the American people are avoiding. 

They are healthier and more productive because they don’t have to 

worry about increased asthma attacks and premature death as a 

result of—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Right, and if your analysis is therefore right, what 

do we spent on health care a year, we just pick 40 of that number 

and we would invest that amount of money and we would solve the 

health care problem. That is what your analysis suggests. Am I 

misunderstanding something? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, you are, sir. 

Mr. POMPEO. OK. Help me understand what it is I am misunderstanding. 

Ms. JACKSON. You are misunderstanding the point that the 

Clean Air Act is a public health statute. It is designed to protect 

the health of Americans through preventive medicine, if you will. 

It removes pollution from the air that causes asthma attacks, that 

causes lung disease, that make us and our children—— 

Mr. POMPEO. I understand. I have one more question. I want to 

clean up a couple things you said earlier. You spoke to the fact that 

69 

you appreciated regulatory certainty being important, and then you 

just told Mr. Gardner that our agricultural community gets something less than 2 years of certainty with respect to greenhouse gas 

regulation. I will tell you that their return on invested capital calculations go far past 24 months, and so I am trying to understand 

how you can argue that you think regulatory certainty is important 

and yet tell us that our agriculture folks in the 4th district get just 

a little less than 24 months before you will chase them too. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, sir, I am not here to tell your constituents 

or anyone else for that matter that greenhouse gases are not a 

problem or are not something that we should be addressing as a 

country. I believe that we should be incentivizing and innovating 

to move to cleaner forms of energy and reduce the accumulation of 

greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, and that is something that is 

out there not because I sit in this seat, sir, but because—— 

Mr. POMPEO. If you believe—— 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. They are a challenge for our country. 

Mr. POMPEO. Fair enough. If you believe that these regulations 

were going to have a net loss of jobs, would this change your view 

of how the EPA ought to proceed? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly, sir. If I was seeing regulations that I 

thought—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Massachusetts v. EPA, last line, the holding, ‘‘We hold only that 

the EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.’’ Can you tell me where in the statute it allows you to create 

a tailoring rule? 

Ms. JACKSON. The tailoring rule is based on our belief that the 

statute does not speak to the fact that there be too many sources 

to regulate all at once. It is an absurd result. That is the theory 

of the law—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And I don’t disagree with you, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. On which we based the rule. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. It is an absurd result but that is what the law 

says, and isn’t it the right of the elected officials, this Congress to 

make that decision and not unelected officials in the EPA? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, the United States Supreme Court held that 

the Clean Air Act—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. You had to do something, but it said you had to 

follow the statute—— 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIFFITH [continuing]. You followed the statute—— 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman. We have sat here and 

watched the questions from the members on this subcommittee and 

they ask questions and the witness attempts to answer, and they 

won’t allow her the opportunity to complete her answer. So would 

you admonish members to allow the witness to complete her answer before they interrupt her? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Rush, thank you for that. These members 

have waited a long time, and you have been very patient to be 

70 

here, but I am going to allow them to continue to ask questions 

and—— 

Mr. RUSH. And can the witness please answer? She has been 

here for a long time also. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I will make it a yes or no question. Do you believe 

that EPA should follow law as written or request Congress to 

change it or ask Congress to relieve them of that obligation when 

the result of the law would be an absurd result? Yes or no, please. 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe EPA should follow the law as interpreted 

by the United States Supreme Court and the rules that we have 

on the books are designed to avoid the absurd result. That is the 

basis for the rulemaking we have made. That is the basis for our 

attempts to be as reasonable as we can. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. In regard to certainty, and I am doing a little 

cleanup too. In regard to certainty, you indicated that there were 

no plans for a cap-and-trade program. How long can you give me 

certainty—— 

Ms. JACKSON. I should have said for greenhouse gases because 

we have a cap-and-trade for—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK. For greenhouse gases cap and trade, you said 

you had no plans, do you have any ability to give the businesses, 

the industries and the folks that produce in my district any certainty how long can they count on that? 

Ms. JACKSON. They will see proposed rules long before for public 

comment and we have agreed to do industry listening sessions to 

hear from the industries how best they think we should approach 

future regulations. So there will be a transparent process. There 

will be no secrets. I do not believe there will ever be a cap-andtrade program authorized under the Clean Air Act. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you. And then let me ask you, when you 

talked about health and safety of the American folks in looking at 

the endangerment ruling, I am wondering if you all looked at the 

fact, because you mentioned something about the heat being higher, causing folks to have strokes or heart attacks, etc., and I am 

wondering if you looked at the fact that with the electric rates 

going up, the heating bills going up, fuel oil going up, that there 

are a lot of folks in my district who are having a hard time paying 

for their heat, and what is the offset on the other side? Did you 

look at what is going to cost those folks and the danger to their 

health by not having sufficient heat? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I am absolutely not asking people to freeze to 

death or be very warm in the summer. I am not sure I understand 

your question. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Well, you said in your opening statement that one 

of the things that you looked at in making the endangerment ruling was the fact that increased heat when folks—if the planet 

warms that folks are going to suffer more disease as a result of 

overheating and heart attacks, I think you mentioned heart attacks 

or strokes. And I am just asking if the counter side to that was 

looked at and the fact that we are going to raise the cost for Americans to buy fuel, therefore some of them are not going to have sufficient heat to heat their homes. 

Ms. JACKSON. The actions we have taken under the greenhouse 

gas regulations are not intended to make less fuel available to 

71 

Americans, sir, so these are commonsense steps that actually in the 

case of the car rule means we will need less oil. They are energy 

efficiency. They are meant to make us get every drop of energy we 

can out of every drop of gasoline or fuel that we use. So perhaps 

I am not understanding. The endangerment finding—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. Are you unaware that the regulations already imposed and additional regulations that are being placed on 

the power plants of the United States of America will make it more 

difficult to use coal, which is now 50 percent of our source, and if 

you eliminate that as a source, you are going to raise the cost of 

electricity, therefore making it harder for people to heat their 

homes. 

Ms. JACKSON. We are not intending to eliminate coal as a source 

of fuel. That is not the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

What we are saying is that we can use the Clean Air Act to make 

a start in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And I am wondering if you all have looked at the 

possibility that since I believe that you will send a number of jobs 

overseas that the Chinese and the Indians and even the Ukrainians are going to use coal from my district and other districts 

around the United States that the impact of that is that we actually have more manufacturing in areas where they are not doing 

even the reasonable things that we are doing at this point, therefore contributing to the global environment additional pollutants in 

the air which will actually harm Americans more than what you 

believe your actions will solve. 

Ms. JACKSON. As I said earlier, sir, changing the future with respect to climate change for our planet is going to require all nations to do something but I do not believe that means that we all 

therefore must start at the same time. Parts of Europe have already started, so clearly it is not—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, I think everyone has had an opportunity 

to ask questions. Ms. Jackson, we appreciate your taking time to 

be with us. We are going to be having some hearings on the air 

transport rules, new source review, fly ash, some other issues, and 

so we look forward to your coming back to have additional discussions with us. 

I know throughout this questioning period with you, a number 

of members said they were going to be submitting written questions for you to answer. Who on your staff should we be particularly focused on to deal with that issue? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, I always accept correspondence from members but the head of my Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental relations is David McIntosh, if you would prefer to direct 

your staff towards him. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. David McIntosh? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman, but I will take any questions 

you have. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you very much, and at this time I 

would like to call up the third panel, and that is the Hon. Greg Abbott, who is Attorney General of the State of Texas; Mr. Steve 

Cousins, Vice President of Lion Oil Company; Mr. Harry Alford, 

President and CEO, National Black Chamber of Commerce; Mr. 

Lonnie Carter, President and CEO of Santee Cooper; Mr. Steve 

72 

Rowlan, General Manager, Environmental Affairs, Nucor Corporation; Betsey Blaisdell, Senior Manager of Environmental Stewardship, the Timberland Company; and Mr. James Pearce, Director of 

Manufacturing for FMC Corporation. 

OK. I want to thank all of you. You have been very patient 

today, and yet this is an issue of great importance. It has significant impact on our country in a lot of different ways, so we look 

forward to the testimony of all of you. Mr. Abbott, you are the Attorney General of Texas. We are going to start with you. We will 

recognize you for 5 minutes for your opening statement, and then 

we will go right down the line, and before we ask any questions 

we will have all of you complete your opening statements, so Mr. 

Abbott. 

STATEMENTS OF GREG ABBOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE 

OF TEXAS; HARRY C. ALFORD, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL BLACK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; STEVE ROWLAN, 

GENERAL MANAGER, ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, NUCOR 

CORPORATION; JAMES PEARCE, DIRECTOR OF MANUFACTURING, FMC CORPORATION; STEVE COUSINS, VICE PRESIDENT, LIONS OIL COMPANY; LONNIE N. CARTER, PRESIDENT 

AND CEO, SANTEE COOPER; AND BETSEY BLAISDELL, SENIOR MANAGER OF ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP, THE 

TIMBERLAND COMPANY 

STATEMENT OF GREG ABBOTT 

Mr. ABBOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

appear before this subcommittee. As you noted, my name is Greg 

Abbott and I am the Attorney General of the State of Texas, and 

I want to first point out that in my submitted remarks I have more 

detail about this but Texas has strived to work very effectively 

with the EPA to enforce environmental laws. Texas also strives to 

prevent political before it occurs. Ozone and NOx emissions have 

been on a steady decline in Texas since 2000. Texas has installed 

more wind power than any other State and achieved one of the 

largest declines in greenhouse gas emissions of any State in the 

Nation. Texas remains committed to working with the EPA to improve air quality and to hold polluters accountable, but Texas cannot support the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases. Texas believes the EPA has ignored the plain language of the Clean Air Act, 

violated notice and comment requirements, and attempted to rewrite federal laws written by the United States Congress by the 

administrative rulemaking process. 

Texas lodges several challenges to the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases. For now I will try to plug in just three of them that 

reveal legal problems with the EPA’s regulations. One that you all 

talked about already a lot this morning is the tailoring rule. The 

Clean Air Act defines in precise numerical terms the emission 

thresholds that trigger permitting requirements for stationary 

sources. The EPA concedes that regulation of greenhouse gases at 

these statutory thresholds produce results ‘‘inconsistent with the 

congressional intent concerning the Clean Air Act’’ by subjecting 

thousands of schools, churches, farms, small businesses to Clean 

Air Act regulation. These admittedly absurd results indicate that 

73 

greenhouse gases simply are not the kind of substance the Clean 

Air Act was designed to regulate. Well, dissatisfied with Congress’s 

clear instructions, the EPA attempted to amend by administrative 

fiat the Clean Air Act. EPA calls the revised language its tailoring 

rule and we believe that the EPA has violated the Clean Air Act 

by its tailoring rule. 

Texas also challenged the EPA’s SIP call rule. The Clean Air Act 

empowers the EPA to require States to amend their permitting 

programs by issuing a SIP call. The Act gives States up to 3 years 

to bring their regulatory program into compliance with major federal mandates such as the greenhouse gas regulations. When the 

EPA issued the SIP call rule on September 2, 2010, it gave States 

just 15 months until December 2, 2011, to change their laws and 

regulations to comply with the new greenhouse gas mandate. The 

EPA shortening the time frame violates the Clean Air Act by giving 

States just 15 months, rather than the congressionally mandated 

36 months. 

Texas also challenged the EPA’s FIP rule. In August 2010, we informed the EPA that Texas would not satisfy the EPA’s greenhouse 

gas demands. A few months later in late October 2010, an assistant 

EPA administrator filed a sworn statement in federal court swearing that the EPA could not take over Texas air permitting program 

until December 2, 2011, at the earliest, meaning almost 10 months 

from this very day. Well, despite that sworn statement, the EPA 

did a 180-degree turn on December 23rd and issued an emergency 

FIP rule in an attempt to immediately federalize Texas’s air permit 

program. When it suddenly changed courses, the EPA not only 

acted duplicitously, it also violated the Administrative Procedures 

Act, which requires the EPA to solicit notice and comment from the 

public. The EPA’s FIP rule, however, was issued without notice and 

comment period at all in direct violation of federal law. 

Not only did the FIP rule violate the notice and comment required by the APA, it was promulgated just before the Christmas 

and New Year’s holidays in an obvious attempt to minimize public 

scrutiny. The EPA had known for more than 4 months that Texas 

would not comply with the SIP call rule and yet it waited until just 

before Christmas to announce without public comment or notice 

that a supposed emergency required it to seize control of the air 

permitting system in Texas just 2 weeks later on January 2, 2011. 

These are some of the reasons why Texas is lodging its legal challenges against the EPA. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Abbott follows:] 

74 


65734.134
75 


65734.135
76 


65734.136
77 


65734.137
78 


65734.138
79 


65734.139
80 


65734.140
81 


65734.141
82 


65734.142
83 


65734.143
84 


65734.144
85 


65734.145
86 


65734.146
87 


65734.147
88 


65734.148
89 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Abbott. 

At this time I recognize Mr. Alford with the Chamber of Commerce. 

STATEMENT OF HARRY C. ALFORD 

Mr. ALFORD. Chairman Whitfield, Mr. Vice Chairman, distinguished members of this committee, thank you for having me. I am 

Harry C. Alford, President and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. 

After failing to persuade the American public of its intentions to 

pass a cap-and-trade program through the legislative process, the 

Obama Administration has now unleashed its Environmental Protection Agency to tackle climate change with non-transparent, burdensome regulations. This bureaucratic zeal is not only disastrous 

for American consumers and businesses at large but also particularly threatening to the future of prosperity of black communities. 

The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, introduced by Representatives Upton and Whitfield and Senator Inhofe, offers our 

Nation a much-needed reprieve from this EPA overreach and it is 

my hope that both Democrats and Republicans will join this new 

effort to stop the agency’s power grab of our domestic climate policy. Congress must be in charge of policymaking for such a serious 

issue, one that touches the lives and welfare of virtually every 

American, not unelected officials with zero accountability. 

The Act aims to protect American jobs and businesses, especially 

in light of increasing competition from developing nations such as 

China. Again, for the African American business community and 

black workers nationwide, EPA’s regulatory overreach will kill 

their competitiveness and innovation and impose significant burdens to new employment. 

Back in 1979, manufacturing employment here in America 

reached its high point, providing jobs to roughly 19.6 million Americans. Since then, we have lost more than 8 million manufacturing 

jobs. Now, many of the factories that once employed our workers 

here in the United States are now popping up in China, Indonesia 

and other Asian countries. 

When I was a young man, I began my career in Detroit. Upon 

revisiting throughout the years, I can attest to how cumbersome 

government regulations have come to destroy small businesses and 

starve families. EPA’s plan to implement emission regulations will 

sadly result in far greater strife. This strife will be borne particularly hard by the African American labor force, one that has not 

only been underrepresented in the workforce historically but also 

badly wounded since the financial meltdown. Today 16.5 percent of 

African American men and women are out of work and the situation is only getting worse. According to a new study by the Economic Policy Institute, the black unemployment rate is projected to 

hit a 25-year high by the third quarter of this year. 

Additional EPA proposals that have sought to tighten air quality 

standards with regard to ozone exemplified mammoth business-destroying implications as well. For instance, the National Federation 

of Independent Business found that as many as 675 counties across 

the United States would violate the proposed standards, triggering 

job-killing mandates, costly compliance fees and financial penalties 

90 

for businesses in those areas. Just imagine how businesses would 

be forced to close and how many workers would be laid off if EPA’s 

broader proposal to implement a regulatory cap-and-trade scheme 

is successful. 

Long story short: the environment belongs to everyone. For EPA 

to think that it can use the Clean Air Act to now ram through costprohibitive climate regulation is something I will not stomach and 

it certainly is not something that the African American business 

community is prepared to accept either. While paying a higher 

heating bill this month or doling out money for gasoline on the way 

into the office from McLean or Bethesda may mean little to government bureaucrats, people living paycheck to paycheck and small 

businesses trying to get by simply cannot afford it, especially now. 

I applaud all members of the legislature who are working hard 

to make sure that EPA does not enact a cap-and-trade scheme and 

therefore are standing up for not only America’s economic future 

but also for the well-being of our Nation’s African American community specifically. 

Again, thank you for this opportunity to testify here this morning 

on the important of the Energy Tax Prevention Act and halting 

EPA’s regulatory overreach. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Alford follows:] 

91 


65734.149
92 


65734.150
93 


65734.151
94 


65734.152
95 


65734.153
96 


65734.154
97 


65734.155
98 


65734.156
99 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Alford. 

Mr. Rowlan with Nucor Corporation, you are recognized for 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE ROWLAN 

Mr. ROWLAN. Thank you. I am Steve Rowlan, General Manager 

of Environmental Affairs for Nucor Corporation. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield and Vice Chairman Sullivan, for this invitation to 

testify today on the impact of greenhouse gas regulations on our industry and other industries in our Nation’s economy. 

Nucor is the largest steel producer and recycler in the United 

States. We employ over 20,000 teammates in 23 States and 

produce steel products for use in road, bridges, automobiles, appliances, buildings and a range of other markets. 

The impact of the great recession on the steel industry was swift 

and severe. In August of 2008, steel capacity utilization was over 

90 percent. By January 2009, capacity utilization had plummeted 

to 36 percent. In a mere 5 months, the industry went from experiencing strong growth and excellent market conditions to the worst 

economy many of us in the industry have ever seen. Despite how 

bad that market got, Nucor did not lay off a single worker. 

The economic conditions for the steel industry are improving. Capacity utilization has increased and we are seeing a return in demand. However, the strength and duration of the economic recovery remains to be seen. Greenhouse gas regulations are adding to 

this uncertainty. 

U.S. steel producers are in a highly competitive global market 

that will only get more competitive in the future. We face unfair 

practices from steelmakers in countries like China, and increasingly, we are not competing against other companies, but against 

governments, governments who bring their full weight to bear to 

ensure the success of their domestic industry through the use of 

subsidies, generous loans and other protectionist measures. I would 

say that is a pretty strong headwind to compete against. And the 

uncertainty created by our government’s many regulatory proposals 

only adds to that headwind and diminishes the competitiveness of 

many U.S. industries. 

From an environmental perspective, America is the best place in 

the world to make steel. Our industry has reduced its energy-intensity by 30 percent since 1990, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 35 percent over the same time period while increasing 

overall production. This significantly exceeds the Kyoto Protocol 

targets. In fact, the U.S. steel industry has the lowest CO2 emissions per ton in the world. What is more, companies like Nucor 

have made steel the most recycled product in the world. As the Nation’s largest recycler, Nucor kept more than 17 million tons of 

scrap metal from cars, appliances, and other discarded products out 

of landfills in 2010. The recycled scrap is then melted down 

through the use of electrical energy and made into new steel products. 

Because greenhouse gas emissions are a global issue, regulation 

through the Clean Air Act threatens both our competitiveness and 

the environmental benefit that results from making steel so cleanly 

in the United States. Ironically, these very regulations and pracVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:01 Apr 26, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-2 020911\112-2 CHRIS
100 

tices that are intended to improve the environment actually result 

in increased global emissions and more environmental impact than 

if the industry had remained in the United States. 

The problems these regulations create manifest themselves in 

the permitting process and other ways. Everyone expresses concern 

about permitting and the impact these rules have on our ability to 

build industrial projects that create jobs and improve people’s livelihoods. However, this is not a new problem. Over time, we have 

created a system that is comprised of endless reviews, hearings, allegations, lawsuits and continued modeling that has turned our 

permitting process into a slow, frustrating experience that has 

eliminated the certainty necessary for the expenditure of capital. I 

have been quoted as saying it is like being in a hamster wheel. The 

lack of availability of affordable energy also remains a real obstacle. 

Due to the continual halting of permits for new, traditional 

sources of energy generation and constantly promoting the development of expensive so-called green energy, we as a Nation are essentially pricing ourselves out of the industrial market. Mechanisms 

such as greenhouse gas rules, regional cap-and-trade programs, renewable energy standards and other permit battles are creating an 

environment where affordable energy, the lifeblood of industry, is 

becoming a rare commodity. For example, I modeled a facility that 

would recycle a million tons of steel and I looked at it in areas that 

had a renewable energy standard versus areas that had no renewable energy standard, and the difference in electrical cost was $52 

million a year. As I presented that to the people in that particular 

State, I asked where we would build that facility, and they said not 

in our State. That is why you see industry moving to areas that 

have affordable and abundant energy. 

It looks like I am about out of time. We have something said 

about a permit that was recently issued to Nucor. I will tell you 

that we did receive a permit for a significantly diminished project 

versus the $2.1 billion we were going to invest. That permit, however, for that project, which will be phase 2, is still not fully issued. 

It is stayed pending some further actions. Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rowlan follows:] 

101 


65734.157
102 


65734.158
103 


65734.159
104 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Rowlan. 

At this time I recognize Mr. Pearce for 5 minutes, and Mr. 

Pearce is Director of Manufacturing for FMC. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES PEARCE 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rush and members of the committee. My name is Jim Pearce, and I am the Manufacturing Director for FMC’s Alkali Division, and I thank you for 

holding the hearing on this important topic. 

FMC is a diversified chemical company manufacturing products 

for the food and pharmaceutical industries, for lithium batteries 

and energy storage. Our FMC products are used in a wide range 

of industrial usage and new applications to improve the environment. 

In Green River, Wyoming, where I live and work, we are the 

world’s largest producer of sodium carbonate, better known as soda 

ash. The largest use of soda ash is in glass manufacturing, including food, juice, beer and wine containers, fiberglass, and flat glass 

for autos, houses, and buildings. It is also used in a number of 

household products such as a water softener, and it is the primary 

ingredient in powdered home laundry detergents. In Wyoming, we 

produce soda ash from naturally occurring trona ore that is mined 

from underground deposits. The four companies that comprise the 

so-called trona patch in Sweetwater, Wyoming employ over 2,100 

people and account for roughly 90 percent of the domestic soda ash 

production in the United States and 25 of total global soda ash production. In addition, there are some 100 dockworkers in Portland, 

Oregon, and we estimate an additional 8,300 jobs nationwide that 

are dependent on our industry. 

Mr. Chairman, today American soda ash production is one of the 

good news stories in manufacturing. Our industry is a prime example of how government trade and lands policies can work to help 

sustain a U.S. manufacturing base. At FMC, we have improved our 

energy efficiency of our soda ash operations by 10 percent over the 

past 10 years, and as an entire company we have met our commitment to the Chicago Climate Exchange Program reducing our 

greenhouse gas emissions by 10 percent from 2003 to 2010. For 

FMC, energy efficiency simply represents smart business. 

The current U.S. approach to regulating greenhouse gases not 

only fails to incentivize us to achieve greater energy efficiency, but 

over time it may lead U.S. natural soda ash producers to lose business to our off-shore rivals, mainly the Chinese, who produce their 

soda ash synthetically. Synthetic soda ash generates an average of 

30 percent greater greenhouse gas emissions per ton than does 

soda ash mined from natural resources. 

Mr. Chairman, our jobs growth in the natural soda ash industry 

is fueled by exports. The U.S. natural soda ash industry contributes over $875 million in surplus to the overall U.S. balance of 

trade, and our export sales have grown at 61⁄2 percent per year 

over the last 28 years. This represents a significant contribution to 

the President’s goal of increasing U.S. exports. It also contributes 

to job growth. FMC recently announced that we will be adding 100 

new jobs in Green River as a result of export growth, directly exports. Domestic soda ash producers export 52 percent of what we 

105 

produce, 52 percent. That means that one of our every two jobs is 

directly attributable to export sales. 

Keeping our lead is not something that we take for granted, nor 

has Congress. For example, the Congress saw fit to reduce the royalties that we pay on soda ash, realizing that the export increase 

would result in higher Treasury revenues, yet the pressure to remain competitive continue to grow. As an example, in 1990 China 

imported about 1 million tons per year of soda ash. Today, they are 

the world’s largest producer of soda ash and export about 2.5 million tons per year. 

