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

98–598 PDF 2016

EPA’S CO2 REGULATIONS FOR NEW AND 

EXISTING POWER PLANTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 7, 2015 

Serial No. 114–83 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California7 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Chairman 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

GREGG HARPER, Vice Chairman 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 2 

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

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

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

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 5 

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

Hon. H. Morgan Griffith, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Virginia, opening statement ............................................................... 8 

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

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 59 

WITNESS

Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, 

Environmental Protection Agency ...................................................................... 9 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 86 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Letter of December 1, 2014, from James M. Perrin, President, American 

Academy of Pediatrics, et al., to Gina McCarthy, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, submitted by Mr. Rush .......................................... 60 

Letter of December 1, 2014, from American Lung Association to Gina McCarthy, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, submitted by Mr. 

Rush ...................................................................................................................... 69 

Congressional Record, September 15, 2015, pages H5977 to H5980, submitted 

by Mr. Whitfield ................................................................................................... 79 

Congressional Record, September 17, 2015, pages S6807 to S6809, submitted 

by Mr. Whitfield ................................................................................................... 83 

(1) 

EPA’S CO2 REGULATIONS FOR NEW AND 

EXISTING POWER PLANTS 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Olson, Barton, 

Shimkus, Pitts, Latta, Harper, McKinley, Pompeo, Kinzinger, Griffith, Johnson, Long, Ellmers, Flores, Mullin, Upton (ex officio), 

Rush, McNerney, Tonko, Engel, Green, Capps, Doyle, Castor, Sarbanes, Welch, Yarmuth, Loebsack, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Associate, Energy and 

Power; Will Batson, Legislative Clerk; Leighton Brown, Press Assistant; Patrick Currier, Senior Counsel, Energy and Power; Tom 

Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, Energy and Power; A.T. Johnston, 

Senior Policy Advisor; Mary Neumayr, Senior Energy Counsel; 

Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment and the Economy; 

Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Peter Spencer, Professional Staff 

Member, Oversight; Andy Zach, Counsel, Environment and the 

Economy; Jeff Carroll, Democratic Staff Director; Timia Crisp, 

Democratic AAAS Fellow; Caitlin Haberman, Democratic Professional Staff Member; Rick Kessler, Democratic Senior Advisor and 

Staff Director, Energy and the Environment; Josh Lewis, Democratic EPA Detailee; and Alexander Ratner, Democratic Policy Analyst. 

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

morning, and the subject, of course, is the hearing on EPA’s CO2

Regulations for New and Existing Power Plants. And then, of 

course, also you all have a proposed rule that is part of this relating to a Federal Implementation Plan in the event States do not 

act. 

And, first of all, Ms. McCabe, we appreciate your being with us 

this morning as the Acting Assistant Administrator. You’ve been 

here many times before, and we genuinely appreciate your being 

here. 

At this time, I would recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

2 

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

Not too many years ago, an autobiography was compiled of Harry 

Truman and it was entitled, ‘‘Plain Speaking,’’ and that’s what I intend to do with my opening statement today, just do some plain 

speaking. 

In July, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the Michigan 

Case that the EPA had acted unreasonably and beyond its scope 

of authority on Utility MACT by not considering cost. And I was 

really taken back a little bit by the response that Ms. McCarthy 

and other spokesmen for EPA gave when they were questioned 

about that Supreme Court decision. 

Basically, every one of them said the regulation was finalized 3 

years ago, the companies have already spent the money, so everything has been accomplished, and so basically sort of negating any 

emphasis on the Supreme Court’s decision. And we perceive that 

that’s precisely what is going to happen with this existing and new 

coal plant rule, that your goal is to have this implemented. Lawsuits we know are going to be filed, but you want to have it implemented so that if the Supreme Court rules against you, everything 

has already been done. 

