U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

98–183 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 113–782 

OVERSIGHT HEARING: EPA’S PROPOSED 

CARBON POLLUTION STANDARDS 

FOR EXISTING POWER PLANTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 23, 2014 

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

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JULY 23, 2014 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 3 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 4 

Wicker, Hon. Roger, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas ........................... 11 

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ....................... 13 

Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska ............................. 14 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin, U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland .................... 15 

Inhofe, Hon. James, U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .......................... 17 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 18 

Carper Hon. Thomas, U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ......................... 20 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama ............................. 21 

Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon ................................ 23 

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 82 

WITNESSES 

McCarthy, Hon. Gina Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .. 23 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Articles: 

Desmogblog.com; The infamous Petition ........................................................ 83 

Skeptical Science; Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM petition 

project ............................................................................................................ 86 

New York Times; Taking Oil Industry Cue, Environmentalists Drew 

Emissions Blueprint ..................................................................................... 92 

Switchboard Natural Resources Defense Council Staff Blog (NRDC); Does 

NRDC Operate Like thd Oil Industry? Not on Your Life .......................... 97 

EPA Fact Sheet: Clean Power Plant; By the Numbers: Cutting Carbon 

Pollution From Power Plants ....................................................................... 99 

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); Slower, Costlier and Dirtier, 

A Critique of the Bush Energy Plan ........................................................... 102 

(1) 

EPA’S PROPOSED CARBON POLLUTION 

STANDARDS FOR EXISTING POWER PLANTS 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2014 

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

The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room 

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

the full committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Carper, Cardin, Sanders, Whitehouse, 

Merkley, Gillibrand, Markey, Vitter, Inhofe, Barrasso, Sessions, 

Wicker, Fischer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Good morning, everybody. This oversight hearing 

will examine the critically important steps that the Obama administration is taking to address climate change by reducing carbon 

pollution. Today we are focused on the President’s new proposal to 

reduce dangerous carbon pollution from the biggest source, power 

plants. 

Just as last week when I welcomed the miners, it is my pleasure 

to welcome the Moms Clean Air Force. We are glad to see you here 

with the kids in tow. 

Power plants account for nearly 40 percent of all carbon pollution 

released into the air. Currently there are no limits on the amount 

of carbon pollution power plants can release into our air. The President’s plan, in my view, is a win-win for the American people because by addressing climate change through carbon pollution reduction, we can cut many types of air pollutants that also threaten 

human health. 

Climate change and rising temperatures will lead to increased 

ground level ozone and smog which could worsen respiratory illnesses like asthma, increase air pollutants from wildfires and more 

heat-related and flood-related deaths. 

When the President announced his power plant proposal at the 

Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, he visited with 

young asthma patients to highlight the health impacts of air pollution and to underscore how important addressing dangerous carbon 

pollution is to our children’s health. This proposal would play a 

vital role in protecting public health and will save thousands of 

lives. It will avoid up to 3,700 cases of bronchitis in children, 

150,000 asthma attacks, 3,300 heart attacks, 6,600 premature 

deaths and 490,000 missed days at school and work. 

2 

I often say, if people can’t breathe, they can’t go to work or 

school. More than 9 percent of American children are already living 

with asthma, and it is the third leading cause of hospitalizations 

for children. So we all benefit from having clean air to breathe that 

literally saves lives. We need to take action now to protect families 

and communities from the mounting impacts of climate change and 

dangerous carbon pollution. 

A recent congressionally required national climate assessment 

report tells us we could see a 10 degree Fahrenheit rise in temperatures if we don’t act to limit dangerous pollution now. The 

President’s new proposal will not only protect public health and 

save lives, it will enable America to lead the way to avert the most 

calamitous impacts of climate change, such as sea level rise, dangerous heat waves and economic disruption. We must safeguard 

our children, our grandchildren and future generations. As the 

President stated, ‘‘We have a moral obligation to leave our children 

a planet that is not irrevocably polluted or damaged.’’ 

The Obama administration gets it, and so do the American people. A recent Washington Post ABC poll, a bipartisan majority of 

the American people want Federal limits on carbon pollution. Approximately 70 percent say the Federal Government should require 

limits to carbon pollution from existing power plants. Seventy percent. And 70 percent support requiring States to limit the amount 

of carbon pollution within their borders. 

Just last month the committee heard from four former EPA administrators who served under Republican Presidents, from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush, and they all agreed that climate 

change requires action now, and it should not be a partisan issue. 

The President’s plan relies on the authorities under the Clean Air 

Act, which was created with a bipartisan consensus. In 1970, the 

Clean Air Act passed with a by a vote of 73 to zero in the Senate, 

and in the House, 375 to one. I don’t know who that one was. And 

it was signed into law by President Nixon. 

In 1990, the revisions to the Clean Air Act passed the Senate by 

89 to 11, and the House by 401 to 21, and was signed into law by 

President George Herbert Walker Bush. The Clean Air Act has a 

proven track record of success. Since 1970, emissions of pollutants 

have dropped 72 percent, while the U.S. GDP has grown by 219 

percent and total private sector jobs have increased by 101 percent. 

So while pollutants have dropped by 72 percent since 1970, private 

sector jobs have increased by 101 percent and the GDP increased 

by 219 percent. 

So for all this fear mongering we hear from my friends on the 

other side about job losses, disproven every time. And if you take 

their quotes, they match up with the quotes that we heard both in 

1970 when Nixon signed it, and then again when George Herbert 

Walker Bush signed it. 

The President’s proposal, I believe, will create thousands of jobs, 

while ensuring big polluters reduce their dangerous contributions 

to climate change. 

I want to thank EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy for being 

with us today and I look forward to her testimony. So I am going 

to turn it over to Senator Vitter. I wanted to mention, we have a 

vote at 11. So we have two options. We can work as hard as we 

3 

can and then when it hits, 11:15, end, or we can take a pause and 

come back. Either way is good with me. So we will see, Administrator, where we are at that time. 

Senator VITTER. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, for convening today’s hearing. I look forward to hearing from Administrator McCarthy on EPA’s proposed existing source rule. It is really a truly unprecedented, outside the fence set of regulations that will have 

major negative impacts on our Nation’s electricity system. I hope 

we talk about this very directly. 

EPA’s proposal does a number of things. But fundamentally, it 

hijacks that electricity system all in the name of flexibility. In reality, EPA usurps the role of State governments and public utility 

commissions as well as FERC, DOE and other Federal agencies 

that do have the authority over and expertise in electricity generation issues. 

Unfortunately for EPA, electricity is not directly under its jurisdiction. Changing dispatch rules would require the most expensive 

power to be delivered first. The mandating efficiency and use of renewables are examples of interState generation, transmission and 

distribution matters reserved to the States by the Federal Power 

Act. 

Moreover, EPA attempts to dump the politically unpopular decisionmaking of having to pick winners and losers on the State regulators and legislatures. EPA’s proposed rule seeks to turn States 

into either hostages or unwilling accomplices in its effort to impoverish families and businesses and communities. 

In its existing source proposal, EPA goes beyond the plain reading of the Clean Air Act Section 111, directing States to achieve 

questionable emission reduction targets from a limited menu of economically damaging and legally questionable options. As I mentioned before, electricity prices in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiatives States and California are 45 percent higher than in my 

home State of Louisiana. And yet 56 percent of Louisiana families 

already at their lower Louisiana rate spend an average of 21 percent of their after-tax income on energy. They simply can’t afford 

the higher electricity bills that will inevitably result from this rule. 

EPA is also setting up States to fail, our local economies to fail, 

to deliver on the President’s promise that electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket, all for virtually immeasurable climate benefits. 

This rule is all pain and no gain, therefore, and we need to look 

to our friends in Australia, for instance, who just last week repealed their carbon tax in recognition of this sort of lesson. 

It is also noteworthy that EPA’s blueprint is fundamentally similar to NRDCs, and it drives States to implement renewable portfolio standards and to replace fossil fuel, whether they like it or 

not. In States like Louisiana where wind and solar are not feasible 

or not at all practical, we are supposed to divert economically valuable timber into fuel for electricity generation. That is a very expensive feedstock compared to, say, coal or natural gas. 

4 

In defense of attacks by the New York Times and others, the Administrator also readily admits that her agency must revisit nuclear energy, since right now it encourages the closure of nuclear 

plants. So basically EPA is insisting that States ration electricity 

and limit consumer choice, especially if that choice involves using 

more electricity. 

As 40 of my Republican Senate colleagues and I have stated in 

our June 3d letter, EPA’s proposed rule will increase costs to families, schools, hospitals and businesses and in doing so, as always, 

it will hit the poor, the elderly, those on fixed incomes the hardest. 

In reality, it is a Federal takeover of our American electricity system. I for one am not at all comfortable for this EPA takeover, this 

dramatic expansion of EPA’s role and authority. Neither are the 

people of Louisiana. 

So I look forward to this discussion. It is very, very important. 

There are a lot of important stakes on the line. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Vitter. 

According to arrival, we will go next to Senator Whitehouse, followed by Senator Wicker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, and Ranking 

Member Vitter, for hosting this important hearing, and Administrator McCarthy, thank you for being here and for your continuing 

leadership on this vital issue. 

Obviously my State has a very different point of view than that 

expressed by the Ranking Member. We are on the losing end of carbon pollution in a lot of respects and we urge you on. 

EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment is 

one of the most fundamental and popular responsibilities of the 

Federal Government. There is no greater environmental threat 

today than climate change. EPA has a duty to respond but it also 

has a mandate to respond. 

EPA took a critical step forward in this fight when it exercised 

its existing Clean Air Act authority, as established by Congress, 

and as affirmed by the Supreme Court, to propose carbon pollution 

standards for existing power plants. That proposal was based on 

unprecedented public engagement, more than 300 public meetings 

with stakeholders of all kinds and across the political spectrum. 

EPA’s plan puts States in the driver’s seat to come up with their 

own best plans to met State-specific targets. States and power companies have a wide variety of options to cut carbon pollution, like 

boosting renewable energy, establishing energy savings targets, investing in efficiency, or joining one of the existing cap and trade 

programs, like our RGGI program in New England. 

States can develop plans that create jobs, plan that cut electricity 

costs by boosting efficiency, plans that achieve major pollution reductions. As proposed, the rule will reduce carbon pollution while 

providing as much as $93 billion in public benefit; $93 billion in 

public benefit per year by 2030. 

A recent Washington Post ABC news poll found that 70 percent 

of other public supports Federal standards to limit carbon polluVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:00 Apr 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\98183.TXT VERN
5 

tion. Last month the Wall Street Journal-NBC News also released 

a poll showing that two-thirds of Americans support President 

Obama’s new carbon pollution standard. More than half say the 

U.S. should address climate change, even if it means higher electricity bills for them. But it won’t, because efficiency can reduce 

your bill, even if the per unit cost can go up. 

EPA’s proposal is supported by major utilities, like National 

Grid, faith organizations like the U.S. Conference of Catholic 

Bishops, public health groups, like the American Lung Association. 

There is also support from nameplate American corporations, like 

Mars, Nike and Starbucks. I would like to ask unanimous consent 

to enter into the record a letter from more than 125 American companies expressing support for the standard. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

6 


98183.031
7 


98183.032
8 


98183.033
9 


98183.034
10 


98183.035
11 

I just want to mention, could you freeze the clock, please? If 

there are babies who are talking, it is important that you consider 

that we have an overflow room at G50. Because it is kind of hard 

to hear over that wonderful sound that we are hearing from the 

back. Your call, but we do have a room, G50. 

Go ahead. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

We had four former Republican EPA Administrators to testify before our Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety last 

month. They agreed, all four, that EPA’s rule is a reasonable way 

to reduce carbon pollution and that industry has a history of overstating the compliance costs of environmental regulations. The benefits of the Clean Air Act, according to a 2011 EPA assessment, 

will outweigh its costs by a ratio of 30 to one, $30 of value in the 

lives of regular Americans for every $1 that polluters had to pay 

in cleanup costs. That is a good deal for America. 

Administrator McCarthy, EPA’s carbon pollution standards will 

lead to tremendous economic, environmental and health benefits 

for Americans. Do not be deterred by the polluters and their Republican allies in Congress who attack the proposal. They are fighting to protect the present status quo, which is polluters polluting 

at will and profiting at public expense. And do not worry, you are 

way more popular than they are, and the American people have far 

more confidence in you. 

States are already achieving greater energy efficiency in renewable use than assumed in the proposed standards. Factor those into 

the standards, raise the bar. Develop carbon pollution standards 

for other major sources, like cement kilns and refineries. 

Administrator McCarthy, the American people are behind you 

and counting on EPA to stand strong against the polluters. Stand 

up for the American people and go even further as you develop the 

final power plant standards in the months ahead. History will 

judge your efforts favorably. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

We turn to Senator Wicker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROGER WICKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Madam Chair. This morning we 

have an opportunity to discuss the serious implications of the Administration’s unilateral move to execute its oppressive climate 

agenda. 

Some of my friends on the other side continue to speak of carbon 

pollution, which suggests to some people that they are talking 

about particulate emissions. Of course, we know that what is being 

talked about with this proposed rule is carbon dioxide emissions 

from existing power plants. These regulations regarding CO2 could 

negatively impact every single American. 

The President seems determined to wage an all-out war on coal, 

launching costly regulations that would have little effect on changing the climate. Over the past 10 years, global coal consumption 

has soared by 65 percent. During the same period, U.S. coal exports have skyrocketed by more than 200 percent. Coal is burned 

12 

to provide 40 percent of the world’s electricity needs in a reliable 

and economical way. 

So although the coal consumption has soared, global average 

temperatures have stagnated over the past 17 years. This is a fact 

worth repeating. There has been no rise in global average temperatures over the past 17 years. Regardless, the Administration continues to defend its heavy-handed climate regulations with assertions that global average temperatures are on the rise. 

The regulation we are here to discuss today is EPA’s most blatant over-reach thus far. Under the guise of the Clean Air Act, the 

agency has proposed to mandate entities that are far outside its 

regulatory authority. The rule does not simply attempt to reduce 

emissions from existing plants. For the first time, EPA has gone 

beyond power plants with a regulation that reaches up to and including the power meter. 

EPA is relying on the talking points that its proposed rule is 

flexible and allows States to create their own plans. I know this 

will be mentioned today. But this is fiction when it comes to many 

States. The rule is a regulatory noose for electricity providers and 

users in my State of Mississippi. In fact, in States like Mississippi, 

we are being punished by EPA for having a diversified portfolio of 

electrical generation. One hundred percent of Mississippi’s current 

coal production will be forced to close down under this role. 