We have serious concerns about our future and our competitive 

position if not required to make non-economic decisions based on 

domestic regulations that our international competitors do not have 

to comply with. We do not understand why U.S. manufacturers 

should be required to make costly changes when less-efficient and 

higher greenhouse gas-emitting foreign competition does not. 

A Southeast Asian glass manufacturer will not buy from a U.S. 

soda ash producer whose prices are high simply because of U.S. 

regulations. Rather, they will buy from the lower-cost foreign competition that produces more greenhouse gas emissions. 

We ask Congress to take the long view on this matter and understand that acting in isolation may place the domestic soda ash industry at a significant competitive disadvantage while increasing 

the overall greenhouse gas global emissions. We would hope that 

Congress would fully debate the energy policies and drive energy 

efficiency in a way that not only maintains jobs but grows them 

along with exports. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pearce follows:] 

106 


65734.160
107 


65734.161
108 


65734.162
109 


65734.163
110 


65734.164
111 


65734.165
112 


65734.166
113 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Pearce. 

Mr. Cousins, you are recognized for 5 minutes, of Lion Oil Company. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE COUSINS 

Mr. COUSINS. Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, members of the subcommittee. My name is Steve Cousins. I serve as 

Vice President of Lion Oil Company. I am a chemical engineer and 

I have spent my 33-year career at Lion Oil. 

My company’s survival and our employees’ jobs are threatened by 

the Environmental Protection Agency’s moves to regulate greenhouse gas under the Clean Air Act. We believe these actions by the 

EPA are contrary to the plain wording of the Clean Air Act, are 

unwise and endanger America’s economic and national security. 

This is why it is so important that you approve the Energy Tax 

Prevention Act of 2011 to stop EPA from moving forward with its 

regulations. 

Lion Oil is in El Dorado, Arkansas. We have been in business for 

88 years. We produce 80,000 barrels a day of gasoline, diesel and 

asphalt. We sell to customers in seven States, and we have 600 

people at our unionized El Dorado plant. We employ indirectly approximately 1,800 other people that support our company. We are 

in rural Delta County, where unemployment runs about 10 percent. 

I can give you one personal example of how EPA’s current regulatory path has already inflicted real pain on the people in our 

small town. Lion Oil undertook a major expansion, several hundred 

million dollars, starting in 2007. The projected created 2,000 construction jobs in a town with only 20,000 people in it. It was a real 

shot in the arm for our economy. Unfortunately, economic risk prevented us from reaching our goal. It left us with a much smaller 

project that provided much fewer jobs. The uncertainty and the potentially prohibitive costs associated with both at that time capand-trade legislation and also EPA’s looming greenhouse gas legislation were critical factors leading us to delay completion of this expansion. 

Ironically at the very same time construction jobs were being terminated in El Dorado, Arkansas, in India, more than 75,000 workers were embarking on a 3-year project to build a brand-new stateof-the-art refineries 15 times larger than our plant. It is designed 

purely for export purposes. Every drop of gasoline and diesel they 

produce is going to end up in the United States or the European 

Union. And while our Arkansas union workers average over $23 an 

hour in wages, in India those same workers make about $5 an 

hour. 

It is going to take a crystal ball to determine exactly how the 

EPA enforces efficiency standards on refineries. We think that that 

is a likely thing we heard the Administrator testify to, and it 

sounds like a great idea but it sets up a scenario that we see where 

a small plant like ours is compared to plants five to ten times our 

size. Economies of scale always favor larger plants, the same way 

a 747 airliner uses a lot less fuel per passenger mile than a Piper 

Cub because it is larger and can be designed at far higher efficiency standards. Our plant, if we are held to the largest plants in 

114 

the world to the same efficiency standards, then there is no cost 

that will allow us to achieve this. It would be out of reach and it 

will put us out of business. EPA has traditionally not shown the 

kind of flexibility that you would have to have to allow for those 

differences. 

In spite of our alarm at EPA’s current path, Lion Oil is not in 

favor of turning back to the clock on environmental progress. We 

are very proud of what we have done. Since 1996, we reduced emissions from our facility by 73 percent while actually increasing plant 

throughput but it has come at a very high cost. Expenditures at 

our small facility has topped $200 million in that time period in 

new environmental equipment with more than $19 million in increased operating costs. These costs are for the most part things 

that foreign refineries do not have to bear, and while many of these 

improvements offer real tangible environmental benefits, that is 

not true for EPA’s plan to regulate greenhouse gases. Reducing 

U.S. greenhouse gases unilaterally, which is all EPA has the ability 

to do, will not reduce global concentrations of greenhouse gases at 

all, not significantly, and will most likely result in the export of 

U.S. jobs to countries not interested in greenhouse gas limits. This 

is exactly why the EPA does not need to be in the greenhouse gas 

regulation business. 

Under the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, our elected representatives in Congress will have the ability to create a balanced 

and workable energy policy that does not disadvantage American 

workers. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cousins follows:] 

115 


65734.167
116 


65734.168
117 


65734.169
118 


65734.170
119 


65734.171
120 


65734.172
121 


65734.173
122 


65734.174
123 


65734.175
124 


65734.176
125 


65734.177
126 


65734.178
127 


65734.179
128 


65734.180
129 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Cousins. 

At this time I recognize Mr. Carter for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LONNIE CARTER 

Mr. CARTER. Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush and 

members of the subcommittee, my name is Lonnie Carter and I am 

the President and Chief Executive Officer of Santee Cooper, the 

South Carolina Public Service Authority. While I am currently 

serving as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the American 

Public Power Association, my comments and presence here today 

solely represent those of Santee Cooper. 

Santee Cooper has been a resource for improving the health, welfare, and material success of the residents of South Carolina. Santee Cooper is guided—— 

Mr. UPTON. Excuse me. Is that—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Is your microphone on? 

Mr. CARTER. It has got a little green light that says it is on. Is 

that better? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. That is better. Thanks. 

Mr. CARTER. It may be that slow southern accent that is slowing 

you down. 

We are still handling our mission for improving the quality of life 

for the people of South Carolina by providing low-cost, reliable 

power and water to our customers while being good environmental 

stewards. As South Carolina’s State-owned electric and water utility, we have served 2 million customers either directly or indirectly. 

We are accountable for keeping electricity affordable and the lights 

on. 

Our industry is at a time of unprecedented change and challenge, 

the likes of which I have not seen in my 28 years in this industry, 

bringing with it uncertainty and high cost to customers. I am very 

concerned about the many proposed EPA regulations and what 

they may mean in the short and long term. As a public power entity, we have no shareholders to share the cost of regulations. We 

are literally where the rubber meets the road. We are the State’s 

leader in renewable energy with 197 megawatts of renewable generation already online or under contract. They are voluntary business decisions that successfully balance low cost, reliability and 

care for the environment. 

Santee Cooper has been a leader in installing environmental control technology and in fact already reduces nitrogen oxide by over 

90 percent and sulfur dioxide by as much as 90 percent through 

SCRs and scrubbing at our generating stations. We launched a 

$113 million comprehensive energy efficiency campaign for our customers in 2009. We are also a leader in this Nation’s reentry into 

the nuclear energy arena on tap to build two new nuclear facility 

in 2016 and 2019 with our partner, SCANA. 

If I were not here today, I would be at an economic development 

announcement. One of our largest industrial customers, Showa 

Denko Carbon, Inc., is announcing a multiple-hundred million dollar investment to expand their facility. This project will create approximately 100 new jobs. Here is my point. By far the biggest concern going forward with this project is the uncertainty created by 

EPA’s greenhouse gas and non-greenhouse gas regulations. This 

130 

example highlights the issues with greenhouse gas regulations. The 

proposed regulations will result in higher costs and greater uncertainty for my customers. 

EPA also announced its desire to address greenhouse gases for 

the power sector through new source performance standards that 

will set emission guidelines for existing facilities. There is currently 

no off-the-shelf technology available to address greenhouse gas 

emissions at a commercial scale, making it different in like and 

kind from other emissions regulated under the Clean Air Act. New 

construction projects will likely be significantly delayed because 

there is no clarity in how to address greenhouse gases and PDS 

permits. EPA’s failure to provide the necessary tools, information 

and direction will lead to permits being delayed and complex legal 

challenges to permits. 

The Clean Air Act simply is not designed to address greenhouse 

gas emissions. The policy to limit greenhouse gas emissions should 

be set by Congress. Setting a path forward regulating greenhouse 

gas emissions under the Clean Air Act would stifle an already slow 

permitting process, raise costs, limit economic development and industrial growth around our country at a time when we need jobs 

the most. 

EPA also plans to adopt numerous new rules over the next few 

years including coal ash, maximum available control technology 

standards, cooling water intake rules, air quality standards for 

ozone, lead and particulate matter. Individually, they represent sizable cost impacts. Together, they could be enough to significantly 

curtail the economic development and force many premature closings of low-cost, reliable power facilities that keep our Nation running. 

I support Chairman Upton’s proposal that would remove regulation of greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act. The secret to success 

is a balanced and thoughtful approach that factors in the cost impacts of these proposed regulations to customers. 

Thank you for this opportunity and for your attention, and I am 

happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carter follows:] 

131 


65734.181
132 


65734.182
133 


65734.183
134 


65734.184
135 


65734.185
136 


65734.186
137 


65734.187
138 


65734.188
139 


65734.189
140 


65734.190
141 


65734.191
142 


65734.192
143 


65734.193
144 


65734.194
145 


65734.195
146 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Blaisdell, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BETSEY BLAISDELL 

Ms. BLAISDELL. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Whitfield, 

Ranking Member Rush and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing. I am here on behalf of the Timberland Company, which produces boots, clothing and gear for the outdoors. 

I am also here on behalf of BICEP, which stands for Businesses 

for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy. We are a group of major 

consumer household brand companies such as Nike, Starbucks, 

Levi Strauss and Co., Best Buy, Target, Symantec, Gap, Aspen Ski 

Company. Timberland and the other BICEP companies believe that 

we need strong energy and climate policies to protect our supply 

chain, ensure market certainty as well as to help create jobs, level 

the playing field among businesses, enhance economic development 

and ensure global competitiveness as we move into the future. 

While we prefer congressional action to executive branch regulation, the latter is necessary when Congress leadership is lacking. 

Current EPA regulations as well as those under development 

would help protect our economy as well as human health and the 

environment. 

Mr. Chairman, we couldn’t agree more with a couple of statements you made in your press releasing highlighting your premises 

for introducing the legislation that is the topic of today’s hearing. 

That is, number one, Congress, not EPA bureaucrats, should be in 

charge of setting America’s climate change policy, and secondly, a 

2-year delay of EPA’s cap-and-trade agenda provides no meaningful 

certainty for job creators, fails to protect jobs and puts decisionmaking in Congress on a critically important economic issue past 

voters and the election year. 

Indeed, Congress should be setting America’s climate policy, and 

the 2-year delay would create more uncertainty and lead to other 

problems, as you correctly point out. I will come back to these 

points in a moment. 

You are probably wondering why Timberland and the other 

BICEP companies care about climate and energy policies. We care 

because our supply chains are affected by current and projected climate impacts while materials for Timberland products as well as 

Levi and Gap jeans, Nike Sneakers, Starbucks coffee plantations, 

they all depend on water. If there is less water due to the projected 

climate change impacts, we all struggle to produce our products 

and meet the demands of our consumers and we will continue to 

suffer as weather events grow in severity and frequency, which interrupt our ability to move products to consumers. This costs us 

both time and money. Moreover, and this is very important, our 

employees and consumers are demanding that we take actions to 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

For a global company, addressing climate change is no small 

task. We need policies hat will create long-term market certainty 

that parallels our planning timelines. I realize some entities want 

no action at all. However, many more companies recognize that we 

need to act to address this critically important economic issue we 

147 

are facing right now, and acting sooner rather than later is more 

prudent and cheaper in the long run and will help avoid the worst 

potential projected impacts and hopefully help avoid more costly 

scenarios down the road that might occur if we do nothing in the 

near term. Failure to act would be more costly to our businesses 

and consumers down the road. Thus, for Timberland and other 

BICEP companies, acting to address climate change is a business 

imperative. 

Timberland is taking steps to be a leader in sustainability. In 

2006, we actually voluntarily capped our own greenhouse gas emissions. Since then we have reduced our emissions for our facilities 

and operations by more than 40 percent, which has saved us over 

$1 million a year, which is a significant savings for a company like 

ours during this tough economy. Investing in renewable energy in 

States like California has proven to be an effective hedge for rapidly rising utility costs. Energy efficiency in our corporate facilities 

and stores has cut energy consumption by more than 30 percent 

with a payback of under 2 years, usually under one. Nutrition labels on our product communicate our progress to consumers. These 

labels combined with Earthkeepers footwear, which is designed to 

have a smaller climate impact, have helped drive remarkable 

growth while many of our competitors have struggled to survive. 

In your home State of Kentucky, Mr. Chairman, after several 

years of conversation with the local utility, we finally negotiated a 

deal to source electricity from a certified small-scale hydropower facility on the Kentucky River. We pay a premium for that power, 

but the benefits far outweigh the costs. Our climate impact is dramatically reduced and the local community benefits from having an 

emissions-free renewable source of power that is a scenic learning 

lab for children in and around Danville. 

While Congress could be creating America’s climate policy and 

while most businesses prefer this route, because Congress has 

failed to do so, we must fall back on EPA’s authority and regulations. Preventing EPA from exercising its authority or rolling back 

any of its actions would cost the economy in human health in terms 

of illness and often results in lost work days and more. More specifically, in 2005 alone the Clean Air Act protections helped avoid 

13 million lost work days, thereby helping maintain our Nation’s 

economic productivity. 

On the second point in your press release, again, we agree, a 2- 

year delay on EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions would 

enhance uncertainty in the marketplace and hinder job creation as 

well as delay critical decisions that Congress should in fact be making. So rather than going after EPA’s ability to regulate including 

repealing a number of its current actions, Congress should act responsibly and develop sound energy and climate policy. Some of 

America’s largest businesses stand ready to work with you, to work 

with Congress to develop responsible policies in this area. In lieu 

of such action, however, EPA must be allowed to do its job, and let 

me reiterate, we would like to be here. Many U.S. businesses including the BICEP companies in fact do prefer EPA regulation to 

no protections at all, as I previously mentioned. 

I look forward to constructive policy debates moving forward that 

focus on the best ways in which businesses can work with you to 

148 

develop sound energy policies, policies with which many business 

would resoundingly agree. Let us work on a bipartisan basis to 

produce sound energy policies we can all be proud of and which virtually everyone on and off Capitol Hill recognize will help move us 

toward a better path for job creation, economic growth and global 

competitiveness. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Blaisdell follows:] 

149 


65734.196
150 


65734.197
151 


65734.198
152 


65734.199
153 


65734.200
154 


65734.201
155 


65734.202
156 


65734.203
157 

Mr. WHITFIELD. We have two votes on the House floor. We have 

about 3 minutes left to vote, so we are going to go over there. We 

are going to take a break and hopefully be back by 2:00 and then 

we will get to the questions and then we will go right to the third 

panel. So why don’t you all go have a glass or lemonade or something. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to call the hearing back to order, 

please, and I am very sorry you all had to wait a little bit longer 

while we finished these votes, but I want to thank you for your testimony, and I will start off with questioning here and then we will 

go on down the line. 

First of all, Mr. Rowlan, I just want to follow up one thing. You 

mentioned something about $52 million a year in additional costs 

in renewable mandate States versus non-renewable mandate 

States. Would you clarify that for me one more time? 

Mr. ROWLAN. I was speaking to a business group, and I was 

showing the impact of a renewable energy standard on their utility 

rates, which is something that concerns us significantly. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. 

Mr. ROWLAN. Economical power is the lifeblood of industry, and 

I looked at several northeast States and some other States scattered throughout the country that had an RES standard, and then 

I compared that with, I think it was South Carolina and Arkansas 

without an RES standard, took the average commercial rate that 

we would have been charged, and the difference from the high end 

to the low end was $52 million annually. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Wow. 

Mr. ROWLAN. And that is just for the average amount of power 

for what we would be considered a medium-sized facility for us. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, I know in Kentucky we do not have a renewable mandate, and our electricity rates are around 7 cents per 

kilowatt hour, which is pretty good. But you point out a good issue 

because the key for the United States and our growing economy is 

to maintain a global competitiveness, be competitive in the global 

marketplace, and if we unilaterally start adopting some of these 

rules like Ms. Jackson has on greenhouse gases, which even she 

admitted is not going to have any dramatic impact on greenhouse 

gases, and other countries are not taking any action, so it is really 

putting us at a disadvantage. 

Ms. Blaisdell, I know that you support her actions, and you came 

up and we talked a little bit about Danville, Kentucky. Do you all 

have a plant in Danville, Kentucky? 

Ms. BLAISDELL. We have a distribution center. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Oh, a distribution center. How many plants do 

you all have in the United States? 

Ms. BLAISDELL. Are you talking about how many facilities or how 

many—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Where you actually make the product. 

Ms. BLAISDELL. We do not own a manufacturing plant in the 

United States. Most of the products that we manufacture come 

from factories we outsource from. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. From which countries? 

158 

Ms. BLAISDELL. All over the world. We do source from the United 

States as well. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Oh, okay. 

Ms. BLAISDELL. We just don’t own any in the United States. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Oh, okay. Well, time is running out here, but I 

just want to summarize in my view what Ms. Jackson said. She 

placed a lot of emphasis on the importance of certainty, and she 

also placed a lot of emphasis on being reasonable, and I really find 

myself puzzled by that because she also said really there is no technology available to control greenhouse gases, and then she said so 

the only thing we can do is that we can deal with efficiency, and 

then our friend Mr. Doyle from Pennsylvania said well, that seems 

perfectly reasonable, but in my view, companies are going to try to 

be as efficient as they can be in order to compete in the marketplace, and basically what we are doing here is, we are having government bureaucrats go in and say this is what you need to do to 

be efficient. And even if the State implementation plan or State enforcers say you do this, this and this to be efficient, there is not 

anything to preclude EPA from coming back and overruling them 

or changing it or whatever. And then you get to under the preventing significant deterioration the best available control technology, and it is my understanding that the State implementers or 

State regulators could conceivably even require you to switch your 

fuel; instead of coal or oil or natural gas, whatever, we want you 

to use wind power, that there was not anything in there that would 

prohibit that. 

And I just find it almost impossible to believe that she would 

refer to that as being certain, there is certainty here, and so the 

business people like that. I mean, the real issue is, we have a high 

unemployment rate. We are trying to compete in the global marketplace. We do want certainty, and in my view, there is not any 

way—at least she did say this. She said we have to have coal, for 

example, and natural gas and nuclear and all of that because as 

I said in my opening statements, our energy demands are going to 

double by the year 2035. And so I am assuming you all would agree 

with what I am saying. Ms. Blaisdell may not agree. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROWLAN. I will give you a real interesting example. We heat 

our steel up to roll it into a shape, and that is called a reheat furnace, and the Clean Air Act BACT for the burners in that is what 

is called reduce NOx or low NOx burner, which requires us to actually be less efficient. We actually limit the heat on it so that we 

create less NOx. So we are using more energy in order to keep NOx

down. As we get into a greenhouse gas rule, are faced with the 

exact opposite of that. We are tied up in, do you raise NOx so that 

you lower CO2 or do you raise CO2 so that you keep NOx down. 

And that is the paradox that we are in. 

We also are caught up with that in CO, our CO emissions. Typically we put some oxygen with them as they come out of our furnace and convert them to CO2 so now if we limit our CO2 by not 

putting the oxygen in and burning it off afterwards, we are going 

to raise our CO, which is a criteria pollutant. So there is a lot of 

really difficult questions that would have to be asked if this were 

to go forward under the Clean Air Act, and frankly, I don’t think 

159 

some of the people are prepared to give us answers on it or make 

the decision. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. Well, I agree with you. 

Mr. Rush, I will recognize you for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Attorney General Abbott, first of all, I want to congratulate you 

on some of the standards and your activities and your accomplishments as it relates to alternative energy. I understand from your 

testimony that your State is number one in the use of wind energy, 

and I certainly want to congratulate you and your State for those 

efforts. I know that you have a cheerleader here in Mr. Barton and 

so I am not going to congratulate you too much because I don’t 

want to take some of his thunder away from. 

Suffice it to say that in spite of scholarly debates over the proper 

standards of judicial review of agency action or inaction under section 706 of the APA, in light of the Chevron Doctrine, the federal 

courts including the Supreme Court have been deferential to an 

agency’s statutory interpretation where those interpretations are 

reasonable. This Chevron level of deference exceeds even the level 

of deference an appellate court must accord to trial courts under 

the de novo standard. De novo can be triggered when trial courts 

interpret laws like the Clean Air Act. Can you explain how the Supreme Court, that the outcome is wrong in the Massachusetts v. 

EPA decision? Were they deferring to the EPA’s interpretation? 

Can you explain why and how the Supreme Court got it wrong? 

Mr. ABBOTT. Will I explain how the Supreme Court got it wrong? 

Mr. RUSH. Yes, your interpretation, from your point of view, how 

is the Supreme Court’s decision wrong? 

Mr. ABBOTT. Well, I think the Supreme Court decision is wrong 

because I don’t think that it requires the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases but the fact of the matter is, I think under the Supreme Court’s decision, it still did not mandate that the EPA must 

conclude that greenhouse gases pose an endangerment and it still 

provided certain other latitude for operating room for the EPA to 

operate as has been discussed in testimony throughout the course 

of the day. 

Mr. RUSH. So are you saying that they were wrong because they 

did not mandate it? Is that what is wrong with the Supreme Court 

decision? 

Mr. ABBOTT. Well, yes. 

Mr. RUSH. The reason why I ask that question is because you say 

on page 7 of your testimony that in Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court said it need not and does not reach the question 

whether carbon dioxide is the kind of air pollutant the EPA must 

regulate under the Clean Air Act, but my copy of the Supreme 

Court’s decision says something a little different. I will bring your 

attention to section 7, paragraph 2 on page 32. It says, ‘‘In short, 

the EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate 

change. Its action was therefore arbitrary, capricious or otherwise 

not in accordance with law.’’ This is the matter that I am referring 

to. ‘‘We need not and do not reach the question of whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding or whether policy 

concerns can inform EPA’s action in the event that it makes such 

160 

a finding.’’ So you said that they did not and they are saying something altogether different. 

Mr. ABBOTT. Actually what I am hanging my hat on is that very 

sentence that you read, and I may have articulated inappropriately 

but what I meant to articulate is exactly word for word what that 

sentence says. 

Mr. RUSH. OK. All right. 

Mr. ABBOTT. And that is that they basically don’t reach the question whether or not the—— 

Mr. RUSH. But you conclude that—— 

Mr. ABBOTT [continuing]. EPA must—— 

Mr. RUSH. But you are concluding that the Supreme Court was 

somehow wrong? I don’t understand. I am trying to—— 

Mr. ABBOTT. I disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling but it 

is the Supreme Court’s ruling, and so we must operate under it. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. 

Mr. Rowlan, on Friday EPA—no, that is quite all right, Mr. 

Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I recognize Mr. Upton of Michigan for 5 minutes. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I regret I wasn’t 

here for many of your presentations. We have another subcommittee that is meeting at the same time and so a number of 

us were there, and as you know, we had votes on the House floor 

as well. 

In the previous panel, I talked about the impact on Michigan 

with the job impact. In fact, there has been independent study that 

showed that Michigan’s GDP would drop by $18 billion, destroy 

96,000 jobs, reduce household incomes by nearly $1,600, and the 

concern that many of us have is if we allow EPA to pursue these 

regulations, we would have added cost. We heard from your testimony in terms of the impact on you all but I just wonder if you 

can summarize for me from your individual and somewhat unique 

perspective, I know it will be tougher for Illinois Farm Bureau because I don’t know where those farmers—you are not going to go 

someplace else, you are going to keep the land there in Illinois, I 

would imagine. But as it relates to your industry, if these regulations are imposed, where do you think things are headed for your 

particular industry as it relates to the jobs that are provided? Are 

they going to go to India and China? Are they just going to close 

down? What is your individual opinion in terms of what will happen to the groups of similar industries as it relates to us having 

these regulations and not having them in other places around the 

world? 

