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

61–530 2010

MASSACHUSETTS V. U.S. EPA, PART II: 

IMPLICATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 13, 2008 

Serial No. 110–29 

( 

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on 

Energy Independence and Global Warming 

globalwarming.house.gov 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, 

South Dakota 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin, Ranking Member 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

DAVID MOULTON, Staff Director 

ALIYA BRODSKY, Chief Clerk 

THOMAS WEIMER, Minority Staff Director 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement .................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Wisconsin, opening statement .............................................................. 5 

Hon. Jay R. Inslee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington, opening statement ................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

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

Hon. Emanuel Cleaver II, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Missouri, opening statement, .............................................................................. 7 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 8 

Hon. Marsha W. Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Tennessee, opening statement ........................................................................ 9 

Hon. John J. Hall, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

York, opening statement ...................................................................................... 10 

WITNESSES

Panel I: 

Hon. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ........................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared Testimony ......................................................................................... 13 

Answers to Submitted Questions .................................................................... 120 

Panel II: 

Ms. Lisa Heinzerling, Esq., Professor, Georgetown University Law Center ...... 48 

Prepared Testimony ......................................................................................... 51 

Mr. David Bookbinder, Chief Climate Counsel for the Sierra Club .................... 63 

Prepared Testimony ......................................................................................... 65 

Answers to Submitted Questions .................................................................... 131 

Mr. Roderick Bremby, Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and 

Environment ......................................................................................................... 75 

Prepared Testimony ......................................................................................... 77 

Answers to Submitted Questions .................................................................... 134 

Mr. Joshua Svaty, Representative of the Kansas House of Representatives, 

senior member of the Energy and Utilities Committee and ranking minority 

member on Agriculture and Natural Resources ................................................ 82 

Prepared Testimony ......................................................................................... 84 

Mr. Peter Glaser, partner in the law firm Troutman Sanders ............................ 92 

Prepared Testimony ......................................................................................... 94 

Answers to Submitted Questions .................................................................... 135 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
Page

IV 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Hon. Edward J. Markey, invitation letter of January 15, 2008, to Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ............... 20 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, letter of March 7, 2008, from Administrator Stephen 

L. Johnson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ......................................... 23 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, letter of March 7, 2008, to Administrator Stephen 

L. Johnson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ......................................... 25 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, letter of March 11, 2008, from Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ................................ 27 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

HEARING ON MASSACHUSETTS v. U.S. EPA, 

PART II: IMPLICATIONS OF THE SUPREME 

COURT DECISION 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

AND GLOBAL WARMING, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 1334 

of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Edward Markey 

[chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Markey, Inslee, Cleaver, Hall, Sensenbrenner, Walden, Sullivan and Blackburn. 

Chairman MARKEY. Good morning, and welcome to the Select 

Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, and 

thank you all so much for being here today for our second hearing 

to focus on the afternoon of the landmark Supreme Court decision 

in Massachusetts v. EPA. 

The Bush administration’s approach to climate change policy has 

been to deny the science, delay the regulation, and dismiss the critics. The administration’s denial of its own authority to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act led to the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA almost one year 

ago. The Supreme Court decision made a few things exceedingly 

clear. 

Greenhouse gases are pollutants that can be regulated under the 

Clean Air Act. EPA’s excuses for its failure to regulate greenhouse 

gas emissions from motor vehicles, including its excuse that the 

Department of Transportation sets fuel economy standard were all 

inadequate. 

Under the Clean Air Act EPA must determine whether these 

emissions cause or contribute to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, a determination often referred to as an endangerment finding. 

And, finally, if the EPA does make a positive endangerment finding, it must regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. 

In May of last year, the President directed EPA along with other 

agencies to prepare a regulatory response to the Supreme Court decision. In June the Select Committee held a hearing at which EPA 

Administrator Johnson appeared. He told us he was working on 

both the endangerment finding and the proposed regulations, and 

numerous statements made by him and other administration offiVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:39 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061530 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A530.XXX A530

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
2 

cials during the next six months indicated that the EPA was on 

track to issue a proposed rule by the end of last year and have final 

regulations in place by the end of this year. 

Well, that did not happen. Instead, what we have learned from 

a steady stream of press reports and congressional hearings is that 

EPA, in fact, concluded that greenhouse gas emissions endanger 

public welfare and submitted its finding to OMB, the Office of 

Management and Budget, in December. 

EPA, in fact, drafted greenhouse gas regulations for motor vehicles and submitted its draft to other agencies in December, and 

then according to numerous reports, EPA stopped all of its work in 

this area, except for its work to deny California, Massachusetts and 

more than a dozen other states the right to move forward with 

their own motor vehicle emissions standards. 

And instead of cooperating with Congress, EPA has answered 

congressional inquiries for information with delays and denials 

that interfere with the work of this Committee and other Committees in the House. 

In stark contrast to EPA’s failure to lead, we have here today 

two witnesses who have been climate heroes in the State of Kansas. Unlike the EPA Administrator, who still cannot accept the scientific consensus and declare that greenhouse gas emissions are 

dangerous, Kansas used its own state authority to deny a permit 

for a new coal-fired power plant on just those grounds. 

For its trouble, Governor Sebelius’ administration has been subjected to an ad campaign comparing it to Vladimir Putin, Hugo 

Chavez, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the sponsor of the coalfired plant, Sunflower Electric, has engaged in a full court press to 

change the law to its liking because it could not show that a new 

coal plant would not endanger public health or welfare. 

Today the Committee seeks answers from Administrator Johnson. We are seeking documents we have been requesting for almost 

two months. We want an answer to when the last remaining environmental ministry head in the developed world will decide whether greenhouse gas emissions are dangerous. We will be looking for 

an answer to the question of when the federal government will 

begin to lead climate change policy by example instead of by doing 

everything possible to thwart the states who try to do their part 

to save the planet. 

I think our witnesses today have an enormous responsibility. I 

thank them for testifying today, and I recognize now the Ranking 

Member, the gentleman from the State of Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
3 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 9 61530A.001
4 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 61530A.002
5 

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

Global warming is a complicated and nuanced topic that needs 

smart and carefully devised solutions, and because the policies 

needed to achieve greenhouse gas reduction also stand to damage 

our economy, these policies must be both economically and politically feasible. 

Left in the hands of regulators and the courts, greenhouse gas 

reductions could have serious consequences on our economy and 

our way of life, and I am afraid that the Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court decision runs the risk of putting this political question 

in the hands of unelected regulators. 

Should the EPA determine it should regulate greenhouse gases 

through an endangerment finding, the effects could be far more 

reaching than anyone imagines. We are not just talking about new 

cars and ultimately power plants. As Peter Glazer of Troutman 

Sanders, LLP will testify today, this could include several types of 

buildings, including small factories, assisted living facilities, indoor 

sports centers, and even breweries. And where I come from, we do 

not like the sound of that. 

By focusing on two laws, the Clean Air Act and the Endangered 

Species Act, the courts stand to extend the scope of these laws far 

beyond what they were intended to accomplish. Neither of these 

laws were written to deal with global warming, and using them in 

an effort to regulate greenhouse gases will result in a mishmash 

of policies that will have a heavy hand and an unpredictable impact on the economy. 

Regulating greenhouse gas emissions through the Clean Air Act 

is particularly onerous, as anything that qualifies as a source like 

breweries and assisted living facilities I had mentioned above 

would have to receive the proper permits from the EPA for any 

type of expansion. This permitting process is expensive and time 

consuming and would come at a time when these expenses could 

create a heavy drag on the economy. There has to be a better way. 

One of my principles in evaluating global warming policy is that 

it must advance technological progress. I am not sure how EPA 

regulations can accomplish this. 

Additionally, I am confident that EPA regulation of domestic 

greenhouse gases would not be emulated by other countries, specifically China and India. By unilaterally enforcing greenhouse gas restrictions, the EPA could put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage. 

By using the Clean Air Act and other laws not intended to regulate greenhouse gases, activists are attempting to use the courts to 

push through heavy handed regulations that will result in significant trauma to our already slowing economy. I believe through 

technology we can find ways to control greenhouse gas emissions 

without causing that harm, and it is an alternate path that we 

must pursue. 

I thank the Chair and yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. 

Inslee, for an opening statement. 

Mr. INSLEE. I am afraid waiting for the Bush administration to 

act on global warming makes waiting for Godot look like an actionVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:39 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061530 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A530.XXX A530

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
6 

packed thriller. We are waiting with no action, but the planet is 

not. 

The icecap in the Arctic that melted and lost one million square 

miles of the Arctic the size of six Californias did not wait for the 

Bush administration. The oceans that have 30 percent more acidity 

because of dissolved carbon dioxide, which may be a partial reason 

for the destruction of the salmon runs in the Pacific Ocean this 

year, is not waiting for the Bush administration. The far west, 

which is in the seventh or eighth year of a drought with consequence damage to the agricultural industry, is not waiting for the 

Bush administration. 

And I just find it inexcusable, reading a quote from November 8, 

2007, from EPA Administrator Johnson. ‘‘In addition, since the Supreme Court decision, we have announced that we are developing 

a proposed regulation to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from 

mobile sources. That is the first time in our nation’s history, and 

I have committed to members of Congress and to the President 

that we will have that proposed regulation out for public notice and 

comment beginning by the end of this year and work toward a final 

rule by the end of next year.’’ 

The planet is not waiting, and just to know this is not some isolated example of the Bush administration intransigence on this, we 

had Secretary Bodman, just to know, Mr. Johnson, you are not 

alone in this; we had Secretary Bodman in front of our Commerce 

Committee a couple of weeks ago, and I asked him if he had read 

the IPC report, and our Secretary of Energy said no. And I asked 

him if he read the executive summary, and he said no. And I asked 

him if he had ever talked to the President of the United States. 

This is our Secretary of Energy, about how to fashion or whether 

to fashion a cap in trade system, and he said no. 

You are not alone in abject failure dealing with this mortal 

threat to the planet Earth. You are on a team of failure, and I have 

to say it bluntly because that is the circumstance. 

We do not have a lot of time here, and I just tell you that my 

constituents are most unhappy that the federal government is not 

following the law here. 

Chairman MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden. 

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

I want to welcome the EPA Administrator here today, and I appreciate the work that your agency is doing. I think we are all trying to figure out how to work our way through this process and do 

what is right for the planet without destroying our economy in the 

process and letting other major world polluters like China and 

India get a free ride. 

I spent an hour in the former Speaker’s office meeting with the 

lead negotiator for China who made it very clear that they expected 

us to do the heavy lift while they continue to pollute, while they 

continue to put new coal-fired plants on line, about one a week or 

one every ten days that are going to burn dirty coal, and they want 

to get away with that. 

And I am not willing to sacrifice the economy for the people that 

I represent. I think there are things that we can and should be 

doing. I think Congress in the last energy bill took up the mantle 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
7 

and helped move some of those things forward with conservation 

efforts, emphasis on renewable energy. 

My district is home to a number of options for renewable energy. 

I want to know why we are not doing more to manage America’s 

public forests better, why we allow the greenhouse gases to go up 

there when the fires come out. The Forest Service spends 47 percent of its budget fighting fire. Nine million acres went up last 

year. That’s all emissions into the atmosphere. We are not properly 

managing America’s forests, and anybody who has studied this 

issue knows the importance of health, green growing forests as carbon sequesters. We need to change forest policy as well. 

Now, I know you do not have jurisdiction over that, but as we 

look at these issues, I think it is incredibly important to look 

broadly, not throw stones at each other, but say where can we work 

together to do the right thing for the planet, the right thing for the 

environment, and not self-destruct our economy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking 

Member Sensenbrenner. 

In particular, I would like to thank Administrator Stephen Johnson for returning to the Select Committee to update us on the 

EPA’s endangerment findings. He indicated when he was here last 

summer that that update was proceeding. It is my hope and, I believe, the hope of this Committee and the need of this nation that 

Secretary Johnson will be able to give us an indication of what the 

EPA has discovered in their analysis and how it will affect future 

policy. 

I recall that the Administrator acknowledged that global warming and greenhouse gas emissions are serious issues, and I am encouraged that Mr. Johnson and I agree on that issue. 

However, I am awaiting a commitment by the EPA and the administration in general to do something to combat this reality. If 

the Environmental Protection Agency will do what it was created 

to do, it will protect the environment. The American people expect 

and deserve more from their government than what the administration is willing to give, even in the face of the scientific reality 

of climate change. 

I look forward to and thank in advance our second panel for testifying before this Committee today, and for offering insight on the 

Supreme Court decision and on the future of U.S. energy policy and 

regulations. I anticipate that we can work together in forming the 

effective energy and environmental policy in order to protect our 

citizens and our planet. 

The Supreme Court decision we discussed today was monumental, and I hope that we can build on this judgment on a national scale. 

I thank all of our witnesses for being here today, and I look forward to becoming dialogical after your presentation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cleaver follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
8 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 17 61530A.003
9 

Chairman MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentle lady from Tennessee, Ms. 

Blackburn. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

the hearing today. 

And I want to say welcome. 

Chairman MARKEY. Is the gentlelady’s microphone on? 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Yes, sir, it is. Maybe I should use the voice that 

I use when I am trying to call the kids to the house, right? Speak 

a little lower. 

Chairman MARKEY. That mother’s voice is the most powerful 

voice ever created. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. That mother’s voice is always the most powerful 

voice on the face of the earth. 

Chairman MARKEY. Maybe you should move over one microphone. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Okay. 

Chairman MARKEY. I do not think they can hear you back there. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Let’s see. That mic seems to be working a bit 

better. 

We know that we are going to examine the implications of the 

Massachusetts v. EPA decision today, and I think that it is of particular interest to all of us about whether the EPA will regulate 

CO2 as a pollutant under Section 202 and look at that as a pollutant that endangers the health of the American public. 

If it does, then practically every business in every large facility 

is going to be subject to additional regulations. Many people know 

these are going to be heavy regulations and permitting requirements, and there is some anxiousness about that. 

These facilities that we are discussing emit more than 250 tons 

of CO2 per year, and under Section 202, they would have to obtain 

a prevention of significant deterioration permit and control technology requirements if they undertake any modifications that increases their CO2 emissions, and I think, sir, you can understand 

why there is a bit of anxiousness around this. 

And any facility would also need to obtain a PSD permit before 

it can be built and would have to comply with technology requirements. 

These effects will go farther than the proposal by former President Bill Clinton, who said that we must not slow down the economy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So there is a little bit of 

head scratching and a little bit of uncertainty that is taking place. 

We fear it could shut down the economy, but the U.S. currently 

faces several existing threats to its national security. Everyone is 

concerned about proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. They 

are concerned about terrorism. We hear about security every single 

day, and to drastically change our economy and devote significant 

time and resources to speculative dangers, such as CO2 and climate 

change, is something that people are not certain they want to do 

right now. 

If imminent threats are not addressed, the global warming issue 

will be moot. Mr. Chairman, even if the earth continues to warm 

and possibly cause events that threaten national security, the preVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:39 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061530 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A530.XXX A530

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
10 

dicted outcomes are, at best, tentative, and the proposed solutions 

raise problems of their very own. 

The EPA should resist any attempts to regulate CO2 as a pollutant and instead should focus its resources on real, immediate, and 

measurable environmental dangers, not on ones that may or may 

not happen in the future. 

I yield back. 

Chairman MARKEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York State, Mr. 

Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would say that climate change is a real danger that is happening. It is obvious to me and my constituents. It is obvious to 

those who read the literature. It is obvious to the vast majority of 

scientists who have studied the issues, especially those who are not 

being employed by oil companies or others who benefit from the 

current energy policy that we have, and it is also, I think, you 

know, when you talk about national security, risks to our national 

security, probably the main one is the fact that we are spending 

billions of dollars a day to buy oil from unstable or despotic regimes in unstable parts of the world, and that’s money that we do 

not have that we are borrowing from the Chinese and other countries thereby losing our sovereignty in the process because we cannot be honest with, for instance, the Chinese about Tibet or Darfur 

or North Korea, or they are arresting their own meditators in the 

park and taking them off to be reeducated, quote, unquote. 