In place of coal, EPA suggests an increase in the use of renewable energy resources, an increase by more than 250 percent of renewable energy resources. Yet EPA’s own technical support documents show zero potential for this type of renewable energy resource in Mississippi. What good is flexibility if there is no chance 

of flexibility? 

Low cost and reliable electricity is at the core of economic 

growth. Many parts of the Country have been experiencing a manufacturing renaissance in part due to the great success of American 

energy innovation and the shale revolution. Unfortunately, EPA’s 

rules do not account for future economic development and could actually thwart new growth. The so-called flexible regulation would 

mandate that States put CO2 emissions above all else. 

If the proposed rules move forward, and I hope they do not, our 

economy would be put at an economic disadvantage. Utilities and 

States will be handcuffed by EPA’s mandate, because they have to 

rely on uneconomical resources to power America’s homes and businesses, increasing the costs for everyone. The consequences of the 

Administration’s proposed rule would be disastrous for our economy, and again, would have minuscule impact on the environment. 

In summary, my friends, the proposed rule is a breathtaking regulatory over-reach. It is a job-killer; it is based on questionable 

science; it is of dubious legality under the Clean Air Act. It 

amounts to an end run against Congress. It is inflexible. It will 

have no effect on the climate and is therefore pointless. And it is 

punitive, to name a few. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. But outside of that, you love it. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. I know, I am just kidding. That was very effective and I was just trying to lighten up the atmosphere. 

13 

Senator Sanders. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. BERNARD SANDERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator SANDERS. So you are leaning yes, is that right, Roger? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SANDERS. Administrator McCarthy, thanks very much 

for being here, and thank you very much for the work you are 

doing. 

We are in a remarkable moment in American history and in fact, 

in world history. And that is that for the first time, to the best of 

my knowledge, we have a major political party which by and large 

is rejecting what the scientific community is saying. Now, we can 

disagree about funding for education or health care, all that stuff. 

But if we cannot accept what the overwhelming majority of scientists are taking, and there is no more debate, the overwhelming 

majority of scientists are saying, A, climate change is real, climate 

change is caused by human activity, climate change is already 

causing devastating problems in the United State and around the 

world. And if we do not get our act together by significantly reducing carbon and methane emissions, that situation will only get 

worse. 

That is not really a debate any more. And that we have a major 

political party that is rejecting that is extremely frightening. 

Now, the evidence is overwhelming. According to the U.S. National Climate Assessment released in May, the average global 

temperature has increased by more than 1 and a half degrees 

Fahrenheit between 1880 and 2012. And temperatures in my State 

of Vermont and in New England have increased at least 2 and a 

half degrees Fahrenheit just in the last 30 years. By 2100 New 

England could be as much as 10 degrees hotter. 

That is extraordinary. The debate that we should be having, and 

it would be an important debate, because nobody has all the answers, is how do you deal with this crisis? How do we work with 

countries around the world to reduce carbon, to transform our energy system? How do you do it? That is tough stuff. Nobody has 

any magical answer. 

But that should be the debate. The idea that we are still debating whether or not this is a real issue when the scientific community tells us, this the planetary crisis of our time, is extremely distressing. Planetary warming is causing sea levels to rise. NOAA reported that global average sea level has increased 8 inches since 

1880. Several locations along the east coast and the Gulf of Mexico 

have experienced more 8 inches of local sea level rise in only the 

past 50 years. 

What we are talking about if we do not get our act together is 

major cities in the United States and countries around the world, 

parts of countries around the world being underwater. Being underwater. As a result of rising sea levels and increasingly intense 

storms, catastrophic storm surges have been rising as well. 

People talk about financial issues. I will remind my colleagues 

that Hurricane Sandy cost this government alone over $60 billion. 

And all over the world, all over the world, there are projections 

that we will be spending trillions of dollars, trillions of dollars, in 

14 

order to deal with rising sea levels, extreme weather disturbances 

and other manifestations of climate change. 

I would remind my colleagues that in a certain sense, this debate 

that is taking place today is very similar to a debate that took 

place 50 or 60 years ago right here in Congress. And that is, we 

had tobacco industry lobbyists coming in here and heads of the tobacco industry saying, tobacco causing cancer? Oh, no, that can’t be 

the case. And they brought doctors in here, guys who were smoking 

Kools and putting ads on television. And they were spending huge 

amounts of money trying to convince the American people that tobacco had nothing to do with cancer, emphysema and other serious 

illnesses. 

Finally, the truth won out. And the truth will win out on this debate as well. Our job is to transform our energy system, work with 

countries around the world to reduce carbon and to help save the 

planet so these young people will have a habitable nation and a 

habitable world in the years to come. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Fischer, followed by Senator Cardin, Senator Inhofe and 

then Senator Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEB FISCHER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Senator FISCHER. Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter, 

thank you so much for holding the hearing today. I want to welcome Administrator McCarthy. It is always a pleasure to see you. 

Thank you for being here today. 

We all share in the goal of cleaner air and can be proud of the 

tremendous improvements we have made in air quality over the 

past several decades. Air pollution has decreased, even as our population and the number of vehicles on the roads have increased, 

and even as our economy has growth. 

In Nebraska, our public power utilities have made significant investments in coal-generated facilities in order to provide an even 

cleaner source of that low-cost energy in our State. While the regulatory actions at issue today are being pursued under the authority 

of the Clean Air Act, they are a significant departure from the true 

aims of the statute. 

In an unprecedented use of the law, this Administration is seeking to reduce U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide, ostensibly to control 

global temperature changes. While the environmental benefits of 

capping carbon in America are negligible at best, the economic consequences are unquestionably devastating. 

President Obama himself warned that electricity rates would 

necessarily skyrocket under a plan to control carbon. More than 80 

percent of America’s energy needs are met through carbon and 

many unconventional fuels. 

Last year, coal and natural gas provided 66 percent of U.S. electricity generation. As EPA forces carbon reduction, it inflicts higher 

energy costs on American families and on businesses. While the 

economic pain would be felt throughout the Country, it is America’s 

poorest families that will be hit the hardest. The median family 

spends about 5 cents out of every dollar on energy costs. Low-income families spend about 20 cents. 

15 

States like Nebraska that receive a majority of their electricity 

from coal-fired generation would also be disproportionately harmed 

under this proposal. The guidelines would force premature retirement of efficient, low-cost coal-fueled generation, lead to the potential loss of billions of dollars in investments made over the last decade to make coal plant cleaner, and require construction of higher 

cost replacement generation, and would increase natural gas 

prices. 

Also troubling is the EPA-set emission guidelines that are not 

achievable at the affected source, the electricity-generating unit. 

Energy efficiency in a renewable portfolio mandates should not 

come through regulatory fiat. While I do not have enough time to 

list all the concerns raised by this proposal, you know that I believe 

there are many. 

The issues are complex and the impacts are far-reaching. While 

I appreciate the 120-day comment period that was granted for public comment on this rule, the challenge presented to the States and 

other stakeholders to analyze and assess the enormous range of 

issues that are posed is beyond expectations. The level of complexity of the proposal, the volume of technical documents that are 

released, the amount of coordination required and the magnitude 

of energy impacts of the rule, I believe, warrant a 60-day extension 

of that public comment period. I hope to visit with you about that. 

I am pleased that we are spending time today examining some 

of the concerns raised by the proposal. This is an important discussion, this is an important debate. I look forward to today’s dialog. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Fischer. 

Senator Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. BENJAMIN CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

First, let me thank Administrator Gina McCarthy for being here, 

but more importantly, being willing to take on the responsibilities 

of the Environmental Protection Agency at this critical moment in 

the history of our Country. It is not an easy task, and you were 

willing to step forward, knowing full well the challenges that you 

would confront. I want to thank you for being willing to do this. 

The Chairman already mentioned that there are children at the 

hearing. I think that is wonderful, because it is their future that 

we are talking about. It is the environment that they will be living 

in that is very much impacted by what we do here and what the 

Administration is doing. 

The impact of climate change in Maryland is well understood. 

The people in my State recognize the risks that are involved as a 

result of climate change. Seventy percent of the population of 

Maryland lives in coastal areas. And they are at risk. Property 

owners are at risk of losing their properties, and they know the financial impact that is involved. The people of Maryland, the iconic 

shorelines that we have, that is our way of life, that is at risk. 

The economics of my State are at risk, from the poultry industry 

that depends upon reasonable price for corn in the cost of proVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:00 Apr 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\98183.TXT VERN
16 

ducing the poultry know that the weather conditions have made 

corn more expensive, therefore, their business more difficult. 

The watermen understand the loss of our crab population due to 

the warming of the waters and loss of sea grasses. The seafood industry also understands the warmer waters affect all the produce 

coming out of the Chesapeake Bay. The Port of Baltimore is one 

of the economic hearts of our State. And the climate change, rising 

sea levels, make it more difficult to run the Port of Baltimore economically. It has an impact on our economy. 

And I could go on and on about the impact, on our military installations, from the Aberdeen proving grounds to Pax River in the 

southern part of our State, to in our capitol, the Naval Academy. 

All very much impacted by climate change. As my colleagues have 

pointed out, the science is indisputable that our activities here in 

our communities are affecting climate change. 

Congress should have acted, Madam Chair, we tried, we should 

have provided the framework for the way that we deal with climate 

change. We tried, but we were stopped. We wanted to use marketbased solutions to make it clear and make it more available for private companies to invest. But no, we were stopped in those efforts. 

So the Administration is doing what they are required to do. EPA 

has the authority and the responsibility to act. And three Supreme 

Court decisions have made it clear that you are acting within that 

authority. 

Let me quote from the case that the Chair mentioned, Justice 

Scalia, what he said just very recently: ‘‘It bears mention that EPA 

is getting almost everything it wanted in this case. It sought to regulate sources that it said were responsible for 86 percent of all 

greenhouse gas emissions from statutory source nationwide. Under 

our holding, EPA will be able to regulate source responsible for 83 

percent of those emissions.’’ 

And then, the Clean Air Act clearly gives you the authority to 

establish baseline performance standards for power plants, which 

in this case or this rule are talking about achieving a 30 percent 

net reduction in carbon pollution from power plants using 2005 as 

a baseline by 2030. You have the authority, you have the responsibility, you are acting. 

And thank you for the flexibility that you are providing. You are 

putting the States in charge. You are giving them the power they 

need to do what is right for their community. We can work in regional, among different States. That is what you have allowed, and 

I thank you for that proposed rule. 

Maryland energy companies have acted. Constellation and 

Exelon have taken on this challenge, have done it in a cost-effective 

way and have created jobs in the meantime. 

Madam Chair, I have heard that it doesn’t take another Cuyahoga River to catch on fire, which we needed before we enacted the 

Clean Air Act, or for toxic air to be breathed by the people of Los 

Angeles before we enacted the Clean Air Act. I hope it doesn’t take 

the loss of Smith Island in Maryland or the washing away of the 

Everglades or dust bowls to become the regular in our breadbasket 

in this Country before we act on this critical issue. 

I thank the Administration for taking action. I hope Congress 

will take action to be your partner in making the reality of AmerVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:00 Apr 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\98183.TXT VERN
17 

ica’s leadership on global climate change when it is desperately 

needed. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and Administrator McCarthy, thank you for being here. It is very nice to see 

you. 

There are so many problems that have been pointed out already 

by my colleagues with the existing source carbon renewal that it 

is hard to know where to begin. First, there is the issue of the impossible efficiency requirements that the rule would place on power 

plants. Then there is the question of what should happen with the 

standard and the MATS-compliant coal plants and how they are 

supposed to achieve reductions without going belly up. 

Then there are bigger questions like how EPA plans to enforce 

the rule and to what extent the agency will be allowed to tweak 

the State’s plan if it is not making the progress that it needs to 

be made during the decade-long compliance period. 

These are very complex questions. And there are hundreds more. 

Many smart people have been reading this rule for the last 2 

months, and they are at a loss for what this will actually look like. 

In other words, it appears that EPA is urging the Nation to trust 

them as they take over the entire electricity market in the blackbox confines of the comment period. 

With that said, there are a few things that are crystal clear. 

First of all, we know that the rule will cause electricity prices to 

go up. We know this from the EPA’s own logic. EPA’s rule set out 

to save the 6 percent of nuclear generators that have become economically marginal. Now, how will the EPA do this? By increasing 

electricity prices. In the absence of regulatory relief from the NRC, 

and the EPA, which is not happening, the only way to keep a marginal nuclear plant in business is for it to be paid more for its 

power. And the only way the EPA can do that is by pushing the 

prices up. 

The second thing that we know is that this rule will end up with 

the United States looking like Germany where the poor and the 

business community alike are reeling under the high electricity 

prices. Their prices are now three times what they are in the 

United States. 

And this is something the Administration is doing even though 

the American people, and they really don’t care about this, talk 

about all the people that are joining in and saying that global 

warming is happening, the science is overwhelming, they say that 

because there is nothing else they can say. We have already had 

this before our U.S. Senate many times, and it has been resoundingly defeated by a larger margin each time it comes up. It has 

come up four times. 

And that is the trend line that is there. We all understand that. 

We know that a recent Gallup poll showed that, I can remember 

back when global warming was our No. 1 or No. 2 concern. It is 

now 14, as of 2 weeks ago, 14 out of 15 concerns. According to the 

18 

Pew Research center, 53 percent of the Americans who believed 

global warming is happening, when asked the cause of it, either 

don’t believe there is enough evidence to blame man or believe that 

it is by natural variation. 

This may explain why it has become difficult for Tom Steyer, the guy who is putting out $50 million to put up campaigns to influence people to try to believe that, he has tried to resurrect the 

whole global warming thing and tried to kill the Excel pipeline. He 

put his $50 million up; he is going to raise the other $50 million. 

According to Politico a couple of days ago, he has been able to raise 

only $1.2 million from outside donors. So they are not coming to 

the party, either. 

The third thing we know is that this rule will have essentially 

no impact on global temperatures, which is the very reason, because that is ultimately what the rule is supposed to do. According 

to one analysis, which was used as a model and developed by the 

EPA, the ESPS rule would reduce global temperature, this is using 

their analysis, by 0.02 degrees Celsius as is shown on this chart. 

It is hardly measurable with all the costs we are going to be involved in. 

Monday night I had dinner with Senator Mathias Cormann, who 

happened to be here in the country from Australia. Senator 

Cormann is the guy who was leading the cause after he at one time 

supported the idea of taxing carbon, to repeal it. So they have repealed it in Australia. 

Stop and think about it, it is China and Russia and other states, 

even if you believe all this, they are the ones that are sitting back 

anxiously hoping that we will somehow tax carbon, so that they 

will be able to draw in our base. 