Mr. ALFORD. Yes, sir. There is definitely going to be a transfer 

of wealth. I think there is a national security issue here where we 

Americans are number one in the world economically now but we 

could go to sixth, seventh, eighth, or ninth, and if we go to ninth, 

we are vulnerable to new enemies who look at us as someone who 

could be taken over, and I think we are at a fork in the road here. 

We better take the right way, and I think the EPA view or attitude 

towards the American worker is that of a pawn on a chessboard: 

expendable and no need to worry. I think that is a terrible attitude. 

Mr. ROWLAN. I would say that it is already happening. I hear a 

lot of people ask for examples of companies going overseas. I exVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:01 Apr 26, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00168 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-2 020911\112-2 CHRIS
161 

plained it this way one time to some economic development people 

when EPA said that non-attainment would not impact them, and 

EPA said we have never heard of a company picking up and leaving an area because it was non-attainment, and I said that is because you don’t even make the first cut. You are cut out and you 

are excluded, and that is what this lack of decisiveness and this 

constant 2 years, 1 year, when is this coming, when is this rule hitting, when is PM 2.5, when is ozone. That constant barrage causes 

you to take your capital and move someplace where you have got 

a level of certainty. This facility that I have worked on in Louisiana, in the time it has taken me to not completely get a permit, 

a full facility of that size has been constructed, permitted and is 

operating in China. 

Mr. COUSINS. When I first started working in the refining industry, there were about 350 U.S. refineries. Today there are about 

150. There hasn’t been a single refinery built in this country in 30 

years. There have been many built in the Pacific Rim, China, 

India. I mean, there is no guesswork. That is what is going to happen. 

Mr. CARTER. I would turn your attention really to two areas. One 

is, as I have had the opportunity to meet with CEOs in a class actually for a weeklong class where the majority or the vast majority, 

out of 25, I think only six of us were U.S. citizens, which probably 

should be very telling in itself, and one of the things I learned from 

that group, much to my dismay, was just how they look down on 

us and when they look at making investments because of our permitting process and the fact that is lengthy and litigious and very 

poorly defined as it relates to almost every aspect of the way you 

permit a new plant, which makes us very uncompetitive, and what 

I have put in my testimony today is just another example of that, 

not just limited to what we deal with with EPA. 

A good solid example as it relates to what we are dealing with 

here is the issue over biomass. As I indicated in my testimony, we 

have contracted for a number of biomass facilities but they are having difficulty getting financing for those projects because they don’t 

know what the permitting requirements are going to be for their 

facilities. Now, that is real. That means those jobs aren’t going forward. 

Mr. UPTON. And I know my time is expired so that just means 

why we need a real decision which this draft legislation does 

versus a simple extension where you sit on pins and needles. I 

yield back my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Inslee for 5 minutes. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. Mr. Rowlan, thank you for being here 

with Nucor. We have a facility in Seattle. You run a very efficient 

business. You have found ways to make steel with great efficiencies. I will compliment you on that, and that is all this proposed regulation does for power companies was to ask them to be 

efficient like Nucor has been, the kind of decisions you have made 

to make cost-effective investments in efficiency. You have done that 

at Nucor. All this regulation does is ask utilities to do the same 

thing. That is why eight major utilities wrote a letter to the Wall 

Street Journal last month urging the adoption of these regulations 

so that they could have certainty so that they could move forward. 

162 

I want to talk about this Dirty Air Act and bring it to real life. 

I want to show a brief video of an 11-year-old young lady named 

Megan Foster from North Carolina. She is a child with asthma who 

is a very, very fast runner but has difficulty when her asthma is 

triggered, which we know can be done by ozone. Can we just play 

this clip briefly, and then I want to ask you gentlemen a question. 

[Video shown.] 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. Now, the Environmental Protection 

Agency pursuant to law and the U.S. Supreme Court and common 

sense has fulfilled their obligation to people like Megan to try to 

protect her and millions of other kids from pollutants that exacerbate asthma, and we are here today to consider a bill that would 

eliminate the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to 

help children like Megan Foster, and I would like to know about 

your views and what science you can present to us about this issue. 

The EPA has determined that the science shows that pollutants, 

carbon dioxide and a variety of other climate-changing gases, have 

the capacity to injure human health including gases that exacerbate asthma including exacerbating ozone conditions. 

So I just want to quickly go down the road and ask you if you 

can present to this committee a single peer-reviewed scientific journal that shows that these gases that are subject to this regulation 

do not result in damage to human health associated with climate 

change, and if you give us a yes or no, if you say yes, I am going 

to ask you what it is. But let us just first go down yes or no. Mr. 

Abbott, do you have a single peer-reviewed study like that? 

Mr. ABBOTT. I haven’t conducted that research. 

Mr. INSLEE. Do you know of any, anywhere in the world? 

Mr. ABBOTT. I haven’t looked into it. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. Mr. Alford? 

Mr. ALFORD. I haven’t looked. Don’t know. 

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Rowlan? 

Mr. ROWLAN. I am not aware of it. 

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Pearce? Thank you. 

Mr. PEARCE. I’m not aware. 

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Cousins? 

Mr. COUSINS. No. 

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Carter? 

Mr. CARTER. No. 

Mr. INSLEE. Ms. Blaisdell? 

Ms. BLAISDELL. No. 

Mr. INSLEE. Now, I think this is pretty intriguing because this 

story gets written like ‘‘he said, she said’’ stuff by the press all the 

time. He said these gases are bad, these changes change the climate, she said they didn’t, or in this case ‘‘he’’ meaning Senator 

Inhofe. It is time to start writing the truth about the science on 

this issue. 

You gentlemen that represent the effort to repeal the Clean Air 

Act and pass the Dirty Air Act can’t produce one single peer-reviewed scientific journal, and you are asking the United States 

Congress to eliminate the ability of the Environmental Protection 

Agency to protect kids like Megan Foster. Now, I think that is preposterous that you would come in and ask us to do this without 

presenting some science to us. Now, if you can find some, you can 

163 

send it to me. I am interested in it. I have looked for it, so have 

the scientists that we have hired to do this including those at the 

U.S. Navy, and you know what? They can’t find any because there 

is none, and I just hope that we eventually will do what the law 

requires, which is to follow science and protect the Megan Fosters 

of the world and do a very commonsense thing, which is to do just 

what Nucor Steel has done and that is about the efficiencies in the 

utility business, and if we do that, we are going to do some good 

things. 

Thank you. I would yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I recognize the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you. 

I hate to take up too much of my 5 minutes but I have got to 

respond to what my good friend from Washington just said. CO2 is 

not an irritant for asthma. My good friend just asked if there was 

any peer-reviewed science that showed the negative. There is no 

peer-reviewed science that shows the positive, okay? Now, CO2 is 

a component of ozone, and ozone is a regulated criteria pollutant 

under the Clean Air Act, but if you are intolerant to ozone, you are 

going to be intolerant to ozone at one part per billion. If you are 

not ozone intolerant, you can be subjected to a thousand parts per 

billion and not be affected, and there is just as much scientific evidence that asthmatics are much more affected by rat feces and 

roach infestments in tenements as there is of the actual air quality. 

So it may be politically correct to show a figure of a young, innocent asthmatic child. My son when he was growing up was asthmatic, so I know a little bit about this from a personal perspective. 

But to use that and then somehow say that what we are trying 

to do here in protecting the American economy and keeping jobs in 

America is somehow going to hurt the public health is just flat not 

true. We are not changing one standard in the Clean Air Act. We 

are not changing the definitions of the criteria pollutants. We are 

simply rectifying a 5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that 

gave the EPA the right to look at CO2 if they wanted to. The 

Obama Administration wanted to. They put out their 

endangerment finding, which I think is fatally flawed, and the result is, we are trying to do the legislative intent which is clarify 

what the Clean Air Act actually meant. If Chairman Upton and 

Subcommittee Chairman Whitfield want to come back at a later 

date and regulate CO2, they will put that bill before the subcommittee and the full committee. But first let us make sure that 

we express the will of the people through the Constitutional authority that we have on CO2. 

Now, I want to go to Mr. Abbott, the great Attorney General 

from the State of Texas. You are the chief law enforcement officer 

of the state. Is that correct? 

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BARTON. And I know you are not a clean air expert but you 

are knowledgeable about it. There are six criteria pollutants under 

the Clean Air Act. Is the State of Texas noncompliant on lead anywhere in the State? 

Mr. ABBOTT. Not that I know of. 

164 

Mr. BARTON. Are they noncompliant in SO2 anywhere in the 

State? 

Mr. ABBOTT. Not that I know of. 

Mr. BARTON. Are they noncompliant on nitric oxide anywhere in 

the State? 

Mr. ABBOTT. Not that I know of. 

Mr. BARTON. Are they noncompliant on carbon monoxide anywhere in the State? 

Mr. ABBOTT. Not that I know of. 

Mr. BARTON. Are they noncompliant anywhere in the State of 

Texas on particulate matter? 

Mr. ABBOTT. Not that I know of. 

Mr. BARTON. Now, ozone, they are in non-attainment ozone. 

Where are the three areas in Texas that are noncompliant for 

ozone? 

Mr. ABBOTT. I am not sure. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, I do. I know. Houston is in noncompliance, 

Port Arthur is in noncompliance, and the Dallas-Fort Worth area 

is in noncompliance under the new standard. Now, under the Clean 

Air Act of 1992 or 1990, the EPA put out regulations for air quality 

that Texas began to comply with, and since that time Texas has 

issued over 100 permits to private industry in Texas. They all got 

invalidated in December of this year. Is that not correct? 

Mr. ABBOTT. That is correct. 

Mr. BARTON. Were they invalidated because they were in noncompliance for any of these criteria pollutants including ozone? 

Mr. ABBOTT. No. 

Mr. BARTON. Why were they invalidated? 

Mr. ABBOTT. Well, they were invalidated because of the SIP call 

and FIP calls that were issued by the EPA. 

Mr. BARTON. So they were invalidated because the EPA changed 

their mind or just didn’t like the way Texas was doing things? 

Mr. ABBOTT. They were invalidated because the EPA basically 

took over the Texas air permit system. 

Mr. BARTON. They took over, but they didn’t take it over because 

we are in noncompliance? 

Mr. ABBOTT. Correct. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. Has EPA alleged that we are in noncompliance? 

Mr. ABBOTT. Not that I am aware. 

Mr. BARTON. I am not aware of that either. So there are two 

issues with regards to what is happening in Texas. One is compliance with the existing Clean Air Act, and we have just shown that 

with the exception of ozone in three areas, we are in compliance. 

The other is, these new greenhouse gas regulations. Why has the 

State refused, or maybe I should say what has the State of Texas 

done with respect to the EPA mandate on these new CO2 regulations? 

Mr. ABBOTT. Well, I can tell you from the legal perspective. I 

can’t tell you from the TCEQ perspective. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, tell me from the legal perspective. 

Mr. ABBOTT. From the legal perspective, there are basically six 

different rulings that were made by the EPA, and as a result there 

are six different legal actions filed by the State of Texas in reVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:01 Apr 26, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00172 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-2 020911\112-2 CHRIS
165 

sponse. One involves the endangerment finding. Another involves 

the tailoring rule. Another involves the timing rule. Another involves the tailpipe rule, and one involves the SIP call and the sixth 

would involve the FIP call. 

Mr. BARTON. I will ask the rest of my questions in writing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Green, 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome 

our panel and particularly our Attorney General. You will all have 

a little different questions from this side of the aisle but you at 

least have the same Texas accent that Joe and I have. 

I want to welcome you to the committee, and we heard, the topics we are discussing today at the hearing are complicated and 

these are a wide range of views. Some of our views are similar, and 

neither of us believes that the EPA regulation of greenhouse gases 

is the right solution to our energy and climate change challenges. 

We are both interested in improving the economy and creating jobs, 

specifically keeping those jobs in Texas. I would like to talk to you 

about an area where our views may diverge a little bit. On December 23rd, EPA issued an interim final order that allowed EPA to 

assume responsibility for the Texas air permit program with regard 

to greenhouse gases. EPA has stated it took the action because 

under your guidance, the State of Texas indicated it would not include greenhouse gas and emissions pollution in air permits. Is 

that correct? Was it only greenhouse gases? 

Mr. ABBOTT. Would you state the predicate again? 

Mr. GREEN. Texas took this action and indicated it would include 

greenhouse gas emissions pollution in the air permits. 

Mr. ABBOTT. Right. 

Mr. GREEN. And it is my understanding that Texas is the only 

State that refused to modify its air program. Is that true? 

Mr. ABBOTT. That is my understanding. 

Mr. GREEN. That the other 49 States, including some who are 

suing the EPA like Texas is over the endangerment finding, have 

taken some action to move forward to comply with the new requirements. 

Mr. ABBOTT. Well, I can’t be clear about what the other States 

are doing. Here is my understanding, and that is the EPA sent out 

a letter requesting responses from all the States. Many States responded. Maybe some States said they would go along. I can’t guarantee you that all States responded and all States said they would 

comply. Texas is the only State that made clear that we would not 

comply with the greenhouse gas regulations. 

Mr. GREEN. I think, at least our information is the other 49 said 

yes, they would, and believe me, I explained to people, we are up 

here all the time about American exceptionalism issues worldwide. 

Come to Texas and we will explain to you Texas exceptionalism, 

and that is something we all have. 

Mr. ABBOTT. I could make clear, Texas is not the only State that 

is challenging the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations. 

Mr. GREEN. That is true. Yes, there are a number of States that 

are filing suit. Given your position, I understand the consequences 

would have been if EPA had not assumed responsibility for these 

166 

air permits, if Texas wasn’t willing to start it, even though the lawsuit is filed and that is the way you do it, you go to the courthouse, 

and for decades the Clean Air Act has required certain sources to 

obtain air permits before construction begins on a new facility. 

These permits, called PSD permits, were required to start building. 

My question is, would it be legal to build a facility without one of 

these permits when the law requires it? So if Texas was not enforcing it—I have the Houston ship channel. I have five refineries and 

more chemical plants than I can count. My concern was, Texas is 

not enforcing it. If we wanted to expand those plants, and thank 

goodness over the last 15 years most of the plants have been expanded, that we would not without having a permit processed 

whether it is through the State of Texas enforcing a regulation that 

they don’t agree with and going to court or the EPA taking over 

those air permits. Is that generally what would happen? 

Mr. ABBOTT. Well, I think generally what you are saying may be 

true. This is outside my area of expertise. However, what I think 

is that had the EPA not issued the SIP and FIP calls, it is my understanding Texas would have been able to continue on with the 

permitting process. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, we will figure that out, but my concern was 

that if Texas would not do it—and I have plants that are always 

in the process of trying to expand. And you know how competitive 

the chemical industry is, for example, that, you know, if they are 

trouble with—if they are not going to build a facility in East Harris 

County if they are worried they won’t have that permit available, 

you know, pr they won’t be able to get permission to build it, they 

would build it someplace else and ship those chemicals back to us. 

That is where I don’t mind going to the courthouse. That is what 

a lot of us did for a living. I just worry that I don’t want to put 

my plants at a disadvantage because of the battle between the 

State and EPA. 

Mr. ABBOTT. Right. 

Mr. GREEN. That is my concern. 

Mr. ABBOTT. I want to make clear that we stand foursquare with 

you on that proposition. We want the businesses in your district as 

well as the businesses across the State of Texas not to be at any 

disadvantage whatsoever. We want to make sure they have access 

to the permits they need in order to operate their business. We 

want to make sure that we continue to attract jobs to the great 

Houston and Texas area but, as you know. Texas has done a better 

job of creating jobs than all of the other States in the country. One 

reason why we have been so successful in that regard is because 

Texas has a more reasonable regulatory system and has not had 

to deal with every evolving changing rule like what they are seeing 

coming out of the EPA now. 

Mr. GREEN. I am out of time and I know the Chair is going to 

gavel me, but I served 23 years in the legislature, and we always 

enforced our clean air permits even when I was there based on the 

EPA saying the State of Texas could enforce it. We always had to 

jump through hoops from the Federal Government, you know, 18 

years ago and 20 years before that, and I know it is frustrating but 

EPA has had that authority over Texas I know for the last 38 

years. 

167 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Shimkus, 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The full committee is 

named the Energy and Commerce Committee, so our focus is energy issues and commerce issues. The Democrats who want to 

make this into a science argument ought to go to the Science Committee. That is why we have a Science Committee. If they want to 

debate science, go to the Science Committee. We want to talk about 

energy. We want to talk about commerce. That is why I hold up 

my coal miners. One thousand of them in one mine, 1,000 coal miners in one mine lost their jobs. This is replicated in Illinois, 14,000, 

State of Ohio, 35. These are real job losses. If you want to talk 

about public health, the worst thing you do for public health is not 

have a job and be poor and in poverty. The best thing for human 

health is to have a job and maybe a job that provides health care, 

although we are attacking that too in those provisions. 

So this hearing is focusing on jobs, and as I laid out in the previous panel that when you raise energy costs, you hurt the ability 

to create jobs and sustain jobs. I do believe in supply and demand. 

I do believe that if more capital is required to produce that electricity that cost gets passed on. 

Now, it is curious that Ms. Blaisdell is here, and I have your testimony, and you are not only here with respect to Timberland but 

also BICEP. Is that correct? And BICEP is the Business for Innovative Climate Energy Policy, so you all like this climate debate, 

right? I mean, you are supporting—— 

Ms. BLAISDELL. Sir, we don’t like climate change. We are here to 

support aggressive legislation. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. Right. So you would have supported WaxmanMarkey, putting a price on carbon and addressing climate. 

Ms. BLAISDELL. We support addressing climate. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. OK. Now, it is curious that you and these 

folks do that because in articles in May 2002, many companies that 

are in this Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy, 

guess where your products are produced? China. I will quote this 

article May 9, 2002: ‘‘While companies such as Gap, Guess, and 

Ralph Lauren have long farmed out production overseas in China,’’ 

also Levis they mention here. Now, your company is not immune 

from this. In an article by Business Daily Update, except for your 

answering to the question, March 27, 2006, article is, ‘‘Unbeknownst to many’’—talking about Timberland—‘‘actually operated 

45 factories throughout the country since the 1990s.’’ Forty-five factories throughout the country, that country being China. So 

wouldn’t it be to your advantage to force higher utility rates on 

manufacturers in this country while taking advantage of low power 

rates in China along with low labor rates, along with low environmental standards? In fact, following up on an article August 7, 

2009, on Timberland, who you represent, ‘‘Two mainland suppliers 

of outdoor clothes manufacturer Timberland have consistently 

breached environmental regulations, two NGOs said yesterday.’’ 

This is Chinese environmental regulations. You have to be pretty 

bad to violate Chinese environmental regulations. 

Now, I find it just incredible that you would come here supporting hard action on climate change, raising the cost of doing 

168 

business while your production is in these very same countries that 

will never comply, do not pay the same wage rate, and do not have 

any environmental standards, and I am glad that the Minority 

asked you to come because it highlights the hypocrisy of this debate, that you can stand here and you can call for increased regulations and costs while your company outsources manufacturing and 

we don’t have jobs, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my 

time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Shimkus. 

Ms. BLAISDELL. May I please reply? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I want to ask unanimous consent that we enter 

into the record at this point, these are documents relating to Mr. 

Waxman’s introducing into evidence the Stephen Johnson issue on 

the endangerment finding, and these are the complete set of documents from the government, and then I understand Mr. Inslee had 

a document he would like to enter into the record. 

Mr. INSLEE. Yes. Thank you. I just would like to introduce two 

documents. One is actually the endangerment finding that reads, 

‘‘Climate change is expected to worsen regional ground-level ozone 

pollution. Exposure to ground-level ozone has been linked to respiratory health problems ranging from decreased lung function and 

aggravated asthma to increased emergency department visits, hospital admissions and even premature death.’’ That is one. The second is this letter I referred to in my questioning from 1,800 doctors, 

and the third is testimony by Dr. Mark Jacobson of Stanford, who 

presented testimony in April to the Select Committee that specifically addressed the health impacts of CO2 on respiratory illness. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your courtesy. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize Mr. Walden for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for that, and I am 

going to yield my 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. I thank the gentleman from Oregon, and I will root 

for the Ducks at least one time next year because you are yielding 

to me. 

Mr. WALDEN. If it is in the BCS, I will especially appreciate that. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, let me just ask a question. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Excuse me just one minute. 

Mr. RUSH. The previous member made some pretty significant 

and strong remarks to Ms. Blaisdell, and she did not have a chance 

to respond at all on the record, so I think that she should be allowed to respond to some of the sharp remarks. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Do you want to respond, Ms. Blaisdell? 

Ms. BLAISDELL. Yes, please. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. All right. 

Ms. BLAISDELL. So my first response would be that addressing 

our own greenhouse gas emissions hasn’t created additional costs 

for our company. In fact, as I mentioned in my testimony, it saved 

us over $1 million a year, which makes us more competitive, and 

we do employ close to 2,000 people in the United States, so all 

those jobs he talked about in China, he is denying the fact that we 

169 

actually do employ quite a few people here and in fact in many of 

the States that you represent. 

One of the concerns I have about the conversation we have had 

so far is that we have talked about the cost of action and we 

haven’t talked about the cost of inaction, which I why I believe I 

am here. Our industry is very different than the industries represented. There is a significant cost of inaction in the outdoor industry and for brands whose supply chain rely on raw materials 

that we can’t necessarily source in this country, so I would like to 

bring that to light. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, I would just say that we appreciate your 

comments but I think most of us certainly agree with Mr. Shimkus, 

that if you are doing work in China and you are violating environmental regulations in China, to be coming over here and saying we 

need stronger regulations is a little bit—— 

Ms. BLAISDELL. Sir, I don’t understand what violations he is talking about so I will have to explore what he submitted. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. We will try to get that to you and maybe you can 

get back to us in writing about that. 

Ms. BLAISDELL. I would be happy to. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Walden. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again to Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you. 

Attorney General Abbott, is Texas air quality improved or diminished during the period since Texas implemented its flexible permitting program under the Clean Air Act Amendments as implemented by regulation in 1992? 

Mr. ABBOTT. I don’t have the information on Texas health quality. 

Mr. BARTON. You don’t have information that our air quality is 

actually improved? 

Mr. ABBOTT. I thought you said health quality. 

Mr. BARTON. Air quality. 

Mr. ABBOTT. Absolutely air quality has improved. 

Mr. BARTON. Significantly? 

Mr. ABBOTT. Significantly, yes. 

Mr. BARTON. So we have not diminished our air quality under 

our permitting program? 

Mr. ABBOTT. I will tell you the information I do have, and that 

is the information that as I understand, it was provided by TCEQ, 

the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, as well as information that we received from the governor’s office. One point is 

that industrial ozone and NOx have steadily declined since 2000. 

Another is that ozone is down 22 percent while NOx is down 46 

percent. Another is that electricity generators in Texas have the 

11th lowest NOx emissions in the United States. But I think equally important, and that is without any kind of greenhouse gas mandates from D.C., Texas on its own has since 2004, no other State 

has cut more power sector CO2 output than the State of Texas. 

Also, as you know very well, we have installed wind power at a 

rate more than any other State in the United States and I think 

we would rank either fourth or fifth of all the countries in the entire world, and, as I understand it, Texas has one of the two largest 

absolute declines in greenhouse gas outputs of any State. 

170 

Mr. BARTON. I just want the record to show that Texas has 

issued all these permits since 1992. They have been in compliance 

with the Act. Our air quality has improved yet our economy has 

grown, and just arbitrarily here in the last 6 months they have 

come in and invalidated the existing permits. We are not talking 

about new permits under the CO2 regulations, we are talking about 

existing permits. 

Now, specifically, Attorney General, with regard to this pending 

legislation, do you support the draft Energy Tax Prevention Act of 

2011? 