Now, on the new coal plant rule we have serious problems with 

it. You know that. Initially, you gave as an example four plants 

that showed that carbon capture sequestration could be used in 

these coal plants. One was in Texas, which has not been built; one 

was in California, which has not been built; one was in Mississippi, 

which has had extensive cost overruns and without significant investment from the Federal Government never would have been 

built; and then you’ve got the Canadian plant, which is really a 

unit, 110 megawatts. It costs over $1 billion a year. So, there’s not 

any practical way available for anyone using reasonable cost figures to comply with this new rule, because the emission standard 

is so low that it simply cannot be achieved. 

And then on the existing coal plant rule you all talk frequently 

about oh, we’re flexible, and we’re maximum flexibility to the 

States, but you arbitrarily set the CO2 emission caps for every 

State, so it’s going to be extremely difficult for many of the States 

to reach these caps. 

Now, when I go down to the District in Kentucky and around the 

country, I hear a lot about this is a rogue agency out to do in the 

fossil fuel industry. Many people view you as nothing but a political arm of the White House today, as a result of the President’s 

Georgetown speech in which he said, ‘‘I want EPA to act.’’ And you 

all have followed that rule and you’ve acted. You’ve actually become a legislative arm, because Congress considered cap and trade, 

Congress considered CO2 emissions, and Congress did not act. And 

I’ve heard people at EPA and the President say repeatedly, ‘‘Congress did not act, so we are going to act.’’ 

And not only did the Supreme Court invalidate our question and 

call it unreasonable and acting beyond your scope of authority 

under the Michigan Case, but also in the Tailoring Rule. It said 

you went beyond your scope of authority. And then on this existing 

rule, how can we ever forget that one of the preeminent constituVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:40 Apr 26, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X83CO2REGSSCANS042216\114X83CO2REGSPENDING WAY
3 

tional lawyers in the country, Larry Tribe, sat right there and said, 

‘‘You’re burning the Constitution’’ by these actions. And you had to 

reverse about 30 years of legal opinions of EPA itself in order to 

say you have the authority to act under 111(d). 

So, we are very much concerned about your running roughshod 

over the U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Senate, the Governors, the attorney generals, the utilities, the people in the fossil 

fuel industry, the employees, and the American taxpayers. And it’s 

interesting, the EIA recently reported 2014 electricity rates went 

up 14 percent, and this year they anticipate them going up another 

10 percent, but coal prices are down, natural gas prices are down, 

and oil prices are down. And, yet, all these independent reports say 

they’re going up because of regulations. So, this committee, we’re 

going to continue to do everything we can do to stop you. And not 

only that, but we’re urging Governors to take action to stop you. 

And we know that lawsuits are going to continue to be filed, and 

this will be a big issue in 2016. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:} 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD

This subcommittee has been examining EPA’s carbon dioxide regulations for new 

and existing power plants since they were first proposed. Last August, EPA announced the final versions, and unfortunately none of the fundamental concerns 

we’ve raised appear to have been addressed. This EPA has become the political arm 

of the White House issuing regulations by fiat. It is time to stop and review what 

these rules mean for the Nation’s electricity system and the economy overall. I welcome Acting Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe to this subcommittee. 

The new and existing source provisions are the most significant part of the President’s Climate Action Plan, and they closely resemble the 2009 Waxman-Markey 

cap-and-trade bill in that they comprehensively control the electric sector well beyond the fence line of regulated power plants, and they threaten extraordinary costs 

yet will do almost nothing to reduce the earth’s temperature. I believe that the regulatory version of cap and trade is every bit as inflexible and unworkable as the legislative version that I voted against. 

Our Ratepayer Protection Act addressed two major concerns with the existing 

source rule—its legality and its impact on ratepayers. First, the bill would have extended the compliance deadlines so that the rule’s provisions would not take effect 

until after judicial review is complete. On this point, I am disappointed that EPA 

has not learned the lesson from its Mercury MACT rule, which the Supreme Court 

recently found to be legally flawed. This decision came too late to avoid serious economic damage, including the irreversible decision to close several coal-fired power 

plants in response to this rule. As with the Mercury MACT rule, the existing source 

rule’s aggressive deadlines would necessitate potentially costly compliance measures 

before we know whether the rule will survive judicial scrutiny. And I might add 

that there are many reasons to question the legality of this unprecedented measure. 