And at the same time we cannot be honest with the Saudis either about the madrasahs and the funding of Islamic young people 

who are then trained to hate or attack American, Israeli, or other 

interests in the West or in the Middle East. 

And then as Tom Friedman writes in his column, we have to finance the other side of the War on Terror, too, by sending our 

troops and spending $12 billion, right at the moment fighting the 

wars that are currently in progress every month, and that is one 

of, I think, the main drivers of the economic problems we find ourselves in, as well as the environmental problems we find ourselves 

in. These are both threats to national security and to our economic 

security. 

I contend the course that we are on now is unsustainable. I also 

believe that we can work together and ultimately will work together to find solutions that will actually create jobs rather than 

destroying jobs. That is what happened with the Clean Water Act, 

the Clean Air Act, with seatbelts, with the airbags, with all of the 

proposals that industry cried were going to kill their economic prospects and, instead, created whole new industries and new kinds of 

jobs in this country. And I look forward to our finding those solutions. 

I thank the Chairman and yield back. 

Chairman MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair sees no other members who are seeking recognition for 

the purpose of making an opening statement. So we will turn to 

our first witness, who is Stephen Johnson, the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
11 

We welcome you back to the Committee, sir. Whenever you are 

ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, 

ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chairman and 

members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss 

EPA’s response to several important developments concerning the 

challenge of climate change. 

Let me begin by saying I agree that climate change is a global 

challenge, and just as President Bush recognized during last September’s major economies meeting, I believe the leading countries 

of the world are at a deciding moment when we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions instead of allowing the problem to grow. 

I also agree that the United States must take the lead in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by pursuing new quantifiable actions. 

For example, the President committed the United States to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles as part of a national 

approach to address global climate change. And so I applaud Congress for answering the President’s call to increase fuel and vehicle 

fuel economy standards as part of last December’s Energy Independence and Security Act. 

Also on the national level, EPA began to work with the Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Transportation last summer to develop regulations that 

would cut greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and fuels, 

and due to the changes in the law created by the Energy Act, we 

are working to implement these new responsibilities. 

As you know, the Energy Act increased the renewable fuel standard from 7.5 billion gallons by 2012 to 36 billion gallons by 2022. 

Since there are a number of significant differences between the 

provisions of the Energy Act and the Fuels Program EPA was developing under the President’s Twenty in Ten Plan, EPA must perform substantially new analytical work. This work includes analysis of renewable fuel life cycle emissions, costs and benefits of Energy Act fuel volumes, and the environmental, economic, and energy security impacts of these fuel volumes. 

The Energy Act did not change EPA’s general authority to regulate air emissions from motor vehicles and from motor vehicle engines. However, it did alter the Department of Transportation’s authority to set mileage standards for cars and trucks, which is the 

primary way emissions of CO2 are reduced from new motor vehicles. 

The energy bill directs the Department of Transportation to set 

CAFE standards that ultimately achieve a fleet-wide average fuel 

economy of at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020. This new statutory 

authority has required DOT to review the previous regulatory activities that it had undertaken pursuant to an executive order. 

Since both the executive order and the Energy Act require close coordination between EPA and other federal agencies, it is necessary 

for EPA to work with DOT on new standards to comply with the 

law. 

The agency recognizes that the new energy law does not relieve 

us of our obligation to respond to the Supreme Court’s decision in 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
12 

Massachusetts v. EPA, and as we work to develop an overall approach to address greenhouse gas emissions, we appreciate that a 

decision regulating greenhouse gas emissions from any mobile 

source would impact other Clean Air Act programs and many industrial sources. 

Therefore, it is vitally important that EPA consider our approach 

from this broader perspective. While I continue to consider an overall approach, EPA has begun implementing mandatory steps to address greenhouse gas emissions, which include the renewable fuel 

standard which significantly increases the volume of renewable 

fuels that has a lower greenhouse gas footprint than traditional 

fuels; collaboration with Department of Transportation as it sets 

the new CAFE standards of at least 35 miles per gallon; carbon sequestration storage regulations to insure our drinking water is protected as we reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and developing the 

greenhouse gas inventory as part of the omnibus appropriation legislation. 

In addition, we are making progress in evaluating the availability and potential use of various Clean Air Act authorities for 

greenhouse gas and mitigation efforts. For example, we have compiled publicly available data on potential greenhouse gas emissions 

across industrial sectors. We have evaluated the use of surrogate 

data to predict potential carbon dioxide emissions. 

In view of these potential effects of Clean Air Act regulation, 

EPA is continuing to evaluate the availability and potential use of 

various Clean Air Act authorities for greenhouse gas mitigation to 

determine the best overall approach for handling the challenge of 

global climate change for all sources, both mobile and stationary, 

and I will keep the Committee apprised of our progress. 

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. Before I take questions, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my 

full written statement be submitted for the record. 

Chairman MARKEY. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
13 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 61530A.004
14 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 61530A.005
15 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 61530A.006
16 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 61530A.007
17 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 61530A.008
18 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 61530A.009
19 

Chairman MARKEY. The Chair now recognizes himself for a 

round of questions. 

Mr. Johnson, as you well know, the Committee invited you to 

testify at this hearing on January 15th, 2008, and in my letter of 

invitation, I asked you to provide the Committee prior to this hearing with a copy of the EPA’s draft rule to regulate greenhouse gas 

emissions for motor vehicles. The Committee’s letter noted that the 

rule had already cleared internal reviews and had been forwarded 

to the Department of Transportation for review in December of 

2007. 

By unanimous consent, I move that the Committee’s correspondence with EPA be made part of the record of this hearing. Without 

objection, so ordered. 

[The correspondence of the Committee follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
20 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 61530A.010
21 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 61530A.011
22 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 61530A.012
23 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 61530A.013
24 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 61530A.014
25 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 61530A.015
26 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 61530A.016
27 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 61530A.017
28 

Chairman MARKEY. On January 28th, we spoke by phone, and I 

reiterated my request for a copy of EPA’s proposed rule. In addition, I requested that you provide me with a copy of EPA’s proposed endangerment finding, which had been forwarded to OMB 

for review in December. You agreed to do so. 

But late last week your staff informed Committee staff that you 

would not be providing those materials, and in a subsequent letter 

to the Committee, you indicated that you are asserting that these 

materials are, quote, predecisional and hence cannot be shared. 

On March 7, the Committee sent you a letter stating, ‘‘If the 

basis for withholding these documents is a claim of executive privilege, then please advise on when that determination was made and 

the process you went through to substantiate your claim.’’ You 

have yet to respond to that request. 

My first question: will you commit to providing the Select Committee with copies of both the EPA’s proposed rule to regulate 

greenhouse gas emissions for motor vehicles and its endangerment 

finding? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in my response 

of March 11th to the letters that you are referring to, I apologize 

that there was a misunderstanding, but the agency has a longstanding practice regarding requests for documents that are related 

to preliminary rulemaking, and the documents that you requested 

fall very much in that category. 

Chairman MARKEY. Well, as you know, predecisional is a concept 

that comes out of the Freedom of Information Act, but the Committee did not request the documents under the Freedom of Information Act, but rather under House Resolution 202 and the rules 

of the House. So that concept on its own is simply inapplicable to 

a congressional request. 

Are you asserting that these are subject to executive privilege? 

Mr. JOHNSON. At this time, no, sir, we are not. I am not asserting that these are part of an executive privilege, no. 

Chairman MARKEY. Do you have any reason to believe that 

President Bush saw the documents that you are refusing to supply 

to the Committee? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not know whether he did or did not. As I have 

already indicated, it is true that the agency was working on draft 

regulations, and as part of those draft regulations included 

endangerment, and as has been the routine practice of the agency 

and certainly our historical practice, that as we address the Clean 

Air Act issue of endangerment, we accompany what our proposed 

regulations would be. 

Chairman MARKEY. Do you have any—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. We are working on that, and the Energy Independence and Security Act changed what steps that we were taking. 

Chairman MARKEY. Do you have any reason to believe that Vice 

President Chaney has seen these documents? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not know who has or who has not seen these 

documents. I am aware of that we have prepared drafts. They were 

in preparation for the President’s Twenty in Ten Plan, and the Energy Independence and Security Act answered the call of the TwenVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:39 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061530 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A530.XXX A530

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
29 

ty in Ten, and we as an agency began focusing our attention on implementing the new legislation that you passed. 

And by the way, congratulations. As you well know, it has been 

32 years since our nation has changed its CAFE standard, and for 

obviously energy security as well as environmental reasons, it is 

good that we are focusing our attention on renewable fuel. 

Chairman MARKEY. And I appreciate that. 

So it seems to me that you have presented the Committee with 

a very difficult decision to make. The Committee views very seriously your refusal to cooperate and your intent to interfere with 

the work of the Committee on this important issue. The House is 

in recess after tomorrow, but I want to let all members know that 

when we return, we will take up this issue with all of our available 

resources and all of the authorities, including extraordinary authority given to this Committee under the rules of the House. 

This is a subject that the American public have a right to know 

about, have a right to the documents that deal with this very, very 

important issue, and it is going to be very important for us to clarify whether or not there is executive privilege which is being exerted here or it is merely the Freedom of Information Act, but in 

either instance, we intend on proceeding in a way that insures that 

the public has access to these very important documents. 

My time for the first round has expired. Let me turn now and 

recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me say that the 

escalation that you have just announced is, I think, extremely disappointing. We do have an obligation to find out how the public interest is being served and to do oversight over agencies of the Executive Branch, but I think there are ways of doing oversight where 

we can make the Executive Branch better without escalating the 

matter into something that may end up in a contempt citation and 

a reference to either the Justice Department or the United States 

District Court for the District of Columbia. 

And I would hope that we would cool it and attempt to try to get 

to the bottom of this without a clash between the two branches of 

government on how far executive privilege goes and how far the 

constitutional responsibility for Congress to do oversight goes. 

That being said, let’s get back to the issue at hand. Mr. Johnson, 

would you agree that the inclusion of a number of major sources 

of greenhouse gas emission that are going to potentially fall under 

the new regulation of greenhouse gases could significantly impact 

economic development and good jobs in this country? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. Depending upon decisions that are made 

under the Clean Air Act could have significant economic consequences for our nation. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Now, under any law authorizing the EPA 

to take action, is there any provision to allow you to take into account the possible negative impact of an EPA decision on jobs or 

on the economy? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, in some parts of the Clean Air Act specifically, we are, in fact, required to take costs and benefits into consideration. Other parts of the Clean Air Act, such as the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard, Section 108 of the Clean Air Act, 

which I made the decision on ozone yesterday, prohibits me by law 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
30 

from considering costs or implementation issues in setting a standard. 

So it depends upon what part of the Clean Air Act that a pollutant is regulated. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Now, assuming we are dealing with the 

regulation of greenhouse gases under the part of the Clean Air Act 

that allows economic impact to be considered, as you are working 

through possible regulations relating to greenhouse gas emission, 

is it possible to include anti-backsliding provisions that would not 

impose new regulations until our competitors in the international 

globalized marketplace, like China and India, also do the same 

thing? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, one, I do not believe our existing Clean Air 

Act provides that kind of authority, but that is a very important 

issue, a very important issue as we consider what we do nationally 

under the Clean Air Act and certainly as members of Congress, 

that you consider legislation. 

The notion of it is sometimes referred to as leakage, in other 

words, those industries and things go to another country, the country that is not taking aggressive steps as the United States is in 

regulating greenhouse gases, and so since it is global climate 

change, we lose the businesses; we lose the economics; and the environment is not changed. 

And so that leakage is a significant issue that we need to make 

sure we are aware of and deal with. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Do you think the Clean Air Act should be 

amended so that you can take into consideration the exodus of jobs 

as a result of the EPA taking action where, as our competitors in 

a globalized marketplace will not be taking similar action? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, that is one of the issues that as I am taking 

a step forward and looking at the impacts of the Supreme Court 

decision and what it would mean of an endangerment finding and 

what that means on all parts of the Clean Air Act, that is one of 

the many issues that we are looking at, and whether the Clean Air 

Act is actually the best tool for addressing greenhouse gases or 

whether, in fact, we should—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. My time is about up. Now, let me make the 

observation that the constructive way to go about dealing with 

these issues is to approach the entire issue of the philosophy that 

we can have a clean environment and a healthy economy providing 

good jobs to American workers at the same time. I believe that is 

what our committee should be working on rather than making 

threats and talking about contempt citations and reference to the 

Justice Department or the District Court for the District of Columbia. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Johnson, do you believe that the United States 

now stands on moral high ground with regard to the issue of greenhouse gases? Are we in a position where we can discuss with India, 

China, some of the other Asian-Pacific countries the need for them 

to make dramatic changes in what they are doing, the enormous 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
31 

number of coal-fired power plans that was mentioned earlier that 

are under construction in China? 

So do we stand on moral high ground on the issue of reducing 

greenhouse gases? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Cleaver, I honestly do, and I do for a number 

of reasons. One, as a nation, by the President’s leadership and by 

members of Congress passing budgetary appropriations, we as a 

nation from 2001 to today have spent or are spending upwards of 

$45 billion on addressing climate change. That is both investing in 

technologies, investing in science, even providing tax incentives for 

these new technologies or for people to do the right thing. 

There is no other nation in the world, no other nation in the 

world that is spending that kind of money and investing those 

kinds of tools. 

In addition, we have set a goal. The President set a goal of 18 

percent reduction by the year 2012. We are on track to not only 

meet that, but to beat that goal. In addition, when you look at the 

array of programs we have, I just went through in my oral testimony a host of mandatory programs from renewable fuel to new 

CAFE standards, which is the primary way that we can reduce 

CO2 emissions from automobiles and light trucks. 

Carbon sequestration is the great hope for many of our stationary sources. Well, in order for us to be able to do that, one, we 

need the technology, but second, from an EPA perspective we need 

to make sure that there is a regulatory framework in place to assure that when it is captured in a cost effective way it can be 

stored safely so that it will not harm the environment or people, 

and we have issued guidance so that pilot programs can go forward 

under the Department of Energy, and we are now drafting regulations which I expect to be available for public comment later this 

year. 

And so we are taking aggressive steps, both mandatory as well 

as voluntary, and I hope everybody knows about our EnergyStar 

Program so that consumers can make the right choice, save themselves some money and also save the environment, but those are 

all just a short list of things that we are doing at EPA and what 

we are doing nationwide. 

And, yes, more can be done, and that what is what we are debating now, and I think that is a healthy debate. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I am asking you now to speculate. If that is unfair, 

I apologize in advance. But why do you think that leaders in the 

western world continuously admonish us to take the lead in reducing greenhouse gases? 

Chairman Markey and I listened to Ms. Merkel in Germany 

make that statement, the new president in Australia make that 

statement, the members of the European Union make that statement, the members of parliament made that statement. Why do 

you think they are encouraging us to take the lead if we have this 

overwhelming picture, overwhelming number of programs and 

projects that the world should be able to see? 

I mean, what is preventing them from seeing the leadership we 

are making? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think that they now see and, in fact, support the President’s efforts under the major economies effort to get 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
32 

the major economies, including Germany, including the ones that 

you just mentioned, to work together. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Well, we were just in Australia two months ago. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I was just going to say to work together to 

establish targets, goals in the future, mandatory targets in the future that would require all the nations to meet. But there are some 

fundamental pieces that need to be put in place, whether it is registries, making sure that we know how to actually and we are all 

measuring greenhouse gases in the same way. 