Mr. ABBOTT. There are reasons why we think this legislation is 

a good idea. First and foremost, in the big picture we are a Nation 

of laws, and that is one thing that has separated this country from 

all other countries in the world, in fact, made the United States the 

envy of all countries in this world, and that is that we as a Nation 

base our decisions on the law, not the whims of different people, 

and a challenge that the State of Texas is having with the EPA is 

that we feel that the EPA is acting in a way unconstrained by the 

Clean Air Act passed by the United States Congress, unconstrained 

by other laws such as the APA, and causing industry as well as 

States to have to deal with a moving target, and we think that the 

rule of law is essential in this country and we want to see the EPA 

comply with the rule of law. And along those lines Texas has six 

lawsuits on file right now challenging the legality of the greenhouse gas rules that were created by the EPA. 

Mr. BARTON. If this bill were to become law, how would that impact the litigation that the State currently has against the EPA? 

Mr. ABBOTT. As the Attorney General of Texas, I am here to tell 

you that if your legislation passes, it will mean that Texas will be 

dismissing those six lawsuits against the EPA. 

Mr. BARTON. And that is a good thing? 

Mr. ABBOTT. Anything that gets rid of lawsuits is a good thing. 

Mr. BARTON. I agree with that. 

My last question is to the general panel. If we had to implement 

these greenhouse gas regulations which hopefully we won’t but if 

we did, is there the technology currently on the shelf to cost-effectively implement the greenhouse gas regulations as proposed by 

the EPA? 

Mr. ALFORD. I daresay no. 

Mr. ROWLAN. No. 

Mr. COUSINS. For our industry, we looked at the 2008 ANPR that 

the EPA released as a guide for possible greenhouse gas regulations, and we have evaluated every one of those technologies at 

various times in the past to do efficiency improvements. Those 

things are all cost-prohibitive for us. 

Mr. BARTON. My time has expired. I again want to thank my 

friend from Oregon for his courtesy. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize Mr. Burgess for 5 minutes. 

Dr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Attorney General 

Abbott, thank you for spending the day with us. I think there was 

some—I know it is difficult because the Administrator is not here 

any longer but it seems like there was some confusion when we 

were talking about the problem that Texas is having currently with 

171 

the flexible permitting and her discussion of regulating greenhouse 

gases under the Clean Air Act. Those are two very serious issues 

but they are separate issues. Is that not correct? 

Mr. ABBOTT. That is correct. 

Dr. BURGESS. And currently when I was discussing with her the 

report of the Business Roundtable, they pointed out that this would 

be one thing that would be extremely deleterious to Texas. Similar 

conditions exist in other States and no other State is being required to perform what Texas is being required to perform under 

their removal of the flexible permitting. Is that correct? 

Mr. ABBOTT. That is my understanding. 

Dr. BURGESS. And then to the issue of regulation of greenhouse 

gases, she is correct that Texas right now is not proceeding with 

setting up those guidelines. Is that correct? 

Mr. ABBOTT. That is correct also. 

Dr. BURGESS. And so as a consequence, the EPA feels it is necessary for that job to be done, and we can argue about the 

rightness or wrongness of that but that is indeed a separate issue 

when she says that since Texas wasn’t doing its job, the EPA had 

to do the job for Texas but that in no way applies to the flexible 

permitting process that is going on down in the Gulf Coast area? 

Mr. ABBOTT. That is correct. 

Dr. BURGESS. And these are difficult concepts to deal with. Mr. 

Barton talked about the air quality issues that have occurred since 

the enactment of the Clean Air Act, and while to be certain there 

are still significant challenges for us in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, there are challenges in the Houston metropolitan 

area. When you look at the overall air quality, there has been improvement since 1992. 

If you look as what has happened to population growth, particularly in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, with which I am 

most familiar, you have only got to look at what is happening with 

congressional redistricting and the fact that Texas is going to have 

four more seats in the next Congress to understand what is happening to our population in the Lone Star State. It is exploding. I 

have the 10th largest congressional district in the country, 280,000 

residents over and above what I should have with the normal congressional allotment, so it is a phenomenal development that air 

quality has improved while our population has in fact expanded 

many times over what it was in 1992. Do you think that is a fair 

assessment? 

Mr. ABBOTT. Based on information I have, you are exactly right 

and that is that air quality in Texas has continued to improve despite the growing population. 

Dr. BURGESS. Well, just in your experience in working with the 

EPA, is that an easy situation or a difficult situation? Has the EPA 

been open to your suggestions and your observations or is it a 

closed door and the cake is already baked, we don’t need your 

input? 

Mr. ABBOTT. For more than a decade, I would say Texas has had 

a fairly collaborative, cooperative working relationship with the 

EPA. I can tell you that my office directly has been working side 

by side with the EPA to hold polluters accountable and has been 

quite successful in that regard. It seems as though over the past 

172 

18 months or so the challenges in dealing with the EPA have escalated dramatically and it has been a lot more difficult. 

Dr. BURGESS. And that has just been my observation as well, and 

I was wondering if other people were noticing that as well. 

Mr. Rowlan, if I could, let me ask you a question, and again, I 

appreciate you being here. You are headquartered in my hometown 

in Denton, Texas, and we are all so grateful for your great efforts 

there. We are grateful for your great efforts with the University of 

North Texas and the research program that you have there. I think 

you have developed the largest frame testing machine west of the 

Mississippi. Is that an accurate statement? Well, we heard from 

Administrator Jackson that there are so many of these things 

that—and I am a believer in efficiency, and no one, I think, should 

be in favor of wasting energy but can you really capture the return 

on investment necessary to do the things that you are going to be 

required to do by simply latching on to those increases in efficiency? Are they going to pay for themselves over time? 

Mr. ROWLAN. Well, we pursue those continually. We actually 

have energy intensity goals within our own company. We are pursuing improving our efficiency constantly, because if we don’t, we 

are going to run into problems with our international competition. 

There are projects throughout the country, and I am aware of one 

steel mill that was shut down, however, for tenths of a cent per kilowatt-hour. When you consume as much energy as we do, the cost 

of energy becomes a huge impact for us and so as that starts to 

escalate, we are no longer able to compete because we are really 

close to the physical reality of what we can do with the equipment 

that we have got and the technology that presently exists and even 

the technology that is coming on now. 

Dr. BURGESS. Thank you for your answer. I yield back my time. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Waxman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have heard quite 

a bit of criticism of EPA at today’s hearing. We have heard that 

EPA is out of control and that simple commonsense measures like 

requiring newly built facilities to be energy efficient will be burdensome to the economy. But there are other voices who are not fairly 

represented here today. Many in industry believe that EPA is acting reasonably and taking modest first steps to combat a serious 

problem. 

On Friday, EPA held the first of a series of five listening sessions 

on New Source Performance Standards that it plans to propose 

later this year for power plants and refineries. I think it is worth 

pointing out that EPA is beginning the process of crafting these 

new standards by hearing from industry. At Friday’s session, Eric 

Svenson of PSEG, a major utility company, said this about climate 

change: ‘‘We obviously would prefer to have seen legislative action 

but absent legislative action, we support regulatory action,’’ which 

by the way is my view. 

Mr. Rowlan, were you aware that this major utility supports 

EPA’s regulation? 

Mr. ROWLAN. Was I aware that they support regulation? 

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes. 

Mr. ROWLAN. Yes, I would be aware of that. 

173 

Mr. WAXMAN. Don Neal of Calpine, another utility, said this: 

‘‘Calpine has been a long supporter of EPA regulating greenhouse 

gases under the Clean Air Act and certainly the NSPS is an extension of doing that so we applaud EPA in doing this.’’ 

Mr. Carter, were you aware that at least one major utility is applauding EPA’s program? 

Mr. CARTER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WAXMAN. OK. Well, the public wouldn’t have known about 

these statements either, because these witnesses weren’t invited to 

testify. In fact, we wanted these companies to come and testify but 

we were told by the Majority that they would not allow our request 

to hear from a coalition of businesses who develop energy-efficiency 

projects at major manufacturing facilities like, for example, steel 

plants. One member of this coalition recently helped a northern Indiana steel plant install technology to capture and harness the 

manufacturer’s waste heat to generate 220 megawatts of power. 

That is more clean electricity than all of the solar panels connected 

to the U.S. electric grid, and that recycled energy saves the plant 

$100 million every year. Since we can’t hear this testimony for ourselves, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the written statement of 

the Alliance of Industrial Efficiency be placed in the record. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Blaisdell, in your testimony you say that EPA regulations 

would help protect the economy. By the way, I heard earlier in this 

hearing you were accused by one of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle, that you would be at a competitive advantage if these EPA regulations go through. Do you have any comment on that? Would you be at a competitive advantage if we regulate as EPA is proposing to do here in the United States? 

Ms. BLAISDELL. I am not familiar with how we would be—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Press your mic. 

Ms. BLAISDELL. It is on. I am sorry. I don’t know how we would 

be at a competitive advantage. 

My other concern about his remarks is, he implied that energy 

costs drove our jobs overseas, and that is not the case in our industry, so I want that to be clear for the record as well. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, your company has been abiding by a self-imposed limit on its carbon pollution, and I would like you to tell the 

committee about your company’s experience. Have your investments in efficiency produced cost savings, and if so, do you think 

other companies are likely to experience similar savings? 

Ms. BLAISDELL. Our initiatives which have involved investing in 

renewable energy and in energy efficiency have saved our company 

money, over a million dollars a year, which is significant. We are 

a $1.4 billion company, so especially during a tough economy, that 

has been significant for us. And I do believe that other companies 

can benefit by taking a more critical look. I am sad to say that 

without leadership from Congress that many companies just aren’t 

looking hard enough, and this could help. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And when somebody comes forward to suggest that 

maybe we can look harder to save money by doing what is right 

in efficiency which would make the company even more competiVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:01 Apr 26, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00181 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-2 020911\112-2 CHRIS
174 

tive, you are bullied by saying that you are part of some international conspiracy because you also have activities offshore. I 

don’t think that is right. 

EPA has acted reasonably so far. We have heard from Administrator Jackson that the Agency plans to continue working with 

business to develop commonsense standards. Let us allow the 

Clean Air Act to do what it has always done: improve the air we 

breathe and make our families healthier while the economy grows. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sullivan, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, I thought it was interesting, Ms. Blaisdell, 

that you said that your company did these things voluntarily, and 

I think that is great, and you have efficiencies and everything. 

That is what these business people do voluntarily. They do a lot 

of things like that too. You weren’t mandated to do things, and I 

think that is the big difference, and that is what we are talking 

about here today. 

I appreciate all of you coming. I am sure you like the people in 

my district in Oklahoma are scared to death about what could happen to your businesses and the people that you work for, that you 

know their families and you know them very well, and it is frightening. 

I would like to ask you, Mr. Cousins, a question. You mentioned 

that while you were having trouble expanding your refinery, in 

India a refinery was built 15 times larger than your refinery and 

it took about 3 years. Could we build such a refinery in the United 

States today, in today’s regulatory climate? And how long would 

the permitting for such a facility take? You mentioned the Indian 

refinery took 3 years to build. Would it take you longer? 

Mr. COUSINS. Oh, I am not an expert on obtaining permits but 

I don’t believe it would be possible to permit that refinery in the 

United States if you had all the time in the world, and I would— 

they have been trying to build a refinery at least at one time outside of Phoenix. I know that project has been going on for 10 years. 

I don’t believe they have permits. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. And we haven’t built a refinery in this country in, 

what, 30 years? 

Mr. COUSINS. Over 30 years. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. And we probably need some, don’t we? 

Mr. COUSINS. Well, you would think. Actually we either need 

them here or they are just going to keep building them overseas. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Have we ever domestically produced oil that we 

had to actually send somewhere else to be refined in this country? 

Mr. COUSINS. I am not sure if any—we don’t drill any oil. We 

just buy oil on the market. It could be that some Alaskan crude 

was sold. I don’t know, but I am not aware of any significant oil 

exports. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Your company has delayed a major project due to 

EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations. Can you please explain how this 

business decision was made? How were the costs of these regulations calculated? 

Mr. COUSINS. It is business uncertainty. We went about halfway 

through an expansion project of several hundred million dollars. In 

175 

the climate of Waxman-Markey at the time and the fact that even 

if it was defeated as it was—well, Waxman-Markey wasn’t, but if 

climate change was defeated, we didn’t perceive the demand or the 

margins to justify the expansion we were in, not sure enough to bet 

our entire company’s survival on it, and the debt load we would 

have carried would have put us in that situation. We actually had 

to terminate the project at the cost of 14,000 man-weeks of construction that was not completed in our town, so that is a couple 

of thousand jobs for weeks and weeks. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I will start this with all the witnesses. What potential EPA regulations coming down the pike are you most concerned about from a business perspective? General Abbott? 

Mr. ABBOTT. From a business perspective, what regulations? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. ABBOTT. Well, the greenhouse gas regulations are the ones 

that are posing a huge problem. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. And in Texas, you are hearing that from everybody, huh? 

Mr. ABBOTT. Well, as I visit with people across the State, frankly, it is the overall uncertainty that seems to be emanating from 

the EPA, not knowing what the standards are going to be and how 

to plan for the future. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Alford? 

Mr. ALFORD. Congressman, I am also a member of the board of 

directors of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and I chair the regulatory affairs committee for them, and this greenhouse gas business 

is about 70 percent of the discussion, and I believe the Chamber 

has filed a series of lawsuits against EPA concerning that. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Rowlan? 

Mr. ROWLAN. While I agree that greenhouse gas is a big issue 

and has a lot of impact, I would not discount or put anything below 

that with respect to the new one-hour criteria pollutant standards 

that we are getting along with several MACT standards. We are 

getting hammered from every which direction. So I think they are 

all right there. If one doesn’t catch you, the other one does, and it 

is almost like a game of gotcha. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. And the economy is bad enough, with all this. Mr. 

Pearce? 

Mr. PEARCE. I would say the greenhouse gas. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Cousins? 

Mr. COUSINS. With my written testimony, I included a slide that 

showed a blizzard of EPA regulatory initiatives. We are concerned 

about all of them, but the PSD and the NSPS portions of the greenhouse gas regulations are the most immediate concern. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Carter? 

Mr. CARTER. I would say the greenhouse gas regulations but we 

should not ignore the other items that are coming out of EPA today 

because some of them may actually have a faster impact on utilities in the immediate term. And the reason is, is that we do not 

have commercially available technology to look at our plant, and 

what we have created is a system where there is a great deal of 

uncertainty because even if Ms. Jackson, who I have a lot of respect for, even if she goes forward, she does not prevent the legal 

challenges much like we saw on the CARE rule. If you are familiar 

176 

with the CARE rule, it was in place for years and then it got vacated and now it is being completely rewritten. That is pretty scary 

if you are in my business. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is a very good point. 

Ms. Blaisdell, are there any regulations that concern you and 

your company? 

Ms. BLAISDELL. They don’t. Actually the EPA has been quite 

helpful to our company, not hurtful. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. There are no regulations that concern you at all 

about EPA? 

Ms. BLAISDELL. The greenhouse gas regulations do not concern 

our company. They don’t apply. We don’t emit over 100,000 tons. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Scalise, you are recognized—no, I am sorry. 

Mr. Terry, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Blaisdell, thank you for being here, and I don’t know what, 

somebody on our side of the aisle evidently insulted you, but that 

is not the way it is supposed to work here. I appreciate that 

Timberland is voluntarily undertaken, and I know several businesses in the Omaha metropolitan area that I represent that have 

voluntarily undertaken a variety of energy efficiencies in their 

business too, and we like that. I love it. What I don’t like is the 

EPA just assuming that they have legislative powers, and that that 

is what this is about. 

But I do want to make it clear, Betsey, that unlike the gentleman that was asking you questions, I am not going to call your 

boss and ask that you be fired for coming here and speaking your 

mind nor like somebody else on the Minority side, I am not going 

to write a letter to a regulatory agency asking that they investigate 

Timberland because you are here. I actually think it adds, and I 

want to state that for the record because that is exactly what happened to one of our Minority witnesses at a cap-and-trade global 

warming hearing, and it was a constituent of mine so I am always 

going to stick up for that person. 

Getting to Nucor, Mr. Rowlan, thank you. Nucor facility, not in 

my district, but an hour-and-a-half drive and I have been up there, 

I have seen the operation, and would join with Mr. Inslee in saying 

thank you for the efficiencies. I think it is a well-run business. Like 

Timberland, I appreciate that you have undergone voluntary measures to reduce your energy costs and emissions. Likewise, let me 

ask you this question under the clean air law. Even with all of the 

efficiencies that you have adopted, will one of your recycling plants 

like the one in Norfolk emit more than 250 tons of CO2 in a calendar year? 

Mr. ROWLAN. Most definitely. We are caught up, all of our steel 

mills like the one in Nucor are caught up. 

Mr. TERRY. Is there any way of getting your plants considering 

the smelting, melting processes, to be under 250 tons of CO2 in a 

given calendar year? 

Mr. ROWLAN. There is no physical law I am aware of that could 

ever cause that to happen. 

Mr. TERRY. And you are aware that that is what your company, 

Nucor, would be under the exempted area where it would be not 

177 

100 tons in a year but 250 tons would be what is currently written 

in the Clean Air Act? 

Mr. ROWLAN. We are already a major stationary source. 

Mr. TERRY. You understand that rule very well. 

Mr. ROWLAN. I understand and live that rule. 

Mr. TERRY. And probably, since you understand the rule, know 

that EPA directors just can’t willy-nilly change that part of the 

statute. Is that your understanding? 

Mr. ROWLAN. I would believe that that was the case, and I hope 

Congress—— 

Mr. TERRY. If an EPA director can just start willy-nilly throwing 

out, okay, the statute says very clearly and your history has been 

that under the major emitter rule that you would qualify under the 

exemption of 250 tons and then she comes around and says something different and enforces that. Does that give you more or less 

certainty in the industry? 

Mr. ROWLAN. If we use the 250 tons? 

Mr. TERRY. No, if someone, the EPA, this EPA director says it 

is 100,000, the next one starts saying it is 50,000 or 10, if that is 

the power that they have, does that provide you certainty? 

Mr. ROWLAN. It gives me no certainty at all. I defer to what the 

Attorney General from Texas said. We are a Nation of laws and I 

don’t see that it is consistent with the law at that point. 

Mr. TERRY. I appreciate that. 

And then Mr. Alford, I have some charts regarding the study 

that you have done or your organization that shows the job losses, 

and I am just wondering what the criteria were generally to determine that in 2015 you would have a million and a half jobs lost 

and by 2030 it would be pushing 2,500,000 jobs lost just due to this 

rule. Because we heard from Administrator Jackson that it is going 

to be actually a job creator, but you are showing job losses. How 

do we jibe those two? 

Mr. ALFORD. Well, we spent some good money on that study from 

Charles River Associates. That is a very reputable firm based here 

in Washington, D.C., and that was done early 2009. We have 

shown it to the world, and we have not had one person or entity 

challenge those studies that are in that study, the charts. 

Mr. TERRY. So you are standing behind your study? 

Mr. ALFORD. Absolutely. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Terry. 

At this time I recognize Mr. Scalise for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Rowlan, I first want to thank you for the commitment you 

made to create jobs in America but specifically in southeast Louisiana, and we really appreciate the presence of Nucor. I think you 

were here when I had a conversation with Ms. Jackson about her 

report, that she stated that these regulations will create jobs, and 

I think she tried to use Nucor as a poster child for how these new 

regulations will actually grow the economy and yet I know in your 

testimony, you talked about the opposite, and believe me, yours is 

not an isolated example. I hear this day in, day out of companies 

that talk about the burdens of EPA and how it runs more jobs out 

of the country, and I know in your testimony you talked about the 

178 

larger presence of American jobs that would have been created 

here if not for the threat of EPA. So I wanted to first thank you, 

of course, but also give you an opportunity to talk about that specifically in her comments of using you all as the poster child for 

how this is working so well yet it seems to contradict what is actually happening in reality. 

Mr. ROWLAN. Well, are you speaking of our Nucor Louisiana 

project, and yes, we had originally planned to build, I think it was 

the first two blast furnace operation permitted under the Clean Air 

Act along with coke ovens and cinder plants and produce 6 million 

tons of pig iron. We now have reduced that project and that is 

moved off to phase 2 if we do get the final permit on that. 

Mr. SCALISE. So you are still waiting on a permit from EPA? 

Mr. ROWLAN. That permit has been issued but it is stayed until 

the litigation over it is completed. There are a couple of lawsuits 

going on right now against Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. The replacement project was a direct reduced iron 

project, and so that people can understand, if you say we were 

going to build pickups at the original facility, what we ended up 

making are, I don’t know, bicycles or something like that. This is 

a different product. It is still iron but it is a different product, and 

it is significantly different in the overall employment impact. I 

think we had—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Can you touch on that? What would the jobs have 

been versus what they will be here in America? 

Mr. ROWLAN. I believe the original was around 1,000 jobs when 

the full project was in, and we are around 150 jobs right now. I 

think that is right. And then there was about 2,000 construction 

jobs originally and we are at about 500 construction jobs right now, 

around 2.1 billion and we are around 750 million right now. 

Mr. SCALISE. So you are talking about well over a billion and a 

half dollars roughly that was lost in investment, 1.25 billion maybe 

that was lost in investment—— 

Mr. ROWLAN [continuing]. Not moving forward with it at this 

point. It is still in phase 2. We would hope to be able to do that 

at some point. 

Mr. SCALISE. What is the average pay for those jobs, the thousand you were originally anticipating versus the 150 now? What is 

the average pay of those jobs? 

Mr. ROWLAN. Our publicized average pay at a Nucor facility is 

$70,000 a year. 

Mr. SCALISE. Gee, whiz. Well, these are great jobs, and unfortunately, a lot less of them right now because of the regulations. 

Again, I have heard the story time and time again and EPA will 

come out and say the regulations are creating jobs. Maybe what 

they are not realizing is, it is jobs in China and India that they 

are creating, not here in America. So I appreciate what you are 

doing. I share your frustration, and we are going to continue to 

work through and get real clarity so that businesses can go forward. 

Mr. Cousins, there was some comment earlier by another member talking about how the Energy Tax Prevention Act would somehow lead to increased dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Of course, 

this Administration’s policies have led to an increased dependence 

179 

on Middle Eastern oil and higher gas prices. The bill, in my opinion, would actually at least give some sustainability and hopefully 

we can then get to a point where we reduce our dependence, but 

do you see anything in the legislation that would increase this 

country’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil? 

Mr. COUSINS. No, not at all. I think acts already carried on by 

Congress and by the EPA, CAFE standards increase have cut fuel 

use quite a bit. Renewable fuel standard is putting 36 billion gallons of non-gasoline into the gasoline and diesel supply through the 

next few decades. I think everything is tending toward a reduction. 

Mr. SCALISE. And in fact, when Administrator Jackson agreed 

with that comment, I thought it undermined the credibility to say 

that a bill that prevents EPA from shutting jobs out of America, 

running more refineries to India and other places, for her to suggest that that increase our dependence on foreign oil when actually 

it is EPA’s actions that increase the dependence. 

And the final question, can you talk in terms of the jobs that you 

haven’t been able to create, the expansion that you haven’t been 

able to do because of EPA’s regulations? 

Mr. COUSINS. Well, as I said earlier, we were partway through 

a multi-hundred million dollar expansion in a small town. There 

were about 14,000 man-weeks, which would be one person working 

for 14,000 weeks on the job to complete the construction, or 2,000 

people working for 2 months. We just had to stop, and those people 

were terminated, and that is a big hit in a county where we lost 

2,000 jobs out of 40,000 workers in a poultry operation that shut 

down. 

Mr. SCALISE. Well, hopefully we can pass this legislation and 

save those jobs. I appreciate your testimony. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

Mr. Olson of Texas for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I can assure the witnesses and all the people here watching this hearing that I am the 

last Texan that is going to speak today, and we are Texans, we are 

very proud and please bear with us. 

But I would like to speak to General Abbott, and first of all, sir, 

I would like to thank you for what you have done for our State to 

create an environment that we do have some stability, some predictability, some certainty, and I greatly appreciate that. 