The last thing, since I am running out of time here, I want to 

mention that there is a study that is floating around that says that 

this rule will enhance natural gas. You can get an argument that 

it would. But I think what they are forgetting to mention is that 

this is a war on fossil fuels. Natural gas is a fossil fuel. And as you 

can see up here, they would be next. The war on fossil fuels is 

going to come, natural gas right after coal. 

So that is what is behind the whole thing. I appreciate your holding this hearing and we will see what happens. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

On July 6th of this year, the New York Times wrote a piece 

about the outsized role that the National Resources Defense Council, the NRDC, had in developing the EPA’s new regulations to curb 

power plant emissions. The article focused on three key senior 

NRDC officials who the Times described as Washington’s best-paid 

lobbyists, who developed the core of EPA’s plan. Washington’s bestpaid lobbyists developed the core of EPA’s plan. 

The New York Times stated that on June 2d, President Obama 

proposed a new Environmental Protection Agency rule to curb 

power plant emissions that used as its blueprint the work of three 

19 

men and their team. The article says it was a remarkable victory 

for the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

Now, for those outside the beltway, the NRDC is a $120 million 

a year lobbying machine backed by Hollywood elites. It is absolutely shameful to me that the EPA, under the direction here of the 

Administrator, will allow this powerful group of lawyers and lobbyists to draft their regulations. But yet this same Administrator refuses to actually listen to the people whose lives and jobs will be 

severely impacted by these regulations drawn up by wealthy lawyers and lobbyists. 

In fact, the Administrator refuses to listen to the thousands of 

Americans who will be impacted by this rule. The EPA Administrator has refused to go out and visit folks in coal country, whose 

lives the agency is upending. The EPA Administrator won’t hold a 

public hearing in Wyoming, won’t hold a public hearing in Kentucky. The EPA Administrator has literally gone out of her way 

and the EPA has gone out of its way to avoid hearing from unemployed families who have lost or will lose everything, their job, 

their home, their retirement savings, issues relating to their 

health, all because the EPA has decided to push a rule that was 

drafted behind closed doors by powerful, wealthy Washington lawyers and lobbyists at the NRDC. 

Let’s be clear. The NRDC is a wealthy, elite, powerful lobbying 

machine with more influence over decisionmaking in Washington 

than any ordinary American citizen. They have millions, which 

gives them access. The EPA has turned a deaf ear on those who 

don’t. 

It should come as no surprise that this is how the EPA’s regulations for new and existing power plants were hatched. In fact, the 

Times article argues that the NRDC employed this very same tactic during the Bush administration to craft their comprehensive energy strategy. When the Bush energy strategy was released at the 

time, the NRDC issued the following statement about how it was 

crafted: ‘‘The conclusions of the Cheney Task Force are a product 

of an undemocratic process. When NRDC filed a Freedom of Information Act,’’ the story continues, ‘‘NRDC filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documents identifying members of the task 

force and the calendars of task force members, the Department of 

Energy denied the request.’’ 

I would say this is quite a change of heart by this group of 

wealthy Washington lobbyists and lawyers. If I am wrong, then the 

NRDC and the EPA and its Administrator can provide and should 

provide all records and documents that are requested by members 

of this committee and my House colleagues on how these new regulations for coal-fired power plants were crafted. Because right now, 

it sure looks like the EPA let a trio of high-powered Washington 

lobbyists write their regulations for them. 

If what the Times is reporting is what the EPA Administrator 

has called preposterous, then the EPA must comply with any committee and Freedom of Information Act requests for these documents. Comply with requests from our House colleagues, comply so 

that we can then know the truth. 

20 

If the answer is no, that you will not comply, or that there are 

more recordkeeping mishaps, broken hard drives, lost files, then we 

will know the truth about this agency as well. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, I look forward to the testimony. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Now, here is where we stand, because we are trying to move on. 

We are going to accommodate the Senators who are here, so we are 

going to move to Senator Carper, Senator Sessions, and we will 

close with Senator Merkley. At that point, unless there is serious 

objection, we are going to move to Administrator McCarthy. And 

the colleagues that come later can have an extra minute to do a 

little bit of an opening, if that is OK with everybody. 

So let’s move forward, and we will go now to Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. THOMAS CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Madam Chair. Administrator McCarthy, very nice to see you. 

For many years, I served as either the ranking member or as the 

chair of the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety. I remember in those days, I think George Voinovich was the chair at 

the time, we were meeting with a number of utility CEOs from 

around the Country. We were talking about multi-pollutant legislation, dealing with sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, CO2. 

And after about an hour-long meeting, this one utility CEO from 

some place down south, a southern State, I don’t remember which 

one, kind of a curmudgeon-like guy, he said at the end of our hourlong conversation, all right, Senators, this is what you should do. 

This was with respect to multi-pollutant legislation. He said, you 

should tell us what the rules are going to be. You should give us 

a reasonable amount of time to implement those rules. Give us a 

little bit of flexibility and get out of the way. That is what he said. 

Tell us what the rules are going to be. Give us a reasonable 

amount of flexibility, reasonable amount of time and get out of the 

way. That was 10 years ago. 

Well, my hope and my belief is that EPA is actually not just saying, these are what the rules are going to be. They said, after talking to a lot of stakeholders, including utilities, including coal companies, including environmental groups, including State and local 

governments, EPA said, this is what we think the rules should be. 

In doing so, they basically put out a draft of what they think the 

rules should be. Asked for a lot of response, a lot of input from people around the Country. 

And that is where we are. I think it great we are having this 

hearing, Madam Chair, great that the Administrator is here. But 

the way the system works here, EPA doesn’t mandate what is 

going to happen. I hope they are getting input from all kinds of 

groups, including groups like NRDC. That would make sense. I 

hope they get input from utility companies. That would make 

sense. I hope they get input from the coal companies. That would 

make sense. 

So I am glad you are here, glad we have an opportunity to hear 

what the Administration is proposing, and glad we are going to 

have an opportunity to provide input to them. 

21 

Delaware and some other States feel the impact of climate 

change that are already taking place to reduce our local power 

plant carbon emissions. Unfortunately, few States like us cannot 

tackle this issue alone. All States have to do their fair share if we 

are going to make an impact. 

The Clean Power Act unites our Country in working to take on 

the largest source of carbon emissions together. I want to thank the 

Administrator, want to thank our President for their leadership 

and for moving forward with this rule. 

Opponents to this rule are going to say that we have to choose 

between having a cleaner environment and a stronger economy. I 

have said a million times, that is a false choice. We can have both. 

And if we are smart, we will have both. In fact, we have done it 

time and time again. 

We know that inaction on climate change only costs us money in 

the long run. Inaction can be devastating to our economy. In fact, 

the Government Accountability Office has already listed climate 

change as one of the biggest fiscal risks facing our Nation. They 

are not making this stuff up. It is. That is why I believe we need 

to move forward with the Clean Power Plan. 

However, for such an important rule, we need EPA to get it 

right. We need to have a rule that reduces carbon emissions, protects public health and grows our economy, which is finally growing 

quite nicely. We need a rule that does not pick winners and losers 

between clean energy technologies. And we need a rule that is 

flexible and legally defensible so the States can meet their carbon 

targets. 

I believe that EPA is trying to strike the right balance. God 

knows it isn’t easy. Through unprecedented outreach and hearing 

from over 300 stakeholders nationwide, EPA has developed a proposal that builds on what States are already doing to reduce power 

plant carbon emissions. The EPA’s proposal recognizes that what 

might work for Delaware may not work for California, may not 

work for Oklahoma or Alabama or Mississippi or Nebraska. But 

rather, your proposal allows each State the flexibility of finding the 

most cost-effective way to reduce their own emissions. As my father 

would say, God rest his soul, that sounds like common sense to me. 

After working for more than a decade on legislative efforts to reduce carbon emissions from power plants, I applaud the EPA’s decision to set carbon targets that are meaningful, flexible and feasible. I will close by saying I encourage the EPA to continue to listen to the stakeholders, listen to us and make adjustments as 

needed to ensure that we get this one right. It is important that 

we do. 

I look forward to today’s discussion and future discussions on 

this. Welcome and thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Sessions, followed by Senator Merkley, and then, Administrator, we are going to turn to you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. JEFF SESSIONS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

22 

The American economy is important; I know you know that. We 

have a decline in median family wages in America since 2007 from 

$55,000 to $50,000. We have an employment rate among the working age population as low as the 1970’s, it has been declining steadily. And the energy has been, a decline in the energy prices, one 

of the finest things that helped the American economy in recent 

years. 

So lower cost energy clearly creates jobs, it creates wealth. And every $10 a family has to pay for an electric bill or more for their 

gasoline bill does weaken the economy if it is for no benefit or little 

benefit. So we have to ask that. We can reach some agreement on 

a lot of these issues, Ms. McCarthy. I don’t think there is any 

doubt about it. Things that are cost-effective, clean, efficiency programs, things that probably are done to make American healthier 

and a stronger economy. And there is common ground that we can 

have. 

One of those common grounds I think is nuclear power. We need 

to consider that more. 

Last month, in the Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, the Supreme Court said this: ‘‘When an agency claims to discover in a 

long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate a significant 

portion of the American economy, we typically treat its announcement with a measure of skepticism.’’ 

Well, we know that Congress has never voted explicitly to regulate CO2. And would not vote today if given the opportunity. But 

through old statutes and interpretation you now as an unelected official are impacting the economy in extraordinary ways. And I just 

think we ought not to forget that. 

CO2 emission targets for Alabama are a reduction of 27 percent. 

But States like Arkansas and Georgia with 44 percent reductions 

are really hammered every harder. South Carolina with a 51 percent reduction, Tennessee with a 39 percent reduction. Those are 

huge economically impactful regulations that you are putting out 

that we don’t get to vote on. The American people aren’t given a 

voice in it. 

So I want you to know we are concerned about the problem that 

you are concerned about, in trying to make this environment 

healthy and positive. But we have to ask, what is the real world 

impact on it? We know Germany is backing off and reconsidering 

some of its very green issues. Australia recently scrapped its carbon tax. So I think it is a matter that we need to concern ourselves 

with. 

Additionally, I am worried about the nuclear industry. We only 

have a few plants that are going forward now. The Tennessee Valley Authority, which handles most of north Alabama and part of 

Mississippi and Tennessee, they are building a nuclear plant at 

Watts Bar. Under your regulations, they will spend billions of dollars to bring that plant online and will get no credit for it whatsoever. In fact, when their rule, the impact rule of reduction of emissions occurs, it will be even more burdensome from them than otherwise would be the case. 

In fact, I think it is fair to say they are penalized for investing 

now to reduce carbon emissions through nuclear power. And they 

have done it already, they have reduced emissions, carbon emisVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:00 Apr 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\98183.TXT VERN
23 

sions by 17 percent since 2005, and are liable to achieve a 44 percent reduction by 2020. But they will be, I think, clearly unfairly 

impacted by the way you are calculating the nuclear power carbon 

free power generation that could occur. 

Madam Chair, I will wrap up, and thank you for the opportunity 

to be here. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you very much. 

Last but not least, Senator Merkley, and then we turn to the Administrator. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. JEFF MERKLEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Administrator McCarthy, for coming and addressing the Clean Power Plan today. 

There is no question that carbon dioxide is a terrible pollutant 

having profound impacts. We see it on the ground in Oregon in 

multitudinous ways. We see it in terms of the expansion of the 

bark beetle or pine beetle that is destroying vast swaths of our forests, because it is not cold enough in winter to kill them off. We 

see it in terms of our oyster industry that is having great difficulty 

with the reproduction of oysters because the water is 30 percent 

more acidic in the ocean than it was before the industrial revolution. We certainly see it in the Klamath Basin where the three 

worst ever droughts have occurred in less than a decade and a half. 

Thus, carbon dioxide is waging an assault on our rural resources, 

on our fishing, on our farming, on our forests. It is absolutely right 

that under the Clean Air Act, we seek to control and reduce this 

pollutant having such vicious consequences across rural America. 

So thank you for coming and addressing the details of the plan. 

I look forward to the commentary and I look forward to an understanding of how many jobs can be created by addressing non-carbon sources o power. It is clear that already in just the solar world, 

there are twice as many jobs as there are in the coal world, not 

counting other forms of renewable energy. But there is huge 

growth potential to power up living wage jobs across our Nation as 

we take on this vicious attack on rural America. 

Thank you for your testimony today. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Administrator McCarthy, you have heard from 12 of us, six and 

six. And I really want to say to each colleague, I thought each of 

you made your points very well and to the point. So we turn to you, 

Administrator McCarthy. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GINA McCARTHY, ADMINISTRATOR, 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member 

Vitter and members of the committee, for the opportunity to testify 

today on EPA’s recently issued Clean Power Plant proposal. 

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

already threatens human health and welfare and the economy, and 

if left unchecked, it will have devastating impacts on the United 

States and on the planet. 

The science is clear, the risks are clear, and the high costs of climate inaction are clear. We must act. That is why President 

24 

Obama laid out a climate action plan and why on June 2d I signed 

the proposed Clean Power Plan to cut carbon pollution, build a 

more resilient nation and lead the world in our global climate fight. 

Power plants are the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions 

in the United States, accounting for roughly one-third of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions. While the United States has limits 

in place for levels of arsenic, mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 

oxide and particle pollution that power plants can emit, there are 

currently no national limits on carbon pollution levels. 

EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan will cut hundreds of millions 

of tons of carbon pollution and hundreds of thousands of tons of 

other harmful pollutants from existing power plants. Together, 

these reductions will provide important health benefits to our most 

vulnerable citizens, including our children. 

The Clean Power Plan is built on the advice and information that 

we drew out and listened to from States, cities, businesses, utilities 

and thousands of people about the actions they are already taking 

to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. 

The plan aims to cut energy waste and leverage cleaner energy 

sources by doing two things. First, it uses a national framework to 

set achievable, State-specific goals to cut carbon pollution per 

megawatt hour of electricity generated. But second, it empowers 

States to chart their own customized path to meet those goals. 

We know that coal and natural gas play a significant role in a 

diverse national energy mix. The plan builds on actions already underway to modernize aging plants, to increase efficiency and lower 

pollution. It paves a more certain path for conventional fuels and 

a clean energy economy. 

The EPA stakeholder outreach and public engagement in preparation for this rulemaking was unprecedented. Starting last summer, we held 11 public listening sessions around the Country. We 

participated in hundreds of meetings with a broad range of stakeholders across the Country. And we talked with every State. 

Now, the second phase of our public engagement has begun. We 

have already had dozens of calls and meetings with States and 

other stakeholders in the more formal public process. Both a public 

comment period that runs through October 16th, 2014, and public 

hearings next week in Atlanta, Denver, Pittsburgh and Washington, DC. will provide further opportunity for stakeholders and 

the general public to provide input. 