We understand that each country is perhaps in a different economic, certainly in a different energy source. The United States, 

about 50 percent of our electricity comes from coal. We have an 

over 200-year supply of coal. So from an energy security and from 

an environmental standpoint, it is not to walk away from coal. It 

is to clean it up. 

And of course, through the Department of Energy and others, investing in clean coal technologies, and that is going to be critical 

not only for energy security, but it is going to be critical for—— 

Mr. CLEAVER. That is a decade away. 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. Us addressing environmental problems. 

Mr. CLEAVER. That is a decade away at least according to scientists. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, and you raise a good point. We have been 

asked and as an agency we have done some detail analysis of a 

number of pieces of legislation. We are in the process of completing 

an analysis of legislation now, and through that analysis it shows 

that, one, there is no silver bullet to addressing, a short-term silver 

bullet. 

Number two—— 

Mr. CLEAVER. My time is expiring, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am sorry. 

And, two, it is requiring significant investment in technologies 

and from nuclear to clean coal to others, solar and wind, are going 

to be the solutions to the problem. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you. 

Chairman MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, and thank 

you for having this hearing. 

Mr. Johnson, I wanted to ask a couple of questions. One involves 

the issue of carbon sequestration and storage. Is the technology 

available today anywhere in the world to actually sequester and 

store carbon safely underground? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. 

Mr. WALDEN. What is your timeline that you see out there in 

terms of technological advancements to where we would have that 

technology available? What do your experts tell you? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, the experts in the energy field say that to 

have commercially available cost effective technology we are at 

least a decade away, and I would defer to the experts. It is certainly not commercially and cost effectively available today. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
33 

Mr. WALDEN. And when we entered into cap and trade to reduce 

other pollutants out of the atmosphere, in America we created cap 

and trade originally. 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct. 

Mr. WALDEN. How many power plants were involved in that? Do 

you remember? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not remember, but certainly our acid rain program and our cap and trade under our Clean Air Interstate Rule, 

which I signed, will result in a 70 percent reduction in SO2 and a 

60 percent reduction in NOX. So it is a very effective program. 

Mr. WALDEN. Is carbon dioxide a pollutant? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The Supreme Court has determined that it is, and 

so we accept the Supreme Court’s decision. 

Mr. WALDEN. And if it is a pollutant, can you put a pollutant in 

the ground? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, it is one of the important questions, and 

under our UIC program, under our water program, we believe that 

can be, but it needs to be done, obviously, in accordance with EPA 

law. 

Mr. WALDEN. And who has the liability if that pollutant escapes 

the ground? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, again, that is an important question that we 

are also addressing as part of our regulation. 

Mr. WALDEN. Have you run any models or are you aware of any 

models that have been run through the Warner-Lieberman legislation regarding cap and trade costs for power production? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We are finishing up that analysis in the next few 

weeks. We will be sharing that with you and look forward to giving 

a more detailed breakdown on that. 

Mr. WALDEN. I would like to see that. I was told by a CEO of 

a major power company they have run their power costs through 

that model, and they go from 4.8 cents a kilowatt hour, as I recall 

the number, to 11.5 cents a kilowatt hour, which would be more 

than a doubling of the cost of electricity under that proposal. 

These are issues as we address trying to reduce greenhouse 

gases, and you know, I brought a Prius here and over the weekend 

brought a Ford Escape Hybrid, traded in my other SUV. So I am 

trying to do my part, and it is not cheap, but it is, I think, the right 

thing to do. 

But there are economic consequences here. There are pollution 

consequences here, and there are liability issues here that are very 

significant. When we were in Europe as part of a trip that Chairman Boucher organized, this issue of putting a pollutant underground without proper regulatory framework, the issue of liability 

if that pollutant were to escape into the atmosphere, and if you get 

credit for storing the carbon underground and it escapes, do you 

lose the credit? What is the mechanism down the road if that pollutant escapes? 

All of those issues were issues that I know the Europeans are 

trying to deal with, and that is why I asked you those questions 

today. How are we dealing with those? Because you could quickly 

get a regulatory framework or a legal framework in place and yet 

not have the technology, not have the liability, not have the storage 

capacity in place to actually make that something we could impleVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:39 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061530 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A530.XXX A530

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
34 

ment, and we know the costs are going to be there in the economy; 

is that correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Those are all very good observations and why it 

is so critical. While we have a serious issue of climate change, it 

is critical that we work our way through these because it can have 

significant economic consequences for our nation. 

Mr. WALDEN. How did the energy bill that we passed and I supported that became law and the President signed affect your agency as you were working on these rules the Chairman has asked you 

to provide information on? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, it significantly altered what approach that 

we were taking. For example, on the renewable fuels, we were looking at an open market system looking at a variety of ways of trying 

to measure the CO2 emissions. Congress made a decision, and 

there are both a mandatory requirement on the total volume. There 

are specific mandatory requirements on types of biofuels, for example, and also made the decision that we will use a full lifecycle 

analysis, which the United States has never done before. 

And so there are some significant issues, and we’re fully supportive of renewable fuels, but the work that we’ve done, we’ve got 

to do a lot of rework to be able to put out an implementing regulation. 

Mr. WALDEN. And I know my time has expired. I had one other 

line of questions. I will just submit them to your staff. If you can 

get back to me on that, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Please, I would be happy to. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. Over on 

the House floor at this moment a moment of silence is being observed on behalf of our troops wherever they are serving us in the 

world. I think it is appropriate for us for a minute to observe a moment of silence in prayer and thought about that. 

[Pause.] 

Chairman MARKEY. Thank you all very much. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from the State of 

New York, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Administrator Johnson, for being here, and with great respect and meaning 

so in a good way. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. HALL. I am just curious. We have seen charts here at earlier 

hearings of the last 20 years’ electricity demand in California, 

which is essentially flat, versus the increasing electricity demand 

in the rest of the United States. I am sure you have seen the same 

studies. 

I am curious what your analysis, just a short version of what the 

reasons for that are. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, it is clear that economic growth requires energy, and that as our nation continues to grow, as we want it to 

economically, that we need energy supplies. And given the energy 

security issues and a variety of issues, that poses problems for the 

United States. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
35 

And from an environmental standpoint, my area, we want to see 

and make sure that any future energy supplies are moving in the 

direction of clean energy supplies and making sure—— 

Mr. HALL. Excuse me. I only have limited time, but my question 

was about the past 20 years. I will just state my theory. California 

has had stricter energy regulation and more state incentives and 

perhaps more of a consciousness about efficiency, and they have 

managed to grow. They have flat screen TVs. They have high tech. 

They have industry. They are not a Third World country, and yet 

their electricity has gone a little bit up and down but basically been 

flat for the last 20 years, as the rest of the country has been on 

an incline, increased path. 

State Air Resources Board and other regulations done on the 

state level, I think, have contributed to their keeping their own demand flat while allowing their economy to grow. Is that a wild theory? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I should not probably speculate on that, but 

what I can say is that from an environmental standpoint, while 

they have made progress in a number of the priority pollutants, 

unfortunately parts of California today have some of the worst air 

in the entire United States, and that is a challenge for the state 

and certainly it is a challenge for our nation. 

Specifically, since I made my decision on reducing the health protective standard, that is, making it more protective on ozone yesterday, it makes it more of a challenge for those parts of our country, for example, California, to achieve this new health protective 

standard. 

Mr. HALL. Sure, and it is a complicated question. I understand. 

In New York last year for the first time, we had several days in 

the summer when there was an air quality alert on the entire 

state, not just the cities where one might expect it, but open forest 

and farmland in upstate New York was looking at warnings for 

people with respiratory problems and elderly people and so on to 

stay indoors in farm and forest country upstate far from any development where you would not expect it. 

I understand members of the administration have referred to the 

obligations for cooperation and rulemaking from the Energy Independence and Security Act as a reason why the action in response 

to the Supreme Court’s ruling was delayed, but short of final regulations, EPA has not even made an endangerment determination. 

Remedies aside, the IPCC, the Supreme Court and numerous 

others have recognized that greenhouse gases contribute to climate 

change, and the climate change presents a severe threat to our way 

of life. 

The passage of legislation does not change those facts, and they 

seem like the only ones you would need to make this determination. So my question is why hasn’t EPA taken this step. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, as I have already testified, with the passage 

of the Energy Independence and Security Act, we have now focused 

our attention on implementing that legislation. As I said, for cars, 

the primary source of carbon dioxide, the way to reduce that carbon 

dioxide is through improved fuel economy, and of course, we now 

have a 35 mile per gallon standard. So we think that it is imporVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:39 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061530 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A530.XXX A530

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
36 

tant for us to work with the Department of Transportation to make 

that happen. 

Mr. HALL. Yes. I am driving an American, Detroit built hybrid 

that is rated at 33 today, 12 years out from that 2020 goal. So I 

believe that we can exceed the two miles per gallon. This is an 

SUV, full-time four-by-four. It is not a teeny tin can. I believe we 

can exceed the margin, just as Texas exceeded the renewable electricity standard that President Bush signed into law when he was 

governor of Texas, and partly as a result, Texas is now the leader 

in the nation in wind power. 

And when I heard T. Boone Pickens had said that he is more excited about wind now than he is about any oil field he ever discovered, I know things are really changing. 

I want to encourage you and offer you all the help that I can. 

There is way more to talk about than there is, you know, time that 

I have. So I am afraid I have to yield back. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I look forward to it. 

Mr. HALL. But thank you again for being here, and I yield back, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Chairman MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Sullivan. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I appreciate you being here today. A lot of people have asked 

the questions I was wanting to ask, but I just have a couple. When 

you go through this, and it is complicated, and it is tough, and you 

are looking at the regulatory regime, framework that you are looking to implement; is there any consideration about how those will 

impact the economy or jobs or anything like that? Is that done in 

your office? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, ultimately if the agency makes a decision to 

regulate, again, depending upon what part of the Clean Air Act, as 

I said, that under the NAAQS, or National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, I am prohibited by considering cost or implementation, 

and the standard that I set on ozone yesterday was just purely 

health based, requisite to protect public health with an adequate 

margin of safety. 

Other parts of the Clean Air Act allow that, and that is one of 

the pieces, and I think it is so important, and that is why I have 

taken a step forward in looking at the entire Clean Air Act, because a decision on one part of the Clean Air Act could have lasting 

consequences and significant economic and unforeseen economic 

consequences. 

For example, one part of the Clean Air Act that as it is described 

as significance levels, we do not have significance levels established 

for carbon dioxide. So the significance level would be zero. So that 

means any facility that would emit any carbon dioxide or any 

greenhouse gas, and remember there are six of them, would then 

trigger all of the regulatory framework of the Clean Air Act. 

And I think as Administrator it is responsible; in fact, I think the 

public demands that I take a look at and understand before we 

rush to judgment on using the Clean Air Act tool and sorting 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
37 

through important issues. I understand we have a responsibility in 

Mass. v. EPA to respond, but it is important for us to look at that. 

In the meantime obviously I describe all of the significant things 

that we are doing to address greenhouse gases and also putting in 

place the necessary framework as we move forward as a nation. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is good. 

And I guess just one other. When Congressman Walden was talking about the carbon sequestration, which I think is interesting, 

and you did state that when it is used, it is several years away before that is developed in a way, that we do not even know where 

to store it. Where do you see as potential places to store it? Like 

what kind of formations in the earth or anything like that? 

And also, could you address another application of carbon sequestration that would be in my state; you mentioned some pilot programs. We are going to do one on enhanced oil recovery, injecting 

it into old wells, and can you comment on how that all works, too? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, yes. As a nation we have decades of experience and around the world a number of countries do as well have 

decades of experience of using CO2 as enhanced oil recovery, and 

in looking at long-term storage, we are learning from that experience. And the type of formation is a hard rock formation that does 

not have, if you will, the leaks and crevices so that it would escape. 

And so as we have looked at what are those kinds of formations, 

we have a pretty good idea, but there are still a number of issues 

that we have to sort through. 

And the other part of it is that when you look at the world at 

large, let alone the United States, and certainly the rapidly developing economies that we are well aware of, we are literally talking 

about gigatons, gigatons of carbon dioxide that we are going to 

have to deal with, and you can translate those gigatons into, well, 

how many nuclear power plants would the world be required to 

build to address those gigatons or how many zero emission coalfired power plants? 

The numbers are staggering, and so as I said to Congressman 

Cleaver, unfortunately, there is no silver bullet. Clearly, in the long 

term it is technologies. It is investing in nuclear and solar and 

wind and hydroelectric and all of these sources, and taking incremental steps, the kind of incremental steps that we are taking. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Is there some CO2 or carbon already injected in 

some formation that is being monitored now to see if it works? I 

mean, is that happening? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. In fact, we recently issued some guidance so 

that the Department of Energy can do—I am not sure of the number of pilots, whether it is six to 12, but certainly a number of pilots on the issue of carbon sequestration and storage, and so we 

have provided guidance to allow those pilot programs to proceed, 

and of course, on the liability issue that was issued, it is my understanding that as part of those pilots that government is helping on 

that issue of liability. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you very much. 

Chairman MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. 

Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
38 

I have been told that on November 8, 2007, you said, ‘‘I have 

committed to members of Congress and to the President that we 

will have that proposed regulation out for public notice and comment beginning by the end of this year, and to work toward a final 

rule by the end of the next year.’’ 

Did you say that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I did. 

Mr. INSLEE. And were you just teasing at that time? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I don’t necessarily appreciate the way that 

you characterized that, but, no, I was not. 

Mr. INSLEE. So somebody got to you between you saying that and 

between now when you do not intend to have this done. Is that the 

situation? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, actually you correctly noted that somebody 

got to me, and it was Congress and the President by passing the 

Energy Independence and Security Act. 

Mr. INSLEE. So do you think the Supreme Court basically or you 

thought the Supreme Court is teasing then. You think they are 

teasing when they said you have got a legal obligation to do this 

whether or not Congress enacted something in the CAFE standard. 

Do you think they are teasing? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. Again, when you pass and said, ‘‘Congratulations. It is good that Congress and the President signed the energy 

legislation,’’ but it clearly changed the path that the agency was on. 

Also, as I stated in my testimony, I recognize the agency still has 

an obligation to respond to the Supreme Court, and as I also stated 

in my testimony, it is that it is very evident that as one looks at 

the Clean Air Act, there are many interconnections, and a decision 

on one part of the Clean Air Act could have significant consequences both in how greenhouse gas is regulated as well as other 

unintended consequences, perhaps such as significant harm. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, I am sorry, but that just does not wash with 

my constituents, and I will tell you why. You are telling us that 

you intended to have a regulation and then Congress did one of the 

things that perhaps you could have regulated, and the fact that 

they had already checked off that box made it slower for you to do 

the regulation, the fact that we had already accomplished one of 

the steps regarded your ability to move forward? 

That makes no sense whatsoever. If you have got five things you 

need to do and Congress already did the first one, it should not 

make you slower. It should make you faster, and you should have 

been back here and say, ‘‘Thanks, Congress. You did one of the 

things. You have accelerated my ability to get this regulation out.’’ 

Something happened here that you have just decided not to do 

this, and it is pretty clear, and I am disappointed by that because 

you are the fireman. You are the fireman, and the planet is on fire 

right now, and you do not pick up a hose. You do not pick up an 

ax. You do not pick up a water bucket. You do nothing. Your administration has done nothing about this before the Supreme Court 

decision or after the Supreme Court decision. 

No, you could at least take some action, for instance, dealing 

with coal plants that are continuing to be built with no sequestration. You have not done that. You have not done anything. I mean 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
39 

isn’t that true? You have not issued any regulation at all, have 

you? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, sir, I would respectfully disagree. As I said, 

I appreciate and applaud Congress for passing the legislation, but 

in doing so you require us to write regulations, and that is what 

I just testified. That is exactly what we are doing. We are writing 

regulation. We are writing a regulation to implement the renewable fuel standard. 