One of the things all of us when we go back home, one of the 

biggest concerns our constituents have is jobs, jobs, jobs, and as my 

colleague Gene Green said, our State has had the good fortune of 

creating half the private sector jobs since our economy went into 

a recession, half the ones here in America. My colleagues Joe Barton and Mike Burgess have told us about the success of the flexible 

permitting system. Our air is demonstrably cleaner. There is no 

doubt about that. We have the facts. And I know personally because I moved to Houston in 1972, and our general grew up in 

Houston as well and it wasn’t such a clean town. I mean, you could 

not see downtown from 20 miles out when I came out of Clear Lake 

and headed towards downtown. Now that is the exception maybe 

one or two days during the summer that that exists. Most every 

day you can see downtown, so that is just demonstrably cleaner 

from my own personal experience. Our process has worked. You 

180 

would think we would be a role model for the country, here is how 

we can get through this, here is how we can have a cleaner environment and a good environment for business and be clean. But it 

concerns me that what is doing with this excessive regulation, how 

that is coming into our economy in Texas. 

Attorney General Abbott, do you see a tipping point here? I 

mean, if they keep going forward down this line with all this, the 

flexible permitting, some of the hydraulic fracturing issues, some of 

the other issues, the ozone standards, do you see a turning point 

here where the environment that the Federal Government creates 

starts killing jobs in our State? 

Mr. ABBOTT. Well, a couple things. If I could pick up on one of 

your earlier comments, first of all, to help people understand, people see Texas challenging the EPA both regulatorily and with lawsuits, but I want to emphasize a point that you made, and that is 

that Texas takes pride in trying to achieve the best. That includes 

achieving the best possible environment and health environment 

for our citizens, and as a result, that is one reason why we have 

worked so hard and achieved so much in improving air quality in 

your district and across the State of Texas, and we stand committed to continuing to achieve improvements in air quality and 

the environment, but that doesn’t meant that we are going to stand 

aside or roll over if we believe that the EPA is imposing its will 

in a way that is contrary to the law. 

You mentioned a tipping point, and there is another phrase you 

could also use in tandem, and that is a slippery slope. We are very 

concerned about the slippery slope. I think it was Representative 

Terry who brought up earlier in the context of the tailoring rule, 

and we are very concerned about what the tailoring rule could turn 

into once it starts moving on a slippery slope where it gives latitude to the EPA to decide what the standards may be. It could shift 

from today to 5 years from now to 10 years from now and it could 

very well bring in Nucor and some other industries within the 

gambit of what they are able to emit. 

But I think we are at a tipping point also because if these greenhouse gas regulations by the EPA go into place or upheld, we are 

a tipping point in two ways. One, it means that the EPA does have 

carte blanche to make up its own rules as they go along and that 

they are saying they are not confined by the terms of the Clean Air 

Act that was passed by the United States Congress. But also we 

are at a tipping point in the sense of what it is going to mean for 

our jobs, our economy and the future of this country when we have 

out-of-control regulations that are crushing the attempt to expand 

our economy at a time that we most desperately need it to grow. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you for that answer, Mr. Attorney General. 

You are a great public servant. 

I have about run out of time. Thank you to all the witnesses. I 

appreciate your views and perspectives. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. McKinley, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. I am coming from the perspective of 

the coal fields of West Virginia and what the EPA has done in the 

coal fields, the uncertainty that is coming to them from water, fly 

ash, dust, revoking retroactively permits. Then I see the next fight 

looming on the horizon is not going over into another segment with 

181 

the EPA and the uncertainties that they bring with their regulatory extremism. We have all heard in West Virginia job killers, 

the extreme, irrational lack of common sense. It is bad enough for 

us in the coal fields. What happens when it sweeps across America 

controlling the greenhouse gases? So you all have—understand, 

there are still 15 million people unemployed and until the uncertainty is removed, I have got to think you are reluctant to take on 

more responsibility. So we are going to continue having 15 million 

people unemployed in America. That is not where I want us to be 

as a country. 

So now, having framed that, you have all been listening for hours 

here of testimony today. I am just curious, are any of you more confident in what you have heard from either the other side or here 

that things are going to be okay, allow the EPA to continue down 

this path of regulating the greenhouse gases? Can each of you just, 

are you more comfortable now after you have heard 2 hours? 

Mr. ABBOTT. Let me say that I grew more comfortable when I 

saw this bill, this Act being proposed by this subcommittee. The 

concern that we had in Texas was the imposition of the greenhouse 

gas regulations. We perceive that the most meaningful way, the 

most meaningful pathway in order to protect the future was not by 

our litigation fights in the courthouse against the EPA but by action by this body. The promise of the future rests with regard to 

this potential legislation, and we hope that it passes because we 

believe it will provide certainty and clarity for the environment 

regulation side of the world. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. Mr. Alford? 

Mr. ALFORD. I have optimism in that Carol Brown has left the 

Administration, which I believe was pulling or pushing Ms. Jackson, who is a fine lady and a fine American, but the cap-and-trade 

bill died. The American people rejected it. It is gone. You can’t have 

it. So you can’t go around through chicanery or deception or end 

around or making the EPA a runaway freight train to make it happen, and we have got to stand tall and be resolved to fight it again. 

Mr. ROWLAN. I can’t say that I have more certainty. I think I will 

watch for the votes. I think my issues always go back to this, and 

it is whether—I am a technical person and an engineer by training, 

and when I look at it, I always look at what is the end result that 

you are trying to achieve, and everything that I have seen with respect to the regulation of greenhouse gases, nothing ever accomplishes the end goal of lowering the global concentration, and so 

the question I ask is, why do we do it if it not going to accomplish 

what we state is the end goal? And I have gone on record as saying 

if we are doing it and we are just doing it to hurt ourselves and 

we don’t accomplish a lowering of the global concentrations, we are 

on a fool’s errand. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. PEARCE. I am encouraged by what this legislation and I am 

encouraged by the support that we have heard for it today, but I 

am concerned that if we don’t pass this, if it is not legislative, what 

kind of ticket that does that write for the EPA and other areas? 

It sets a precedent. 

Mr. COUSINS. The Energy Tax Prevention Act gives us a fighting 

chance. Without it, the future is quite grim. 

182 

Mr. CARTER. I am encouraged because we are considering this 

piece of legislation. That is why I am here today. I would point out 

that there are things that we can do that could be done if we want 

to adopt policy that will allow electric utilities to move forward 

fewer emissions like the things that we are doing—new nuclear 

plants, which still have a great deal of hurdles in front of them, 

not from a technology perspective but from a regulatory perspective. I can speak directly to that as being part of that restart. 

Also, industry or entities like us, we need to make sure we have 

the comparable incentives so that we can move into what I would 

call other green types of resources and clear some of the regulatory 

hurdles associated with those also. 

Ms. BLAISDELL. I think this legislation encourages inaction, and 

I don’t believe that that creates more certainty, and in fact, it could 

lead to more patchwork of State regulations, which I can’t speak 

to greenhouse gas patchwork of State regulations because that 

hasn’t applied to our company yet other than to say I know from 

experience with other patchwork of regulations that that is not 

good for our company. I imagine that wouldn’t be good for the companies that are represented here as well. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Gardner, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 

witnesses for being here today, taking time away from work and 

for participating in this hearing. I really appreciate it. 

Mr. Cousins, I have a question for you from your testimony earlier today. During Administrator Jackson’s testimony, she said that 

the economy was doing great, and when I pushed back a little bit 

on that question, she said just the rural economy is doing great, 

and you had mentioned that in your county you are facing some 

significant unemployment. Could you describe that again? 

Mr. COUSINS. Well, our county has about 43,000 people in it, and 

we lost almost 2,000 jobs in one blow when a poultry operation 

shut down in our area. Our unemployment is double digit, and that 

is hardly thriving to our way of thinking. 

Mr. GARDNER. And is it your view, Mr. Cousins, that regulations 

like this will hurt rather than help the employment situation in 

your county? 

Mr. COUSINS. Absolutely. 

Mr. GARDNER. And a question for Mr. Rowlan or Mr. Pearce. 

There was some discussion during the Administrator’s testimony 

that these regulations are actually creating jobs, that the more we 

have regulations, the more jobs are created, and she also mentioned, and I think it was $2 trillion in money that is sitting out 

waiting to be invested and she believe that because of this regulation that that money would start moving back into the economy 

and being invested. Are any of you planning on investing because 

of this regulation? Ms. Blaisdell? 

Ms. BLAISDELL. The cost of inaction for us means that our supply 

chain will suffer and our ability to deliver products to our consumers will suffer as well. 

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Carter or Mr. Alford, anybody else want to 

comment on that? 

183 

Mr. ALFORD. Some of my stronger members are going to Ghana, 

Kenya, China. I have got a board member going to Mongolia next 

month. They are looking elsewhere, and I think that is sad. 

Mr. GARDNER. And a question, do you believe that regulations 

create jobs? 

Mr. ALFORD. Regulations, I believe, are intended to prevent 

crime and fraud and adherence to good corporate responsibility. 

That is it. 

Mr. GARDNER. I thank you. And I wanted to ask a few more 

questions based on some statements that were made here in the 

committee, following up on that last question. The EPA analysis 

mentioned by some on this committee had said that just one of 

EPA’s Clean Air Act standards has kept about 200,000 people occupied, 200,000 person-years of labor over the past 7 years, and in 

your opinion, doesn’t this mean that this means the EPA is keeping 

people employed? I mean, what would you say to somebody who actually is trying to bring capital investment into this country, given 

the regulatory structure that we are facing today? Mr. Abbott or 

Mr. Alford? 

Mr. ABBOTT. Along that line, it is good for jobs in the legal sector. 

We will need more lawyers to handle more legal work. But other 

than that, of course, with the way that greenhouse gases work and 

if we have regulations here in the United States and there are not 

similar regulations around the world, logically it seems like it is 

going to force industry, jobs, employers across the border into Mexico or Canada or to China and India and other parts of the world. 

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time. 

Ms. BLAISDELL. Can I respond as well? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Sure. 

Ms. BLAISDELL. I think without a lack of certainty, what ends up 

happening is what we are seeing right now in China where they 

are actually producing renewable energy systems because we didn’t 

create any certainty here, a long-term demand for those alternative 

energy sources. We haven’t talked about those jobs today. That 

could have been U.S. jobs. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Griffith, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I think Mr. Rowlan wanted to add something to 

that comment, I will ask you to say whatever it is you were thinking. 

Mr. ROWLAN. As you know in my testimony I said that affordable 

energy is the lifeblood of industry, and renewable energy has to be 

affordable. If it isn’t affordable, then all it does is displace a job because the price of your energy goes up as we talked about, and I 

was privy to some research that should be coming out shortly that 

in the last couple of years there has been 333 projects, energy generation projects that have been stalled, shut down, or otherwise 

abandoned in this country, 111 coal-fired power plants, 22 nuclear 

plants, 21 transmission projects, 38 gas and platform projects and 

140 renewable projects that haven’t even gotten through. Eightynine of those were wind, four were wave, 10 were solar, seven were 

hydro and 29 were biomass. Now, if you sit and we said we got all 

that energy and let us just take the affordable part of it and not 

the renewable unaffordable part of it, if we got that energy, look 

at the jobs that would begin to create because that energy goes out 

184 

and that creates industry which builds things, which makes jobs 

and that just continues to roll forward. 

But the sad part of this is, 45 percent of those 333 projects are 

renewable projects and we can’t even get them permitted without 

the greenhouse gas rules. Now, let us add another brick onto that 

burden and let us see if that mule can walk. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you. 

General Abbott, I am a lawyer or a recovering lawyer. Now that 

I am doing this, I can’t practice anymore. But I have read the Massachusetts v. EPA decision, and you obviously have too, and I 

looked at that next-to-last sentence where it says ‘‘We hold only 

that the EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the 

statute.’’ Now, earlier today when I was speaking with Ms. Jackson, she indicated that the reason that they had changed instead 

of it being 100 of 250 to 100,000 in their tailoring was because if 

they had enforced the law as written, it would be absurd, and I 

agreed with her on that. But I guess my question to you is, is that 

she said that they felt that because it was going to be an absurd 

result, that they had the authority to change the rule, so to speak, 

and I went to law school, I never got that class, and I am just wondering if I missed something over the years or maybe you knew, 

is there authority for a bureaucracy to change the law because they 

end result would be absurd or is that the duty of the legislative 

branch of government? 

Mr. ABBOTT. As I understand it, their legal argument is based 

upon what would be called the absurdity doctrine. As understand 

it, the absurdity doctrine is not a valid legal doctrine for them to 

base their decision on and it is more like a hope and a prayer that 

they can get away with changing the clear language established by 

Congress in the Clean Air Act. This is a way in which there is an 

evasion of the law and a creation of new law by the EPA. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And in that vein, am I not correct that once she 

made the determination that there was an endangerment, she 

needed to apply the rules to all 6 million businesses that would 

come under the 100 or 250 regulation and that by not doing so if 

someone were to sue, all 6 million in that universe would come 

under the law and that that would create chaos, I mean, not just 

damage the economy but create sheer chaos in the economy, and 

isn’t it then better that we pass this legislation so that we can then 

have that argument in the halls of Congress instead of having the 

fear that at some point in the future a court is going to rule that 

you have to apply it to all—whatever rules they come up with 

apply to all 6 million in the universe and that 6 million is of course 

her number. 

Mr. ABBOTT. Right. You are absolutely correct. Our great concern 

is that the tailoring rule is going to be challenged, not just from 

our side but also from those who really want to decrease those 

thresholds, thereby making schools, farms, hospitals, small businesses, literally thousands upon thousands of job creators and employers across the country suddenly subject to these limitations, almost stifling overnight our economy. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And the solution would be passage of this bill? 

Mr. ABBOTT. The solution has to be the passage of this bill. 

185 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I thank the gentleman and yield back whatever 

time I have left. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Griffith, thank you very much, and I want 

to thank the panel. We genuinely appreciate your taking time to 

come and talk to us about practical issues as we try to balance environment protections, health care and economic development, and 

your testimony on job creation was very important and we appreciate it, and so I will dismiss this panel. Ms. Blaisdell, I asked 

them to get these newspaper articles that Mr. Shimkus referred to, 

if you all would like to see them. 

We will call up the fourth panel, and on the fourth panel we 

have Peter Glaser, a partner with Troutman Sanders; Dr. Margo 

Thorning, Senior VP and Chief Economist, American Council for 

Capital Formation; Mr. Philip Nelson, President of the Illinois 

Farm Bureau; Mr. Fred Harnack, General Manager, U.S. Steel 

Corporation; Mr. James Goldstene, Executive Officer, California 

Air Resources Board; and Dr. Lynn Goldman, American Public 

Health Association. I want to thank you all very much for being 

with us. We appreciate your patience. We are going to declare you 

honorary members of the Energy and Commerce Committee because you have been here so long. And then at this time Mr. 

Glaser, I will call upon your for your 5-minute opening statement, 

and then we will get to questions after that. Mr. Glaser, thank you 

for being here. 

STATEMENTS OF PETER S. GLASER, PRESIDENT, TROUTMAN 

SANDERS LLP; DR. MARGO THORNING, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF ECONOMIST, AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR 

CAPITAL INVESTMENT; PHILIP NELSON, PRESIDENT, ILLINOIS FARM BUREAU; FRED T. HARNACK, GENERAL MANAGER, ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, U.S. STEEL CORPORATION; JAMES N. GOLDSTENE, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD; AND DR. LYNN R. GOLDMAN, AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION 

STATEMENT OF PETER S. GLASER 

Mr. GLASER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Members of 

the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today. 

My written testimony, which is very detailed, provides an analysis 

from a legal standpoint of why the Clean Air Act is such a poor 

vehicle for addressing greenhouse gas emissions, and I will just 

summarize some of my points there. 

I want to emphasize at the outset that I am not representing any 

of my clients here today. I am not being compensated for this testimony, and the views I express here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my clients. 

I also want to say at the beginning that my testimony has nothing to do with the science. Whatever you feel about the science either way, if you believe in the science one direction or another, my 

testimony still works. 

The main problem with regulating greenhouse gas emissions 

under the Clean Air Act, even if you think that greenhouse gases 

is something that the country needs to regulate, is that the statute 

was not designed for that purpose, and as a result, EPA’s reguVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:01 Apr 26, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00193 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-2 020911\112-2 CHRIS
186 

latory aims do not comfortably fit within the programs that are in 

the Clean Air Act. We know this because EPA itself has said that 

regulating greenhouse gases under the literal language of the statute, as we have heard many times today, creates an absurd result. 

If you use the statute, you get an absurd result, and the only way 

to avoid this is for EPA to tailor the statute itself. You have to 

change the statute. 

Just putting aside legal arguments about whether or not EPA 

could do that, the problem is that EPA has been forced to engage 

in this kind of creative legal interpretation in this area and in several other areas that are set forth in my testimony, and all of this 

shows is that EPA is trying to make the statute do something that 

it was not designed to do. And so what you get from this are lawsuits and you get regulatory uncertainty, and in the end what 

might happen if EPA is wrong is that you end up unleashing regulation on a very, very large number and variety of small emitters. 

Indeed, we may be facing more absurd consequences of trying to 

regulate under this statute. As EPA confronts a petition to regulate 

greenhouse gases under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. I actually thought the single most disturbing thing that I 

heard today having sat here all day was the Administrator’s statement that in fact they may get forced into establishing a greenhouse gas National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Unfortunately, 

the only legal precedent on the books on this would seem to be 

point to a necessity that they do that. This is set forth in more detail in my testimony. That would create truly severe economic consequences under a program that could never be complied with. 

That is very concerning. 

Now, importantly, and there has been some discussion of this 

today, EPA has not done an overall comprehensive assessment of 

the cumulative costs and benefits of all of the greenhouse gas regulation that it has in mind nor has EPA set forth its overall plan 

of regulation where it lists out in advance for everybody to see 

what the requirements will be, what categories of sources that they 

intend to regulate, what programs they intend to regulate under 

and what the full regulatory timetable is. We heard the Administrator say today that they are taking this on a rule-by-rule basis 

but that they can’t anticipate what all the rules will be because 

they don’t know what all the rules will be. We heard her say that 

they got petitions, multiple petitions to regulate different sources. 

They don’t know how they are going to act on that. We heard her 

say that they are going to be doing cost-benefit analysis but only 

in the context when they get to actual rules. 

Now, all this is despite the fact that they have a 5-year plan. 

EPA has a 5-year strategic plan, and goal number one of the 5-year 

strategic plan is taking action on climate change and air quality. 

So presumably they have a plan but they have not told us in advance what the specific elements of the plan are. As a result of all 

of this, we are in the process, we have started down this path of 

one regulation after another, but before we decided to do that in 

the first place, we never assessed what the overall cost and consequences and benefits were going to be, and this to be should be 

very concerning because it contributes to the large uncertainty of 

where exactly the Nation is going. 

187 

You know, one flaw with proceeding on a rule-by-rule basis and 

trying to determine what the costs and benefits of regulation are 

can be seen in their first foray into greenhouse gas regulation. 

Their first foray, of course, was the motor vehicle, the tailpipe rule. 

In the tailpipe rule, they assessed the costs of the tailpipe rule on 

the motor vehicle industry. They also said that the tailpipe rule 

automatically and as a matter of law triggers greenhouse gas regulation of large, stationary sources. But there was no study as to 

what those regulations were going to be and what the cost was 

going to be. So as we have started out as of January 2nd in regulation greenhouse gases under these programs, we still have no overall assessment of whether the benefit will exceed the cost. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. If you would summarize, Mr. Glaser? 

Mr. GLASER. Sure. I think the overall question for this committee 

is what part of government should make the critical policy choices 

that are inherent in determining how the Nation uses energy. To 

me, this is the main issue before this committee. Should it be EPA 

under a statute that they are relying on that was enacted in 1970 

or should it be Congress? Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Glaser follows:] 

188 


65734.266
189 


65734.267
190 


65734.268
191 


65734.269
192 


65734.270
193 


65734.271
194 


65734.272
195 


65734.273
196 


65734.274
197 


65734.275
198 


65734.276
199 


65734.277
200 


65734.278
201 


65734.279
202 


65734.280
203 


65734.281
204 


65734.282
205 


65734.283
206 


65734.284
207 


65734.285
208 


65734.286
209 


65734.287
210 


65734.288
211 


65734.289
212 


65734.290
213 


65734.291
214 


65734.292
215 


65734.293
216 


65734.294
217 


65734.295
218 


65734.296
219 


65734.297
220 


65734.298
221 


65734.299
222 


65734.300
223 


65734.301
224 


65734.302
225 


65734.303
226 


65734.304
227 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Thorning, we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MARGO THORNING 

Ms. THORNING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking Member Rush, and I apologize for misidentifying in you my 

written testimony. I would like to correct that for the record. 

Thank you very much for the chance to appear before you. I just 

want to talk about five points in my testimony. First, the U.S. 

economy is recovering sluggishly. GDP grew only at 2.9 percent 

last year. The unemployment rate remains stubbornly high at 9 

percent. And investigation right now is about $354 billion less than 

it was in the fourth quarter of 2007. Investment spending is responsible for most of the drop in gross domestic product over the 

last 21⁄2 years or so. So clearly that is a key issue. 

Looking at the historical data, each $1 billion drop in investment 

spending is associated with a job loss of 15,500 jobs, and vice versa. 

Each $1 billion increase is responsible for over 15,000 new jobs. 

The second point, regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean 

Air Act is likely to have a negative impact on overall business 

spending. When a business is contemplating a new investment, 

they look at the risk of that new investment. They may add a risk 

premium to their cost of capital, anywhere from zero to as much 

as 50 percent or more, assuming that the risk premium associated 

with investments that are in industries regulated by EPA might be 

30 to 40 percent. We looked at the impact of that on business investment in the quarter or so of investment that is accounted for 

by these regulated entities that are regulated by EPA. We conclude 

that there could be a fall in investment spending annually of between $25 and $75 billion. When you feed those numbers into 

IMPLAN, input-output model, you get—it is an input-output model 

that accounts for all the dollar flows across all sectors in the 

United States. When you feel those drops in investment which we 

assumed either $25 billion annually or $75 billion, you get a decrease in jobs of approximately 476,000 to, on the high side, 1.4 

million fewer jobs annually and you get a loss of GDP of between 

47 billion and 141 billion annually. Interestingly, the job numbers 

that we obtained by looking at the historical data were about 

15,5000 jobs tabulate very nicely with the IMPLAN results which 

suggest that for each $1 billion drop in investment, we lost about 

17,000 jobs. So using two completely different approaches, we get 

the same impact for this drop in investment spending that we expect will occur as a result of these regulations. 

Fourth, mandating energy efficiency, as EPA seems to want to do 

under the BACT guidelines is unlikely to lead to job growth. First, 

as many companies testified in the panel just before us, they have 

already made energy efficiency investments. They do it when it 

makes economic sense, and when it is time to replace their capital 

stock if they can a more energy-efficient investment that makes 

sense, they do it. They don’t need a government mandate to make 

them increase energy efficiency. And second, the argument that 

market failures and inefficiencies or technical barriers are responsible for companies not taking up energy-efficient investment is, I 

think, unfounded. Companies do make those investments. Overall, 

228 

the results suggest that mandating energy efficiency is not going 

to be a net job generator. 

And fifth, the BACT guidelines issued in November are not likely 

to reduce uncertainty and they will not reduce the risk premium 

in the cost of capital that companies contemplating investment or 

expansion face because, for example, the specific standards for 

BACT are not established by the new guidelines. That means industries don’t really know what will be required. And another example, the permitting agencies are required to retain discretion to 

determine BACT on a case-by-case basis subject to EPA or court review. Thus, regulated entities will encounter different requirements depending on the individual State regulator’s approach. 