Each State is different. So each State goal and each path can be 

different. The goals spring from smart and sensible opportunities 

that State and businesses are already taking advantage of right 

now. Under the proposal, the States have a flexible compliance 

path that allows them to design plans sensitive to their needs, including considering jobs and communities in a transitioning energy 

world. It also allows them 15 years from when the rule is final 

until compliance with the final target to consider and make the 

right investments, to ensure energy reliability and to avoid stranded assets. 

All told, in 2030, when States meet their goals, our proposal will 

result in 30 percent less carbon pollution from the power sector 

across eh U.S. in comparison with the 2005 levels. In addition, we 

will cut pollution that causes smog and soot by more than 25 perVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:00 Apr 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\98183.TXT VERN
25 

cent. The first year that these standards go into effect we will 

avoid up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks. Those 

numbers just go up from there. 

In 2030, the Clean Power Plan will deliver climate and health 

benefits of up to $90 billion and for certain smog reduction alone, 

meaning for every dollar we invest, families will see $7 in health 

benefits. And because energy efficiency is such a smart, cost-effective strategy, we predict that in 2030, average electricity bills for 

American families will be 8 percent cheaper. 

This proposal sets targets at a reasonable schedule that can be 

achieved by every State using measures they choose themselves to 

suit their own needs. The EPA looks forward to discussion of the 

proposal over the next several months, and I look forward to your 

questions. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:] 

26 


98183.001
27 


98183.002
28 


98183.003
29 


98183.004
30 


98183.005
31 


98183.006
32 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Administrator. 

I will start off. I am going to respond to a couple of my colleagues 

and then I am going to ask you a question about how the States’ 

role is so important in your rule. 

First of all, Senator Barrasso was quite eloquent in attacking the 

NRDC. So for those who don’t know, the NRDC, this is their very, 

this is their goal. And see what you think of it. The goal is ‘‘to safeguard the natural systems on which all life depends.’’ It sounds like 

a terrific goal to me. And further, the ideas that the NRDC had 

were actually released at a National Press Club event in 2012, 

their plan. And it is true that EPA borrowed from that, but good 

for them for putting out some really clever ideas. Because I think 

the notion of States taking the lead and the flexibility was very, 

very smart. 

And I know that EPA has held public stakeholder sessions before 

the rule was even proposed. But we will hear more about that. I 

am sure there will be a lot of questions on who EPA discussed the 

rule with. 

Then my friend Senator Wicker also very eloquently says, the 

President uses unilateral action. No, he doesn’t. He is doing what 

he has to do. And I will quote from Christy Todd Whitman, who 

is a Republican and headed the EPA. She said this right here, ‘‘I 

have to begin by expressing my frustration with the discussion 

about whether or not the EPA has the legal authority to regulate 

carbon emissions. The issue has been settled,’’ she says. EPA does 

have the authority, the law says so, the Supreme Court says so 

twice. 

Well, I would add that since Christy Todd Whitman said that, 

the Supreme Court acted again, a third time in the Scalia opinion, 

upholding the authorities of the EPA. So I don’t know why we have 

to fight about things that have been settled three times by the Supreme Court. It is interesting and it is always a pleasure to debate 

my colleagues on these things. But I think we should move on 

about that. 

Now, my question is, the Clean Air Act states ‘‘that air pollution 

prevention and air pollution control at its source is the primary responsibility of States and local governments.’’ How does EPA’s proposed rule on controlling carbon pollution for existing power plants 

uphold this cooperative relationship between the Federal Government and State and local governments? 

And adding to that, to be a little specific, as you note, California 

has been a global leader in reducing its carbon pollution, and its 

landmark climate change program is driving investments in clean 

energy, spurring new job growth and improving the State’s air 

quality. And I want to make sure, under EPA’s proposal, my State 

will be able to continue its climate change program and use the existing program as a key part of its State compliance plan. So if you 

could expound on the role of the States and also my State. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I would be happy to. First of all, let me indicate 

that there is tremendous flexibility in this rule. And it is because 

EPA listened to every stakeholder. And when we met, 

unprecedentedly, in our outreach efforts, and really they were historic, to reach out to States, to utilities, to stakeholders, yes, to the 

33 

environmental constituents as well, we heard from every one of 

them that it was important to have flexibility. 

I also read the Clean Air Act, which said that the law that I am 

implementing looks at where States are today and it looks at what 

reasonable, practical efforts that they can undertake to reduce pollution moving forward. The flexibility in this rule is not just the 

fact that we had individual State standards, which respected where 

the energy system was in each one of those States, uniquely. But 

it also provided 15 years as our proposal to move forward. That 

doesn’t even begin until 2015, in order to achieve these standards. 

So we are talking about standards being achieved in 2030. So it 

is a tremendously long time line. 

But every State gets to design their own compliance strategy. 

Every State gets to look at what they want for their own fuel diversity, what they want to invest in. The great thing about this proposal is it really is an investment opportunity. This is not about 

pollution control. It is about increased efficiency at our plants, no 

matter where you want to invest. It is about investments in renewables and clean energy. It is about investments in people’s ability 

to lower their electricity bills by getting good, clean, efficient appliances, homes, rental units. This is an investment strategy that 

would really not just reduce carbon pollution, but will position the 

United States to continue to grow economically in every State, 

based on their own designs. 

But it also will position us tremendously internationally. 

Senator BOXER. So the State can continue its effort and continue 

for what it is doing. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, that is the last flexibility I should mention, 

which is, we opened it up entirely to individual State plans or to 

regional plans they want to do. If California wants to continue with 

its very successful cap and trade program, it can do so. But in the 

end, what we are looking for are reductions at those fossil fuel facilities. But use your own imagination on how to get here. We are 

doing exactly what everybody has asked EPA to do for a long time, 

which is, you set the standard based on science, we will get there 

in the cheapest, most cost effective way that we can. And we are 

actually telling States to go do that. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Madam Administrator, it appears in the proposal’s accompanying regulatory impact analysis that climate benefits are calculated using your interagency working group’s social 

cost of carbon estimates. Previously, I have asked why the SCC estimates do not include a domestic cost benefit calculation as required, versus just a global cost benefit calculation. 

So I will ask in this context, why did EPA again not include that 

domestic cost benefit calculation in regard to CO2 ? And is it because, as under the Brookings Institution analysis, if that analysis 

is correct, the benefits are largely enjoyed by other countries, while 

all the cost is borne by the United States? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Let me just make a couple of comments, and I 

am happy to answer your question. The costs and benefits associated with this rule are not just benefits in terms of reduced carbon, 

but also in terms of health benefits. And each of them far exceed 

the costs associated with the rule. 

34 

Senator VITTER. I don’t want to cut you off, but I have a very 

limited time. Did you all do a domestic cost benefit analysis as required? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We did exactly the requirements for OMB and 

the law that we needed to do for the power—— 

Senator VITTER. Did you do a domestic cost benefit? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That was not, it was considered to be not the 

most appropriate way to look at it, it is looked at globally. 

Senator VITTER. You don’t think that is required by the law? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We actually followed all of the procedures we 

needed to do for the Office of Management and Budget. 

Senator VITTER. Well, I disagree with you about that, I think it 

is required. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. OK. 

Senator VITTER. I also think it is useful to know a domestic, a 

U.S., we are representing U.S. citizens, a U.S. cost benefit analysis. 

Let me ask you several Louisiana-specific things, which I am 

concerned about. In reviewing EPA’s calculations regarding Louisiana performance goals, we in our State discovered that it appears EPA included at a capacity factor of 70 percent at least two, 

maybe more natural gas combined cycle units that are not operational, are not fully operational. It is a significant mistake that 

makes our burden significantly larger. 

Is that going to be corrected? Are those mistakes elsewhere in 

State plans? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, the reason for the comment period is to 

take a look at all of the State data, as well the framing that we 

had put out there. So we are open to comment. 

But we have not in this rule required any State to operate their 

NGCC at a 70 percent capacity. And if in fact we have overestimated the amount of fossil fuel pollution generated in Louisiana, 

it would be a benefit to know that for both the State and us. 

Senator VITTER. OK. We are certainly going to get that to you. 

But I just want to note that factored into the EPA’s Louisiana plan 

are just facts that aren’t there, capacity that isn’t there, that isn’t 

operating. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, actually, that would be a benefit to the 

State. 

Senator VITTER. I am also concerned because Louisiana has some 

major, significant, job-producing industrial projects coming online 

in the next five to 10 years, in particular. So that is going to dramatically increase electricity demand. Did EPA factor into State 

emission targets that sort of economic growth and necessary load 

growth? Or did it only factor into State emission targets a demand 

destruction and reduce growth? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, the reason why we took this comprehensive approach instead of a within-the-fence line look at each 

facility was recognizing that the economy needs to grow, and making sure that States have the flexibility to design their plans for 

exactly this reason. So States will be able to continue to grow and 

design a plan that will accommodate that. 

Senator VITTER. In Louisiana’s case, what demand growth did 

you build in? Because again, we don’t have average demand 

growth, or we don’t have growth that we are experiencing now as 

35 

a Nation, which was very low. We have major industrial projects 

coming online. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator VITTER. So is that specifically factored in? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It is certainly considered, economic growth is 

part of what is considered when we look at energy prices and we 

look at the challenges associated with keeping demand down while 

the economy grows. 

Senator VITTER. Were those specific major industrial projects 

factored in? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t believe that, they, I really can’t answer 

the question in terms of the way you are posing it, Senator. Because clearly, the economy is going to continue to grow. What we 

looked at was what efforts can we accommodate for States to take 

credit for to keep their energy demand down. We believe the steps 

we are asking them to take are practical and reasonable. 

Senator VITTER. What I am hearing is you factored in overall national economic growth. That is not what I am talking about. I am 

talking about huge Louisiana-specific industrial projects that require major load growth. And what I am hearing is that wasn’t 

factored into the Louisiana plan. And that is a big problem. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we are happy to take a look at it. And as 

I am sure you are aware, this is about national impacts in the RIA 

that were designed and developed. We are going to continue to analyze that. But the most important thing right now in the comment 

period is for us to look at this data, make sure that we have it. And 

I think as you know, EPA works very hard in between comment 

and final to make sure we get this right. 

Senator BOXER. OK, we will turn to Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Again, Administrator McCarthy, as I have indicated in my opening statement, thank you for your leadership on this issue and 

thank you for following the law, and thank you for giving adequate 

time for comment, which I think is important. We want to get this 

right and the comment period is extremely important. 

I want to talk about a State like Maryland. Maryland has taken 

steps over the years to try to reduce its carbon footprint. Our utilities have been cooperative and have made investments to reduce 

emissions. They have done that by making significant investments, 

and it has been very positive to our environment. 

But as I have mentioned previously, we are downstream from a 

lot of carbon emissions. So we can do only a certain amount, and 

therefore it is critically important that all States do their share for 

the United States to make the type of impact that we need to 

make. 

I noted in my opening comments that you have given flexibility 

and you have allowed the states to come up with a plan that they 

believe is best for their State. In Maryland’s case, we are part of 

RGGI. We have been there since 2005 and have worked with our 

regional partners to try to get plans that can benefit the entire region. 

Could you just share with us how the proposed regulation deals 

with States that have already made progress and have joined with 

36 

regional partners? How is that dealt with in the proposed regulations? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, the proposed regulation calls attention to 

the regional partnerships that have already been developed. We actually allow the flexibility to go it alone or to join other States. We 

do recognize the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in those 

States for their leadership on this. 

We also developed an economic analysis that took a look at the 

cost-effectiveness of going it alone, nationally, each State on their 

own versus these regional partnerships, just to show how cost-effective those approaches can be. 

And we have also provided important implementation flexibility 

so there is a longer window of opportunity to develop plans if 

States are looking at these regional approaches, which can take a 

little bit longer to develop and implement. 

So we are trying to give States flexibility to continue with the 

programs they have, which have been very effective and have 

shown significant leadership, or to develop programs as they see 

fit. But we do tremendous value in these regional partnerships and 

we want that value to continue to be basically available to everybody and perhaps expanded. 

Senator CARDIN. So when you have neighboring States that have 

made progress in reducing their carbon footprint, that is allocated 

to their individual target under the rule? Is that how it works? 

How does that mathematically work? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Mathematically, we have indicated that if 

States, let me give you an example, perhaps one of the most difficult is renewable. If States are using renewables as a way to shift 

to a lower carbon sources, they can do it in their own home State 

or they can build the renewable energy facility in another and take 

credit for that. 

So we are accommodating an accounting system that allows regional approaches to be robust, that allows them to be specifically 

designed. Even if you want to do regional just for renewable, but 

you want to do the rest in your own State, that is fine too. 

So one of the challenges with this rule is it is so flexible that 

States have many choices and we are trying to work with them individually, which we continue to meet with them and regionally to 

explain how the accounting system would work and how these different approaches might benefit their States in a way that they 

will think is most important. 

Senator CARDIN. The flexibility issue, the States have pretty 

much carte blanche as to how they achieve their balances and they 

can, you mentioned renewable, you mentioned improvements to 

their power plants. What are the parameters under which the 

States can operate? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The only obligation that the States have under 

this rule is to achieve those State targets in a timely way. So we 

have based those States’ targets on carbon intensity. Basically it is 

an amount of carbon pollution you emit per megawatt hour of electricity you generate at those fossil fuel facilities. So you have a 

wealth of opportunity, you can use a traditional approach and you 

can set a pollution requirement for each of those facilities. We do 

that, that is easy to do, or you can use a different approach in 

37 

which you actually calculate renewables and you actually look at 

energy efficiency program investments and you use those to keep 

demand down and then you calculate what you are emitting at 

those facilities and you see whether you made your target. 

Senator CARDIN. I would just make a comment. This is to me 

what federalism is about. You will get States that will make 

progress in a very cost-effective way that other States will look at, 

will use, and we will get the most cost-effective way to reduce the 

emissions. So again, I thank you for your leadership and I thank 

you for the flexibility that you have given our States in recognizing 

our States can come up with creative ways to deal with this problem. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, and Senator, I think a lot of States 

are thinking about what RGGI has done. I know the Western Governors are working together. 

Senator BOXER. Sorry, but we have to move forward. Senator 

Wicker. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I hold in my hand a publication from the Global Warming Petition Project, Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research consisting of two 

pages, qualification of signers consisting of one-page and frequently 

asked questions of the Global Warming Petition project consisting 

of four pages. I ask that they be inserted into the record at this 

point. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

38 


98183.056
39 


98183.057
40 


98183.058
41 


98183.059
42 


98183.060
43 


98183.061
44 


98183.062
45 


98183.063
46 


98183.064
47 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I would read a 

portion of the petition signed by some 31,487 American scientists, 

over 9,000 of whom have Ph.Ds. ‘‘The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of 

science and technology and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release 

of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or 

will cause in the foreseeable future catastrophic heating of the 

earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate. Moreover, 

there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects from the natural plant and animal environment of the earth.’’ 