We are writing a regulation to implement through the Department of Transportation, through the CAFE Program. We are working with them. You have required us through our omnibus appropriation to write and establish a greenhouse gas registry. We are 

doing that, and as I have also testified, that we recognize that carbon sequestration is important, is going to be a critical component 

as we look to the future of addressing greenhouse gases. 

We have issued guidance so pilots can go forward. We are writing regulations. I have said that later this year you will see the 

draft regulations on that. So we are not idly sitting by, and that 

is just on the domestic front. I can talk more about the international. 

Mr. INSLEE. Will you be writing regulation on a cap and trade 

system? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We have made no decision as to what the next 

steps we are going to take with regard to Mass. v. EPA and the 

Supreme Court decision. That is an important question which we 

have not answered yet. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, I can tell you a no decision in March of 2008 

is a decision. A no decision today is a decision by the Bush administration to finish its term without taking meaningful greenhouse 

gas action, and this was the last gasp effort or chance for this administration to salvage a positive legacy of its failures in seven 

years, a last chance, and you are letting it go by. 

And history is going to record this administration and your term 

in office if you do not act on this as a failure and an existential 

threat to civilization on this planet. And I just hope maybe some 

day you personally wake up to that effect and march into the 

White House and say, ‘‘I am doing a reg. and I am going to get it 

done and it is going to go into effect,’’ and if not, tender your resignation. 

That is the responsible thing to do and you have not done it yet, 

and I hope you start to rethink your obligations. 

Chairman MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

We will go to a second round of questions, and the Chair will recognize himself. 

When you last appeared before the Select Committee, you would 

not say whether or not you believed that greenhouse gas emissions 

cause or contribute to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. 

Nine months have gone by since you last appeared before the Select Committee. You put three or four full-time staff members on 

this question for several months. Your staff has told Congress that 

you reviewed all materials and agreed to forward a positive finding 

of endangerment to OMB in December. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
40 

Are you prepared to tell the Select Committee right here, right 

now, that greenhouse gas emissions cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public 

health or welfare? Yes or no? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The answer is no, and it would be inappropriate 

for me to prejudge a preliminary draft regulatory decision that has 

not gone through the appropriate process or been published for notice and comment. 

Chairman MARKEY. So you are saying that you cannot even tell 

the Select Committee when you will be ready to make this determination, though you spent all of last summer and fall assuring 

Congress that it would be done by the end of the year. 

Why can’t you even give us a date? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, the reason is, and I tried to be very clear 

today, is that was we move forward with evaluating endangerment, 

that it has implications for not only mobile sources, but it also has 

implications for stationary sources. 

And I understand my responsibility to address the concerns by 

the Mass. v. EPA, but I also understand my responsibility to recognize potentially the widespread implication and impact of such a 

decision, and that is what I am evaluating. 

Chairman MARKEY. Well, isn’t it true that the only regulatory requirement, the publication of the endangerment finding triggers, is 

the requirement to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor 

vehicles? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Again, what is before the agency is the issue of the 

Mass. v. EPA, and as part of that the very important question of 

endangerment and that there are significant implications as to 

how, if, what the endangerment finding is addressed given the intricacies and the interconnected of the Clean Air Act. 

Chairman MARKEY. I understand what you are saying, but no 

stationary sources would be automatically or immediately subject 

to greenhouse gas regulations as a result of concluding that greenhouse gas emissions cause or contribute to air pollution which may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare; 

isn’t that right? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, that is actually one of the questions that I 

am looking at. 

Chairman MARKEY. So let me continue to move forward then. 

The energy bill did not in any way alter your obligation to make 

the determination on whether greenhouse gas emissions cause or 

contribute to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger public health or welfare. In fact, the energy bill says, 

‘‘Except to the extent expressly provided in this act or an amendment made by this act, nothing in this act or an amendment made 

by this act supersedes, limits the authority provided or responsibility conferred by or authorizes any violation of any provision of 

law, including a regulation, including any energy or environmental 

law or regulation.’’ 

That includes the Clean Air Act, Mr. Johnson. So let me ask you 

again. Since you already completed your work on the 

endangerment finding and nothing in the energy bill impacts your 

responsibility to publish it or alters in any way the outcome of the 

simple question of whether greenhouse gas emissions cause or conVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:39 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061530 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A530.XXX A530

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
41 

tribute to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare; when will the EPA publish its 

endangerment finding? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, as I have already stated, that in addressing 

the issue of endangerment, it was part of a regulatory package that 

was focused on addressing and implementing the President’s Twenty and Ten Plan. So while it is true that the Energy Independent 

and Security Act did not alter certainly that portion of the Clean 

Air Act, what is true is that it did alter what regulatory steps the 

agency is now taking with regard to renewable fuels and the government is taking with regard to the CAFE standard, and so the 

issue of endangerment, which as I said historic practice is it accompanies the regulatory effort, we are now looking at what are the 

appropriate next steps. 

Chairman MARKEY. Well, you recently denied California’s request 

to implement its greenhouse gas regulations for motor vehicles because you said California had not demonstrated ‘‘a compelling and 

extraordinary need’’ for the regulations. 

You did, however, say, again, ‘‘Warming of the climate system is 

unequivocal,’’ and cited numerous adverse impacts of climate 

change, such as rising sea levels, which is the Massachusetts case 

that was ruled upon by the Supreme Court, heat waves, more intense hurricanes, and increased wildfires and insect outbreaks, and 

even said that some of these impacts could lead to increases in 

mortality. 

Do you not believe that any of these factors you mentioned may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, as I clearly point out both in 

my testimony as well as in my California waiver decision, the 

greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change is just that. It 

is global, and it is a serious challenge. 

I also very clearly point out in my decision document that the 

California waiver does not reflect and should not be construed as 

my judgment on endangerment. 

Chairman MARKEY. Well, again, there is a profound difference of 

opinion between the Select Committee and the EPA over this question, your responsibilities, the urgency of the problem, and whether 

or not you are discharging your responsibilities pursuant to a Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, and we intend on 

pursuing this question vigorously in the weeks and months ahead. 

Let me now turn once again and recognize the gentleman from 

Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

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

Mr. Johnson, first of all, let me say I am very disappointed that 

this hearing has become overly adversarial. I think we are all in 

the business together to try to provide a healthy environment and 

to try to figure out a way that the regulations can be promulgated 

in a manner consistent with the law, as well as consistent with not 

only the Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court decision, but other 

decisions of the court. 

Let me say that Congress bears a part of the culpability of the 

confusion that is being discussed here. First of all, the Clean Air 

Act has varying degrees and methods and modalities of regulation. 

You mentioned that yourself, where in some areas the Clean Air 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
42 

Act has a different regulatory mode than in other areas of the 

Clean Air Act. 

However, what is in the air is something that we all breathe, and 

as an Administrator, it is your job to figure out how to go through 

the maze that Congress has given you because the law was passed 

by Congress, and your job is only to administer the law. 

The other thing is that the energy bill that was passed late last 

year, which I did not vote for, I think, has complicated the issue 

and has required you maybe not to go all the way back to square 

one in making this determination, but certainly has required a retooling to make sure that the regulations comply with the new law 

that Congress passed. 

You know, it is kind of like you are ordering somebody to build 

a house for you and the house goes up and then you and your wife 

decide to have a whole lot of change orders. Well, you are not going 

to be able to move into the house as quickly as you wanted until 

the builder is able to accomplish the change orders which you have 

ordered and which you will pay for. 

And then we get to the business of a cost-benefit analysis, which 

you alluded to in response to my earlier questions where in some 

cases you cannot look at the impact on jobs for Americans, and in 

other cases you have to do that. 

So I can understand why there has been a delay in figuring out 

how all of this fits together and the fact that the rules changed at 

least slightly with the passage and signature by the President of 

the energy bill. Now, I do not think we in Congress should be berating Administrators for not getting things done on time. We have 

a pretty poor record of getting things done on time ourselves. 

The appropriations bill, including the one that funded your agency, ended up passing months late, and last year was not the only 

time that it was done. So I guess I can say that the one question 

that I have and maybe it will calm the two colleagues sitting to my 

right down, and it probably will not, but do you see light at the end 

of the tunnel in getting these regulations out, even though maybe 

some in the Congress are trying to turn the lights out? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am very optimistic, and I do see light at the end 

of the tunnel, and I see light at the end of the tunnel that as we 

have committee meetings such as this, oversight hearings such as 

we have the debate, that people recognize that, yes, climate change 

is a serious challenge for our nation, and it is one that needs to 

be thought through, yes, expeditiously, but it needs to be thought 

through deliberately, and to make sure that as we consider tools 

such as the Clean Air Act or other tools, as Congress considers legislation, that we do so with all of the foreknowledge and experience 

so that we can make the best informed decisions so that we can 

address the issue, but do so in a way that does not hurt our economy, does not hurt our nation, and in fact, ends up helping the 

global challenge. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. What can Congress do to keep the light at 

the end of the tunnel on? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think certainly give me some time to think 

through under the Clean Air Act what is an appropriate approach. 

I know that there is a desire for me to rush to judgment. This is 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
43 

a very complex issue, and it is a very difficult issue and one that 

has been debated since 1978. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. My time is about up. If you would do 

things prematurely and you make a mistake, is there a danger that 

court will enjoin you from implementing a mistake and then we 

have a further delay? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, in my 27 years at EPA, one of the things 

that I clearly note is that our agency is frequently subject to litigation, and I am a true believer that the air nor the water nor the 

land get any better or improve when we are sitting in a courtroom. 

So my preference is let’s work together to address the problem. In 

my experience working collaboratively you can address the problem 

faster and even cheaper, and I think it ends up better for the nation. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair once again recognizes the gentleman from Washington 

State, Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Some of us believe that when a fellow has been in the White 

House since January, I think, 20th, 2001, it is not a rush to have 

expected some action to deal with the planetary emergency by 

March 2008, and I am trying to figure out why the Director of the 

Environmental Protection Agency is not acting as a fireman here, 

but in fact just as, frankly, sort of a defender of a bureaucracy that 

has not moved in seven years, and I am trying to figure that out. 

So I am going to ask you a couple of questions. 

We had Dr. Pachauri of the International Panel on Climate 

Change here a couple of months ago. He sat just where you are sitting right now. He told us that 20 to 30 percent of the world’s species could be extinct if we do not reduce our emissions by about 20 

percent below 1990 levels by around 2020, a pretty stunning statement. 

Have you read the IPCC report, the most recent IPCC report? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I have. 

Mr. INSLEE. And do you think Dr. Pachauri is right in that regard? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, as part of the IPCC process, in fact, we have 

very well respected EPA scientists that participate, and so I believe 

that the IPCC report represents among the best available science 

that is available to the government. 

Mr. INSLEE. And do you think we should be making policy decision on that basis? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think that the IPCC reports are important 

data sources, scientific analyses on which the countries can use to 

help base their decision, but the good news is that, and certainly 

as the IPCC points out, that additional research needs to be done, 

and in fact, we are all doing that. Additional work needs to be done 

in emerging technologies. That is being done, and so all of those 

factors need to be taken into consideration as whether the United 

States or a rapidly developing economy decides what is the best approach for it in addressing this issue. 

Mr. INSLEE. Isn’t it true that under the path that your administration is now on we do not have a hope in the world of preventing 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
44 

those dire consequences if we continue on the path that your agency is now on? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I would disagree with the characterization 

because we are on a path to improve the fuel economy standards 

since the first time in 32 years. That is the primary tool producing 

greenhouse gases from automobiles and light trucks. We are on a 

path to implement a significant, 36 billion gallon requirement for 

renewable fuels. 

Mr. INSLEE. Are you on a path to achieve 20 percent reductions 

in CO2 emissions below 1999 levels by 2020? Are you telling American taxpayers that your policies are going to achieve that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, the target that the President has set is an 

18 percent greenhouse gas intensity reduction by the year 2012, 

and as a nation we are on track to meet or exceed that. 

Mr. INSLEE. So your answer to my question is no then; is that 

right? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I do not know whether given the recent 

changes, what specific number that achieves, but what I can say 

with confidence is that the steps that we are taking as a nation—— 

Mr. INSLEE. That is disappointing that—— 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. That we are taking as a nation actually move us in the direction that we all know we need to be—— 

Mr. INSLEE. It is disappointing—— 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. And that is slowing down—— 

Mr. INSLEE. Excuse me, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. And stopping and then ultimately reversing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Mr. INSLEE. It is disappointing that the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency cannot tell the citizens of this nation 

whether or not his policies are going to achieve that goal of 20 percent reductions below 1990 levels that the IPCC basically said we 

have got to have or have cataclysmic events. 

And you are telling me that you cannot tell me whether your policy is going to achieve that or not? I can tell you and anybody who 

knows sixth grade arithmetic knows the answer to that, which is 

the answer is no. 

Now, I am going to give you a moment to think about this just 

for a second, realize the path we are on, and tell me: is the answer 

yes or no, or you are just telling me the Director of the EPA does 

not know the answer to that? Which is that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, what I have told you repeatedly is that we 

are still sorting through what path we as a nation should be on, 

and that is the process that we are in right now, and I have also 

said that we have taken significant steps and again acknowledge 

the great work of Congress in passing this legislation that actually 

is directionally in that direction of reducing. 

So at this point while we are trying to sort through what steps 

make sense for the nation, I cannot say what percentage we should 

or should not. Certainly that will be a part of the outcome. Certainly as you debate issues of legislation, that will be a significant 

issue that you are going to have to address as to what the target 

and what the requirements would be if you choose to proceed with 

legislation. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, that was a long ‘‘no,’’ but I will take it. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
45 

Have you read the Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet 

by Mark Lynas? Have you read that book? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I have not. 

Mr. INSLEE. I would commend it to you. If you read it and if you 

follow the science in it, I think you will conclude that your administration is woefully failing in its obligations to our grandkids. 

Thanks. 

Chairman MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Johnson, do you have any idea how many lawsuits on greenhouse gas emissions, permits and petitions there are facing the 

agency? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I know that, for example, we have seven petitions 

that are pending before the agency that cover aircraft, ongoing marine vessels, non-road engines, for example, agriculture, farm construction, lawn and garden equipment, recreational vehicles, recreation and smaller commercial, marine vessels, locomotives. That is 

just on the mobile sources. 

In addition, as I have said, we have the issues and implications 

on stationary sources. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I want to get to that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. There are, in fact, 90 stationary source categories 

ranging from grain elevators to utility boilers and a lot in between. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I guess where I am going, you mentioned earlier 

about the CAFE standards. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. The truth of the matter is the CAFE standards 

that were approved in the energy bill was a result of work with the 

Chairman of this Committee, Mr. Dingell, and the Speaker of the 

House. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Congratulations. That is great. That is a great 

success story. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I agree. We did a great job, if I have to say so myself. However, it seems to me that that would have been the role 

of the EPA, to push the government, the Congress in the direction 

of higher CAFE standards, and as a result the EPA is serving as 

the tail light after the headlights have already flashed. 

And so I cannot get past the issue of the United States have a 

high moral ground to talk to other nations about this issue. 

You mentioned a lot of money that has been spent. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. And that beckons an ideological discussion because 

the administration says that when you throw a lot of money at a 

problem, particularly when we are talking about social issues, that 

it is wasteful, and so when you just talk about all of the money 

that is being spent, what is the difference between what you are 

saying about energy and what people say about our money we 

spend in HHS? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we are seeing the fruits of that investment, 

whether it is the science so that we can better understand climate 

change—— 

Mr. CLEAVER. But you do not believe in the science. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
46 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, sir, I just have said over and over again that 

climate change, global climate change is a serious challenge. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Does the White House believe that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Where can we find that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Actually I would be happy to provide for the 

record the President’s statements that acknowledge that. 