So in conclusion, I think using economic analysis, it suggests 

that regulating GHGs under the Clean Air Act is likely to slow investment, slow job growth and not have any impact on global 

greenhouse gas concentrations. Consequently, it makes little sense 

for EPA to proceed down this path. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Thorning follows:] 

229 


65734.305
230 


65734.306
231 


65734.307
232 


65734.308
233 


65734.309
234 


65734.310
235 


65734.311
236 


65734.312
237 


65734.313
238 


65734.314
239 


65734.315
240 


65734.316
241 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Dr. Thorning. 

Mr. Nelson, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF PHILIP NELSON 

Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, good 

afternoon. I am Philip Nelson. I am a fourth-generation grain and 

livestock farmer from Seneca Illinois. I am also President of the Illinois Farm Bureau and a member of the Board of Directors of the 

American Farm Bureau Federation. I am appearing today on behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation. 

I am pleased to testify in support of the Energy Tax Prevention 

Act of 2011. It is one of several bills from both sides of the aisle 

in both the House and the Senate that are designed to allow our 

elected representatives in Congress to decide how and to what extent our Nation will address regulation of greenhouse gases. Farm 

Bureau opposes the regulation of greenhouse gases by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act and we commend the chairman for giving this matter a high priority. 

Farmers and ranchers receive a double economic jolt from the 

regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources. First, any 

costs incurred by utilities, refiners, manufacturers, and other large 

emitters to comply with the greenhouse gas regulatory requirements will be passed on to consumers of those products, including 

farmers and ranchers. To a large degree, farmers and ranchers 

cannot pass along these increased costs of production. Farmers and 

ranchers will also incur direct results as a result of the regulation 

of greenhouse gases by EPA. For the first time, many farm and 

ranch operations will likely be subject to direct new source review/ 

prevention of significant deterioration construction permits and 

Title V permit requirements under the Clean Air Act. For example, 

Title V of the Clean Air Act requires that any stationary source including farms and ranches that emits or has the potential to emit 

more than 100 tons of a regulated pollutant per year must obtain 

an operating permit. To meet this requirement, thousands of farms 

and ranches will be required to obtain the Title V operating permits. EPA itself estimates that just at the expense of obtaining 

Title V operating permits, it will cost production agriculture $866 

million. That does not include other associated permit costs. 

Livestock producers would be especially impacted by these permit requirements. The USDA has stated that approximately 90 

percent of the livestock produced in this country are above the permitting thresholds and will be required to obtain operating permits. Under the EPA tailoring scheme, farmers and ranchers would 

still incur costs passed down from utilities and larger emitters 

upon which they depend for energy and fuel. Farmers and ranchers 

that meet the low Clean Air Act thresholds will also eventually be 

required to obtain permits. 

On the other hand, this costly and burdensome regulatory 

scheme will produce very little, if any, environmental benefit. 

Greenhouse gases are distributed evenly around the globe so that 

a ton of greenhouse gases emitted in Illinois is no different than 

a ton of greenhouse gases emitted in China. Regulation of greenhouse gases emitted in Illinois means little if emissions in China 

are not similarly regulated. Unless and until the countries of this 

242 

world agree on an international treaty on greenhouse gas emissions, unilateral regulation of greenhouse gases by EPA will have 

little environment effect, a fact publicly acknowledged by the EPA 

Administrator. Both the President and the Administrator of EPA 

have stated that the regulation of greenhouse gases by EPA under 

the Clean Air Act is not an effective way to address the issue. Most 

state that they prefer that the issue be addressed by Congress. 

The Energy Tax Prevention Act recognizes this fact and applies 

the brakes to this process, thus restoring the jurisdiction of Congress to develop climate policy. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson follows:] 

243 


65734.317
244 


65734.318
245 


65734.319
246 


65734.320
247 


65734.321
248 


65734.322
249 


65734.323
250 


65734.324
251 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Nelson. 

Mr. Harnack, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF FRED T. HARNACK 

Mr. HARNACK. OK. Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman and members 

of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I will 

briefly summarize my remarks, and I am pleased to have supplied 

a detailed written statement for the record. 

My name is Fred Harnack and I am General Manager of Environmental Affairs for United States Steel Corporation. My career 

spans over 30 years in steel technology and manufacturing facilities, some of which are located in Mr. Dingell’s and Mr. Doyle’s districts. I have witnessed environmental management practices developed in tandem with implementation of the Clean Air Act. On 

balance, the Clean Air Act has been a force for positive change 

across industrial America. 

Today, I am especially proud to represent our company and over 

21,000 domestic and 42,000 total employees at U.S. Steel. My company provides employees and their families good-paying jobs and 

benefits that make the American dream attainable. We also support pension and health benefits for more than 100,000 retirees 

and their dependants. Ours is an industry worth fighting to keep. 

I assure you every one of us wants to work, live and raise our 

families in a clean and safe environment. We are committed to 

making steel with that in mind and install environmental stewardship through all our business processes. That said, we believe the 

time has come to reassess the complex framework of rules and regulations that hamstring responsible manufacturers and inhibit economic growth and job creation. 

U.S. Steel is an integrated steel producer. Our process begins 

with iron ore, carbon in the form of coke, and limestone. We transform these materials through a highly efficient, high-temperature 

blast furnace to create iron which, with the addition of recycled 

steel scrap metal, is converted to cast steel. We produce flat roll 

sheet and tin products and seamless and welded pipe that is used 

in automotive, construction, container and energy industry applications. 

As Congress looks for ways to reduce unemployment and attempt 

to recover more than 8 million manufacturing jobs lost since the 

year 2000, the regulatory burden will be a target-rich environment. 

The recent spate of new rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions 

under the Clean Air Act is a good place to start because these rules 

have not yet had the chance to inflict their harm on jobs and the 

economy. 

Greenhouse gas emissions are not like the pollutants targeted 

under the Clean Air Act. Regulating these emissions from stationary sources under the existing Clean Air Act will not yield the 

past successes achieved for other pollutants. In fact, the Clean Air 

Act makes no provision to address the anticompetitive regulatory 

costs imposed on domestic manufacturers of globally traded goods. 

This will likely lead to a perverse outcome that puts the most efficient American manufacturers at a disadvantage to unburden foreign producers while actually contributing to a net increase in globVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:01 Apr 26, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00259 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-2 020911\112-2 CHRIS
252 

al greenhouse gas emissions. I am convinced that jeopardizing 

American jobs for a worse environment is not in our best interest. 

Our substantial experience complying with the Clean Air Act 

tells us that Title I and Title V programs were probably never intended to regulate global greenhouse gas emissions. In our world, 

this is the proverbial attempt to stick a square peg in a round hole. 

The committee’s discussion draft dated February 2, 2011, would 

prevent substantial economic harm by removing greenhouse gas 

emission regulations under the Clean Air Act. 

Over the coming months, we urge Congress to hold hearings on 

other aspects of the Clean Air Act. In this regard, we would suggest five areas worthy of your further study and investigation. 

These include first of all the cumulative impact of Clean Air Act 

regulations, and I just wanted to note that my written statement 

provides a detailed list of the many new and emerging air pollution 

rules applicable to and affecting the steel industry, and you have 

heard them many times referred to also today; secondly, the role 

and expectations including costs of technology in controlling various pollutants; third, the efficiency and effectiveness of U.S. EPA’s 

guidance and testing methods; fourth, the best strategies for addressing multimedia and multipollutant impacts; and finally, staffing levels and competencies in the responsible State and federal 

regulatory agencies to ensure permitting can move with the pace 

of commerce. 

As Americans, we all understand that government regulation is 

designed to impose certain responsibilities on targeted entities. Our 

collective challenge, however, is to achieve an optimal balance of 

cost and benefit. When companies like mine are required to spend 

the lion’s share of our capital budgets on infrastructure and satisfying compliance obligations, it is no wonder that job creation and 

America’s global competitiveness are handicapped. We believe, as 

President Obama recently stated in his State of the Union address, 

that we have to make America the best place on earth to do business, and we at U.S. Steel are eager to help you achieve this worthy and rewarding goal. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harnack follows:] 

253 


65734.325
254 


65734.326
255 


65734.327
256 


65734.328
257 


65734.329
258 


65734.330
259 


65734.331
260 


65734.332
261 


65734.333
262 


65734.334
263 


65734.335
264 


65734.336
265 


65734.337
266 


65734.338
267 


65734.339
268 


65734.340
269 


65734.341
270 


65734.342
271 


65734.343
272 


65734.344
273 


65734.345
274 


65734.346
275 


65734.347
276 


65734.348
277 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Goldstene, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES N. GOLDSTENE 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman 

Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, members of the committee. I appreciate the invitation to speak today on the proposed Energy Tax 

Prevention Act of 2011. 

My name is James Goldstene. I am the Executive Officer of the 

California Air Resources Board, the primary body charged with 

protecting the air quality and air-related public health in California, and charged with speaking for the State on air quality and 

climate change issues. I am also a member of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, or NACA, 

an associate of State and local clean air agencies across the country. 

Today I would like to share with my perspective as a State agency administrator and as an air quality regulator. 

The issue before us today concerns the preemption of the Clean 

Air Act, one of the most successful environmental laws in the history of the United States. For 40 years, the sensible pollution limits 

established under the Clean Air Act have dramatically improved 

air quality and public health, saving hundreds of thousands of lives 

and generating over $2 trillion in economic benefits for the American people. Let me start with vehicles. Passenger vehicles are not 

only responsible for 20 percent of carbon pollution but the majority 

of our oil dependence. Preempting the authority for EPA to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions of vehicles would rob this country of one of its most powerful tools, not just to reduce carbon pollution but also to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and to save 

consumers money. 

Simply maintaining the U.S. Department of Transportation’s authority to regulate fuel efficiency is not adequate. While the fuel 

economy standards can complement long-term mobile source greenhouse gas reduction strategies, they are in no way a substitute for 

them. The combined fuel economy and vehicle greenhouse gas 

emission standards promulgated by EPA and DOT last year represent an important and unprecedented partnership. This approach 

leverages the strengths of both agencies and combines the related 

but different aspects of fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission 

standards. As a result, the combined standards achieve 35 percent 

less pollution and 25 percent less fuel consumption, compared to 

relying on CAFE standards alone. 

California embraced these joint standards and the national program wholeheartedly, accepting the federal program as equivalent 

to our own program for model years 2009 to 2016. We have continued to carry on this unprecedented spirit of cooperation and collaboration following the historic May 2009 Rose Garden agreements, working with both federal agencies and automobile manufacturers to develop the next round of standards. California remains committed to the process of working closely with our partners to do everything we can to repeat that success for the 2017 

to 2025 standards. 

278 

We are building on a firmly established precedent and foundation 

of national environmental policy. Since the early 1960s, California 

has established pollution standards for new vehicles sold in the 

State predating even the Federal Government’s effort in this arena, 

and the pattern has continued. Since the 1980s, each successive 

California standard has gone on to become the national standard. 

In that time cars have become 99.7 percent cleaner, all while the 

auto industry has innovated to continue providing consumers with 

the amazing diversity and quality of affordable vehicles that we 

enjoy today. And of course, in this we are joined by our other 

States, the so-called section 177 States who have acted like California to address their own quality and public health concerns with 

our cost-effective standards. Preempting California’s ability to set 

carbon pollution standards for vehicles would also increase costs to 

California consumers. These vehicle standards are one of the most 

cost-effective measures in California’s clean energy plan, saving 

consumers an average of $2,000 over the life of a vehicle. 

With regard to pollution from electricity generators and factories, 

EPA is utilizing the tried-and-true framework for reducing pollution. Far from overreaching, EPA is responding to the clear mandate of the Clean Air Act, the dictates of the Supreme Court and 

fulfilling the clear intent of Congress that newly identified public 

health risks from air pollutants not listed in the Act be addressed. 

The obligation is clear and unambiguous. 

Contrary to claims of a rush to regulation, EPA has been proceeding methodically. Clearly, EPA has moved forward in the past 

2 years with a tailored, measured approach. This permitting process is business as usual for State and local air quality agencies 

across the country who are using a well-known process that has 

been used for decades. EPA has provided flexibility for State and 

local agencies in how to run the permitting program so that the 

local regulators can work with the permit applicants. The claim 

that permitting would grind to a halt is simply false. All we want 

is to provide certainty for industry to invest and create jobs. 

This legislation, however, would forestall needed and available 

investment in the energy sector now and threaten the competitiveness of the American economy in the long run. We know that when 

government provides clear signals and a predictable regulatory environment, industry is quick to adapt, seize investment opportunity 

and create good jobs along with profits. For example, in the face 

of the current recession, clean technology has been the fastestgrowing sector in California. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement Mr. Goldstene follows:] 

279 


65734.349
280 


65734.350
281 


65734.351
282 


65734.352
283 


65734.353
284 


65734.354
285 


65734.355
286 


65734.356
287 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Goldstene. 

Dr. Goldman, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LYNN R. GOLDMAN 

Dr. GOLDMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for the opportunity to testify about this Act. My name is Lynn Goldman. I am 

Dean of the George Washington University School of Public Health 

and Health Services, a pediatrician and a professor of environmental and occupational health. Today I represent the American 

Public Health Association, or APHA. APHA is the Nation’s oldest 

and most diverse organization of public health professionals in the 

world dedicated to protecting all Americans and their communities 

from preventable serious health threats and assuring communitybased health promotion and disease prevention activities that are 

universally accessible across the United States. With your consent, 

I will place my written statement in the record. 

For 40 years, the Clean Air Act has safeguarded the health of all 

Americans including the most vulnerable. By EPA’s estimate, the 

first 20 years of the Clean Air Act has prevented more than 

200,000 premature deaths, 672,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 

843,000 asthma attacks and 189,000 cardiovascular hospitalizations, making it one of the most successful public health laws of 

our time. 

As you know, in 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court directed EPA to 

assess the science in order to decide whether or not to move forward with efforts to protect the public’s health from the impacts of 

greenhouse gases. They did so, and they developed an 

endangerment assessment. It is because of this endangerment assessment and our knowledge about the public health effects of climate change that APHA opposes this legislation, and we are not 

alone in this position. In a December 6, 2010, letter to all Members 

of Congress, APHA was joined by the American Lung Association, 

the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Preventive Medicine and other leading national and State public 

health, medical and clean air advocates in urging Congress to support moving forward with protective clean air standards and to oppose any measure that would delay or block progress toward a 

healthier tomorrow for all Americans. 

Climate change is a public health issue, and over time it is one 

of the greatest threats to human health. Scientists from across the 

globe have stated in the strongest possible terms that the climate 

is changing and that human activity is to blame. Scientists have 

unequivocally concluded that greenhouse gas is causing global 

warming and the United States is the leading contributor to these 

gases. The average increase in earth’s temperature is causing extreme weather events and increases and decrease in temperature 

and rainfall. These regional weather changes may create environmental conditions like floods, heat waves, droughts and poor air 

quality that are not healthy. Some of the health effects we may be 

concerned about are strokes, injury, malnutrition, respiratory disease and asthma, and infections such as vector- and rodent-borne 

diseases. Huge costs and human suffering are associated with these 

outcomes. We are already beginning to see the health impacts 

288 

worldwide. Impacts will only worsen if we continue to ignore this 

problem. 

I can recite more statistics, but let us take childhood asthma as 

an example. Already in the United States, asthma is the largest 

cause of hospitalizations and lost days of school for children but as 

a pediatrician, I also know the impacts of this disease on an individual child: a child who grows up unable to breathe without medication, unable to play outdoors like other children. Climate change 

is creating conditions that not only cause more asthma attacks but 

also can cause rates of asthma to rise in children. Moreover, the 

same activities that emit carbon dioxide also emit a wide variety 

of other pollutants that are harmful to health, pollutants like nitrogen oxides, air toxics and fine particulate matter. These pollutants 

also contribute to various diseases. Along with global warming, 

they contribute to formation of ground-level ozone. That is also 

unhealthy. 

So we do need regulations that control greenhouse gas emissions 

but these need to be written and implemented intelligently in a 

manner that also reduces exposure to other pollutants that might 

come from coal-fired power plants, that might come from automobiles. Control of pollution from power plants also increases the 

healthfulness of air in communities that are near those plants. 

These facilities are often closer to low-income communities that 

suffer disproportionately from air pollution. 

Measures to control air pollutants under the Clean Air Act need 

to work together as a whole to protect health. Cherry picking 

among these ignores the fact that health effects are associated with 

multiple classes and sources of pollution and is not consistent with 

science. Another way we can improve is by increasing energy efficiency. When we reduce our use of energy, we reduce emissions of 

the pollutants associated with energy and other harmful substances. 

In closing, I should say that this bill would do nothing to reduce 

uncertainty. There is a problem, a clear and present public health 

threat from climate change. There are no answers to this problem 

in this legislation. Until Congress is putting forward solutions, 

there will be a to of uncertainty in this country about where we are 

heading with this problem. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Goldman follows:] 

289 


65734.357
290 


65734.358
291 


65734.359
292 


65734.360
293 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much for your testimony. We appreciate once again your taking the time to be with us today. 

I would say, Dr. Goldman, that all the testimony I heard today 

made it very emphatically clear that there would be great uncertainty by EPA continuing to try to regulate greenhouse gases, and 

I would also say that on the light-duty motor vehicle standards 

which EPA has promulgated, this legislation would not change and 

affects model years 2012 through 2016. Now, the testimony has 

shown that that regulation is going to cost $52 billion to consumers 

in America and it is going to lower the temperature 90 years from 

now by maybe one one-hundredths of a degree. So what we are trying to do here is balance. We want to protect health, we want to 

protect environment, we want to protect jobs. We want to provide 

incentives for investment and we want to be competitive in the 

global marketplace. 

And Mr. Nelson, when Administrator Jackson was sitting right 

there, she said that the greenhouse gas regulations would really 

not impact the farming community, but from your testimony, I 

think you made it pretty clear that you would not agree with her 

statement. Is that correct? 

Mr. NELSON. That is correct. She made a couple comments that 

at this point in time it didn’t impact it but our understanding, 

there are over 100 farm entities that do report to EPA at the 

present time, and—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, as you said, it will certainly affect our electricity costs. There is no question about that. It will affect your fertilizer costs. There is no question about that. 

Now, the tailoring rule certainly would exempt many of you, but 

Mr. Glaser, that tailoring rule, Mr. Glaser, the tailoring rule is an 

explicit violation of the specific language of the Clean Air Act, isn’t 

it? 

Mr. GLASER. I don’t see how you could be any more clear in the 

statute than by using a number. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, and the number says 100 or 250 tons per 

year. 

Mr. GLASER. One hundred or 250. It doesn’t say 100,000. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And she says 100,000. Now, have lawsuits been 

filed against the tailoring rule? 

Mr. GLASER. Yes, they have. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And have lawsuits been filed against EPA’s allegation that the fact that they were required by the Supreme Court 

to look at this issue on mobile sources because they found an 

endangerment finding there that they are automatically required to 

regulate stationary sources. Has there been a lawsuit filed on that? 

Mr. NELSON. Yes. I mean, I have to say that what has gone on 

is again, as one of the witnesses said, when you try to jam a square 

peg into a round hole, you end up with a great deal of legal uncertainty and you end up with a great number of lawsuits including 

EPA’s contention that by finding that automobile emissions endanger public health and welfare and therefore regulating automobiles, 

you then automatically have to regulate stationary sources. That is 

also uncertain and doesn’t seem to be a logical reading. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And I might say, we are certainly not trying to 

gut the Clean Air Act in any way. We are trying to break the logVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:01 Apr 26, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00301 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-2 020911\112-2 CHRIS
294 

jam which was written by a former legal counsel for the National 

Resources Defense Council, and he says in this book that the Clean 

Air Act was never meant to regulate greenhouse gases and it does 

not work in doing so. 

Now, Ms. Jackson also admitted today that there is no technology available to deal with greenhouse gases and that her rules 

would not in any way meaningfully reduce greenhouse gases. But 

she did say we are going to require efficiencies to be adopted by 

stationary sources, and then some people have said well, there is 

nothing wrong with that, that is reasonable, and that is reasonable. 

I am assuming, Mr. Harnack, that most businesses want to be as 

efficient as they can be and they don’t need government bureaucrats telling them to do that. Is that correct or not? 

Mr. HARNACK. I mean, in our case, that is correct. We have done 

a lot of energy efficiency projects. We have a corporate energy efficiency initiative that has been in place for many years now, and 

we think that we have captured a lot of the low-hanging fruit. 

Some of the challenges now is that some of the projects that we 

have just do not have suitable return for us to invest very limited 

capital in based on our situation and the business climate right 

now. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But they seem to be working on the premise that 

in order to be efficient, the government regulators have to tell you 

to be efficient and how to do it, and if the State regulators make 

a ruling that you should do it this way to meet these standards, 

EPA is not precluded from coming back later and disagreeing with 

that and making you even change that. Is that right, Mr. Glaser? 

Mr. GLASER. Yes, I completely agree with that. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, my time has already expired, so Mr. Rush, 

I recognize you for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Nelson, as a fellow Illinoisan and as a supporter 

of Illinois farms, I certainly want to welcome you here to this subcommittee, and I understand your concerns about potential impacts 

on small agricultural operators if EPA had not adopted the tailoring rule. Requiring permits for these sources makes no sense. 

That is why I was pleased to hear Administrator Jackson assure 

us earlier today that the tailoring rule avoids any energy and 

greenhouse gas requirements on small sources including farms. Did 

you hear her say that? 

Mr. NELSON. She did allude to that, but I think the one thing 

to keep in mind when she was talking about agriculture, we are 

big consumers of energy and we rely on energy so if indeed you 

were to put undue regulations on some of the inputs that we utilize 

in agriculture, it has a tremendous impact on production agriculture. 

Mr. RUSH. Well, and being consistent with her testimony, does 

any farm have to report under the greenhouse gases reporting 

rule? 

Mr. NELSON. Well, it would depend on a number of things. If you 

were not reclassified, and we looked at stationary sources, livestock 

would fall under that category as it stands right now. We have 

asked that of the EPA of whether they are going to reclassify stationary sources as it relates to agriculture. They have not done it 

as of now. Being a livestock producer, it creates a huge burden 

295 

when you look at the dollars that we are talking of assessing livestock operations just to stay in business. 

Mr. RUSH. But as of today, there is no farm that you are aware 

that has to report under the greenhouse gas reporting rule as of 

today, as it stands right now? 

Mr. NELSON. As it stands right now, some of those that fall into 

a certain category, there are approximately 100 based on what we 

know that do report to the EPA. 

Mr. RUSH. The regs went into effect on January 2nd of this year. 

You said there are at least 100 farms who are now subject to these 

rules. Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. NELSON. Yes, and if you require a manure management system, they do report as of now. 

Mr. RUSH. I want to switch my questioning to Dr. Goldman. Dr. 

Goldman, do you believe that it is appropriate for Congress to pass 

legislation that substitutes Congress’s views that carbon pollution 

does not endanger public health for your and other scientists’ interpretation that carbon pollution does endanger public health? 

Dr. GOLDMAN. No, I don’t believe that would be appropriate. 

Mr. RUSH. Can you be more concise and tell the subcommittee 

why you support the Clean Air Act and the steps that the EPA is 

taking to put limits on carbon pollution? 

Dr. GOLDMAN. I support it because at this point in time it is the 

only method that the EPA has for being able to deal with this very 

clear and present threat, and that is the Clean Air Act and the 

emissions that cause global warming are air emissions and they 

can be regulated under the Clean Air Act, and EPA has been able 

to make clear public health findings that indeed they are threatening the Nation’s health. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, sir. Mr. Shimkus, you are recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am just going to 

go quick, but in response to Dr. Goldman’s response to the question, the elected representatives have never passed any piece of legislation that has been signed into law to regulate greenhouse gas. 

I am not asking for a response, I am just telling you, the elected 

representatives, the people who send us here from our districts, we 

have never, we have never passed legislation that has gone into 

law to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. 

If you would put up the picture on the slide there, this is for my 

colleague from Illinois, my friend, Mr. Nelson. This is kind of going 

off script on greenhouse gases. But Phil, tell me what is going on 

there. 