The Ratepayer Protection Act also gave State Governors the authority to waive 

the existing source rule’s provisions if they are determined to have a significant adverse effect either on ratepayers or on reliability. According to an analysis of the 

proposed rule by NERA, fully 43 States will experience double digit increases in 

electricity prices—and this is on top of rates that are already increasing due in part 

to other EPA regulations. Higher electric bills disproportionately hurt low income 

households and those on fixed incomes. 

On reliability, NERC and others with expertise on reliability have warned of the 

potential adverse impact of the existing source provisions. The final rule may be 

even more problematic than the proposed version, especially now that EPA has chosen to discourage new natural gas facilities as well as coal in favor of less-reliable 

renewables like wind and solar. 

Few if any of the concerns about the proposed existing source rule were addressed 

in the final version, and the reasons for the Ratepayer Protection Act are still applicable. And I might add that the new source rule also remains very problematic, as 

it will serve as a de facto ban on new coal generation. Today, with natural gas as 

cheap as it is, a ban on new coal may not seem so damaging, but circumstances may 

4 

change, and I believe the Nation will suffer future adverse consequences from not 

having new coal generation as an option. 

In addition to the new and existing source final rules, I also have serious concerns 

with EPA’s proposed ‘‘Federal Plan,’’ which would impose a Federal emissions trading program on any State that does not get its own plan approved. Again, I welcome 

Acting Administrator McCabe and look forward to learning more about all three 

rules. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So with that, my time has expired and I would 

like to recognize at this time the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Rush. 

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

Mr. RUSH. 2016 is right around the corner, Mr. Chairman, and 

let us all buckle our seat with this wild ride to 2016. I want to 

thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing on the EPA’s 

carbon rules. Certainly, to me, it feels like deja vu all over again. 

I also want to thank Assistant Administrator Ms. McCabe for 

being here today. And as always, I look forward to your thoughtful, 

insightful, and expert testimony on the matter at hand. 

Mr. Chairman, today we will examine EPA’s carbon regulation 

for the exceedingly umpteenth time. At the very outset, I must emphatically commend the agency for its open, its honest responsiveness to stakeholders’ concerns in issuing its final rule. 

Mr. Chairman, since the last time Ms. McCabe testified before 

this subcommittee and after serious consideration of thousands of 

comments from various stakeholders, EPA has made significant 

changes to the Clean Power Plan. 

In regards to timing, the compliance period was pushed back 

from 2020 to 2022. In the interim reduction goals can be achieved 

more gradually between 2022 and 2029, and States are provided 

additional flexibility for reducing their emission from year 2022 all 

the way up to the year 2030. 

Additionally, Mr. Chairman, EPA’s final rule provides States up 

to 3 years if necessary to submit a State plan and also propose a 

model rule that makes it easier for States to adopt interstate trading as many of them had requested. 

No doubt, Mr. Chairman, in response to concerns voiced here repeatedly, EPA’s final rule now requires States to consider reliability when developing their plans. It allows flexibility to include 

a variety of approaches to achieving their goals, and it provides a 

reliability safety valve for extraordinary circumstances. So, Mr. 

Chairman, after unprecedented public outreach and engagement, 

EPA was able to finalize a rule that is fair, that is flexible, and 

that demonstrates to the world that the U.S. is, indeed, serious in 

its commitment to lower its carbon imprint in order to address climate change. 

And why are these rules so necessary and essential? Plainly 

speaking, Mr. Chairman, from the vast majority of the American 

people to the overwhelming majority of the world’s climatologists 

and scientists, from the leaders of the world’s most advanced nations to Pope Francis, it seems that almost everyone everywhere 

understands that climate change is real, and is posing an existential threat to the future of our home, this great planet that we were 

5 

given stewardship over. That is everyone except the majority party 

in this Congress. 