But let me just point out one thing to make it clear. EPA does 

not administer the CAFE standard. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I understand. 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is the responsibility of the Department of 

Transportation. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Okay. I understand that. The point I was trying 

to make and perhaps poorly is that we need the EPA to be the 

headlight, and I am in disagreement with you that it is the headlight on these matters of environment. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, sir, I like the headlight analogy because that 

is precisely what I am doing, is shining light on all of the aspects 

of the Clean Air Act, including the endangerment, in looking at 

what is the best approach, recognizing the science, recognizing 

multiple petitions, the Mass. v. EPA, and illuminating light as to 

what is the best direction that we as a nation should proceed with, 

given all of this. 

I understand people want me to drive into that dark alley because they think it is the right alley. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I really am shining a light on and looking at what 

is the best approach, and I am doing it deliberately, and I am doing 

it expeditiously, and I would ask for your indulgence to stay tuned. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Well, I appreciate the analogy. In my real life, I 

am a preacher, and I like analogies, and that was pretty good. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. [Laughter.] 

Mr. CLEAVER. The alleyway, the light in the alley. 

What recommendations can we expect from the EPA as a Committee, as a Congress, that will move us toward reducing greenhouse gases? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think several. One is, as I said, the steps 

that we are taking, the renewable fuel standard, that list of things, 

those mandatory responsibilities. You can expect that. 

Second is you can expect to hear from me as I have looked at and 

I am looking at the Clean Air Act, what do I believe is the best 

approach for the nation, given all of those factors, and so you can 

expect to hear from me again on that. 

And then lastly, you can expect from me to continue to work with 

you, members of Congress, as you sort through the very important 

issue of legislation. We are doing some of the world’s most extensive scientific and economic analysis that has ever been done on 

the issue of climate change, and I look forward to my staff having 

the opportunity to share, such as the Warner-Lieberman bill, so 

that you can be very, very informed as you have this important debate on legislation. 

Chairman MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MARKEY. I thank you. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
47 

And all time for questions by members of the Committee has expired. Mr. Johnson, you are a scientist with a unique charge. The 

planet is sick. There are no hospitals for sick planets. 

The Congress has told you to do something about it. The Supreme Court has told you to do something about it. You have told 

this Committee that you do not want to, in fact, make a rush to 

judgment. The problem is that the planet is on a rush to ruin, a 

rush to catastrophe, even as you say that you do not want to make 

a rush to judgment. 

This Committee is very concerned that you do not understand 

that there are no emergency rooms for planets. We have to engage 

in preventative health care for the planet. We will not be able to 

deal with the catastrophic consequences once they occur. We have 

to stop them from happening. 

You have less than a year left to go, Mr. Administrator, to make 

the decisions that put the United States on a path of leadership 

rather than being the laggard in the world. The world is asking us 

to be the leader. Nothing in the energy bill, nothing in law prevents you from making these decisions. 

We urge you to make those decisions. We hope that you do not 

waste these last ten months of your administration, but because of 

your testimony today and your lack of willingness to provide the 

documents which this Committee needs, we are going to continue 

to pursue very aggressively this subject because time is of the essence. 

We are going to be asked in subsequent generations whether or 

not we tried, we really tried to prevent that catastrophe from occurring, and the least that we should be able to say is that we 

tried. Right now there is no evidence on this question of 

endangerment to the public health and welfare that the EPA is acting consistent with the urgent threat to our planet that is clear 

from all scientific evidence. 

So we thank you for testifying before us today. We are going to 

be in frequent communication with you on this subject, which goes 

to the central issue of our generation: have we dealt with this urgent threat to the planet? That is how we are going to be viewed 

by history. 

All other issues will be merely a footnote in history to the question of whether or not we dealt with this catastrophic threat to our 

planet. We urge you to act and to act soon on the issue. 

And we thank you for being before our Committee today. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MARKEY. Now we are going to turn to our second 

panel. We welcome the second panel on this very important subject. 

We are notified that there are two roll calls on the House floor. So 

what we will do is we will begin by hearing testimony from our 

first witness on the second panel, and then we will take a brief recess and come back and complete the testimony. 

Our first witness, Ms. Lisa Heinzerling is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center. She formerly served as Assistant Surgeon General for my home state, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where she specialized in environmental law and in which capacity she was the primary author of the successful Massachusetts 

v. EPA brief. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
48 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF LISA HEINZERLING, ESQ., PROFESSOR, 

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER; ACCOMPANIED BY 

DAVID BOOKBINDER, CHIEF CLIMATE COUNSEL, SIERRA 

CLUB; THE HONORABLE RODERICK BREMBY, SECRETARY, 

KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT; THE 

HONORABLE JOSH SVATY, MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF KANSAS; PETER S. 

GLASER, PARTNER, TROUTMAN SANDERS 

STATEMENT OF LISA HEINZERLING 

Ms. HEINZERLING. Thank you very much. 

Chairman MARKEY. And if you could move that microphone up 

a little bit closer. 

Ms. HEINZERLING. Thank you. 

In Massachusetts v. EPA, as we have already heard this morning, the Supreme Court held that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. The Supreme Court also held that any response to that—— 

Chairman MARKEY. Have you turned on the microphone down 

there? 

Ms. HEINZERLING. The microphone button. 

Chairman MARKEY. Ah, could you move that other microphone 

over, please? Thank you. 

Mr. CLEAVER. The EPA broke it. [Laughter.] 

Ms. HEINZERLING. Now, how is that? All right. 

Chairman MARKEY. Thank you. 

Ms. HEINZERLING. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court 

held that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. 

It also held that any response to the Supreme Court’s decision and 

to that authority to regulate greenhouse gases must sound in the 

criteria of the statute itself, that is, cannot stray beyond the statutory criteria to other matters. 

The Supreme Court also gave the EPA very limited options on 

remand from that decision. Utter inaction was not one of those options. 

Chairman MARKEY. Again, could you move that microphone in a 

little bit closer, and maybe lower it a little bit. I think that might 

help. 

Ms. HEINZERLING. Utter inaction was not one of those options. 

Chairman MARKEY. Great. 

Ms. HEINZERLING. Yet that is what we have gotten from EPA. Indeed, the reasoning from Mr. Johnson this morning was exactly the 

kind of reasoning that the Supreme Court rejected in Massachusetts v. EPA. There the EPA said that the problem of climate 

change was very big. It was very complicated. It might need a solution other than the Clean Air Act. The EPA was worried about the 

international context, and so on. These are the very kinds of reasons we heard from Administrator Johnson this morning. These are 

the very kinds of reasons the Supreme Court rejected almost a year 

ago. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
49 

The Supreme Court held, again, EPA must hue its reasoning to 

the language of the statute, not stray beyond that and cite other 

policy concerns in making its decision. 

On endangerment, the Supreme Court made clear that EPA’s job 

is to assess the science and to follow the science where it leads. 

This morning Mr. Johnson gave no justification for not doing that, 

for not making a finding that greenhouse gases may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. 

He conceded, I think, that the energy bill signed in December 

2007 does not affect authority under the Clean Air Act, as well he 

should. He also though suggested that that bill affects his decision 

on remand from Massachusetts v. EPA. Yet there is no explanation 

from Mr. Johnson as to why he may not at this moment, right now 

make a finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and 

welfare. 

And, indeed, there is no real explanation from Mr. Johnson as to 

why his February 29th decision denying California the authority to 

regulate greenhouse gases did not make such a finding. In that decision he claimed it was likely that greenhouse gases were endangering all sorts of different aspects of human health and welfare. 

The finding was very formal. 

This morning he tells us it is not an endangerment finding. He 

may not avoid the consequences of his decision in February simply 

by giving it a label that he chooses. 

It was surprising to me to hear Mr. Johnson say he did not want 

to prejudge the issue of endangerment when in February, I believe, 

that is exactly the decision he made. That is a judgment that 

greenhouse gases are endangering public health and welfare. 

In addition, the consequences we have heard of regulating that 

Mr. Johnson referred to this morning are not part of the statutory 

framework for finding endangerment. They simply are not part of 

that statutory scheme. Science is what he is supposed to follow, not 

the consequences of a regulatory scheme. 

And here I ask you simply to imagine you go to a doctor. The 

doctor tells you you have symptoms, has even told you on February 

29th you are very, very ill, but he says some of the treatments, 

some of them, are very painful and expensive, and so he has decided he is not even going to tell you whether you are sick. 

That would be a bad doctor. I believe that is not a way an agency 

should behave. The EPA is our environmental expert. Many entities, businesses, states, other agencies depend on EPA’s judgment 

about whether greenhouse gases are endangering public health or 

welfare. That finding would also, I think, I hope, influence EPA’s 

own attitude towards regulation and change it from one of obduracy to urgency. 

They might change the attitude of EPA from asking how can we 

avoid doing too much to how can we find a way to do enough. 

Thank you. 

Chairman MARKEY. I will tell you what we are going to have to 

do right here. We will stop. We will come back to the other witnesses. We will give you a minute to summarize your opening 

statement, and then we will go to the second witness. We are going 

to take a brief recess. 

Ms. HEINZERLING. Thank you. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
50 

[Recess.] 

Mr. INSLEE [presiding]. There has been a putsch during the interim, and I have assumed the Chair. So I look forward to Ms. 

Heinzerling. If you will continue your address in maybe three minutes, if that would work for you. We hope that you can help us out. 

Ms. HEINZERLING. Oddly enough, I actually had seen the time 

running and I had finished, but I had spoken very quickly. So if 

you do not mind I would just like to summarize the things I said. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, thank you. 

Ms. HEINZERLING. Absolutely. So the first point I wanted to 

make was that EPA clearly had not learned from the decision in 

Massachusetts v. EPA; that the justifications we heard this morning for EPA’s failure to act in response to that decision are the very 

kinds of justifications the Supreme Court rejected in that decision. 

And so that I think that those justifications and those reasons 

are unlawful. 

The second point that I would like to make is that EPA has 

every reason now, today, to issue a finding that greenhouse gases 

endanger public health and welfare. Arguably, as I mentioned before, EPA has already done so in its February 29th denial of California’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases from automobiles. In 

that decision, EPA made very formal, very explicit, very confident 

findings about the effects of greenhouse gases on public health and 

welfare. 

So, arguably, I believe that finding has already been made. 

EPA’s labeling it as not an endangerment finding is not enough to 

save it. 

Secondly, the finding, as we heard this morning, had already 

been prepared. Quite apart from the February 29th decision there 

has already been a positive endangerment finding prepared. They 

can simply mail it in. There is nothing else to be done. 

Third, I think it would benefit many people, businesses, states, 

other entities, are awaiting work from EPA, formal, final word 

from EPA about endangerment, and I think it would give them certainty and predictability if EPA would make a decision on this matter. 

Last, I believe a decision on this matter would affect EPA’s regulatory attitude. As I mentioned in a metaphor with the doctor, the 

idea is that if you go to a doctor and the doctor says, ‘‘Well, we 

think you are sick, but we think the treatments might be painful 

and expensive. So we are not going to tell you what you have,’’ that 

would be crazy. That would be a very bizarre statement on the part 

of the doctor. 

I think that is essentially what EPA is saying to us, and that 

seems to be both unwise and, in light of Massachusetts v. EPA, unlawful. 

I would like to ask that my written statement be admitted into 

the record. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Heinzerling follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
51 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 61530A.018
52 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 61530A.019
53 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 61530A.020
54 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 here 61530A.021
55 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 61530A.022
56 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 61530A.023
57 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 here 61530A.024
58 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 87 here 61530A.025
59 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 88 here 61530A.026
60 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 89 here 61530A.027
61 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 61530A.028
62 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 61530A.029
63 

Mr. INSLEE. Certainly, and we always hope for an attitude adjustment in this case. 

Our next witness, Mr. David Bookbinder, who is Chief Climate 

Counsel for the Sierra Club. He is responsible for climate litigation, 

including the global warming legislation, and we want to commend 

the whole club and Mr. Bookbinder in some recent successes. 

Mr. Bookbinder. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID BOOKBINDER 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. Thank you very much. 

First, I am afraid I am going to start my testimony by correcting 

you. You had said that we had seen seven years of inaction from 

EPA on global warming and climate change. In fact, that is not 

quite correct because they, in addition to not acting on their own, 

they have affirmatively worked to block others from acting. So you 

cannot say they have been completely inactive. 

Their rejection of California’s request for a waiver of federal preemption so that California and 12 other states could finally begin 

the first program to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in the 

United States was an example of their blocking the efforts of other 

parties who want to address this problem. 

When it comes to delay itself, they have delayed for the seven 

years of this administration and the Massachusetts case is a perfect example of this. The petition at the root of Massachusetts was 

filed in 1999. The administration refused to take any action on it 

until we sued them simply to get them to answer the petition. We 

did that in 2002. They answered it with a resounding no in 2003, 

and here we are five years later still trying to get an answer to the 

question are greenhouse gases reasonably anticipated to endanger 

public health or welfare, and by welfare, Congress wrote explicitly 

into the statute, ‘‘Do greenhouse gases endanger wildlife, plants, 

weather or climate?’’ 

That is a no brainer. That is truly a no brainer, and as the only 

person who cannot seem to answer that question is Administrator 

Johnson, even though, as Professor Heinzerling has pointed out, 

the conclusions that EPA reached in rejecting California’s waiver 

was, my God, climate change is going to hammer the entire United 

States. 

Administrator Johnson summarized it as saying global climate 

change is a substantial and critical challenge for the environment. 

There is little question that the conditions brought about as a result of global climate change are serious, whether reviewing the 

issue as a global, national, or state specific issue. Nevertheless, he 

cannot figure out whether or not we are endangered by greenhouse 

gases. 

The biggest problem we face in terms of regulation is that EPA 

says we cannot regulate any source, motor vehicles, power plants, 

anything until we have an endangerment finding, but as you heard 

Administrator Johnson say today, we are not going to do an 

endangerment finding because we might have to regulate people as 

a result. 

We are in a perfect Catch-22 with these folks, and we need something to break this logjam. The latest bogeyman that they have 

raised is what is called the PSD program, the Prevention of SignifiVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:39 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061530 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A530.XXX A530

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
64 

cant deterioration. And we heard a lot of discussion about the 250 

ton threshold, that if we have an endangerment finding, EPA is 

going to have to start regulating every source in the United States 

that emits more than 250 tons of carbon dioxide. 

The short answer is no one wants that. The environmental community does not want it. The regulated community does not want 

it. Congress does not want it. No one wants it, and this is a completely empty threat that EPA is using as a transparent excuse to 

prevent themselves from regulating the significant sources of 

GHGs, of greenhouse gases of motor vehicles, power plants, industrial facilities and the like. 

We have coming up in front of us the next regulatory deadline 

for EPA is they are under a consent decree, a court order to come 

up with standards for emissions from petroleum refineries, and petroleum refineries are one of the most significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, and they must publish 

those standards by April 30th. 

None of us are holding our breath as to what EPA is going to 

do. Clearly, those emissions contribute to the endangerment we all 

know that exists, but the only suspense is what new dodge will 

EPA come up with in order to avoid imposing such restrictions. 

We saw in Massachusetts that EPA took a statute that says if 

something has an adverse effect on climate you have to regulate it 

and turn it around to say, well, Congress did not want us to regulate to protect the climate. In the waiver decision they took the 

words ‘‘compelling’’ and ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ and read it 

to mean unique in order to prevent California from regulating, and 

most recently in a case designed to stop regulation of greenhouse 

gases from new power plants, in a case called Bonanza, EPA is saying that Section 821 of the Clean Air Act is not actually part of the 

Clean Air Act. It is an endless litany of transparent excuses to 

avoid regulation. 