Mr. NELSON. That is a harvest operation, I believe combining 

soybeans. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And that smoke in the back, what is that? Is that 

dirty petroleum product? 

Mr. NELSON. No, that is dust. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Dust made up of? 

Mr. NELSON. Basically material coming off the plant after it 

is—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Dried leaves, stems. They keep the beans and 

spread out the chaff, what we would call it. 

296 

Mr. NELSON. That is correct. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Is there not a fear from the agricultural community that the EPA is moving to regulate that activity? 

Mr. NELSON. Yes, there is, and as a matter of fact, I made the 

comments many times if you look even at the Kyoto Protocol, we 

would have to equip our harvest machines with dust collectors if 

you were going to take it to the nth degree. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Which would be additional capital expense or 

maybe a water trailer and water it down to collect chaff, chaff. This 

is dust from leaves and stems in agriculture. That is pretty close 

to my home, and I took that as I was driving back from taking my 

kids. He was in the field. I pulled off on the side, took about five 

photos. I took that around in October, the election year, to the 

Farm Bureau meetings and held it up on my phone and said this 

is what—this is what we have in an EPA gone awry when they are 

going to spend time, effort, energy regulating chaff, and of course, 

in my congressional district, the people are just unbelievably astounded that we would do such a thing. So thank you for that. 

Let me just ask, does uncertainty raise the cost of capital? This 

is just a traditional, just a business question. Dr. Goldman, does 

uncertainty raise—you may not know. Does uncertainty raise the 

cost of borrowing money? 

Dr. GOLDMAN. Not in my area. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The answer is, it definitely does. It raises the interest, the rate on raising capital. So the reason why I ask this 

question is because certainty is what everybody is talking about. 

Mr. Goldstene says this produces more certainty. This greenhouse 

gas regulation is good for business. We have more certainty. That 

is correct, right? That is your testimony? 

Mr. Harnack, do you want to respond? Do you have more certainty today in U.S. steel production or less? 

Mr. HARNACK. Definitely less, and the one thing—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So the cost of capital increases for expansion? 

Mr. HARNACK. The cost of capital is something that we know that 

there is not an alternative to the integral steel process presently, 

and the fact that we require carbon to create new steel, and the 

integrated process is slightly different than the electric furnace 

process because the electric furnace process—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Go quickly. 

Mr. HARNACK [continuing]. Requires recycled scrap. We mine ore 

that is required to make new steel, and there is not enough recycled scrap in the world to provide steel for all the applications. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So this creates more uncertainty for your business? 

Mr. HARNACK. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And is there more uncertainty for the Chinese 

steel mill or less? 

Mr. HARNACK. It doesn’t apply to them. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So there is less uncertainty, lower cost of capital 

for Chinese steel which would make Chinese steel more competitive 

in this country, another aspect. 

Mr. Nelson, in the agriculture community, more uncertainty or 

less? 

297 

Mr. NELSON. Absolutely more, and you look at our competitors 

in South America and Europe that we compete against, and you 

just—the fear of the unknown about how many more undue regulations are going to make us more uncompetitive in the environment 

that we are a part of. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me go to our economist. More uncertainty, less, 

Dr. Thorning, this premise on how we create jobs, how do we raise 

capital? 

Ms. THORNING. Well, I think definitely more uncertainty, and the 

BACT rules released in November really don’t help, so I think it 

is pretty clear that this regulation will have a negative impact on 

jobs and economic growth. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Shimkus. 

I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, for 5 minutes. 

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

This question is to Mr. Goldstene. Does CARB plan on finalizing 

California GHG emissions standards before the federal standards 

are finalized? Yes or no. 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. Now, would you tell me and explain for 

the record how you and your staff have already stated fuel economy 

goals of 50 to 62 miles per gallon before the information and analysis that is available to complete that process has been made available to the commission? 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. Congressman, we have made a public commitment just recently that we are going to wait to propose our rule 

until the beginning of September, which is the same time that DOT 

and EPA will propose their rules. We have not made any public announcements that we have chosen or predecided what the standard 

should be. We have been discussing a range of standards in public 

workshops, and I think that is maybe where you are hearing that. 

Mr. DINGELL. So what you are telling me is, you have stated the 

fuel economy goals are going to be 50 to 62 miles per gallon before 

you have gotten the information and the analysis necessary to complete the process. Is that right? 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. No, sir, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that—— 

Mr. DINGELL. Well, what are you telling me then, please? 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. What I am saying that is that we are working 

with DOT and EPA on a series of studies. We are waiting to complete those studies, which are going through peer review, and we 

will use all the information—— 

Mr. DINGELL. I only have 34 seconds here. 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. Sorry. 

Mr. DINGELL. Have you gotten the information and the scientific 

work done to support those numbers? Yes or no. 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. We have a lot of information that is being peer 

reviewed. 

Mr. DINGELL. Do you have the information that would support 

that statement in proper form to stand a judicial review? 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. We may. It depends on what the final peer-reviewed studies say and what we—— 

298 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GOLDSTENE [continuing]. Propose as a regulation with DOT 

and EPA. 

Mr. DINGELL. We had a little trouble getting the answer but I 

do thank you for your kindness. Now, does CARB conduct analysis 

on job impact and economic consequences of the standards that it 

is considering? 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Would you please submit that analysis on the fuel 

efficiency standards that you are suggesting for purposes of the 

record, please? 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. We would be happy to. We haven’t completed 

them for the new set of standards. We have them for the prior 

standards. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, would you tell us about the extent of CARB’s 

safety expertise? What safety expertise do you have? Do you have 

any responsibility under the California statutes to deal with the 

question of safety or not? 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. No, but that is why we are working with DOT. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. And we have jointly funded a study on this 

issue. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you very much. Now, 2 days ago, CARB 

sent letters to the CEOs of all the automobile alliance asking them 

to distance themselves from the alliance’s complaint in a letter to 

Chairman Darrell Issa that the CARB was moving unilaterally forward in regulatory process. CARB disputes that claim by saying, 

‘‘We recently issued a joint statement with EPA and NHTSA promising that we would release proposals for the next set of GHG 

standards and NHTSA’s on the same date September 1, 2011.’’ 

Now, yes or no, isn’t it true that CARB made a joint statement on 

timing with EPA and NHTSA only after the alliance sent the aforementioned letter to Chairman Issa and only after CARB received 

a letter and only after the Obama Administration in response to 

the letter asked CARB to stop getting out in front of the federal 

process? Yes or no. 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. There are a lot of questions there. We have been 

working with EPA, DOT and the White House on the next round 

of standards, and all along we have been making public statements 

and commitments that we would not get out ahead of our partners 

at EPA and NHTSA. 

Mr. DINGELL. Let me read this again. Two days ago, CARB sent 

letters to CEO members of the auto alliance asking them to distance themselves from the alliance’s complaint in a letter to Chairman Darrell Issa that the CARB was moving unilaterally forward 

in the regulatory process. Is that true or false? 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. We sent a letter to the CEOs—— 

Mr. DINGELL. Good. 

Mr. GOLDSTENE [continuing]. Saying—being critical of the alliance letter to Congressman Issa. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. The answer to that is yes. Please, I have limited 

time. Now, CARB disputes that claim by saying, ‘‘We recently 

issued a joint statement with EPA and NHTSA promising that we 

299 

would release proposals for the next set of GHG standards and 

NHTSA’s on the same date September 1, 2011.’’ Is that true? 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. That is true. 

Mr. DINGELL. OK. Now—— 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. But that is not new. That was just putting in 

writing what we have been saying all along. 

Mr. DINGELL. Please. May I continue? 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. Isn’t it true that CARB made the joint statement 

on timing with EPA and NHTSA only after the alliance sent the 

aforementioned letter to Chairman Issa and only after CARB received the letter and only after the Obama Administration in response to the letter asked CARB to stop getting in front of the federal process? 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. It is true that we sent the letter after the alliance sent their letter. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. Now, would you tell us if it is your 

view that global warming problems should be dealt with under the 

Clean Air Act or is there a better way of dealing with it? 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. The Clean Air Act is the tool we have, the tool 

that EPA has. 

Mr. DINGELL. But is it going to be simple and easy to do? Is it 

going to be relatively free from litigation and questions or is it 

going to be a very complex grind where you will have a number of 

different options and might wind up with quite different standards 

for different things in different States? 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. I think that the EPA is hoping to avoid that by 

using their power under the Clean Air Act. 

Mr. DINGELL. I know, but are they going to be able to, in your 

opinion? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. I think there is a way to make sure that you 

make the rules as easy to understand nationally as possible, and 

we have proven that over and over again through the adoption of 

our clean car standards in California that get adopted then by 

other states and ultimately the Federal Government. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I recognize the gentleman from Michigan for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. DINGELL. You have been very kind, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will confess that several 

years ago I voted against cloning, and days like today, I wonder 

why as I have been in a number of different events and I was sad 

to miss the testimony by all of you during this panel, but I have 

a couple of questions. 

Dr. Thorning, you indicated—and I talked to the earlier panels, 

in Michigan these regulations have been predicted to reduce our 

GDP by $18 billion, destroy 96,000 jobs, reduce household incomes 

by nearly $1,600. In your testimony, I believe, or in response to a 

question, you talked about a model that showed by 2014 that $25 

to $75 billion decrease in capital investment would in fact result 

in an economy-wide job loss of somewhere between 476,000 and 1.4 

million when direct and indirect and induced effects are included, 

and as a result, GDP would be $47 billion to $141 billion less in 

300 

2014. Can you expound a little bit about how you came up with 

those numbers? 

Ms. THORNING. Yes. Looking at the regulated industries that are 

initially going to come under EPA’s regulations, we concluded that 

those represented about—that the investment in those industries 

normally represents about 25 percent of all U.S. investment on an 

annual basis, and then we did some research on how the risk premium for investment in those industries might be impacted by the 

uncertainty surrounding EPA regulations, the tailoring rule, 

whether it will stand, so forth, and we concluded that the risk premium probably would increase between 30 and 40 percent for those 

industries. Therefore, if those industries represent approximately 

25 percent of all investment, we concluded that that would represent looking at historical data a decrease in investment of between $25 billion a year and $75 billion a year. 

Now, remember that overall gross private domestic investment is like $1.7 trillion, so we thought that was a pretty conservative estimate and we used a conservative estimate of the elasticity of response to investment to changes in the cost of capital, and we ran 

through that the IMPLAN model, which is a near-term model good 

for short-term predictions, not good for long-term predictions, it 

produced results with the direct, the induced and the ancillary impacts of nationwide job reduction compared to the baseline forecast 

of between 476,000 fewer jobs to as many as 1.4 million fewer jobs 

in the year 2014, and of course, some industries are more impacted 

than others, and GDP of approximately $47 billion smaller to $141 

billion smaller, and this is just targeting these industries right now 

that are impacted and the large ones that are included in EPA’s 

current regulatory regime. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

Mr. Goldstene, in announcing his new Executive Order on regulations, President Obama cited one national program as a good example of eliminating a tangle of regulations. The tangle was the result of three different agencies—NHTSA, EPA and CARB—trying 

to regulate basically the same thing. One national program eliminated the tangle for 2012 through 2016 by getting EPA and 

NHTSA to coordinate with each other and by California agreeing 

to defer to the federal regulations. It now appears that for 2017 

and beyond, we are in the process of re-creating the tangle that the 

one national program eliminated since California is planning to 

promulgate a new set of GHG regs. Why shouldn’t it be that California agree that from now on there will be a national program 

consisting of NHTSA and EPA regulations only? Why does California need to duplicate or move forward with a different plan? 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. Mr. Upton, as you know, California has a special mention in the Clean Air Act because our air quality problems 

have been so severe over the years and they are still severe in certain areas of the State like in Los Angeles and the central valley. 

So from the perspective of a State that still has significant air quality problems, we have to fight to keep our authority to promulgate 

the rules that are needed to protect the public health, and these 

vehicle standards are one of the ways that we do that. We are 

sometimes or often joined by other States under section 177 that 

can use our rules if they choose to and that sometimes creates 

301 

what the auto industry had called a patchwork quilt, but the fact 

is, at most you would only have two standards, and over the past 

40 years what we have seen over and over again is that if the two 

standards become one relatively quickly, and that is what just happened with the 2012-2016 standards, and this time unlike before, 

we are working very closely with EPA and DOT, using the same 

information, relying on the same peer-reviewed studies, and working hand in hand on developing and designing our rules. They may 

come out slightly differently. Our process is slightly shorter, so we 

may complete our process before EPA and NHTSA finish their 

processes but we are fully committed to harmonizing them as soon 

as they are done. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Ms. Capps, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to start out, 

I have questions for you, Mr. Goldstene, and also one for Dr. Goldman, and as someone who represents a district in California where 

we can look out to see whether the brown haze is coming up from 

the L.A. basin on certain days and have lived there long enough 

to notice the rise as a former school nurse of school-age asthma and 

being aware that there were certain days in the L.A. basin when 

frail adults were told to stay inside and kids couldn’t go out on the 

playground. That is one of the special things about living in our 

State and why I am so appreciative of the work that you as Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board, or CARB, and 

I want to tell you, I appreciate the regulation of the marine vessels, 

which have added a great deal to their air quality in my part of 

the State and all along the coastal areas. 

You have some—we have been hearing today about the fact that 

addressing climate change will destroy the economy. You have 

some practical experience because California is well underway in 

implementation of a State law to conduct carbon pollution. Can we 

cut carbon pollution, Mr. Goldstene, without harming the economy? 

In a few words. 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. Yes, we can. We have also run economic analysis like the kind that Dr. Thorning described using macroeconomic 

models, and we have used a model called EDRAM and BEAR. I am 

sure Dr. Thorning knows those models. And what we have shown 

overall in the California economy is there is a very slight net positive with climate regulations under our plan economically. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you. And a very brief assessment of how workable EPA’s approach is. 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. I think it is very workable. I have been here all 

day, and I have seen the complaints, but the fact is, I think most 

of the claims and worry while the worry is real, I think when you 

look at the specific details, for instance, the cost of capital, the cost 

of capital is influenced by many, many factors, not just by the possibility of a regulation. 

Ms. CAPPS. And you are also a member of the board of directors 

for the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. Yes. 

Ms. CAPPS. Just a couple words on your understanding of whether other States are finding EPA’s approach to be workable as you 

talk with people from other States. 

302 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. Yes. There are many States that are embracing 

EPA’s process and effort. Of course, there are States that are also 

concerned about it but I think on the whole—— 

Ms. CAPPS. Overall, are we moving in the right direction? 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. Overall, it is moving in the right direction, but 

I do think people in other States, my colleagues and the governors 

in many other States see the potential for the great economic innovation that can come from this and job creation that can come from 

this kind of rulemaking. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Goldstene. 

Dr. Goldman, I recently heard a story about back when the 

Clean Air Act was first being debated on the House floor. One Congressman quoted a mayor, and this is the quote: ‘‘If you want to 

make this town grow, it has got to stink.’’ I think that has been 

proven wrong. Our economy has not shriveled over these past years 

of trying to improve the air quality. Instead, the GDP has grown 

207 percent. My question to you representing, as you do, the American Public Health Association, can you please share with us the 

health benefits and really the economic benefits as a result of responsible limits to greenhouse gases, the approach the EPA is taking? 

Dr. GOLDMAN. The benefits are potentially quite enormous, and 

what we are looking at in terms of threats from climate change 

have to do with health impacts from adverse weather events like 

flooding and drought, adverse health impacts from dirty air, and 

also adverse health impacts form changing the distribution of disease-bearing vectors like insects and rodents, and these are all 

enormous threats. I think the most immediate ones that we are 

seeing have to do with the increasing frequently of severe weather 

events which have a major impact on people’s health. 

Ms. CAPPS. And with that, I am going to yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Ms. Capps. 

Mr. Scalise, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First a question for Mr. 

Nelson with Farm Bureau. I appreciate you being here to discuss 

the importance of the impact of greenhouse gas regulations and 

how they would impact specifically the agriculture industry. I know 

you know the essential role that the agriculture industry plays in 

America’s way of life but also especially as it relates to our economy and the small businesses that are such the heart of the agriculture industry. I represent a part of southeast Louisiana. We 

have a larger presence of dairy farmers, in my district, and really 

concerned about the impact that EPA regulations would have on 

these small businesses, you know, especially as Administrator 

Jackson has talked about potentially down the road doing some 

things there. The dairy industry in Louisiana contributes about 

$115 million to Louisiana’s economy, and those proposed EPA regulations would devastate many of these small businesses who literally are operating on the margins. I think you were here when 

the Administrator was giving her statements, but since the EPA 

Administrator has left the door open to regulation of the agriculture industry, can you speak specifically to how it would potenVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:01 Apr 26, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00310 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-2 020911\112-2 CHRIS
303 

tially affect especially those small dairy farms in districts like mine 

and yours in Illinois and throughout the country? 

Mr. NELSON. Well, really I would address it two different ways. 

You have to look at the livestock industry and what is being proposed or thrown out there in regards to a Title V permit if isn’t reclassified. It will have a tremendous impact on the dairy industry. 

I think the numbers that we are looking at, you know, are $175 

for a dairy cow, which you just cannot make any money—— 

Mr. SCALISE. But it would cost an additional $175 per dairy cow 

if those EPA restrictions were put in place? 

Mr. NELSON. That is correct. 

Mr. SCALISE. Gee, whiz. 

Mr. NELSON. And not only that, then you look at the production 

side of things as Congressman Shimkus alluded to, the threats are 

out there as far as dust permits. We have got a couple States right 

now that can’t even deal with the dust standards as it is proposed 

today, let alone try to make those twice as stringent as what we 

are hearing coming out of the Administration. So it really impacts 

a number of facets of agriculture if these regulations proceed forward and are put in place. 

Mr. SCALISE. And that seems to actually go in sync with some 

of the statements that were made on the previous panel. Mr. 

Alford, who is the President and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, had given some testimony and he talked about 

a number of impacts, and they had done a study, and one thing he 

looked at, on the poorest 20 percent of our population, he said this 

kind of scheme by EPA would increase the cost of home energy by 

45 percent, motor fuel by 25 percent, and he said it would also increase groceries by 35 percent on our Nation’s poorest families. So 

can you talk about, especially from the agriculture industry, what 

would the impact of a 35 percent increase in food prices on our 

poorest families in this country have? 

Mr. NELSON. Right now, consumers have probably the best bargain in the entire world where we spend about 10 cents out of 

every disposable dollar for food. You look at Japan and some of the 

other developed countries that do have regulatory frameworks that 

could parallel some of the things that are being proposed by this 

Administration, so you could easily make the case of doubling what 

we pay for food. 

Under Waxman-Markey, we had a lot of sensitivity with that bill 

as it related to what it would do to food prices, what it would do 

to energy prices if you didn’t sight the nuclear power plants, if you 

took almost 59 million acres out of production, row crop agriculture, what that would do to the consumer and the grocery store. 

So, you know, it is going to have a dramatic impact if indeed we 

don’t use some common sense to try to look at a regulatory framework that is workable without really impacting our industry to the 

degree that—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you. And I know we are trying to get EPA 

to look at the job loss impact of all of the things that they are doing 

in these regulations but I would be curious to see if EPA is going 

to do an impact on the lives that would be lost if you had a 35 percent increase in the food that our poorest families by where you litVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:01 Apr 26, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00311 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-2 020911\112-2 CHRIS
304 

erally would be taking food of the table of American families because of these regulations on the agriculture industry. 

Ms. Thorning, I know I am running low on time but Ms. 

Thorning, I am not sure if you had seen the study that we have 

seen on the Spain experiment with this kind of, you know, this capand-trade scheme where they regulate and they talked about all 

the green jobs that I would create, and of course it turned out in 

Spain after they looked at it, all of the promises of those new jobs 

turned out to be a mirage and they ended up losing two jobs for 

every job they created and in fact for each new job they created, 

only 10 percent were actually permanent jobs, so in essence, you 

lost 20 full-time jobs for every real job that you created in this industry. Have you looked at any of those studies? 

Ms. THORNING. Yes, I have seen that study. There is also one 

done by a German think tank that looks at the cost of solar energy 

and electricity prices in Germany. There is one in Denmark that 

shows the same thing. The issue is, when you substitute more expensive energy for cheaper energy, you might gain some jobs in 

that sector, you know, the green energy sector but you are going 

to lose them overall because you are making other products, other 

producers pay a lot more for energy, and that finding is mirrored 

in the work that groups like ours have done with the Department 

of Energy’s own NIMS model analyzing Waxman-Markey, KerryLieberman. We always get some more green jobs because, you 

know, we are forcing quicker uptake of energy efficiency but overall 

the macro models show job loss, and that is a similar conclusion 

that you have got—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Doyle, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me commend 

you and the ranking member for your stamina and the panel for 

your patience, and welcome to all of you. I want to especially welcome Fred Harnack from U.S. Steel. Just by way of full disclosure, 

Fred and I go back quite a bit. He started out at Edgar Thompson, 

where my father worked for 30 years. Then over to the Homestead 

Works plant, an urban plant in West Mifflin and Mon Valley 

Works, and Fred probably has an incredible knowledge of my congressional district and the steel industry, which are two things that 

I hold near and dear to my heart, and I suspect that we were both 

crying in our Iron City beers a little bit on Sunday after that game 

was over, but Fred, it is good to have you here. 

You know, I follow the steel industry’s performance closely, and 

I am certainly aware of the current difficulties that integrated steel 

mills face. We know the cost of raw materials has gone up greatly 

and that continues to affect the performance of manufacturers, and 

also it is an industry that is uniquely affect by it has international 

trade pressures too. This is why as we were trying to develop a 

comprehensive energy bill, that we were particularly sensitive 

about those things and tried to put language in the bill that would 

address some of the pressures that industries like steel had that 

were carbon intensive but had trade pressures too. 

On the earlier panel, I talked to Administrator Jackson and I 

asked her how this new greenhouse gas permitting process would 

305 

affect facilities like steel mills, and Fred, I wonder if you can tell 

me right now what capacity U.S. Steel is currently operating at? 

Mr. HARNACK. Presently we are probably somewhere between 75 

and 80 percent. We do have one plant idled and a number of other 

facilities are not as full as we would like them to be. 

Mr. DOYLE. So, you know, all of us are hoping that the industry 

reaches a point where you are able to ramp up to 100 percent of 

our operating capacity but assuming you were able to ramp up to 

100 percent of your operating capacity, would U.S. Steel be required to apply for a greenhouse gas permit to cover the increased 

activity? 

Mr. HARNACK. Presently, we are doing the greenhouse gas report 

that is required. We only need to file for the permits that are above 

the threshold, and right now that exists only in our expansion 

plans in our Minnesota ore operations. The balance of the facilities 

are permitted for the capacity that we publish, and there would not 

be any additional needs to permit for that at this time. 

Mr. DOYLE. Right. So in other words, any existing facility right 

up to your full capacity, you wouldn’t be affected by this, only if 

you had an addition, if you put up a new plant or if you expanded 

a current facility and got over that limit that would require a permit? 

Mr. HARNACK. That is right, based on the present regulatory requirements. 

Mr. DOYLE. So your plants that are currently operating in the 

United States, are any of them going to have to apply for renewals 

under their Title V permits for non-greenhouse gas air pollutants 

under the Clean Air Act? 

Mr. HARNACK. There is—yes, we do have periodic permit renewals. Actually we are working on two in Allegheny County right now 

as well as have just recently obtained them in our Alabama operation. 

Mr. DOYLE. Now, when you apply for these renewals, will your 

new permit have to include any pollution controls for greenhouse 

gases? 

Mr. HARNACK. We will be required to provide all the regulatory 

information and regulatory requirements as it develops, you know, 

by the EPA and the government. 

Mr. DOYLE. So you have to report your emissions but you are not 

required to implement any new control technologies as long as you 

are not expanding your current capacity? 

Mr. HARNACK. Only on the newly permitted facilities that are 

above the threshold. 

Mr. DOYLE. So as we speak today, even though you are going 

through Title V permit renewals, this would not require you in 

your existing facilities other than to report to EPA wouldn’t require 

you to implement any new control technologies? 