I say this in response to the continued drumbeat from the other 

side of the aisle that the science is over with, it has been decided 

and everyone who disagrees is somehow some sort of a quack. To 

some 31,487 American scientists who have signed this petition, it 

is not settled science and I appreciate them being a contrary voice 

to get the peer review facts before us. 

I would also point out, and I asked my first question about this, 

Madam Administrator, the attorney general of West Virginia recently wrote EPA, just month, and requested the withdrawal of the 

rule because, he says, EPA lacks the legal authority to adopt it. So 

while there may have been witnesses before this committee in recent days saying that EPA unquestionably has the authority to propose such a rule, the attorney general of West Virginia disagrees, 

and he points out this, Ms. McCarthy. He says that, ‘‘The Clean Air 

Act Section 111(d) affirmatively prohibits EPA from regulating any 

air pollutant emitted in an existing source category which is regulated under the national emission regime of Section 112 of the 

Clean Air Act.’’ 

So Section 111(d) says if it is regulated under 112, you can’t regulate it any other way. 

Now, EPA has imposed extensive regulations on existing coalfired power plants under Section 112. Is that correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think that the framing of the legal argument 

is incorrect, Senator. 

Senator WICKER. Well, but let me ask you this. I am not asking 

you for that. I am asking you, does EPA impose regulations on existing coal-fired power plants under Section 112? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We certainly do. 

Senator WICKER. OK, thank you for that. So based on that, 

Madam Chair, and members of the committee, the attorney general 

of West Virginia says, having been regulated under Section 112, 

the EPA lacks the legal authority to further regulate these emissions under Section 111(d). 

Let me ask you this also, time is fleeting, Ms. McCarthy. Did you 

tell Senator Vitter that your cost benefit analysis was done entirely 

on a global basis and was not—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No. 

Senator WICKER. Please correct my understanding, then. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The Senator I think was asking me, and at least 

this is what I answered, as to whether or not the social costs of carbon benefits are looked at as benefits that are solely gained domestically or whether they are based on global benefits. 

48 

Senator WICKER. OK, well, good, so perhaps I did misunderstand 

and I am glad I did. 

You conducted a cost benefit analysis as required by law, is that 

correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator WICKER. Was this conducted on a State by State basis? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, it was a national analysis. 

Senator WICKER. OK, it was not done—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The challenge here, sir, is we are giving so much 

State flexibility that it can only be illustrative, because it really is 

going to be up to the individual States how to design the strategies 

to achieve these reductions. 

Senator WICKER. OK, so you didn’t do it on a regional basis? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We did the analysis, my understanding is, and 

we can certainly followup with more specifics, is that it looks at national impacts. 

Senator WICKER. OK, please do that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Although we will over time get more specific as 

States make decisions and comments come in. 

Senator WICKER. OK, I see my time is expired. I may submit a 

question to the record for you, Ms. McCarthy, with regard to the 

stranded costs of two projects that Mississippi has undertaken to 

comply with recent Federal regulations. These projects will have to 

be completely shut down under your proposed rule if it goes forward. Thank you. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I would be happy to look at that for you, sir. 

Stranded assets is an important issue. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. We turn to Senate 

Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much. 

Thank you very much, Administrator McCarthy, for being here, 

and thank you for your excellent work. Carry on. 

With respect to my colleague’s point that the science isn’t settled 

on this, I am afraid to say I think he is just factually wrong. I 

think that it is not just me who thinks the science is settled, NOAA 

thinks the science is settled, NASA thinks the science is settled, 

and they have rovers driving around on Mars right now. They 

know a little something about science. The U.S. Navy thinks the 

science is settled. The head of our Pacific Command says climate 

change is going to be the biggest threat we face in the Pacific. 

Every major American scientific society thinks that the science 

is settled. The property casualty insurance and reinsurance industry, which bets hundreds of billions of dollars on this thinks that 

the science is settled. 

There is an, what I would call, an eccentric fringe, that continues 

to deny and they are entitled to have their views. They are entitled 

to have their views. But we as responsible Members of Congress 

should not be basing public policy on eccentric fringe views. These 

are views that don’t even hold traction with young Republican voters. Young Republican voters under the age of 35 think that climate denial is, and these are the poll’s words, not mine, ignorant, 

out of touch or crazy. 

49 

So if that is what young Republican voters think about this, then 

I really don’t think that having this dispute here is very productive. 

Let me ask you, Ms. McCarthy, this proposal has been built 

based on an unprecedented outreach by you and by the Environmental Protection agency involving utilities, involving Republican 

elected officials, involving a whole wide array of stakeholders. How 

prominent, in your conversations outside of the United States capital, is this outright denial that climate change is real argument? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It is not a prominent issue. I have gone to many, 

many States and there is a vast concern in each State over the 

changes in the climate they are already seeing. We are no longer 

talking about projections of change. We are talking about adapting 

to the change that is already happening and the devastation that 

that is causing. 

So there is very little doubt that I see and experience. The question really has always, is right now on the table, what do we do 

about it? Do we actually meet our responsibility and take action or 

do we not? And in this rule, we took very much to heart the fact 

that when States and utilities were not arguing the science but instead arguing the actions that we thought it was prudent to look 

at what the science told us in terms of technology availability, 

practicality and cost, what we are supposed to do under the Clean 

Air Act, and to say what the target should be an allow each State 

to get at that target the way they thought was best for their individual State. 

This is the most respectful rule at the Federal level that I have 

ever been involved in, either as a recipient of that rule or as a designer in terms of recognizing the leadership of States and allow 

them to continue to lead. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I was down in Florida not too long ago 

touring the coasts, where climate change is really undeniable, sea 

level rise is something you measure with the equivalent of a yardstick. It is not really subject to much rational debate. People understand that. 

And I met with the Republican mayor of Monroe County, who 

has developed her own climate change task force, they are vitally 

concerned about what sea level rise means, particularly to the 

Keys. So in your experience, again, outside of this building, and 

outside of the influence in Washington that polluters bear, when 

you are out there as a part of your outreach process, this Republican mayor in Monroe County would not be an outlier among Republicans, in your experience? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, not at all. And Republicans and Democrats 

that I come across are worried about climate change and the impacts. They have kids that have asthma. They have properties that 

they are worried about from flooding, from drought, from fire, and 

they want us to take action. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Last quick question. Is extreme weather, 

high winds and storms, associated with climate change? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And how do extreme weather, high winds 

and storms do in terms of the electricity grid? 

50 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It is very challenging. We are dealing with, climate change is a reason why you would want to continue to invest 

in electricity and infrastructure that supports. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But even if you were only interested in 

electric grid reliability, and all the issues that this raises, even if 

you were only interested in electric grid reliability, you should still 

have a concern about climate change and carbon pollution? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Oh, absolutely. In fact, the funny thing is that 

when people ask me about the polar vortex, some of them pose it 

like it is a reason not to take action. It is exactly the reason we 

have to take action. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. We turn to Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you again, Madam Chair, and thank 

you, Administrator, for being here. These are very complicated 

issue and I would like to bring the focus back to those issues. I 

have a question that is a bit long, it is in the weeds, I hope you 

will bear with me on it. I am going to read it to you, so I get all 

the facts in here correct as I pose it to you. 

In building block two, the EPA assumes that gas plants will run 

far more in order to run coal-fired plants far less. This will reduce 

the heat rate efficiency of coal-fired plants as running any plant 

less and on an intermittent basis always reduces efficiency. 

To offer an analogy, I think this is the equivalent of operating 

a car in city driving, where it is stop and go, which reduces the efficiency in the form of miles per gallon as compared to when you are 

on a constant rate on highway driving. 

What this means is that building block two, which calls for running coal-fired plants less, is directly at odds with the goals of 

building block one, which calls for improving the heat rate of coalfired plants. So building blocks one and two are in direct opposition 

with each other. You can’t run both coal plants less while running 

gas plants more and then turn around and argue that the heat rate 

of coal plants should be improved. 

So did the EPA consider that the amount of switching to natural 

gas effectively required by this rule would require coal-powered 

plants to operate less, thus driving up heat rates substantially? 

And I think that would just obliterate any heat rate improvement 

that we would see at these coal units. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Let me give a little bit of an explanation. I don’t 

want to take too much of your time. But the building blocks were 

really opportunities, practical, affordable opportunities to reduce 

carbon emissions that went into the setting of the State standards. 

None of them are requirements. They are not requirements. States 

can actually achieve and comply with those standards in any way 

they design. 

So if States are heavily invested in renewable, and they need 

NGCC or peaking units done in a way that is much more intermittent than the 70 percent capacity rate, they can just simply not do 

that. None of these are requirements. You need to do none of them. 

But they actually were our analysis of what we thought were practical and affordable steps that could be taken to get the system 

more efficient and to shift to cleaner sources. 

51 

So States can use whatever creative approach they want to use 

as long as they are getting at the reductions in those fossil fuel 

plants that are required. 

Senator FISCHER. You have talked a lot about flexibility here, the 

flexibility for the States. But I think that that flexible solution in 

effect is going to shut down coal plants. Because if you are going 

to avoid that conflict between that bucket one and bucket two, it 

is going to call for heat improvements for the coal plants in bucket 

one. But under bucket two, you are going to run it less. 

So how does that make it more flexible? I think the conflict there 

is just going to mean the retirement of these coal plants. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Let me give you an example. I know that the 

State of West Virginia was mentioned. If you look at the State 

standard for West Virginia, the State standard is not enormously 

aggressive. In fact, many have questioned why it isn’t more aggressive. 

Senator FISCHER. I’m not questioning it. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I know. And neither am I. We will take comment. 

But what it says, we actually looked at the fact that they are 

heavily dependent on coal, and their answer may very well be to 

invest in that coal to make it more efficient moving forward. In 

fact, if you look at our analysis, it shows that coal today, I am 

sorry, in 2012 actually generated about 37 percent of the electricity. What we are projecting is in 2030 that is going to be 31 percent. 

Senator FISCHER. Right. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. So it will remain. So we think coal States, heavily dependent coal States will invest in coal. They will most likely 

not take advantage of the shifting to lower sources and they won’t 

need to. 

Senator FISCHER. I have just a few seconds, but my concern is 

that it just effectively shuts down plants. I did want to touch on 

another issue, just very quickly. I had the opportunity earlier this 

week to have a dinner with my colleagues on both sides of the 

aisle, we met with some officials with the Department of Defense. 

We talked about national security, we talked about global security, 

and the need that we see for that global security, especially in Europe with regard to the belligerent moves of Russia, and our NATO 

allies, what they face there with natural gas. 

How are we going to address not just national security but global 

security when we have such limits put on natural gas? 

Senator BOXER. Let me just say, if you can make your answer 

really brief, we have a vote started. My goal was to try to get everybody in prior to the vote. We might be able to do it if we stick 

to the time. So can you speak briefly to that, and then we are going 

to move to Senator Carper. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Again, this is a very consistent strategy to support the President’s all of the above energy policy. It does not set 

specific limits on any fuel. It expects all fuels to continue to be operated at significant levels. But it will provide a more efficient energy supply system, and it will reduce the harmful carbon pollution 

that is impacting us. 

52 

Senator FISCHER. Hopefully we can work with you on that further. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. We move to Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Administrator McCarthy, can you give me some 

idea of what percentage of all electricity is generated by nuclear in 

this Country today? Is it about 20 percent? I think it is. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It is something in that order, yes. 

Senator CARPER. Right around 20 percent. Any idea of what percentage of zero-emission electricity is generated by nuclear in our 

Country today? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Zero. 

Senator CARPER. Think about that. What percentage of the electricity that has essentially zero emission is generated by nuclear? 

It is not zero. It has to be close to I would say 50 percent. I was 

just thinking about that, because there is hydro, there is solar, and 

there is wind. That has to be close to 50 percent. Five zero. 

My staff and I have heard concerns that EPA does not treat all 

zero-emitting resources the same in your proposal. Specifically, we 

are starting to hear that local energy could be disadvantaged by 

this rule because of specific benefits that renewable enjoy over nuclear and other energy sources. We have even heard concerns that 

some nuclear power plants may be forced to close down because of 

the way that the rule is structured. That doesn’t make a lot of 

sense. 

You and I have talked in the past about nuclear, and we both 

agree that nuclear has to be part of the mix so we can meet our 

climate goals. Just to make sure we are on the same page, do you 

believe that nuclear energy, do you believe that nuclear energy 

should be on an equal footing with renewable energy to help States 

meet their carbon goals set in this proposal? That is the first part 

of my question. And second, have you heard similar concerns from 

the nuclear industry? So can you tell us what you believe is the 

crux of the problem in the proposal and commit today to resolving 

this issue, please? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sure. First of all, as you indicated, nuclear energy is zero-emitting carbon energy generating technology. And for 

that reason, we have actually gone to great lengths in this proposal 

to make sure that States are aware of that and that nuclear energy 

is factored into the standard-setting process. We have also called 

attention to the fact that there are some nuclear facilities that 

seem to be on the fence as to whether or not they are competitive 

today in a way that would allow them to go through the relicensing 

process and make that process worth it, if you will. 

And so we have been highlighting that issue in this proposal and 

encouraging States to really pay attention to this. Because the replacement of a base load capacity unit that is zero-carbon emitting 

will be a significant challenge for States who are right now relying 

on those nuclear facilities. 

But we have heard that maybe we didn’t go far enough or we 

went too far. So we will be listening to those comments, because 

we certainly have heard them. 

Senator CARPER. OK. It is important that you do, thank you. 

53 

Now that the proposal has been released, beyond the nuclear 

concerns, have you already heard back from industry and/or States 

that you think are valid concerns and could be addressed in the 

final rule? Is there any positive feedback that you want to share 

with us today, please? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think a lot of the comments that we are hearing are valid and we need to look at them. Some of them are 

whether or not we understood certain States’ circumstances or 

whether or not the framing of the rule is as good as it should be. 

We have heard from leadership States that we didn’t give them 

enough credit for their leadership. We have heard from other 

States that we have given too much credit. 

So there are a lot of valid considerations here, and we are going 

to pay attention to each and every one of them. But I think we 

have a great head start with this proposal. Because of the listening 

we did before we even put pen to paper, it gave us a tremendous 

opportunity to put out a proposal that I think for all intents and 

purposes has been very well received. 

But I know that States and utilities are rolling up their sleeves, 

trying to see whether or not they can make this work and how they 

can make it work to the advantage of their States and the utilities. 

And we will keep working with them every step of the way. 

Senator CARPER. Madam Chair, just a closing thought. Coal is 

what, I think you said 37 percent of our generating capacity today 

from electricity, it is going to drop to 31 percent. That is still a lot. 