Plainly speaking, Mr. Chairman, as Mother Nature continues to 

demonstrate annually year by year, extreme weather patterns and 

catastrophic events occurring more frequently in every region of 

our great Nation, climate change is not a hoax. Climate change is 

not a joke, and climate change is not something that this U.S. Government can continue to ignore or to take lightly, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, climate change is not a hoax. Let’s take it seriously. 

It’s a serious matter. 

Plainly speaking, Mr. Chairman, while the majority party continues to put its collective heads in the sand and ignore the facts, 

devastating wildfires burn in the West, the Southeast experiencing 

thousand-year floods. The Midwest and Plain States see record 

drought and crop loss, and the American people are standing by 

anxiously awaiting for some leadership, some leadership on this 

very important issue from you, from me, from other elected officials, those of us who are members of this Congress. 

Mr. Chairman, I applaud the President and the EPA for standing 

up to protect the environment on behalf of those families out there 

waiting for their Government to act. 

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Rush. 

At this time, the Chair recognizes the ranking member of the full 

committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I applaud EPA’s efforts to finalize the Clean Power Plan, which 

is an historic and important step in our ongoing battle against the 

threat of unchecked climate change. 

According to NOAA, 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded, 

and 9 of the 10 hottest years have occurred since 2000. In fact, this 

past summer was the hottest on record, and 2015 is well on its way 

to surpassing last year’s record. Every corner of the earth is going 

to be affected. 

Representing a coastal area that saw firsthand the damage done 

by Superstorm Sandy, I’m particular concerned about extreme 

weather events and sea level rise. We’re already experiencing 

warmer and more frequent hot days, more frequent and heavier 

rainstorms, drier and longer droughts, and more extreme high sea 

levels. In the past week, North and South Carolina saw unprecedented levels of rain, 16 people have died, and early reports estimate billions of dollars in damage. And, sadly, extreme weather 

like this has become the new norm. 

As President Obama recently said and I quote, ‘‘Climate change 

is no longer some far off problem. It’s happening here, it’s happening now. We cannot wait for some future generation to take action.’’ To that end, EPA finalized a workable plan to reduce carbon 

emissions from power plants which are the largest uncontrolled 

source of manmade greenhouse gases in the U.S. 

6 

Overall, EPA engaged in an unprecedented level of outreach and 

public engagement on the Clean Power Plan. The final rule reflects 

extensive stakeholder input, including over 4.3 million public comments, a series of listening sessions held across the country, and 

scores of meetings with stakeholders across the spectrum. 

As a result of the comments received on the proposal, EPA made 

a number of changes to the final Clean Power Plan to insure flexibility, affordability, reliability, and investment in clean energy 

technologies. And the Clean Power Plan is not a one-size-fits-all 

proposal for reducing emissions. It uses a flexible State-based approach that takes account of each individual State’s unique capacity to reduce emissions from its electricity sector. And in the final 

rule, EPA made changes to the plan’s building blocks to provide 

more flexibility for States when determining the best way to 

achieve their individual goals, while still providing compliance options and ample opportunity for the use of energy efficiency to reduce carbon pollution from power plants. 

Now, EPA is not proposing the States act overnight. States have 

until 2030 to meet their final goals, and the plan’s interim goals 

don’t begin until 2022. Further, the final rule provides additional 

flexibility for States to determine their own individual compliance 

pathway. And EPA is encouraging States to make early emission 

reductions by creating a Clean Energy Incentive Program that will 

reward early investments in wind and solar generation, as well as 

demand-side energy efficiency programs implemented in low-income communities. 

Ultimately, the Clean Power Plan represents a serious commit- ment to climate action, and will result in climate benefits of $20 

billion, and health benefits of $14–34 billion. Increased levels of 

carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are threatening the health and 

well-being of all Americans, and this plan will protect public health 

by avoiding 3,600 premature deaths, 1,700 heart attacks, and 

90,000 asthma attacks each year. 