We have ten more months of this administration. Hopefully 

something good will happen in that time. 

Mr. INSLEE. We can only hope, and thanks for your criticism that 

I have been too gracious. That is the first time I have been accused 

of being too gracious to the administration. 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. No one has accused me of that, and I would 

like to move my testimony to be formally admitted. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bookbinder follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
65 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 96 here 61530A.030
66 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 97 here 61530A.031
67 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 98 here 61530A.032
68 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 99 here 61530A.033
69 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 100 here 61530A.034
70 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 101 here 61530A.035
71 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 102 here 61530A.036
72 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 103 here 61530A.037
73 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 104 here 61530A.038
74 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 105 here 61530A.039
75 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Our next witness, Mr. Roderick Bremby, who is Secretary of the 

Kansas Department of Health and Environment. As Secretary, his 

primary goal is of improving health and environmental conditions 

for Kansans. He served prior to that as Associate Director of the 

Work Group on Health Promotion and Community Development at 

the University of Kansas and Assistant City Manager of Lawrence, 

Kansas. 

There are some great things happening in your state. Thanks for 

joining us, Mr. Bremby. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RODERICK BREMBY 

Mr. BREMBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning. 

Mr. INSLEE. If you want to pull that mic a little closer it will be 

helpful. 

Mr. BREMBY. On the Supreme Court decision, Mass. v. EPA, and 

the decision related to my denial of Sunflower Electric Power Corporation’s permit for an additional two 700 megawatt coal-fired 

generators. I also want to briefly address the legal and policy implications of the EPA’s failure to regulate greenhouse gases. 

Mass. v. EPA was very influential in our decision to deny the petition. The Supreme Court’s finding that greenhouse gases are an 

air pollutant within the meaning of the federal Clean Air Act supports and confirms my own understanding that CO2 constitutes air 

pollution within the meaning of the Kansas Air Quality Act. 

Under the Kansas Air Quality Act, there are two specific provisions that provide for broad authority to protect the health of Kansas citizens and the environment. For example, under KSA 65– 

3008 and KSA 65–3012, it allows us to either modify, to approve, 

or to reject a petition after public hearing. Sixty-five, thirty, twelve 

requires information that the emission of air pollution presents a 

substantial endangerment to the health of persons or the environment. Endangerment may be a threatened or potential harm, as 

well as an actual harm. 

So it is under that rubric then that we were able to strike the 

petition. 

In Mass. v. EPA, the Court’s recognition of the significant national and international information available on the deleterious 

impact of GHG on the environment and its conclusion that GHG 

CO2 meets the broad definition of air pollutant under the Clean Air 

Act provided support for the position that I took that CO2 also 

meets the similarly broad definition of air pollution under the Kansas Air Quality Act. 

The EPA’s failure to determine one way or the other whether 

GHGs cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger public health or welfare has impacted the 

State of Kansas’ ability to enforce and maintain the authority 

stemming from state law to protect public health and environment 

from actual, threatened or potential harm from air pollution. 

Unless and until the EPA acts, its failure to regulate GHG has 

significantly and adversely affected Kansas. Kansas legislature recently passed a bill that will serve to tether GHG emission control 

in our state directly to what the EPA will do or fail to do. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
76 

The Sunflower bill promulgates that I as Secretary cannot promulgate any rule, regulation, or issue in any order that takes any 

other action other than any provision of the Kansas Air Quality Act 

that is more stringent, restrictive, or expansive than required by 

the Clean Air Act or any rule or regulation adopted thereunder by 

the EPA. Our Governor Sebelius has expressed her intention to 

veto the bill, which passed with votes insufficient for an override, 

but that may change. 

Given the unambiguous requirement in the CAA that CO2 emissions be regulated and reduced, it would make sense from both a 

human health and business perspective for EPA to issue its regulations as quickly as possible. 

The EPA’s issuance of an endangerment finding or notice of any 

intent to promulgate federal rules and regs. would further support 

my decision to regulate CO2 in Kansas, which was appealed to the 

Kansas Court of Appeals, the District Court of Finney County, 

Kansas, and the Office of Administrative Hearings in the State of 

Kansas. 

The Supreme Court has taken up the appeals filed in the Court 

of Appeals on its own motion. The proceedings in the District Court 

and the Office of Administrative Appeals are stayed pending deposition of the appeals by the Supreme Court. 

The EPA’s notice of intent to regulate would support my exercising the authority granted to me by Kansas law, but it is not necessary to it. The EPA’s decision to regulate GHG emissions would 

be critical to alleviating the so-called regulatory uncertainty, and 

thus economic uncertainty, I have been alleged to create by denying the Sunflower Electric permit. 

In the absence of federal legislation in this area with the potential for enactment of the legislation currently pending in Kansas, 

it would be impossible for Kansas to protect the health of its citizens and the environment from the effects of CO2. 

So I thank you for the opportunity to present this morning. I ask 

that the written statement be added to the record, and I will stand 

for any questions that our legal staff would clear me to answer. 

[The statement of Mr. Bremby follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
77 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 110 here 61530A.040
78 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 111 here 61530A.041
79 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 112 here 61530A.042
80 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 113 here 61530A.043
81 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 114 here 61530A.044
82 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, and please pass on our commendation to 

your great governor for her great leadership in this field. 

Ms. HEINZERLING. Thank you. 

Mr. INSLEE. We really appreciate it. It helps us nationally. 

Our next witness, Representative Joshua Svaty, who is a member of the Kansas House of Representatives, is a senior member of 

the Energy and Utilities Committee, and ranking minority member 

on agriculture and natural resources. He has also been appointed 

by the governor to her Kansas Energy Council planning a longterm future for the great state. 

Mr. Svaty, thanks for coming up here. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOSH SVATY 

Mr. SVATY. Thank you. It is certainly a pleasure. 

It does not sound like it is on. I have never been accused of 

being—— 

Mr. INSLEE. It is working. 

Mr. SVATY. Okay. That is fine. 

Anyhow, it is a pleasure. I do farm east of Ellsworth, Kansas, 

and I appreciate the opportunity to testify. 

This is a very interesting issue for Kansas, and I wanted to respond to some of the comments that were made about the respective states and the potential economic impact with greenhouse gas 

controls that were made earlier this morning. 

Kansas probably almost more so than any other state is acutely 

aware of the benefits of a fossil fuel economy. We have thin coal 

seams east of what is the geologic ridge known as the Nemaha line. 

We have the first oil well drilled west of the Mississippi. We also 

had the Hugoton gas field, which at the time of its discovery was 

the largest natural gas field in North America. 

So we understand the benefits of a fossil fuel economy. That 

being said, I have seen a marked increase among my constituents 

and constituents across the State of Kansas that want to see an expanded generation portfolio. They also want us to begin a transition into more renewables and more clean energy technology as we 

move forward as a state. 

What has happened then is when Secretary Bremby made his decision in October of last year, this issue has landed squarely in our 

lap, and I was somewhat amused by the comments of the Ranking 

Member this morning that said this political issue should not end 

up in the hands of unelected regulators and the unelected courts. 

That is exactly the scenario we have in Kansas right now. We 

have it as a political issue, and I say for my own personal view, 

it has been an absolute mess. 

Furthermore, I would also though venture to say ask anyone in 

this issue, both for and against those plants, and they would say 

the political process that this bill has undergone has not been clean 

and has not done justice to the democratic process itself. 

We started out with a bill that would have included some low 

and easily reached limits on greenhouse gases. Those were immediately thrown out the minute we discovered it would be very difficult for a state as far as politically to determine those. 

We then went to more of a budgetary process where they began 

adding in green things here, green things there to see if they could 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
83 

find the right mix of votes. That process may work for the budget, 

but it does not work for long-term energy policy whether at the 

state or at the federal level. 

So what has happened is the end bill that we have that now sits 

on the governor’s desk is basically a bill that makes the legislature 

the de novo court for issuing permits. Issuing permits should be the 

job of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, and as 

you are acutely aware as Congressmen, Congress or any legislature 

has a host of different opinions, and we should be the last place 

that would be actually issuing permits because it would be an even 

more uncertain process than the regulatory uncertainty that has 

been claimed at the state level. 

Finally, I would also like to say that I was concerned when I 

heard the Environmental Protection Agency this morning say that 

they were disappointed that they could not consider cost, and that 

was also a concern that I heard echoed from members of this Committee. 

I am just a farmer from central Kansas, but I thought the Environmental Protection Agency’s job was to consider the environment 

first, both for the safety and health of the citizens of the United 

States and also for the sake of the natural resources for this country. 

It is our job as legislators to then consider within the parameters 

that the Environmental Protection Agency sets how to find a course 

through this crisis so that we do not harm the economy. We allow 

businesses to expand and flourish within the State of Kansas and 

elsewhere, but we also find a solution to protect the citizens of the 

state. 

That is what I have in mind to do, but without direction from 

the Environmental Protection Agency, without parameters, the theoretical collective genius that should be the legislature acting on 

the part of all of the citizens has no boundaries whatsoever and we 

end up all over the place, which is what you would see in the legislation that is currently making its way through the process in Kansas. 

I would hope to see more direction from the Environmental Protection Agency. I think that it would have a very positive effect on 

the debate in Kansas and in other states that are having this debate simultaneously. It gives us direction. It gives us parameters. 

It gives us opportunities as legislators to work to find solutions for 

all interests involved. 

I thank you for the time. I would also ask that my written comments be admitted. 

[The statement of Mr. Svaty follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
84 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 119 here 61530A.045
85 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 120 here 61530A.046
86 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 121 here 61530A.047
87 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 122 here 61530A.048
88 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 123 here 61530A.049
89 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 124 here 61530A.050
90 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 125 here 61530A.051
91 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 126 here 61530A.052
92 

Chairman MARKEY [presiding]. Without objection, your written 

comments will be included in the record. 

And our final witness is Mr. Peter Glaser, a partner at Troutman 

Sanders. Mr. Glaser specializes in environmental regulation and 

litigation, and you have been involved in the litigation of Massachusetts v. EPA. 

We welcome you and whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF PETER S. GLASER 

Mr. GLASER. Thank you very—— 

Chairman MARKEY. And, again, please move the microphone in 

closer and lower it a little bit so that it is closer to where the words 

are coming out of your mouth. 

Mr. GLASER. Okay. How does that sound? 

Chairman MARKEY. No, just move it in a little bit closer, please. 

Mr. GLASER. That sounds okay? I can also raise my voice. 

Chairman MARKEY. That will help. Thank you. 

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

Let me begin by saying that the views that I am expressing here 

are my own and not necessarily those of any company or group 

that I currently—— 

Chairman MARKEY. Okay. Can you move the microphone over in 

front of your mouth if that is possible? Okay. Good. Thank you. 

Mr. GLASER. So the views that I am expressing today are my own 

and not necessarily those of any company or group that I have represented or represent currently. 

Let me begin by addressing the first issue that the Committee 

raised, which was the effect of EPA regulation of motor vehicle 

greenhouse gas emissions on stationary sources. The effect would 

be a very significant one and not just on large stationary sources. 

And this is no bogeyman. Unfortunately this is the way the Clean 

Air Act works. 

If EPA promulgates motor vehicle regulations, carbon dioxide, 

and other greenhouse gases will become regulated Clean Air Act 

pollutants for purposes of the Clean Air Act prevention of significant deterioration or PSD Program. As a result, as I discuss in my 

written testimony, hundreds of thousands of small stationary 

sources, at least hundreds of thousands across the economy that 

have not been regulated in the past under the Clean Air Act will 

become subject to onerous PSD permitting requirements, and this 

could have extremely serious implications for capital investment 

across the economy as any building of approximately 100,000 

square feet that is heated by oil or natural gas will be affected. 

That is about a ten-story office building, and in my testimony I 

enumerate some examples of the type of facilities that are likely to 

trigger that 100 to 250 ton per year trigger. 

The Committee, in my view, should take no comfort from Mr. 

Bookbinder’s suggestion that EPA could possibly avoid the PSD 

problems that I refer to by adopting what he refers to as a general 

permit program that would essentially exempt sources emitting 

below a 5,000 to 10,000 ton per year threshold. 

And I am, frankly, very surprised at this proposal, given its 

source. The Sierra Club and others in the environmental community have spent the last several years vociferously attacking EPA 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
93 

for in their view departing from plain statutory language in an attempt to develop creative and flexible regulatory mechanisms, and 

now they suggest that the administrator could exempt sources from 

explicit statutory language if they do not emit above a threshold 

that he considers to be ‘‘a more appropriate’’ one than the 100 to 

250 ton per year threshold set forth in the statute. 

I know exactly the arguments that the Sierra Club and others 

would raise against such a proposal if industry made it. In any 

event, the fact that he calls the suggestion merely a ‘‘possibility’’ 

reveals the uncertainty of whether the suggestion would pass legal 

muster. 

From a business standpoint because legal uncertainty disincents 

capital investment, business would have difficulty relying on the 

proposal that he makes, if adopted by EPA. So any way you look 

at it, immediate Clean Air Act regulation of greenhouse gases, regulation that the Sierra Club is loudly calling for, is going to result 

in a potentially debilitating impediment to business activity, and I 

am not sure of how to get around it. 

The Committee’s second issue had to do with the effect of the recently enacted EISA. I think this issue is particularly relevant in 

light of the PSD impacts that I have enumerated. There has been 

a lot of discussion about why EPA did not issue its proposal at the 

end of last December, but given the enactment of the EISA and 

given the impacts under the PSD program that I have discussed 

above, EPA’s decision to have a pause makes perfect sense. 

The EISA addressed the President’s Twenty in Ten agenda, and 

it will achieve significant reductions in motor vehicle greenhouse 

gas emissions. Congress required EPA to act within one year, and 

EPA must do so. 

I would also say that as a legal matter, EPA is well within its 

legal authority to pause before formulating a response to Massachusetts. The Supreme Court did not establish a deadline for EPA 

action on remand. The Sierra Club and others did not even ask for 

one as far as I know, and to the contrary, the Court stated that 

EPA ‘‘has significant latitude’’ as to the timing of its regulations. 

I appreciate the opportunity to make these remarks. I thank you, 

and ask that my written testimony be entered into the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Glaser follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
94 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 131 61530A.053
95 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 132 61530A.054
96 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 133 61530A.055
97 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 134 61530A.056
98 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 135 61530A.057
99 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 136 61530A.058
100 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 137 61530A.059
101 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 138 61530A.060
102 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 139 61530A.061
103 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 140 61530A.062
104 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 141 61530A.063
105 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 142 61530A.064
106 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 143 61530A.065
107 

Chairman MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Glaser, very much. And we 

thank each and every one of you for your questions on this very 

distinguished panel. Thank you. 

Mr. Johnson said that he is being asked to make a rush to judgment on this endangerment finding. Do any of you want to comment upon that in terms of your perspective of whether or not at 

this late date we are asking him to engage in a rush to judgment? 

Ms. Heinzerling, would you like to comment on that, please? 

Ms. HEINZERLING. I would like to comment on that. It has been 

nine years, as I said since EPA was petitioned to regulate greenhouse gases. EPA has spent billions we heard this morning on research on climate change. It has issued a very formal finding about 

the effects of climate change on public health and welfare. 

The idea that this is a rush to judgment is bizarre to me. I was 

very surprised to hear that. They could make that finding today as 

I mentioned earlier. Today they could make that finding. 

Chairman MARKEY. In your opinion, do you believe that this is 

no longer a scientific decision inside of the EPA, but now a political 

decision? 

Ms. HEINZERLING. As I understand it, EPA had prepared a positive endangerment finding. As I have mentioned a couple of times, 

EPA in February issued a decision that very formally declared that 

climate change is upon us and that it is having harmful effects 

right now. And so I cannot imagine there would be a scientific reason why EPA has not issued this decision. 