I would just say to my colleagues, there is a huge economic opportunity here. A huge economic opportunity. Just as there was economic opportunity in diesel emission reductions, created jobs, just 

as there was economic opportunity in reducing mercury emission, 

created jobs in technology that we can sell all over the world, there 

is similar opportunity here. Whoever can figure out how to economically, safely, smartly reduce emissions from these coal-fired 

plants, we are off to the races. Just to the market alone in China, 

it would be terrific. 

So thank you very much. Carry forward. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BOXER. OK, let me tell you what is happening. The floor 

said if we got there 11:20, 11:25, we would be OK. But I think 

what we are going to do, after we hear from Senator Inhofe, who 

wanted to go, is if it is OK with everybody, we will break. And then 

those of us who can come back, because I know Senator Markey is 

going to get some extra time, because he missed the opening statements. And Senator Barrasso wants to have another round and I 

would love to have another round. 

So, come back. But we are going to end this on a very high note 

with my good friend, the Senator from Oklahoma. 

Senator INHOFE. And if any of you want to go ahead and go on 

over there, I will tell you on the floor what I said. 

Senator BOXER. Well, we don’t want to miss it. Stop the clock, 

put it back to 5 minutes. We allow for jokes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. Good for you. 

Ms. McCarthy, there has been a lot of discussion as to what your 

authority is to do some of these things that are perceived to be 

54 

done. So let’s just suppose a State, let’s say Oklahoma, does not 

submit a State plan. And you develop a Federal plan for the State. 

How could you develop that rule using only existing authorities? 

Let me be specific. 

Under existing authorities, can you currently require a State to 

have gas dispatched at 70 percent of capacity? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, you are way ahead of me. Those are 

considerations that aren’t even on the table right now. Right now 

we are looking at proposing a rule. I have great hopes that we will 

work very effectively with the States. 

Senator INHOFE. I am talking about existing authorities today. 

Under your authority today, could you do something like that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Not unless this rule were passed. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, that is fine. Under the existing authority, 

you currently require a State to unilaterally restrict electricity demand by 1 and a half percent. Under current authority. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, sir. Well— 

Senator INHOFE. And under existing authority, could you currently mandate the use of renewable in a State? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We do not. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. Now, let’s say that a State does submit a 

plan and the renewable portfolio standard does apply. I would ask 

you if you could enforce it. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, sir, we are not, we wouldn’t be requiring any of those things here. What we are requiring is a certain 

level of carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generated by fossil 

fuels. That is what EPA would be actually requiring and mandating. How the States get there is certainly their choice. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. So you are saying that under current 

law and policies that EPA couldn’t enforce the State renewable 

portfolio standard, but under the ESPS rule that we are talking 

about, they may be able to, is that accurate? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is one of the issues that we have raised. 

Because EPA often has things in State plans, some of which we enforce, some of which we don’t. That is an issue that has been discussed. 

Senator INHOFE. I’m saying under current law, you may be able 

to, under the ESPS, be able to—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually the one certainty I have is that we will 

be able to enforce the fossil, the amount of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel facilities, if this rule goes as proposed. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. What I am trying to get to here, this rule 

would be a broad expansion of the authority that EPA has over 

States that has a broad political impact and could dramatically reshape an entire sector of the economy. Isn’t that exactly what the 

Supreme Court ruled against in the UARG case, the expansion of 

authority that you would be having? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, I don’t think that the Supreme Court 

indicated that we were expanding our authority in that case. But 

sir, questions have been raised about what we do with plans and 

what is included and how that can be implemented. We are working through those issues with the State. But all EPA is doing here 

is regulating pollution from sources that we regulate under appropriate sections. 

55 

Senator INHOFE. You are proposing a rule, I am sorry to interrupt, but you are proposing a rule that you don’t have authority 

to do and to enforce today. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, I believe we have clear authority to do the 

rule as we have proposed it. 

Senator INHOFE. No, I am talking about the authority you have 

under the current system. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t think we are expanding our authority 

with this rule, sir, no. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, it appears to me that you are. But in this 

short period of time, let me try to get this other thing out of the 

way. 

From what I understand, the EPA relied on an academic EIA 

study. I mentioned this in my opening statement, that about 6 percent of the nuclear fleet is at risk of shutting down. Then the EPA 

made an adjustment to the rule to help out the nuclear plants accordingly. 

Now, the FERC has authority under power prices, power reliability, power transmission. The question I would ask you, did the 

EPA talk to anyone at FERC about the adjustment of whether the 

rule would actually help nuclear plants? In other words, to help 

these 6 percent that we have found are going to have problems. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, I don’t know what direct conversation 

EPA might have had with FERC over the nuclear facilities. 

Senator INHOFE. Did you talk to FERC about these issues? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. At a high level, and I know that our staff was 

working very closely with them and with DOE in particular in 

terms of our administrative actions. 

Senator INHOFE. I know your staff, and there is no way you can 

tell me today or tell this committee what your staff was and who 

they talked to. But you personally did talk to someone about these 

issues at FERC? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have been actually meeting with the commissioners. 

Senator INHOFE. I am talking about you personally. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. I have had meetings with the commissioners and with NARUC and with many of the DPUC commissioners. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. On this note, I will end. Thank you very 

much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

So we are going to recess briefly, come back and there is zero 

time left on the clock. So I am going to run. When we come back, 

we are going to have Senator Markey open it up and then Senators 

Barrasso, Sessions, and if there is a Democrat that comes back we 

will go back and forth. 

Thank you. We will take a brief respite. 

[Recess.] 

Senator BOXER. The committee will come to order. 

I hope everybody used that break for a good purpose. 

So we are now going to turn to our newest member, who I am 

so pleased is on our committee, Senator Ed Markey. You have 6 

minutes. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

56 

Administrator McCarthy, just to clarify, you have the authority, 

is that not correct, under the Clean Air Act, to set a carbon pollution standard for power plants? Is that correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

Senator MARKEY. Now, when you were developing the State targets, you looked at four different types of actions. But a State does 

not have to follow these exactly. A State can figure out the best 

way, in their assessment, to reach the carbon reduction target. Is 

that correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

Senator MARKEY. So you have 50 States, you could have 50 different approaches? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is right. That is what I expect. Well, we 

may. 

Senator MARKEY. We may, we may not. But we are not in a position to tell them what to do, they have to make the decision. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

Senator MARKEY. So they may want to have the same plan as another State. But they may not. 

Let me ask you another question. A lot of times you hear from 

people saying, it really hurts the economy of the United States 

when there is a clean air law that goes on the books, that it is too 

dangerous to run the risk of trying to make the air cleaner to reduce the number of people who get sick, to reduce the number of 

people who die from dirty air. They say pretty much, the air is 

clean enough, don’t make it any cleaner. But we are seeing this 

huge increase in the number of people who don’t die or don’t get 

sick because of the Clean Air Act. 

So what I have over my shoulder is a chart from 1929 to today 

and it reflects the growth in the GDP of the United States of America that includes the 1970, the 1977 and the 1990 Clean Air Acts. 

And with the exception of a period around 2008, 2009, when there 

was a complete failure of regulation of the financial industry, we 

are seeing upward GDP growth. 

Can you talk a little bit about that, the connection between this 

clean air journey that we have been on and the growth in GDP? 

Is there a choice that we have to make? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think Chairman Boxer eloquently stated the 

kind of GDP growth we are seeing while we have been able to significantly reduce air pollution, basically it is an over 70 percent reduction in air pollution under the Clean Air Act, while our GDP 

has tripled. And so every time we put a new rule out, that is what 

we often, I am sorry, what we always see, frankly, from some small 

groups. But it really has never come true. And in this rule, we 

don’t expect that this will have an impact, other than to have jobs 

grow, the economy to grow, the U.S. to become more stable, the 

U.S. to take advantage of new technologies, innovation and investments that will make us stronger over time. 

Senator MARKEY. So I just would like to say that, and Senator 

Whitehouse is part of this Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, we 

have been in this plan in Massachusetts for the last six or 7 years. 

Something quite remarkable has now happened. Massachusetts is 

now fourth in solar deployment in the United States. We are kind 

57 

of not the perfectly sunny State. We are more like the perfect 

storm State. But we have moved forward on that front. 

We have now created 80,000 clean energy jobs in Massachusetts. 

We are going to add another 10,000 this year, bringing it up to 

90,000. And while nationally electricity rates have gone up 13 percent over the last 6 years, they have actually gone down in Massachusetts by 6 percent, even as we have had a system that is not 

too dissimilar from the one that you are now propounding for the 

whole Country. And we have seen a 23 percent expansion in the 

Massachusetts economy while we have had a cap and trade system 

in place in Massachusetts. 

So I just think it is important for people to understand that the 

model is already there. It can be made to work. It is flexible, but 

it does in fact have a lot of evidence that shows that it can be done. 

Now, I understand that some States have already surpassed the 

renewable energy production levels built into the 2030 State targets. Are you considering building more ambition into some of the 

State targets, where States can or are already going further than 

the levels assumed in the proposed rules? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, we are looking at all comments that we 

receive. We have a very long comment period, 120 days. We are 

looking forwarding to four public hearings next week. So we will 

be certainly listening to those and making appropriate changes one 

way or the other. 

Senator MARKEY. And again, following on the Massachusetts 

model, isn’t it very possible that the proposed rules that you are 

considering could wind up lowering electricity rates for people all 

across the Country? I think that is kind of contradictory to the way 

some people think about the issue. But we have seen in Massachusetts it has happened. Talk about nationally what you could expect 

to be seen by consumers. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. What we are projecting is that consumers will 

see a lowering of their energy bills. That is because we are getting 

waste out of the system. And because that is the cheapest most effective way to get these reductions, is to become more efficient, it 

makes the delivery efficient. 

Senator MARKEY. In Massachusetts, we have a funny accent and 

we just say that is working smarter, not harder. So explain the efficiency angle in terms of what you are giving the States the flexibility to implement. 

Senator BOXER. Do this as fast as you can, with your accent. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. MCCARTHY. There are two ways to get reductions at fossil 

fuel facilities in terms of the pollution they emit for carbon. You 

can run them less or you can make them more efficient when they 

run. Both of those are part of the building blocks here. 

So you can actually do that by increasing efficiency at the facility, but you can also do that by providing consumers, and many 

low-income consumers, support for new building codes, 

weatherizing houses, more efficient appliances that they can use. 

When those things happen, their dollars go down in terms of how 

much they need to spend every month on their electric bill. 

Senator MARKEY. I think your plan is smart, it is effective, and 

it is ultimately going to be cost-effective. Thank you. 

58 

Senator BOXER. OK. We are going to turn to Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. McCarthy, why did you let high-powered Washington lobbyists with the Natural Resources Defense Council reach into the 

EPA and essentially write your climate change rules for you? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I did not. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, not according to the NRDC. They had 

a blog on July 8th, and Madam Chair, I would like to have this 

introduced into the record. It is by the NRDC, written by one of 

the lobbyists involved in crafting the rules, who stated, ‘‘The New 

York Times ran a very nice article yesterday about the NRDC’s 

part in developing an innovative proposal for curbing carbon pollution for America’s 1,600 fossil fuel-fired electric power plants.’’ And 

then they go on to say, ‘‘We are proud to have played a role.’’ So 

they are proud of what they wrote. 

Let me ask you another question. Are you going to attend the 

U.N. Climate Chang Conference in Paris, 2015, as your predecessor 

did, Lisa Jackson, when she attended the Climate Change Conference in 2009? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I have not made a decision on that, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, a key part of the President’s climate 

change strategy is to have us believe that he and his environmental and diplomatic all-star team can arrive in Paris in 2015 at 

the U.N. Climate Change Conference and convince the world to follow his lead. His whole plan hinges on President Obama’s foreign 

policy prowess. 

Well, his foreign policy record is a series of empty threats, of pivots, of resets, miscalculations, lead from behind failures in places 

like Syria, Russia, Ukraine, Iran, Libya and Iraq. After all those 

missteps, he wants us to believe that in 2015, he and his team can 

demand that China and India would stop burning fossil fuels. 

Even if the President was able to reach an agreement like the 

Kyoto Treaty in the 1990’s, it would still have to be ratified here 

in the Senate. The Kyoto Treaty overwhelmingly failed in the Senate. So if the President and his team of officials from EPA and the 

State Department can’t deliver in Paris and subsequently in the 

Senate, we are going to be left with his domestic climate action 

plan which includes your rules for new and existing coal-fired 

power plants. 

According to Secretary of State John Kerry in a column that he 

wrote in the Financial Times last month, he said ‘‘Even as we 

strive to do better, we recognize that no country can solve this 

problem alone.’’ He said ‘‘Even if the U.S. somehow eliminated all 

our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, it still would not be 

enough. The rest of the world,’’ he said, ‘‘is spewing too much carbon pollution.’’ 

So that means that the President’s climate action plan, which includes the EPA’s new proposed rules, on their own, do not reduce 

global temperatures or prevent any of the serious impacts that are 

predicted by the U.N. It can’t make a dent. 

So the question is, can you guarantee success in Paris? And if 

not, aren’t these climate change policies all pain for America and 

the citizens of this Country and little gain globally? 

59 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, what I know about this rule is that it will 

leave the United States in 2030 with a more efficient and a cleaner 

energy supply system, and more jobs in clean energy, which are the 

jobs of the future. So no matter what happens internationally, this 

is of significant benefit to the United States in terms of those kids 

in the audience who want to breathe healthy air and don’t want 

their kids to get sick. 

Senator BARRASSO. So you admit that it has no impact at all on 

global climate. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It will have a significant impact in the tone and 

tenor of the discussion. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, no impact on global climate, though, 

you admit that. You do. You never said anything about how this 

will impact global climate. 

The Chair. Just a moment. Could you freeze for a moment? 

Freeze the clock. I don’t think we should be putting words in anybody’s mouth. She never said what you said she said. So can you 

just refine what you said? In other words, you take from her response something that she didn’t say what you said. It is just not 

right. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I take from your response and from the Secretary of State’s comments that no matter, that these proposals that you are putting 

forth will have no impact on global climate as a result of the failure 

of others to cooperate as the Secretary of State has stated. 

This can’t be some rich person’s gamble where you make a bad 

bet. This has a real impact on people. When we are asking coal 

miners, seniors on fixed incomes, families and children who suffer 

higher electric bills and the unemployed to make this expensive bet 

that you are putting forward, and I just have a lot of problems with 

doing that to people around the Country, because of some rich lobbyists and powerful layers in Washington who are now reaching 

into the EPA to write their regulations. 

Countries around the world are already abandoning anti-fossil 

fuel policies because of the need for affordable energy. We are seeing it in Australia, their parliament just repealed their carbon tax. 