Mr. HARNACK. That is right. 

Mr. DOYLE. So it seems to me as we look at these rules and, you 

know, today we are focusing—I mean, this rule focuses primarily 

under the tailoring provision coal-fired and fossil-fired utility 

plants and oil refineries. Right now this has no direct impact on 

the steel industry unless you would put up a new plant or expand 

an existing plan. Is that correct? 

306 

Mr. HARNACK. Based on the present language on the greenhouse 

gas requirements but there are other requirements coming out 

from EPA that are going to require substantial modifications. 

Mr. DOYLE. Right, but we are focused today and this bill focuses 

on the GHG emissions, not other things. That is what this focus 

is. 

Mr. HARNACK. Right. 

Mr. DOYLE. OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I see I 

have 8 seconds, and I will yield it back. 

Thanks, Fred. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. Mr. Gardner, you are recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thank you 

to the witnesses for being here today. 

And Mr. Nelson, I would like to direct this question to you. In 

my conversation with Administrator Jackson on agriculture and agriculture’s exemption so what she phrased it as from this going 

until 2013, what happens after 2013? 

Mr. NELSON. Well, that is the good question that probably needs 

to be asked because the rules have not been put into place so there 

is a lot of speculation as to where we will be as it gets to that time 

frame. 

Mr. GARDNER. And so as of 2013 and beyond, this very well may 

be a situation where EPA comes in and starts requiring more permits in agriculture. 

Mr. NELSON. We believe that that probably will be the case, I can 

tell you, and we are not talking about the Clean Water Act today 

but just as a for instance, the amount of regulations that are coming out with nutrient management plans, MPDES permits, numeric standards, there is a whole tidal wave of regulatory challenges staring us in the face, so I think we would expect more of 

that. 

Mr. GARDNER. And particularly too the greenhouse gas emissions 

regulation, and it goes a little bit to the question directed to Mr. 

Harnack as well. Costs of direct regulations, the indirect costs 

versus direct costs. When we say that agriculture—when Administrator Jackson says that agriculture is exempt, your energy costs 

will increase as a result of GHG, correct? 

Mr. NELSON. Yes. 

Mr. GARDNER. The cost of fertilizer will increase as a result of 

regulation, correct? 

Mr. NELSON. Yes. 

Mr. GARDNER. The cost of farm equipment will increase as a result of the regulation? 

Mr. NELSON. Yes. 

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Harnack, will you see costs increase as a result of the GHG regulation? 

Mr. HARNACK. Yes, we will. 

Mr. GARDNER. And so there are costs that you are facing whether 

direct or indirect which goes directly to your ability to create new 

jobs in the steel industry or to expand farms to future generations. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. NELSON. That is right. 

307 

Mr. GARDNER. And to Dr. Thorning, I don’t know how familiar 

you are with the economy of California, but based on your experience as an economist, what you have seen in the State of California, the fact that 650 CEOs have said that it is the least desirable place to do Business, some of the regulations that we have 

seen, is California the kind of business model job creation market 

that we would like to export to the rest of the country? 

Ms. THORNING. I think one would have to look very carefully at 

what the impact of AB32 may have had on companies’ desires to 

stay and manufacture in California. I think you have to look at the 

size of their budget deficit, their very high unemployment rate, 

their, you know, low relatively difficulty in the housing market. I 

don’t think California is a poster child for how we want to go forward. 

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Goldstene, do you think California is a jobs 

creation model for the rest of the United States? 

Mr. GOLDSTENE. I think there are many aspects of what is going 

on in California that should be copied by other States. We are the 

technology leader in the country. We are seeing a huge spike in investment since the passage of AB-32. People are coming here looking to have us move forward on our rules, provide the certainty 

that businesses want and also provide the certainty that creative, 

inventive Americans have proven over and over again to come up 

with the great ideas that are adopted here and other places. 

Mr. GARDNER. Dr. Thorning, will the investments that are required to comply with these kind of regulations, greenhouse gas 

regulations, to produce these kinds of jobs, will they produce 

enough jobs in the green industry to offset the jobs lost elsewhere? 

Ms. THORNING. Well, I think it is highly unlikely because you are 

making investments that don’t really add anything to the bottom 

line. They are being made, you know, to reduce greenhouse gases. 

So that is money that can’t go into productivity enhancement investments. 

Mr. GARDNER. So the bottom line is, does this regulation that we 

have been dealing with, what this bill deals with, does it affect our 

ability to be competitive globally? 

Ms. THORNING. I think it does in a negative fashion. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Griffith, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank all the folks 

here for going through the day with us. I was not up here the 

whole time. At 4 o’clock I finally decided that I had to break down 

and eat something, so I went out in the other room and I was listening to your testimony, and I appreciate you all being here. I 

think all the questions have been asked, Mr. Chairman, so I yield 

my time back to the Chair. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Griffith. I want to thank all of 

you once again for your valuable testimony and your time, and we 

all have a lot of challenges before us. We don’t agree on everything 

but that is what America is all about, so hopefully from hearings 

like this we can craft the best policies to move forward. So thank 

you very much. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, before we adjourn, first of all, I want 

to thank all the witnesses on this panel and all the witnesses that 

preceded this panel, and I certainly want to let them know that 

308 

they have really enlightened us. I haven’t agreed on most of the 

testimony but at least I feel as though I am better informed, so I 

really appreciate the investment of your time. Thank you so very 

much. 

And before we adjourn, I do have an unanimous consent request 

but I guess you can dismiss the panel first. They don’t want to hear 

a unanimous consent request. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, without objection, we will—— 

Mr. RUSH. I have—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I hate for them to leave before we leave. 

Mr. RUSH. Well, I just have an unanimous consent request that 

statements and letters from the following organizations be placed 

in the record: the American Sustainable Business Council, the 

Calpine Corporation, the National Council of Churches, 68 faith 

communities throughout this Nation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, the Truman National Security Project, the Union of Concerned Scientists, who also sent a letter that was also signed by 

2,505 scientists and economists, and lastly, yesterday’s letter from 

Mr. Waxman to Mr. Upton. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And then we would like to enter this record from 

the National Association of Realtors, so without any objection, so 

ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The members will have 10 days to submit any 

questions for the record, and the record will be open for 30 days. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 5:26 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SULLIVAN

Chairman Whitfield: thank you for holding this legislative hearing today on the 

Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011. This important legislation will help protect 

American jobs and businesses of all kinds from the regulatory onslaught of EPA’s 

job destroying greenhouse gas regulations (GHGs) by prohibiting EPA from regulating GHG’s under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and repeal the steps the agency has 

already taken to do so. 

I have several companies in my district ranging from chemical, manufacturing 

and energy companies that are scared to death of EPA’s pending rules on GHGs. 

The energy industry employs over 320,000 workers in my state, and I intend to see 

that number grow by vigorously supporting this legislation. 

Today, I want to make special mention of the concerns of the agriculture interests 

in Oklahoma, since it is the second largest industry in my state. The Oklahoma 

Farm Bureau is deeply concerned that the costs imposed by EPA’s GHG rules on 

utilities, refiners and manufactures to comply with these new regulations will trickle down the farming and ranching community, resulting in higher costs of production and food costs for American families, exactly what we don’t need in a struggling 

economy! 

Additionally, many farmers and ranchers will have to obtain Title V operating 

permits that will cost agriculture interests close to $900 million. All told, 17,000 

farms nationwide are impacted by EPA’s GHG regulations. The point here is that 

even with EPA’s so-called ‘‘tailoring rule,’’ which unilaterally raised CAA statutory 

thresholds to require GHG permitting for only the largest industrial sources of GHG 

emissions, industries of all stripes and consumers from every economic back grounds 

will suffer under the weight of EPA’s excessive regulatory scheme. 

The Energy Tax Prevention Act is about protecting American jobs by preventing 

the EPA from unilaterally imposing a costly cap and trade style regulatory tax on 

the American people. Simply put, what the EPA and the Obama Administration has 

been unable to legislate through a cap and trade system, they are seeking to do it 

309 

through backdoor regulation. This has to stop and I believe this legislation is the 

right approach. It is narrowly written to focus only on greenhouse gases related to 

climate change, and EPA’s authority to monitor and regulate pollutants remains intact. 

Mr. Chairman, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 is important legislation to 

protect jobs, keep our nation competitive in foreign markets and provide economic 

certainty to the millions of American workers employed by industries that will be 

impacted by this backdoor national energy tax. This hearing marks our opening 

salvo to show the American people we mean business when it comes to growing our 

economy and identifying and removing job destroying regulations. 

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID B. MCKINLEY

Good morning. Chairman Whitefield and Ranking Member Rush, thank you for 

holding this hearing today to discuss the draft discussion of the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, particularly the testimony and 

discussion of Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson. Representing West Virginia’s First Congressional District, it is my duty to ensure the 

citizens of West Virginia are protected not only for their health and safety, but to 

ensure that the current Administration’s Agencies do not eradicate the industries 

they work in, and that they will be able to put food on the table for their families. 

With that being said, many of the EPA’s regulations, whether in effect or proposed, will be detrimental to not only the State of West Virginia but to our entire 

Nation. We continue to see an EPA which circumvents the Congressional process 

by allowing bureaucrats to make decisions that should be left up to federal and 

state lawmakers. 

On January 13th of this year, the EPA took an unprecedented step to retroactively revoke a lawfully issued, four-year old, Section 404 permit for the Spruce 

No. 1 surface mine in Logan County, West Virginia. The implications of this action 

prompted me to file legislation to combat this blatant overreach by a federal agency, 

which is detrimental to the local businesses and hundreds of workers. 

This was not a regulation issued by the EPA, but rather was a permit issued 

under the Clean Water Act and approved by the Army Corps of Engineers in January 2007. For nearly a decade prior to 2007, the Army Corps of Engineers worked 

with the EPA to rigorously review the Spruce Mine project before it was approved. 

The permit was issued after an extensive 10-year environmental review, including 

a 1600 page Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in which the EPA full participated and agreed to all terms and conditions included in the authorized permit. The 

EPA had every opportunity to address any concerns prior to when the permit was 

issued. Because of the EPA’s chilling actions in revoking the permit, they prohibited 

the creation of 253 mining jobs and 298 indirect jobs, in addition to an investment 

of $250 million into the local community. 

I firmly believe that our states need a consistent and predictable regulatory program that will protect the jobs we have and create the jobs we need in an environmentally responsible manner. It is impossible for companies to take the necessary 

steps to move forward and create jobs if they have to live with the threat of unilateral retroactive revocation of the very permits that allow them to do business. The 

EPA cannot continue to punish the coal, manufacturing and natural gas industries. 

These are the industries vital to the survival of West Virginia and families will continue to suffer and be impoverished under this Administration. 

Any decisions from any agency or government entity should stem from the congressional review process, extensive studies, public input, review by other federal 

agencies, and peer review by experts. 

I look forward to hearing from the today’s witnesses, and look forward to working 

with Subcommittee Chairman Whitfield and Chairman Upton in the full committee 

to ensure that lives, jobs, industries, families and our economy are protected. 

Thank you and I yield back. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER

Just the other day, my staff asked a fairly large electric corporation in my district 

how exactly these greenhouse gas regulations would affect Colorado. Their response 

310 

was something to the effect of, ‘‘With all the regulations coming down on our heads 

from EPA, we stopped doing a full-blown analysis of what each regulation would do 

to our customers.’’ It is simply impossible to gauge exactly the job losses, exactly 

the rate increases, and exactly the effect on service to cities in my district. However, 

they know with all these regulations put together, it will be large. 

They, along with so many other businesses all over the country, cannot keep track 

of all the regulations they are going to have to abide by - but they are bracing themselves nonetheless, especially with regard to GHG regulation. They are anticipating 

having to absorb higher costs which will lead to job losses and less innovation 

among many other things. What’s worse, these rules have the potential to affect 

even more businesses in the future if we don’t stop it now. 

The Energy Tax Prevention Act does a couple key things. It prevents the EPA 

from regulating GHGs under the Clean Air Act (CAA), which it does not have the 

authority to do anyway. It also repeals steps that EPA has taken over the last two 

years to achieve the goal of GHG regulation. The bill does not, however, prevent 

the EPA from continuing its other obligations to protect the environment. 

The CAA was never meant to be a means to regulate GHGs. In fact, EPA was 

forced to change the CAA in order to make it work for the GHG regulations. The 

CAA as it existed before the infamous ‘‘tailoring rule’’ allowed for regulation of various ‘‘conventional pollutants.’’ This includes things like lead and nitrogen dioxide. 

However, the threshold laid out in the CAA was far too low for greenhouse gases. 

If the CAA was interpreted to regulate GHGs under its original thresholds, virtually 

no businesses that emitted any sort of GHG would be able to avoid serious federal 

regulation. This change has proven that the CAA was never meant for regulating 

GHGs. 

Despite these facts, here we are. The EPA has done no thorough analysis of how 

this will affect industry, jobs, and energy prices but that has not stopped them from 

moving right along with their agenda. And they are continuing this regulatory 

scheme despite failed attempts to pass a similar cap and tax bill in both houses of 

Congress. This is nothing but a runaround attempt at a national energy tax - forcing consumers to pick up the bill for an agenda that hurts jobs and businesses, and 

not allowing for a thorough vetting process. Further, states simply are not prepared 

for the new permitting requirements laid out in the regulation, which are likely to 

delay new energy projects from being built. 

Mr. Chairman, this is just the beginning of what EPA will do if we continue to 

let them. If we do not change our course now, businesses will do what they do best 

- they’ll find another market, and it’s likely that market will have little or no regulation on GHGs. This will cost us jobs and lead us down a path that does not end 

at energy independence. I support this bill as a solution to the future job losses and 

energy price increases that our nation will experience if we allow these regulations 

to move forward. I yield back my time. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LOIS CAPPS

Mr. Chairman, I’m troubled we’re here this morning. Americans still are facing 

staggering unemployment rates, and our economy has not yet fully recovered. 

But instead of holding hearings on ways to generate more clean energy jobs and 

improve the health of American families, we’re reviewing an extreme proposal that 

would block EPA from doing its job: protecting our health from air pollution. 

Mr. Chairman, not allowing the EPA to address carbon pollution under the Clean 

Air Act is flat-out dangerous. 

Climate change is a serious problem. The scientific evidence is clear. The debate 

is over. Climate change is real. It’s happening. And, human beings are largely to 

blame. 

2010 was the hottest year on record. And in the last decade the Earth experienced 

9 of the 10 hottest years since data has been recorded. 

We’re also starting to see the irreversible damage to our economy and our environment. 

Sea levels are rising. The world is witnessing increased rainfall, floods, droughts, 

and wildfires. And, our fresh water supplies and capacity to grow enough food will 

be severely challenged in the years ahead. 

Mr. Chairman, the longer we delay taking action to address climate change, the 

more difficult and expensive the solutions will be. 

That’s why the EPA is taking a cautious, flexible and balanced approach to addressing carbon pollution. And each of the steps they’ve taken so far has followed 

the letter of the law. 

311 

For four decades, the Clean Air Act has protected the health of millions of Americans - including our children, our seniors and the most vulnerable among us - from 

all kinds of dangerous air pollutants. 

The law also has a tremendous track record in providing certainty to business and 

delivering economic benefits. 

For example, since the Clean Air Act was enacted overall air pollution has 

dropped while U.S. GDP has risen 207 percent. And we’ve also seen major health 

benefits, including asthma reduction, lower lung cancer rates, and much greater 

productivity. 

In fact, by 2020 the benefits of the Clean Air Act are expected to reach $2 trillion, 

exceeding any costs by more than 30 to 1. 

All of these benefits, Mr. Chairman, are jeopardized by this proposed rollback to 

the Clean Air Act. 

And that’s why groups ranging from the American Lung Association to the American Sustainable Business Council have decried the harm of this proposal to people’s 

health and economy. And it’s why I stand with them today in opposing this extreme 

proposal. 

Here’s what this proposed bill would do. 

First, it would declare that carbon pollution is not an air pollutant and repeal the 

EPA’s science based endangerment finding, throwing the findings of the National 

Academy of Sciences, federal government agencies and countless other scientific experts out the window. 

Second, it would also repeal every action the EPA has already taken and block 

every action EPA is developing to limit carbon pollution from power plants and oil 

refineries, giving the nation’s biggest polluters a free pass for unlimited carbon pollution. 

Third, it would tear up the historic agreement reached by the Obama administration, the nation’s automakers and states to cut carbon pollution and fuel consumption in new cars and trucks. This means more air pollution and higher fuel bills 

for all Americans in the future. 

Mr. Chairman, this is an unprecedented, extreme proposal and it should not go 

forward. 

Last month, President Obama stood on the House floor and talked about ‘‘winning 

the future’’ through innovation. And he used clean energy as his central example. 

We know that clean energy will help our economy grow. It will help America compete in the global marketplace. And it will help protect Americans’ health and quality of life. 

Let’s not obstruct the EPA from doing its job of protecting the public’s health and 

environment. 

This is a crucial issue, Mr. Chairman, for the public and our planet. 

It’s our duty here to ensure both are protected from harmful carbon pollution. And 

unfortunately, this extreme proposal just doesn’t meet this crucial test. 

312 


65734.001
313 


65734.002
314 


65734.003
315 


65734.004
316 


65734.005
317 


65734.006
318 


65734.007
319 


65734.008
320 


65734.009
321 


65734.010
322 


65734.011
323 


65734.012
324 


65734.013
325 


65734.014
326 


65734.015
327 


65734.016
328 


65734.017
329 


65734.018
330 


65734.019
331 


65734.020
332 


65734.021
333 


65734.022
334 


65734.023
335 


65734.024
336 


65734.025
337 


65734.026
338 


65734.027
339 


65734.028
340 


65734.029
341 


65734.030
342 


65734.031
343 


65734.032
344 


65734.033
345 


65734.034
346 


65734.035
347 


65734.036
348 


65734.037
349 


65734.038
350 


65734.039
351 


65734.040
352 


65734.041
353 


65734.042
354 


65734.043
355 


65734.044
356 


65734.045
357 


65734.046
358 


65734.047
359 


65734.048
360 


65734.049
361 


65734.050
362 


65734.051
363 


65734.052
364 


65734.053
365 


65734.054
366 


65734.055
367 


65734.056
368 


65734.057
369 


65734.058
370 


65734.059
371 


65734.060
372 


65734.061
373 


65734.062
374 


65734.063
375 


65734.064
376 


65734.065
377 


65734.066
378 


65734.067
379 


65734.068
380 


65734.069
381 


65734.070
382 


65734.071
383 


65734.072
384 


65734.073
385 


65734.074
386 


65734.075
387 


65734.076
388 


65734.077
389 


65734.078
390 


65734.079
391 


65734.080
392 


65734.081
393 


65734.082
394 


65734.083
395 


65734.084
396 


65734.085
397 


65734.086
398 


65734.087
399 


65734.088
400 


65734.089
401 


65734.090
402 


65734.091
403 


65734.092
404 


65734.093
405 


65734.094
406 


65734.095
407 


65734.099
408 


65734.100
409 


65734.101
410 


65734.102
411 


65734.103
412 


65734.104
413 


65734.105
414 


65734.106
415 


65734.107
416 


65734.108
417 


65734.109
418 


65734.110
419 


65734.111
420 


65734.112
421 


65734.113
422 


65734.114
423 


65734.115
424 


65734.116
425 


65734.117
426 


65734.118
427 


65734.119
428 


65734.120
429 


65734.121
430 


65734.122
431 


65734.123
432 


65734.124
433 


65734.125
434 


65734.126
435 


65734.127
436 


65734.128
437 


65734.129
438 


65734.130
439 


65734.131
440 


65734.132
441 


65734.133
442 


65734.204
443 


65734.205
444 


65734.206
445 


65734.207
446 


65734.208
447 


65734.209
448 


65734.210
449 


65734.211
450 


65734.212
451 


65734.213
452 


65734.214
453 


65734.215
454 


65734.216
455 


65734.217
456 


65734.218
457 


65734.219
458 


65734.220
459 


65734.221
460 


65734.222
461 


65734.223
462 


65734.224
463 


65734.225
464 


65734.226
465 


65734.227
466 


65734.228
467 


65734.229
468 


65734.230
469 


65734.231
470 


65734.232
471 


65734.233
472 


65734.234
473 


65734.235
474 


65734.236
475 


65734.237
476 


65734.238
477 


65734.239
478 


65734.240
479 


65734.241
480 


65734.242
481 


65734.243
482 


65734.244
483 


65734.245
484 


65734.246
485 


65734.247
486 


65734.248
487 


65734.249
488 


65734.250
489 


65734.251
490 


65734.252
491 


65734.253
492 


65734.254
493 


65734.255
494 


65734.256
495 


65734.257
496 


65734.258
497 


65734.259
498 


65734.260
499 


65734.261
500 


65734.262
501 


65734.263
502 


65734.264
503 


65734.265
504 


65734.361
505 


65734.362
506 


65734.363
507 


65734.364
508 


65734.365
509 


65734.366
510 


65734.367
511 


65734.368
512 


65734.369
513 


65734.370
514 


65734.371
515 


65734.372
516 


65734.373
517 


65734.374
518 


65734.375
519 


65734.376
520 


65734.377
521 


65734.378
522 


65734.379
523 


65734.380
524 


65734.381
525 


65734.382
526 


65734.383
527 


65734.384
528 


65734.385
529 


65734.386
530 


65734.387
531 


65734.388
532 


65734.389
533 


65734.390
534 


65734.391
535 


65734.392
536 


65734.393
537 


65734.394
538 


65734.395
539 


65734.396
540 


65734.397
541 


65734.398
542 


65734.399
543 


65734.400
544 


65734.401
545 


65734.402
546 


65734.403
547 


65734.404
548 


65734.405
549 


65734.406
550 


65734.407
551 


65734.408
552 


65734.409
553 


65734.410
554 


65734.411
555 


65734.412
556 


65734.413
557 


65734.414
558 


65734.415
559 


65734.416
560 


65734.417
561 


65734.418
562 


65734.419
563 


65734.420
564 


65734.421
565 


65734.422
566 


65734.423
567 


65734.424
568 


65734.425
569 


65734.426
570 


65734.427
571 


65734.428
572 


65734.429
573 


65734.430
574 


65734.431
575 


65734.432
576 


65734.433
577 


65734.434
578 


65734.435
579 


65734.436
580 


65734.437
581 


65734.438
582 


65734.439
583 


65734.440
584 


65734.441
585 


65734.442
586 


65734.443
587 


65734.444
588 


65734.445
589 


65734.446
590 


65734.447
591 


65734.448
592 


65734.449
593 


65734.450
594 


65734.451
595 


65734.452
596 


65734.453
597 


65734.454
598 


65734.455
599 


65734.456
600 


65734.457
601 


65734.458
602 


65734.459
603 


65734.460
604 


65734.461
605 


65734.462
606 


65734.463
607 


65734.464
608 


65734.465
609 


65734.466
610 


65734.467
611 


65734.468
612 


65734.469
613 


65734.470
614 


65734.471
615 


65734.472
616 


65734.473
617 


65734.474
618 


65734.475
619 


65734.476
620 


65734.477
621 


65734.478
622 


65734.479
623 


65734.480
624 


65734.481
625 


65734.482
626 


65734.483
627 


65734.484
628 


65734.485
629 


65734.486
630 


65734.487
631 


65734.488
632 


65734.489
633 


65734.490
634 


65734.491
635 


65734.492
636 


65734.493
637 


65734.494
638 


65734.495
639 


65734.496
640 


65734.497
641 


65734.498
642 


65734.499
643 


65734.500
644 


65734.501
645 


65734.502
646 


65734.503
647 


65734.504
648 


65734.505
649 


65734.506
650 


65734.507
651 


65734.508
652 


65734.509
653 


65734.510
654 


65734.511
655 


65734.512
656 


65734.513
657 


65734.514
658 


65734.515
659 


65734.516
660 

Æ 


65734.517