Chairman MARKEY. Let me go to Kansas here for a second. You 

know, maybe I am wrong, but I know that 5,400 new megawatts 

of wind were constructed in the United States last year. Let me 

summarize. Last year in the United States in electricity generation, 56 percent of all new electrical generation that was built in 

the United States in just 2007 was natural gas. Ten percent was 

coal, but 30 percent was wind, 30 percent in 2007. 

Does Kansas have any wind? And would it be possible for the 

electric utility in Kansas to find some way of capturing the wind 

that last year led to 30 percent of all new electrical generation in 

the country being from wind? 

Any of you wish to take it? 

Mr. SVATY. Thank you. I would be happy to. 

I, in fact, have the newest and largest wind project in the State 

of Kansas being built in my district. The Sunflower Electric, which, 

of course, wants to build the coal plan, was actually the first purchaser off of that plant. I will say in their defense they are buying 

wind to offset their natural gas. 

That being said, we are not moving as fast as our neighbor Texas 

to the south. There is tremendous potential in western Kansas especially to move forward. I think also a lot of our concern from the 

coal plant perspective is that Kansas wants more generation from 

wind. We are not getting there, but the coal issue, 85 percent of 

the energy that was going to be produced from those two plants 

was going to Colorado and points west of us anyhow. It was not 

going to be used in the State of Kansas at all. 

Chairman MARKEY. Mr. Bremby, would you like to comment on 

that? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
108 

And, by the way, congratulations on your heroic stand on this 

issue. 

Mr. BREMBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MARKEY. I really do want to point that out. 

Mr. BREMBY. Our governor took a leadership on wind energy production and worked with utility companies—— 

Chairman MARKEY. Could you speak up just a little bit? 

Mr. BREMBY. Sure. And took the leadership position in working 

voluntarily with the energy companies. By the end of next year, we 

will be at 12 percent of electrical energy by wind in Kansas without 

any requirements whatsoever. We are on tap for 2020. 

But fundamentally, Kansas has wind energy as a source. We are 

number three in the nation. It is available to us. We just need the 

right credits and incentives for this to happen. 

One of the arguments that we have used in terms of or that I 

have heard been used in terms of supporting the decision on Sunflower, which we did not use because ours was solely based on 

health and environmental issues, was that by production of this 

new coal-fired facility, it would then absorb the energy market in 

the west part of the state to preclude wind energy from being relevant or capable or available. 

So, yes, we can use more wind. 

Chairman MARKEY. Great. Thank you very much. 

And what do you think is going on in the minds of utilities in 

2008, in Kansas, that wants to go to coal when wind is an industry 

that Texas and other states are now developing? Why wouldn’t 

they just grasp it as the future? 

You know, sometimes there is ancestral worship, and you feel 

that you have to bow down to the past even when the future not 

only is in front of you, but has engulfed you, you know, from Texas 

even to your own state. What is it about this utility, this misnamed 

Sunflower utility, that has them pursuing coal rather than wind? 

Mr. SVATY. I do think part of it, and this would just not be in 

the case of Sunflower, but part of it might be ancestral worship. 

I also would say there are transmission constraints to putting a lot 

of wind onto the transmission grid. It does present some issues, although we as a state are trying to address the transmission constraint issues so that we have a better ability to have more wind. 

But I would also say that this particular utility may be in the 

sort of financial straits in which it needs investment from an outside investor, which they have found in their Colorado tri-state investment, their generation and transmission company, and they 

want coal. They want that steady base load, and they also could 

not get it in their home State of Colorado. So they came to Kansas 

looking for an opportunity to have the cheap base load. 

Chairman MARKEY. You are saying this is really a Colorado company setting Kansas policy to generate from coal and not from 

wind. 

Mr. SVATY. I would not necessarily say that it was Colorado setting our policy, but Colorado and Colorado’s needs for energy have 

certainly been central in our conversation in Topeka. 

Chairman MARKEY. Okay, and I will take the last word there, 

Mr. Bremby. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
109 

Mr. BREMBY. Mr. Chairman, of the 1,400 megawatt facility or 

that this facility would produce, 15 percent would be for Kansas. 

The balance of that would go to Colorado and Oklahoma. 

Chairman MARKEY. So Kansas is going to be asked to be an environmental sacrifice zone so that electricity can be generated to 

send to other states, even as wind is plentiful across the plains of 

Kansas. 

Mr. BREMBY. Fifteen percent of the total megawatt produced, so 

about 220 megawatts, would be all that Kansas would have. 

Chairman MARKEY. That is just unbelievable. 

Okay. My time has expired. Let me turn and recognize the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Mr. Glaser, I have listened to your testimony. I want to put it 

in sort of a metaphor if I can. If you went to a doctor and the doctor concluded that you have cancer and that treatment of that cancer may involve surgery, and that surgery may involve discomfort, 

would you want your doctor to wait seven years and not tell you 

that you had cancer in order to avoid the discussion of the surgery? 

Mr. GLASER. Congressman, I am not sure how to respond to that 

analogy because I am not sure it is particularly apt here. EPA did, 

in fact, respond to the petition for rulemaking. It did take an action 

under the Clean Air Act. It is an action that was in good faith, and 

we know this because it split the courts. The D.C. Circuit confirmed the action two to one. The Supreme Court overturned the 

D.C. Circuit, but that was five to four. So this was a very close decision. 

It has been sent back to the Environmental Protection Agency for 

further consideration. The remand, the actual legal document, was 

only received back at EPA in late September. So it has not really 

been a great deal of time since this case was back before the agency. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, I appreciate your challenging my metaphor, 

but let’s talk about it. In fact, I think it is not a bad metaphor because there is a two-step process in dealing with global warming. 

First you have got to recognize you have the disease. Then second, 

you have got to figure out how to treat the disease. 

Now, isn’t it true that Ms. Heinzerling and Mr. Bookbinder are 

entirely correct that today the EPA has authority to issue a statement, a statement to Americans that is very important, that, in 

fact, these greenhouse gases endanger public health? Can’t they do 

that today? 

Mr. GLASER. Well, as the Supreme Court said, EPA has three 

choices. It can make an endangerment finding and regulate. It 

could determine no endangerment and not regulate, or it can explain why under the statute it declines to make that determination. 

Mr. INSLEE. So you would agree with me today they can make 

a finding of endangerment today, and they can take a little more 

time to figure out what the response is, but today they can make 

a statement to America and to the world that the United States 

Government recognizes that these gases endanger human health. 

Now, I will just take yes or no. I appreciate lawyers. I used to 

be one, but I will just take yes or no on that one. Can they or not? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
110 

Mr. GLASER. Well, they can make such a finding if, if after appropriate notice and comment rulemaking they make the appropriate 

findings. So I would not disagree with that. I would hope that they 

would not because when you speak about remedies for diseases, I 

really think the Clean Air Act is the wrong remedy for the particular global warming issue that we are talking about. It is a—— 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, I appreciate you to lobby Mr. Sensenbrenner—— 

Mr. GLASER [continuing]. Square peg for a round hole. 

Mr. INSLEE. I would appreciate you lobbying Mr. Sensenbrenner 

for a cap in trade system, and I will give you a call when we need 

that. 

Now, let me ask you. You said that you have this train of disaster, in fact. You apparently fear the cure more than the disease, 

as I listen to your testimony. You are not worried about the oceans 

becoming more acidic and destroying fish. You are not worried 

about, you know, rising sea levels. You are not worried about the 

melting of the ice in the polar icecap. What you are worried about 

is we might do something about this in a way that you consider untoward. That is what keeps you up at night. 

I have different nightmares than you do apparently, but I want 

to understand if the EPA in response to an endangerment decision, 

in fact, say now we are going to change this to make it a 1,000 ton 

per year threshold rather than 250 ton, if they raise that to avoid 

some of the inconvenience that you have described, you are not 

going to sue them and say they do not have authority to do that, 

are you, on behalf of your clients? 

Mr. GLASER. I would call it considerably more than an inconvenience to be subject to PSD permitting. The experience with PSD 

permitting is that it takes a year to 18 months from the day you 

file your permit, not including all of the time that it takes to prepare the permit, to get your permit issued. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, I appreciate that, but I want an answer to 

what you are going to do. If the EPA in order to reduce the inconvenience or harm or injury, whatever you want to call it, if they 

want to raise the threshold to 1,000 tons a year, you are not going 

to assume and tell them they do not have authority, are you? 

Mr. GLASER. Here is what the problem is though. If I as a lawyer 

advising the client that wants to build an office building in downtown Washington, the client comes to me and he says, ‘‘Do I need 

a permit?’’ Now EPA has put out this regulation, but can we rely 

on this regulation? What do I do? 

And my response is going to have to be I do not know because—— 

Mr. INSLEE. You are not going to assume and tell them that they 

have authority, are you? 

Mr. GLASER. I personally would not bring that lawsuit. 

Mr. INSLEE. Because you know exactly what is going to happen 

if there is an endangerment finding. One way or another there is 

likely to be some resolution of that issue that does not distort the 

U.S. economy, and the EPA is fully capable legally to do that themselves or Congress can do it. Now, don’t you agree with that? 

Mr. GLASER. I do not believe—well, let me put it this way. I am 

really uncertain about what EPA can do about this problem, and 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
111 

I can tell you that this issue sends ripples of panic through the 

business community as they consider what could happen here if 

this kind of regulation is issued. That is what the problem is because—— 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, I can assure you—— 

Mr. GLASER [continuing]. It creates so much uncertainty. 

Mr. INSLEE. I can assure you that if there is an endangerment 

finding, as they should be, I can assure you one case you will not 

be taking, and that is to challenge their ability to lighten up on 

this restriction. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman MARKEY. Thank you very much. 

The Chair will recognize himself for another round of questions. 

You know, Sunflower Electric burning coal is like an oxymoron. 

It is a contradiction in terms, like jumbo shrimp or Salt Lake City 

nightlife. I mean, you know, there is no way a utility trying to burn 

coal in what has now become the wind era has the correct name, 

and I think that we should have a contest maybe nationally, you 

know, to rename the utility so that it reflects its dedication to fossil 

fuels rather than to sun power, you know, to wind power, to what 

the future holds out for Kansas and for every state and for every 

country in the world. 

But it is a clearly misnamed utility, and I myself am going to try 

to find a new name for that utility and try to run it by you. 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. GLASER. Mr. Chairman, would it be okay if I just took a 

quick crack at why Sunflower might be considering resources other 

than just wind resources? 

Chairman MARKEY. Why it might what? 

Mr. GLASER. Why it might be considering electric generating resources other than just wind resources. 

Chairman MARKEY. Sure. I would like to hear it, and why it is 

burning coal for 85 percent of its electrical generating capacity to 

go outside of the State of Kansas. 

Mr. GLASER. Sure, sure, and I am not speaking for Sunflower 

here. I do not represent Sunflower. I am just speaking generally in 

the industry. 

Wind is treat. Wind is going to be developed very rapidly, but 

wind, at east, will only generate 30 to 40 percent at best of the 

hours in a day, and wind disproportionately does not blow when it 

gets really hot and when electric generation is needed the most. 

And so no utility can rely on wind exclusively. There has to be 

back-up or firming power behind wind for the times when the wind 

does not blow, and there have been some unfortunate experiences 

in the country, in the upper Midwest, in California, and recently 

in Texas where there have been extreme needs for electricity when 

the wind is not blowing. 

Chairman MARKEY. You know, what I would say? I would recommend, Mr. Glaser, that you and perhaps Sunflower like travel 

to Denmark, travel to Germany and learn a little bit more about 

how wind can be effectively integrated into an electrical grid system without endangering reliability. 

I do not think actually from the testimony that I am hearing that 

Sunflower has actually gone through that exercise right now. So I 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
112 

think what your suggestion is is that you are trying to get inside 

the mind of this electric utility, this coal-burning electric utility 

and project what they are thinking, but I think the problem is that 

they are not thinking about the future. 

If only ten percent of all new electricity in the United States in 

2007 came from coal and 30 percent came from wind, I would 

argue, especially since we are talking about Kansas here, okay, 

that there has not been a full exploration of the potential, which 

wind can play in the electrical generating mix inside of that state. 

And so I thank you for your attempt to mind read this utility, 

but I think this is one of those res ipsa loquitur situations where 

the thing speaks for itself. They are absolutely just taking an older 

corporate perspective rather than a newer, more innovative, and 

technology savvy perspective to try to deal with the actual assets 

that are inside of Kansas rather than having an agenda that actually does not even benefit it from an environmental perspective. 

So I just want to be perfectly clear here on this issue of whether 

enactment of the energy bill alters any of EPA’s obligations under 

the Clean Air Act or the Supreme Court decision. Does anything 

in the energy bill remove EPA’s obligation to determine whether 

greenhouse gas emissions cause or contribute to air pollution, 

which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or 

welfare? 

Mr. Glaser. 

Mr. GLASER. Oh, thank you. 

No, actually I agree with Administrator Johnson that the bill 

does not as a matter of law affect, and I say this also in my testimony; that EPA still—— 

Chairman MARKEY. So that is a no. 

Mr. GLASER [continuing]. Still has to address it. 

Chairman MARKEY. Is there anything in the energy bill? That is 

all I asked. Is there anything in the energy bill that would—— 

Mr. GLASER. Well, the answer would be yes, with an explanation. 

The explanation is that although the energy bill as a matter of law 

does not prevent EPA from responding to the Massachusetts remand, it certainly affects how it will respond to the Massachusetts 

remand, and so I also agree with Administrator Johnson about why 

enactment of that legislation appropriately caused EPA to pause 

before going further. 

Chairman MARKEY. All right. Ms. Heinzerling, you just heard 

Mr. Glaser’s comments about restrictions which the energy bill 

might place upon the EPA in making its decision. 

Ms. HEINZERLING. Yes. My answer would be no, and if I may explain my answer. 

Chairman MARKEY. Please. 

Ms. HEINZERLING. The answer is both. Massachusetts v. EPA 

made clear that fuel economy standards are different from standards under the Clean Air Act, that they may coexist peacefully. 

Secondly, the energy bill itself explicitly says that nothing in that 

act, as you mentioned, undoes any authority or obligation under 

any other statute, and so that EPA’s obligation to find 

endangerment and determine whether endangerment exists is completely left intact by the energy bill, and its obligation to set standVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:39 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061530 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A530.XXX A530

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
113 

ards for greenhouse gases once endangerment is found is left intact 

by the energy bill. 

Chairman MARKEY. Okay. Now, some of you have mentioned the 

potential implications of the endangerment finding or the motor vehicle regulations might have on other emitters of greenhouse gases, 

and particularly the potential implications of these proposals to the 

new source review program have been brought up. Some have said 

that it is possible that large apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, and other large retail buildings might be subject to Clean 

Air Act requirements known as prevention of significant deterioration as a consequence of EPA moving forward on the motor vehicle 

side. 

So I have a few questions about this. Isn’t it true that the only 

regulatory requirement the publication of the endangerment finding triggers is the requirement to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles? No stationary sources would be automatically or immediately subject to greenhouse gas regulations as 

a result of concluding that greenhouse gas emissions cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare; is that right Ms. Heinzerling? 

Ms. HEINZERLING. I would add one qualification to that, which is 

that I believe that new sources under Section 111 become subject 

to regulation once endangerment is found. There is a bit of a step 

where the sources category has to be listed and then regulation follows. 

And so I believe you are technically correct, but I would add that 

I think regulation would have to follow fairly expeditiously from an 

endangerment finding. 

Chairman MARKEY. Okay. So is there at least a year to solve the 

problem? In other words, is there time between the endangerment 

determination, how it affects the automotive industry and then 

how it might affect other industries? 