The Associated Press last week quotes the Australian prime minister who says, ‘‘a useless, destructive tax, which damaged jobs, 

which hurt families, cost of living and which didn’t actually help 

the environment.’’ 

Why aren’t we following his lead? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, climate inaction is what threatens our 

seniors and our kids. That is what is threatening our communities 

today and that is what is threatening the viability of the planet in 

the future. What I am responding to is EPA, that is my job. 

Senator BARRASSO. Germany is going to build ten new coal-fired 

power plants. 

Senator BOXER. If you want to stay for another round of questions, you are welcome to. Please stay if you want. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. I would like to ask unanimous consent to place 

into the record two documents. One is a poll just recently taken 

that shows that 70 percent of the people support your plan. So notVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:00 Apr 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\98183.TXT VERN
60 

withstanding the fact that other Senators say that they are defending the people, you are defending the people, in my opinion. 

Second, I also want to put in the statement made by William 

Ruckelshaus, who appeared before this committee at the suggestion 

of Senator Whitehouse, who worked for Presidents Nixon and 

Reagan: ‘‘We like to speak of American exceptionalism. If we want 

to be truly exceptional, then we should begin the difficult task of 

leading the world away from the unacceptable effects of our increasing appetites for fossil fuel before it is too late.’’ 

I would like these two to go back to back with Senator 

Barrasso’s, if there is no objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

61 


98183.065
62 


98183.066
63 


98183.067
64 


98183.068
65 


98183.055
66 

Senator BOXER. Now, we are going to turn to Senator Gillibrand, 

who was not here. She gets 6 minutes, and as a Republican comes 

we will work back and forth. Then we will turn, I will close, so I 

will withhold and we will go to Senator Whitehouse and Senator 

Markey after Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am so 

grateful for Administrator McCarthy being here. I am grateful for 

your leadership. I want to thank the Chairwoman for holding this 

hearing. 

Climate change, as everyone knows, is one of the biggest crises 

we face. Having watched the destruction after SuperStorm Sandy, 

it is not only extremely costly, but people are losing their lives because we are not acting fast enough or bold enough. So we have 

to do more, we have to do better. The costs of inaction are enormous. We can continue or try to continue to pay for disaster after 

disaster, or we can make really smart steps to reduce carbon pollution and foster innovation for cleaner energy sources and more advanced technology. 

So I think there is a picture of success here that we have to grab 

hold on and achieve it. I think with your leadership, we will 

achieve that goal. 

New York State is a member of the Regional Greenhouse Gas 

Initiative. I know you are familiar with it and have testified about 

it. Today the regional greenhouse gas emissions are 40 percent 

lower than in 2005. And it is projected to produce $1.6 billion in 

net economic benefit, which I wish my colleague was still here to 

hear these numbers. This is an economic engine; $1.1 billion in 

electricity savings; 16,000 additional jobs per year; and $765 million retained in local economies due to reduced demand for fossil 

fuels. That is a huge success. 

So from your experience how can other States use the RGGI example to implement a successful program to cut greenhouse gas 

emissions? And can other States and regions expect the same type 

of economic benefits that we have seen in New York as a result of 

our RGGI program? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am incredibly proud of the work of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in all those States. I think it was 

specifically designed to take the waste out of the system and to 

continue to grow the economy. Those numbers are great, Senator, 

thanks. 

The individual States can develop their own plans or they can 

certainly join other regional approaches, like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. We have provided information as to why that 

is inexpensive, why that is a good thing to do and provide an opportunity for them to have additional time if that is what they so 

choose. 

But I think the most important thing for the leadership States 

moving out in front is that they have shown us that here are costeffective, practical ways in which we can make this work significantly to address climate change and to grow the economy, not just 

not hurt it, but actually provide an impetus for growth. That has 

been the basis of this, our determination of best system of emission 

reduction adequately demonstrated. The leadership States frankly, 

67 

not just the RGGI States, but all across the United States we are 

seeing States show tremendous leadership. 

That is what we are building on. We just want every State to 

come to the table and look at the same things and see how they 

can design it with the same idea of success in mind. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. I have read that there were challenges 

when other regions of the world have tried to do this. There was 

fraud that undermined the results. Can you talk about why we are 

successful and they weren’t? How do we expand this more across 

all States? Should we ever have a national RGGI? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think we learned from some of those lessons 

really directly. And I think we also learned from a lot of the work 

that Congress did in trying to design a cap and trade program for 

the U.S. Those are things that you learn from and you don’t repeat 

mistakes. So I think we very well understood how we could make 

sure that the reductions we were trying to achieve were verifiable, 

accountable and how we could do it in a way that provided the 

flexibility to put investments in things that were actually going to 

be beneficial economically, like energy efficiency. 

One of the best designs of RGGI is that money was actually 

going to support the kind of programs that are going to lower costs 

for individual consumers. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. I think our energy cost-savings are amazing. How can you in your position urge other Governors, other 

States, other regions to really try to adopt this and be successful 

as well? What tools do you have? What help do you need form us? 

How do we expand this? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think we are just trying to make sure that 

there is a table set for every State to look at these issues and to 

work together. I don’t think EPA is trying at this point, nor should 

we, tell States how they should meet these goals. We are trying to 

provide them an opportunity get as much technical information as 

they can, to look at all the options available to them, if they want 

our help doing that. And we have been having meetings that bring 

energy and environmental regulators together in every State, so 

they can understand how they can design a strategy that works for 

them. 

That is the most important thing for me, is that they roll up 

their sleeves and start working. Because action right now is essential. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. We talked about all the cost savings. There 

is also obviously the health benefits that we can expect from these 

types of reforms. Can you talk a little bit about some of the health 

benefits we can expect from the implementation of the new clean 

power plant proposed rule? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I certainly can. The health benefits in this rule 

are actually quite large. From reducing carbon pollution you actually have an opportunity to keep temperatures from rising, more 

ozone from being formed, which always results in more asthma attacks. But this rule also is going to be directly reducing particulate 

matter emissions, NOx emissions SOx emissions, mercury emissions, as we look at the RIA that was developed. 

And just to name a few things, we are actually avoiding 2,700 

premature deaths in 2030, up to 6,600 premature deaths. We are 

68 

talking already just in 2020 reducing more than 100,000 asthma 

attacks in our kids. And in the U.S., one out of ten kids faces asthma. We worry about low income, we worry about minorities, we 

worry about those in the front line of the changing climate, those 

numbers matter. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. Well, Ms. McCarthy, the Supreme 

Court statement that when an agency, EPA, claims to discover in 

a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate a significant 

portion of the American economy, we typically greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism. So what our American people 

need to know is that you have not been given explicit statutory authority power to do what you are doing. You achieved it by, I guess, 

a five to four ruling some years ago by the Supreme Court. And 

it ought to be viewed with skepticism. 

The American people run this Country. You don’t run this Country. EPA does not run this Country. You are accountable to the 

people for the best interests of this entire Nation. The Congress 

has never approved this, and that is one of the problems you face. 

EPA has proposed an emissions target for Alabama which would 

require a 27 percent reduction in the rate of CO2 emissions relative 

to 2012 levels. It reaches a target by assuming that it is technically 

feasible for Alabama to retire 10 million megawatt hours of coalfired generation capacity which is significant, increase natural gas 

generation by an equivalent amount, generate over 14 million 

megawatt hours from renewable as well as preserve existing nuclear capacity, existing, not an increase. 

So first, you have been talking about consulting. Did EPA consult 

with the State of Alabama about those assumptions, achievable assumptions? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have been working with both the energy and 

environmental regulators in every State. I cannot name you specifically whether or not we have had individual meetings with the 

folks from Alabama. But I can certainly check and get back with 

you. 

Senator SESSIONS. I don’t think you have been dealing that accurately or completely with them on these assumptions, these abilities. You are talking about a huge, 14 million megawatt hours from 

renewable. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, I am not sure about those numbers. So 

I am more than happy to go through them with you. 

Senator SESSIONS. Would you promptly respond to an inquiry for 

a correction to me on those? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Of course I will, sure. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. Now, Section 111(d) of the proposed rule that has been debated here references extreme weather 

six times at least, and cites claims about projections of increased 

severity of hurricanes and tornadoes. Do you have any data that 

you can show this committee to establish that we can expect an increased number and severity of hurricanes and tornadoes? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am well aware that the new national assessment indicates that we should be expecting more intense storms, 

69 

more heavy precipitation. There is, I don’t believe any assumption 

made about the frequency of hurricanes at this point. But there is 

certainly the severity and intensity of those storms is expected to 

increase. 

Senator SESSIONS. Do you know how many days it has been since 

the United States has had a Category 3 hurricane? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do not have that information. 

Senator SESSIONS. It is 3,200 days. That is almost 10 years. We 

haven’t had a Category 3 hurricane. I remember when Frederick 

hit my town of Mobile. Ten years before that, we had Camille, 

which was a 5. Frederick I think was a 3. We are not having increases, the data is pretty clear on that. 

So I just want to tell you, you are asking us to alter our policies 

economically at great cost, and one of the bases of that charge is 

the increased storms. And we are not seeing them, is all I am saying. It may happen, I don’t know. But I don’t believe you have a 

scientific basis, and I would like to see any science you have to justify that position. 

Finally, you suggest that by 2030, you predict, in your written 

statement here, ‘‘Average electric bills for American families will be 

8 percent cheaper.’’ As I understand it, you assume that we will 

have a 1.5 percent energy efficiency increase every single year during that decade, 1.5 percent, whereas the average today, I understand, is .5 percent. 

Are you confident? How can you have confidence that that would 

occur, that we would have an actual reduction in costs of electricity 

for Americans? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, we feel pretty confident that the data indicates that energy efficiency is one of the least expensive, most effective ways of reducing carbon pollution, that States will take advantage of that. 

Senator SESSIONS. I totally agree that energy efficiency is a bipartisan issue that we can work on together with you. I would just 

say that if you maintain that and don’t do the other things, we 

would have a much lower cost of electricity. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

While my friend Senator Sessions was speaking, I pulled up a 

story from the Birmingham News. It is 2 years old, it is from August 2012. At the time, it was about a guy named Bart Slossen in 

Birmingham who was one of only 27 residential customers of Alabama Power who were selling solar electricity back to the grid. He 

‘‘wondered why there is no photovoltaic presence in Alabama and 

it is full of sun,’’ he said. The story goes on, across the Country and 

across the globe, solar energy is spreading, supported by falling 

prices for equipment, environmental sensitivity and generous incentives from governments and utilities. Drive across the border to 

Tennessee and solar arrays are sprouting the fields. 

Florida, the sunshine State, is a national leader in the production of power from the sun. In Georgia, the first large scale solar 

development came online this summer, with planned future 

projects expected to boost that State’s generation to 50 megawatts 

70 

by 2015. Alabama, on the other hand, finishes at or near the bottom in solar surveys. 

So it would seem that there might be some potential there. 

Senator SESSIONS. I thank the Senator. It would be great if we 

could make solar work, but the experts tell us that because of our 

cloud cover we are not nearly as efficient as most of the States farther west to have clear sunshine, and it is not very effective. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, we will certainly see about that. And 

certainly the costs are coming down. My concern is that when the 

alternative to solar is to burn coal, there are costs to that that the 

rest of us have to bear that aren’t in that decision anywhere. If you 

are an accountant, and you are doing the books for a family or for 

a business, you have to look at two sides of the ledger. You look 

at what the costs are and you look at what the income is and then 

you get to bottom line. 

A lot of what my colleagues have been saying during the course 

of this hearing, I believe, has only looked at one side of the ledger. 

Specifically, that narrow side of the ledger that relates to the costs 

to the coal industry, as if our highest and most important goal in 

this exercise was to make sure that coal plants kept running. 

I think that EPA has actually tried to look at both sides of the 

ledger, looked at costs, and looked at benefits. On a net basis, when 

you actually do accounting for the cost of this, looking at both sides 

of the ledger, not just a one-sided view, what do you get as your 

net assessment of whether this is going to be good or bad for our 

economy and for our people? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. In 2030, it is a net benefit of somewhere between $48 billion and $84 billion. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Between $48 billion with a B and $84 billion? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Per year, or summed up for that time? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is per year. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So in that year, it will be a net. So in that 

time period, presumably it will have added up considerably more 

than that over time. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Oh, wait a minute. I will double check, but I believe that is the case. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But that would be the minimum, obviously. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The number gets a lot bigger if you are 

doing that annually than if that is the sum. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is right. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So the bottom line is that there is a positive net benefit? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Very much so, yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And I just want to say, I appreciate very 

much the concern of my colleagues here. I know that Senator 

Barrasso is representing the State of Wyoming. I know that the 

State of Wyoming has a very significant coal economy. I believe 

that a billion dollars of the revenues of the State of Wyoming come 

into its coffers from its fossil fuel industry. So if there is going to 

be an interruption of that, then Senator Barrasso has every reason 

71 

to be concerned and he has every reason to expect the rest of us 

to listen to his concerns and to try to work with him to see what 

we can do to help with those concerns. 

What I can’t have is to have a dialog in which Wyoming gets its 

concerns ventilated but has no interest whatsoever in what is happening in Rhode Island, where we have kids with ozone, we have 

very serious asthma problems, where we have 10 inches of sea 

level rise, where our winter flounder fishery is virtually gone, 

where our prospects for having a ski industry are evaporating, such 

as it is. There is Yawgoo Valley, if you want to come to Rhode Island and ski, it is not much, but it is there and we would like to 

keep it. But the evidence appears to be, from the estimates that we 

have seen, that Connecticut and New York and Massachusetts are 

going to lose theirs. So if they lose theirs, it is unlikely Rhode Island is going to be a little sanctuary of snow down there south of 

them. 

So we have real costs on our side, and I hope that, Madam Administrator, you will bear in mind that there are costs on both 

sides of this ledger. I contend that the costs on our side of the ledger actually outweigh the costs of the other side of the ledger in 

pure economic value by a lot. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Those were annual costs, and they are pretty 

staggering. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Those were annual costs. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And the benefits associated, the net benefits 

here are tremendous. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Tens of billions of dollars a year. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. But I don’t think that they by far and away capture all the benefits that we are going to achieve by addressing and 

stepping up on climate. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So, Madam Chair, if there is that kind of 

benefit, it would seem to be reasonable that we could find a way, 

through the politics of this body, to deliver some of that benefit 

back to the States of West Virginia and Wyoming, to balance what 

is going on here. But they can’t do that if we pretend that this 

problem isn’t real. They can’t do that if they pretend that the other 

side of the ledger doesn’t exist. We can’t do that if they continue 

this pretense that coal isn’t harming people all across the Country 

as well as benefiting people in their States. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you so much for your contribution. 

I see Senator Sanders here. I am going to do my round, then I 

am going to turn the gavel over to Senator Sanders to take as 

much as he wants and then close it down. 

Now, I will say, Administrator McCarthy, that Senator Sessions 

told you that you don’t run America. Do you think you run America? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am not taking the blame, no. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Let the record show that you don’t think that 

you run America. 

Are you implementing the Clean Air Act? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

72 

Senator BOXER. Was there an endangerment finding that said 

that too much carbon pollution is a danger? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Can you summarize for us the major dangers of 

carbon pollution? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The major dangers identified in the 

endangerment finding were the dangers related to increased temperature, increased floods, increased droughts, disease that is related to this, heat strokes. There are a number of impacts associated with a change in climate. 

Senator BOXER. Is it your responsibility to protect the Clean Air 

Act and to protect clean air, clean water, safe drinking water? Isn’t 

that what you swore that you would do when you took this job? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, I did, and I meant it. 

Senator BOXER. I know you meant it. I just want to say, colleagues, for all the bluster on the other side about how what Administrator McCarthy is doing is a danger to people, people don’t 

believe it. Seventy percent of the people side with the EPA. 

And let me just read the groups that support EPA carbon pollution standards. What I want to say to everyone in the audience, 

wherever they come out on this, I want you to think when I mention these names, who do these people really fight for? 

The Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, the American 

Academy of Pediatrics, the American Lung Association, the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, 

the American Thoracic Society, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation 

of America, Chicago Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Cleveland Clinic Asthma Center, Health Care Without Harm, National 

Association of County and City Health Officials, National Hispanic 

Medical Association, National Medical Association, National Nurses 

United, Trust for America’s Health. I ask that unanimous consent 

to put this list into the record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

73 


98183.046
74 


98183.047
75 


98183.048
76 


98183.049
77 


98183.050
78 

Senator BOXER. I think if everyone listened to this, you would 

say they represent the American people, the children, our families. 

So that is very, very key. 

I also would like to note, I am sorry Senator Sessions had to 

leave, that Hurricane Katrina in 2005 cost taxpayers $125 billion, 

and Hurricane Sandy, as Senator Sanders has said, cost $60 billion. I think this whole Country lived through those disasters, and 

we want to mitigate those disasters. That is what your rule is all 

about. 

Last, I want to make a point for my colleagues, my colleagues, 

I want to make a point to my colleagues. I want to make a point. 

This is my point. And I think this gets overlooked. And I want to, 

because my colleagues are so informed on this, I just think this is 

one other huge piece of information that is rather new to the debate. 

Under this proposal, in 2030, air pollution benefits, not carbon, 

put that aside, the other pollution benefits will total $62 billion per 

year. What does that mean? Reduction of participate matter, 

50,000 ton reduction. Reduction of sulfur dioxide, 425,000 ton reduction. Nitrogen dioxide, 410,000 reduction. This is huge. 

And this speaks to the issue that Senator Whitehouse spoke to, 

that we can move to clean energy or cleanup the energy we have, 

which I believe is possible, and save our kids, save our families, 

save our health, premature deaths, asthma, missed work, missed 

school. So I want to say, Administrator McCarthy, I can’t tell you 

how much I appreciate your taking this job as one who kind of suggested it, one of the people. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. You had a little hand in it. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I want to say, I knew that you would step 

up to the plate, that you had the experience of working across 

party aisles, that you really had in your heart exactly why you 

wanted to do this work, to help our families, and frankly, our economy and our leadership in the world. I just can’t think of anyone 

else who could do it better. I want to say that. You proved it today. 

I want to say, even though my colleagues aren’t here from the 

Republican side, I felt they were very respectful of you, I appreciate 

that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I agree. 

Senator BOXER. I agree. But I also agree with Senator 

Whitehouse and Senator Sanders, we shouldn’t be having the argument about what is as clear as can be, and I am very pleased with 

this hearing. I am pleased with this plan. I know my people at 

home support you and so do 70 percent of the American people. 

With that, I am going to hand the gavel over to Senator Sanders 

and suggest that he sit over here and finish this hearing. If Senator Whitehouse wants another round, that is great. I need to go 

to a meeting and I thank everybody. 

And I especially thank the young people here today, the little 

ones, they actually were pretty good. They were pretty good considering all the hot air all of us were putting toward them. I appreciate everybody being here, it means a lot. 

Senator Sanders, the gavel is yours and the time is yours. 

Senator SANDERS. 

79 

[Presiding.] Thank you very much, Senator Boxer. Thank you so 

much for what you are doing on this issue. 

We know that Gina McCarthy does not run the world or run 

America, because if she did, she would not have to sit here for two 

and a half hours, right? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SANDERS. I just want to make a few points, then give the 

mic over to Senator Whitehouse, if he would like it. Just two 

points, and I am sorry my Republican colleagues are not here. 

I understand that when I was not here there was some argument, I think by the Senator from Wyoming, about how wealthy 

liberals have coerced you into moving forward in this direction. 

Now, I find that is really remarkable that one of my Republican 

colleagues would dare to raise the issue of campaign finance and 

the amount of money folks are putting into the political process. 

So let me just recite a few facts for the record. According to the 

Center for Responsive Politics, in 2013 the oil, gas and coal industries invested at least $170 million in lobbying the Federal Government. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in the 2012 

election cycle, the same industries spent more than $93 million in 

recorded campaign contributions, an enormous number, which is 

itself dwarfed by the amount of money invested in dark money 

SuperPAC spending. 

Then we go to another level, and it really is hard for me to understand these guys would raise these issues, we have the Koch 

brothers, who are today as a family worth $80 billion, who have 

spent hundreds of millions of dollars on political campaigns and 

setting up think tanks, and in fact are doing that in this election 

as well. According to the Washington Post and the Center for Responsive Politics, the Koch brothers, so where do the Koch brothers 

get their money? They are a fossil fuel industry. And they have invested $407 million, according to the Washington Post, supporting 

conservative fossil-friendly candidates in the 2012 election. 

So is there money coming into the political process from wealthy 

liberals? The answer is yes. But that money is clearly dwarfed by 

the amount of money coming in from the fossil fuel industry. 

I would also add that I find it remarkable that some of my Republican colleagues in this debate have expressed a deep concern 

about the needs of low-income people and the elderly. I would remind the people of this Country that these are the same folks 

whose compassion and love of low-income people prevents them 

from working to raise the minimum wage so people can have a living wage, allows them to make massive cuts in the LIHEAP program, which provides fuel assistance to low-income people. Many of 

them are on record as making massive cuts in Medicaid, Medicare, 

trying to end social security, privatize social security. So I think 

that their concerns today about the needs of low-income people 

might be held up to some question. 

Senator Whitehouse, did you want to add anything to that? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. One last question for the Administrator. I 

take the position that the costs of this regulation are dwarfed by 

the benefits. I think that is EPA’s judgment as well. I also take the 

position that it is not fair for people to only look at one side of the 

ledger in evaluating this legislation. They can’t just look at the inVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:00 Apr 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\98183.TXT VERN
80 

terests of the coal businesses, they really need to look at America 

more broadly. There are lots of us who are on the other side of that 

equation for whom coal really is a harm. And we can work in rational ways to try and balance that. But please don’t pretend that 

my side doesn’t exist. 

The third is that there is legitimate concern and then there is 

concern that is for rhetorical purposes. There is probably a little bit 

of a blend between the two. But if we look at the history that EPA 

has seen of industry reaction to proposed environmental regulations, all four Republican former EPA Administrators who testified 

in those very seats, Ms. McCarthy, indicated that over and over, 

the industry concerns were exaggerated. They did not prove true 

in the actual fact. Whether that was because they were exaggerated for rhetorical purposes at the beginning or whether that was 

because innovation was brought to bear to reduce costs, both can 

be true. 

But let me ask you, you have been in this business for a long 

time, at the State level as well as the Federal level. You have 

worked for Republican Governors before. What is your view on 

what track record has been of industry projections and warnings 

about the costs and consequences of environmental regulation by 

EPA? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. History tells us that they always exaggerate the 

costs. They always project environmental benefits as somehow 

being contrary to economic growth and goals. It just simply hasn’t 

come true. Never. 

So I think one of the points that we haven’t talked about a little 

bit, Senator, that you hit on, is one of the great benefits of looking 

at setting a course for climate change that is long-term and flexible 

is that what we are actually sending is a tremendous investment 

signal in what the United States values and cares about. It will unleash innovation and investment money. 

This is not about a scrubber at the end of a pipe or a smokestack. 

This is really about investing in things people care about, investing 

in things that people will make money on. 

One of the great things, frankly, about regulating is seeing how 

the regulated community grumbles during the process but in the 

end figures out how to make money, the great old American way. 

You will see this. This proposal is designed to be moderate in its 

ask, based on what is practical and affordable. 

But the vision behind it, the direction that it is going to take, I 

think we will get significantly more benefit than we are requiring. 

Because we are asking for the things that the American public actually wants to spend money on: less waste, cleaner energy, jobs, 

economic growth. That is what this is all about. As you can tell, 

I am pretty proud of it as a proposal. I know we will listen to folks. 

But in the end, this is going to be something I am hoping we will 

all be proud of. 

Senator SANDERS. If I could pick up on Senator Whitehouse’s 

question, Administrator McCarthy. What I hear you saying is that 

you believe the United States could be a leader in the world in new 

technologies, which help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and 

in the process see significant economic development. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

81 

Senator SANDERS. All right. I will tell you just in one area, in 

Vermont we have put some money, Federal money into weatherization. Do you know what we have done? We have reduced fuel bills 

for people, low-income people, cutting their fuel use by I think 32 

percent, cut greenhouse gas emissions. 

Do you know what else we have done? We have created jobs in 

the area. And I suspect your point is that once industry gets moving in terms of sustainable energies, et cetera, we can be a leader 

in providing that technology, not only in the United States, but all 

over the world, and in the processing getting worldwide companies 

moving as well. Is that kind of what you are saying? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is what I meant to say, yes. 

Senator SANDERS. You said it better than I did. All right. 

My very last question, and I will give it back to Senator 

Whitehouse, again, the issue of money in politics has been raised 

at this hearing with the suggestion that environmental folks are 

pouring huge sums of money in and I would argue that their 

money is being dwarfed by the industry. Do you have any thoughts 

on that, the amounts of money we are seeing in lobbying? I know 

campaign contributions is not your issue. But in lobbying that 

comes from the big energy companies. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, let me just hit the issue directly, because I know it had to do with a New York Times article which 

has been given surprising credibility. But I think, I know how hard 

the great staff at EPA worked to design this role, basically from 

whole cloth, listening to States and utilities and energy regulators 

and environmental regulators and stakeholders from all walks of 

life. 

I am extraordinarily proud of the work they put into it. I know 

they didn’t sleep for virtually any night well for months. We 

worked weekends. I can tell you I had 2 hours of meetings on this 

rule alone every week for the past, I don’t know how many months. 

And I think it is a discredit to them to suggest that somehow this 

was designed miraculously by one group, many months ago, and we 

just had it in our pocket ready to unveil. 

This was a result of hard work, a result of lots of listening and 

a result of moving 40 years of history in that agency and getting 

the science right, understanding the law and doing the work we 

need to do. That is what this is all about. 

Senator SANDERS. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And the result of a process in which the 

electric utility, the coal industry, the fossil fuel industry, the chamber of commerce and others also had their input, correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I will also guarantee you that I have met many 

more times with utilities than I have the NRDC. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. By way of a brief closing statement, I just want to thank Senator Sanders for raising this issue. 

I do a climate speech every week on the Senate floor, at least every 

week that we are in session. This week I am going to be talking 

about precisely the point that you raised. 

If you look back at our history in this body, there has been a very 

constant, strong heartbeat of bipartisan activity on climate. Many 

of our colleagues who are still here have had proud histories of enVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:00 Apr 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\98183.TXT VERN
82 

gagement with significant bipartisan climate legislation. And after 

2010, you see that heartbeat of bipartisan activity flat line. 

If you look at what happened in early 2010 that might explain 

why it suddenly ended, you find a Supreme Court decision called 

Citizens United that allowed unlimited corporate money, unlimited 

billionaire money to bombard our politics. What people often thing 

about that is that oh, they all came in and they beat up the Democrats on behalf of the Republicans and this is a partisan thing. 

But I have heard over and over from Republican colleagues, what 

are you complaining about? They are spending more money against 

us than they are spending against you. And there have been times, 

I believe, when actually the unaccountable anonymous dark money 

that Citizens United unleashed was being spent more in Republican primaries and against Republicans than it was against Democrats. 

That I think has suppressed debate and has a corrosive effect on 

our politics and has ended what was for many, many years a proud 

bipartisan tradition. So I am very glad that Senator Sanders raised 

that, and I thank Administrator McCarthy for being here and for 

all of her leadership and courage. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Administrator McCarthy, thank you very much. And with that, we adjourn 

the hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 12:29 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

We’ve seen the impacts of global warming firsthand in New Mexico. Prolonged 

droughts, more frequent wildfires and increased threats to forests and agriculture 

present some of the biggest economic and public health challenges we face in our 

State and nation. And when we’re faced with problems, we roll up our sleeves and 

solve them. 

For many years, I’ve devoted my career in public service to tackling the problem 

of global warming. I’ve introduced bipartisan legislation to create a flexible marketbased system that provides industry with predictability and stability, and turns the 

trend of increasing emissions downward. I’ve worked with many Members of Congress across the aisle to come up with legislative solutions. But many other Members of Congress would rather just pretend the problem doesn’t exist. 

The President and the Administration have refused to let this political reality affect our environmental reality. We’ve already wasted too much time already and the 

country wants to move forward with sensible solutions that safeguard our environment and advance our technological solutions. The proposed clean power plan is designed to help provide what every New Mexican wants for our children: clean air, 

fresh water and good health. And it allows each State to shape our own path to 

lower carbon emissions using the resources and tools available to them. 

I’ve always said we need a ‘do it all, do it right’ strategy to balance traditional 

energy with new energy sources. Let’s seize this opportunity to spur innovation and 

job creation, strengthen industries New Mexico does well, like solar, wind and 

biofuels, and build a clean energy future for the generations to come. 

83 


98183.022
84 


98183.023
85 


98183.024
86 


98183.025
87 


98183.026
88 


98183.027
89 


98183.028
90 


98183.029
91 


98183.030
92 


98183.036
93 


98183.037
94 


98183.038
95 


98183.039
96 


98183.040
97 


98183.041
98 


98183.042
99 


98183.043
100 


98183.044
101 


98183.045
102 


98183.051
103 


98183.052
104 


98183.053
105 

Æ 


98183.054