Would there be a time spacing that would allow for some comment and implementation of any sort? 

Ms. HEINZERLING. Yes, absolutely. 

Chairman MARKEY. Can you talk to that? 

Ms. HEINZERLING. Yes. If EPA makes an endangerment finding, 

let’s say, today, then EPA has to, as I say, I think regulate motor 

vehicles, decide about regulation about motor vehicles and in a couple of quick steps have to decide about stationary sources under 

Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. 

But that step takes a little bit of time. That is standard within 

agencies, and indeed, I have been surprised to hear Mr. Johnson 

talk about how little discretion his administration and his agency 

have in enacting regulations once endangerment is found. Agencies 

enjoy a lot of discretion in figuring things out, taking a little bit 

of time. 

So once endangerment was found, yes, there would be a time, a 

pause perhaps where the administration could settle on appropriate regulations. 

Chairman MARKEY. Okay. So we know that the only regulation 

that would be automatically triggered by an endangerment finding 

is the one related to greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, 

but some of you have cited various additional petitions and 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
114 

rulemakings before the EPA that relate to greenhouse gas emissions. From a legal perspective, do you think that a positive 

endangerment finding makes it more difficult for EPA to deny, fail 

to act, or otherwise refuse to regulate other sources of greenhouse 

gas emissions under the Clean Air Act or even other statutes, such 

as the Clean Water act? 

And if so, do you think that one of the reasons EPA might be 

stalling on releasing its already completed endangerment findings 

could be because of the potential for other regulatory or legal proceedings? 

And do you believe that that is a valid reason for EPA to delay 

its response on Massachusetts v. EPA? 

Ms. HEINZERLING. Yes, I believe that making an endangerment 

finding triggers other regulatory activities under the Clean Air Act, 

makes it more difficult to say no to the many petitions before EPA 

to regulate cars, aircraft, power plants, and so forth, and I believe 

that if EPA, as circumstances do suggest and as Mr. Johnson’s own 

testimony suggests, EPA is stalling on the endangerment finding 

because it is afraid of the consequences of that finding, I believe 

that is illegal. 

Chairman MARKEY. Okay. Great. Thank you. 

My time has expired again. I yield again to the gentleman from 

Washington State, Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Ms. Heinzerling, Mr. Bookbinder, Mr. Glaser contested this metaphor I talked about of the two-stage process of the diagnosis of the 

disease and then the second stage of figuring out how to respond 

to it. I just want you to give a response. 

Is that a fair metaphor to what is going on here? And does the 

EPA have the ability to diagnose the disease today? 

Ms. HEINZERLING. Absolutely. I think it is a fair metaphor, and 

I think EPA should and could diagnose the disease today, and that 

talking about endangerment will help it to understand why some 

of the consequences if things are unacceptable that flow from regulation might be acceptable because inaction will be worse. 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. Well, I am not surprised that Mr. Glaser’s testimony seemed to focus on a possible solution that I and other people have advanced to this one particular problem. There will be 

others. 

If we overcome this one, there will be further objections from industry and from EPA, but let’s focus on this one problem of the 

PSD permitting procedures and the 250-ton limit. My testimony 

said we could have a regulatory program that could address this, 

that Congress could amend the act, and the first words out of Mr. 

Glaser’s mouth were, ’’Here is why that cannot work. Here is why 

that is a problem.’’ 

It is clear to us that these are just once we fix the PSD problem, 

they will come up with another problem, and they will keep claiming there are problems until it is way too late. We need action, and 

the only reason that EPA is not doing the endangerment finding 

is quite explicitly that they are afraid of the consequences of them 

having to act and address greenhouse gases. 

Mr. INSLEE. I think we should have confidence that should that 

happen Mr. Glaser will bring his considerable talents to bear to 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
115 

help us find a resolution of that, one that I am confident that we 

could do. 

And, by the way, Mr. Glaser, I wanted to commend a book, a 

questionable author but not a bad book, Apollo’s Fire: Igniting 

America’s Clean Energy Economy, that talks about the multiple solutions that are available. It gives a sense of optimism that we 

should share. 

I just want to thank all of the witnesses, and I just tell you as 

one member, I have displayed a little maybe anger is the right 

word at the federal government’s refusal to act on this, but the reason is that the science that is coming in is so disturbing, so alarming that it is totally irrational and irresponsible for the administration to fail to act in this regard. 

And as a father, I am just telling you I am angry about this, and 

if I have displayed that, so be it because we have got to get off the 

dime and act here or the planet is in deep, deep trouble. 

Thank you. 

Chairman MARKEY. You know what I would like to do here at 

this point is to ask each of you to give us a one-minute summation. 

You know, before we go to that, I want to go back to wind in 

Kansas, and I would like you, Mr. Bremby, to talk about this issue 

of whether or not wind can be generated and additional 

megawattage that still would not endanger the reliability of the 

Kansas electric grid. Could you give us some estimation as to what 

you think might be possible in that area? 

Mr. BREMBY. I do not know the complete projection on 

megawattage for wind energy. Perhaps Representative Svaty is 

more aware than I am, but what we are aware of is that the capacity is there to—— 

Chairman MARKEY. Could you speak up just a little bit? 

Mr. BREMBY [continuing]. Sure. To add a considerable amount to 

our energy opportunities. 

We are also looking at new technology as you mentioned abroad. 

The EU under the supergrid scenario is looking at wind energy as 

a redundant source as well as for storage capability across the continent of Europe. 

So there are new technologies related to wind. GE is looking at 

new turbines. It is an opportunity for us to grow a better green 

economy based upon where we are today. 

So in terms of the capacity, Josh? 

Chairman MARKEY. Representative Svaty. 

Mr. SVATY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Southwest Power Pool, which is our regional transmission 

organization, is already preparing for thousands of new megawatts 

not only in Kansas, but in the whole region, which includes Oklahoma and other states. So we do have a great capacity. 

If I could return briefly, I think one of the reasons Sunflower 

wants to go to coal is because it is currently cheapest because there 

is no value on carbon, and so as we talk about the EPA, I think 

the central question is if they determine that there is an injury, in 

fact, that carbon has a price on it, we create a market and suddenly coal is not the cheapest source of power anymore and they 

consistently return to coal. They begin to look at wind mixed with 

natural gas and other options. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
116 

The key question or the key issue I am hearing is I am asking 

for the EPA to make that determination. Find a way to determine 

some things that we have some sort of price or value placed on the 

deleterious substance. 

Chairman MARKEY. Now, is Peabody Coal any part of this project 

at all? 

Mr. SVATY. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I cannot speak directly, although I do think that they have invested money in advertising in 

the state. I am not sure if it was directly Peabody Coal, but they 

may have had some hand in the advertisement that was going on. 

Chairman MARKEY. You know what I have to do is I have to 

learn more about Peabody Coal and what they are doing across the 

whole country and make a little bit of a project out of that. They 

seem to be making a project out of building coal-fired plants across 

the country even in places that could generate electricity from alternative sources. 

And I think as a result, we should probably make a project out 

of what their project is and so that we can understand Peabody 

Coal, who they are, and what they are doing. 

You know what I would like to ask right now is for each of you 

to give us your one-minute summation of what it is you want our 

committee to remember. We are going to do it in reverse order of 

the original speakers just to kind of be fair on this thing, and we 

will try to have more than one microphone at the next hearing in 

this room. 

But we thank each of you and whenever you are ready, Mr. 

Glaser, please begin. One minute. 

Mr. GLASER. Thank you. 

Clean Air Act regulation of greenhouse gases is and has always 

been a bad idea. It is an inflexible act. If you regulate under one 

section, it has rippling effects under other sections. The main point 

that I would like to leave with the Committee is that the matter 

is not as simple as EPA going forward, making an endangerment 

finding, and regulating motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. 

EPA has appropriately figured out that if it does that, there is 

going to be a ripple effect under the PSD program. 

This is not being somebody that just raises a whole bunch of negative issues. This creates tremendous uncertainty for business if 

that happens, and EPA has to think about this and has to figure 

out what to do in light of that issue. 

And I would ask that the Committee take this issue with great 

seriousness because, as I said, it is causing great concern throughout the economy. 

Thank you. 

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

Representative Svaty. 

Mr. SVATY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The debate in the Kansas legislature has been not about public 

health and welfare, but it has, in fact, been about regulatory certainty. We as legislators can help the economic realm move forward 

and ease that burden, but we cannot move forward if we have not 

heard from the EPA or if we have received mixed signals from the 

EPA, and that is exactly what we are getting in Kansas right now. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
117 

If we had direction, if we had parameters and boundaries, we 

could find a way to soften the landing for the business community, 

but without that direction from the EPA, we have nothing to go on, 

and we end up running in multiple directions, which is exactly 

what we are doing in Kansas right now. 

Direction from the EPA would be an extraordinary boost to state 

legislatures, and it would allow us to move forward to soften the 

landing for everyone and to help us move forward in the process. 

Chairman MARKEY. And we thank you on that, and that is why 

obviously we are pressing on this endangerment finding. It just 

leads to calamitous consequences in places like Kansas because 

there is no official ruling on that question with regard to coal. 

All right. Mr. Bremby. 

Mr. BREMBY. Without the official ruling, it means that me and 

other regulators have to reflect this regulatory uncertainty within 

our own states. We cannot protect our citizens to the utmost of our 

capability. 

I read something just recently that to regulate this carbon in 

some way would de-industrialize America, and nothing would be 

further from the truth. We know that we are going to need to transition to a low carbon economy. The EU has already said that they 

are going to lead the world. America needs to get out in front and 

lead the world on this issue, and it holds great promise for expanding the manufacturing sector that some of us thought had reached 

its peak in America. 

So it is time for us to unleash the innovation that is possible 

through technology to regulate and to achieve a better energy future. 

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

Mr. Bookbinder, I made a mistake in the questioning of the 

panel, and I did not come to you. 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. That is quite all right. 

Chairman MARKEY. No, but I did not come to you on a couple of 

the questions which I asked Ms. Heinzerling. So I would like to 

give you just a couple of additional minutes to comment on the 

issues that relate to what happens when an endangerment finding 

happens in terms of the rest of the regulatory process that it triggers. 

Could you go through that? 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. Well, it does two things. There are certain provisions of the act that would be triggered as Professor Heinzerling 

described. Section 111, the new source performance standards, also 

has mandatory language that once there is an endangerment finding, EPA shall go forth and begin to regulate those sources for that 

particular pollutant. 

And in this case we have a petition sitting in front of the EPA 

asking for just those sorts of CO2 emission controls on power 

plants, the source of 40 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. 

EPA has been sitting on that petition since well before Massachusetts. Back then they said we have no legal authority. Since then 

they clearly do have legal authority, and on that one there has 

been not a peep out of EPA. 

Forget vehicles. Vehicles are half of what power plants are. Vehicles we also have other means of getting at them. Power plants, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
118 

EPA is completely sitting on its hands, and I think that is one of 

the reasons they do not want to make the endangerment finding. 

They would have to address that. 

In addition to that, there are several provisions of the act that 

authorize EPA once an endangerment finding is made to then go 

forth and regulate. It is the difference between you shall and you 

may. 

Other petitions are sitting out there asking for action under 

those sections for non-road vehicles, for airplanes, although airplanes may also be a ’’shall,’’ but in essence, we are seeking regulation from virtually every major source of greenhouse gases in the 

United States because we have no alternative. We need to do something. 

Now, ultimately we would prefer to have Congress come up with 

a comprehensive legislative solution, but until that time and perhaps in conjunction with that, we need EPA to begin the regulatory 

process, and what they are doing is just as in Massachusetts they 

tied their own hands by saying we have no legal authority, now 

they are tying their own hands by saying, ’’Well, we have not made 

an endangerment finding yet. So we cannot do anything.’’ 

So it is symptomatic of an agency that has refused steadfastly to 

do anything substantive or materially about climate change. 

Chairman MARKEY. So you are saying then, Mr. Bookbinder, that 

once an endangerment finding is made, that CO2 is CO2. 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. That is correct. 

Chairman MARKEY. A rose is a rose by any other name, and so 

whether it is coming out of an exhaust pipe or coming out of a utility smokestack, that the effect of the decision would be the same, 

although the timing then on what to do about it or when to make 

a subsequent decision as to how to handle the utility issue would 

still be in question, but there would be no doubt that some action 

had to be taken. 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. Well, you know, that is a very good question. 

I think there is no doubt for anyone who reads the plain words of 

the Clean Air Act, but I am willing to bet 20 bucks right here and 

now that if EPA comes out and says we have endangerment from 

CO2 emissions from vehicles, it then says we have to go back and 

very carefully think for the next four years whether that same gas 

coming out of power plants at twice the rate also endangers. 

I have no doubt that they will try that little game, but that is 

just the way this administration acts. 

Chairman MARKEY. That would really make it difficult, don’t you 

think, for just about every high school chemistry teacher to explain 

that to their students who are 16 in the class? 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. It is not the first time that this EPA would 

have defied the science. Just yesterday we saw a wonderful example with the ozone NAAQS standards, when EPA set a new standard that lowered, tightened and made more protective the standard. It did not go as far as the unanimous recommendation of its 

own scientists. So we are quite used to this administration and this 

EPA defying reality. 

Chairman MARKEY. Thank you so much. 

And, Ms. Heinzerling, we will give you the final word. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
119 

Ms. HEINZERLING. EPA can and should make a finding on 

endangerment. It can and should do so today. 

It is the height of irony for this administration to come before 

this Committee and to say that it is hesitant to make that finding 

because if it makes that finding, regulation under one provision of 

the Clean Air Act becomes imperative. 

This is an administration that is second to none in avoiding regulatory obligations, in finding ways around statutory language, in 

finding exceptions, and so that I have absolutely every confidence 

that if they make an endangerment finding, they can find a way 

to make the PSD program work. 

Chairman MARKEY. Thank you very, very much, and we thank 

each one of you. 

Just going back to your point, Mr. Bookbinder, my fear is that 

what your apprehension is about how they might want to revisit 

the smokestack issue, the utility issue is of grave concern to me, 

and my hope is that the Bush EPA is not on the same timetable 

as the Catholic Church was in apologizing to Galileo. It took them 

until 1990 to finally admit that they had made a mistake in their 

censure of Galileo. 

My fear is that the Bush administration is on that same timetable, and it is dealing with the scientific question of the 

endangerment of CO2 and whether or not not just automobiles, vehicles, but also power plants and buildings are contributing to that 

problem. 

And your testimony, each of you, today is helping us to telescope 

the time frame, to bring down the Galileo coefficient to a point 

where that decision is made before George Bush leaves office. 

We thank each of you, and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:02 p.m., the Select Committee meeting was adjourned.] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
120 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 166 61530A.066
121 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 167 61530A.067
122 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 168 61530A.068
123 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 169 61530A.069
124 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 170 61530A.070
125 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 171 61530A.071
126 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 172 61530A.072
127 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 173 61530A.073
128 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 174 61530A.074
129 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 175 61530A.075
130 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 176 61530A.076
131 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 177 61530A.077
132 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 178 61530A.078
133 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 179 61530A.079
134 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 180 61530A.080
135 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 181 61530A.081
136 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 182 61530A.082
137 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 183 61530A.083
138 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 184 61530A.084
139 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 185 61530A.085
140 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 186 61530A.086
141 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 187 61530A.087
142 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 188 61530A.088
143 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 189 61530A.089
144 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 190 61530A.090
145 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 191 61530A.091
146 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 192 61530A.092
147 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 193 61530A.093
148 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 194 61530A.094
149 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 195 61530A.095
150 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 196 61530A.096
151 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 197 61530A.097
152 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 198 61530A.098
153 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 199 61530A.099
154 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 200 61530A.100
155 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 201 61530A.101
156 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 202 61530A.102
157 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 203/400 61530A.103