Let’s not heed the absurd arguments on behalf of companies that 

profit from the status quo. We’ve already heard from some that 

EPA’s plan is not legal, that it’s unworkable, and that some States 

may refuse to participate, but as I’ve said before, those making 

such arguments aren’t really interested in finding solutions to our 

carbon pollution problem. They’re not interested in developing a 

plan to help us reduce emissions while still maintaining a safe, reasonably priced electricity system. 

They’re more than welcome to ignore the facts and reject any 

reasonable plan to address climate change, but let me tell you, history will not treat them kindly. History is on the side of those who 

want to act on climate change, those who believe in the power of 

American innovation, and our ability to successfully meet any challenge, and to look to the future rather than the past. 

Frankly, we’ve already wasted enough time on legislation to just 

say no to climate action, and now Congress must move on. What 

we cannot do, as President Obama said, and I’ll close, and I quote. 

He said is, ‘‘We cannot condemn our children to a planet beyond 

their capacity to repair.’’ 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:} 

7 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I applaud EPA’s efforts to finalize the Clean Power 

Plan, which is a historic and important step in our ongoing battle against the threat 

of unchecked climate change. 

According to NOAA, 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded, and 9 of the 10 

hottest years have occurred since 2000. In fact, this past summer was the hottest 

on record, and 2015 is well on its way to surpassing last year’s record. 

Every corner of the Earth is going to be affected, but, representing a coastal area 

that saw firsthand the damage done by Superstorm Sandy, I am particularly concerned about extreme weather events and sea level rise. 

We are already experiencing warmer and more frequent hot days, more frequent 

and heavier rainstorms, drier and longer droughts, and more extreme high sea levels. In the past week, North and South Carolina saw unprecedented levels of rain. 

Sixteen people have died, and billions of dollars of damage has occurred. Sadly, extreme weather like this has become the new norm. 

As President Obama recently said: ‘‘Climate change is no longer some far-off problem; it is happening here, it is happening now.’’ We cannot wait for some future generation to take action. 

To that end, EPA finalized a workable plan to reduce carbon emissions from 

power plants, which are the largest uncontrolled source of man-made greenhouse 

gases in the U.S. 

Overall, EPA engaged in an unprecedented level of outreach and public engagement on the Clean Power Plan. The final rule reflects extensive stakeholder input, 

including over 4.3 million public comments, a series of listening sessions held across 

the country and scores of meetings with stakeholders across the spectrum. 

As a result of the comments received on the proposal, EPA made a number of 

changes to the final Clean Power Plan, to ensure flexibility, affordability, reliability, 

and investment in clean energy technologies. 

The Clean Power Plan is not a one-size-fits-all proposal for reducing emissions. 

It uses a flexible, State-based approach that takes account of each individual State’s 

unique capacity to reduce emissions from its electricity sector. And in the final rule, 

EPA made changes to the plan’s ‘‘building blocks’’ to provide more flexibility for 

States when determining the best way to achieve their individual goals, while still 

providing compliance options and ample opportunity for the use energy efficiency to 

reduce carbon pollution from power plants. 

EPA is not proposing that States act overnight—States have until 2030 to meet 

their final goals and the plan’s interim goals don’t begin until 2022. Further, the 

final rule provides additional flexibility for States to determine their own individual 

compliance pathway. 

And EPA is encouraging States to make early emissions reductions by creating 

a Clean Energy Incentive Program that will reward early investments in wind and 

solar generation, as well as demand-side energy efficiency programs implemented in 

low-income communities. 

Ultimately, the Clean Power Plan represents a serious commitment to climate action and will result in climate benefits of $20 billion and health benefits of $14-$34 

billion. Increased levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are threatening the 

health and well-being of all Americans—and this plan will protect public health by 

avoiding 3,600 premature deaths, 1,700 heart attacks, and 90,000 asthma attacks 

each year. 

Let us not heed the absurd arguments on behalf of companies that profit from 

the status quo. We have already heard from some that EPA’s plan is not legal, that 

it is unworkable, and that some States may refuse to participate. 

As I’ve said before, those making such arguments aren’t really interested in finding solutions to our carbon pollution problem. They aren’t interested in developing 

a plan to help us reduce emissions while still maintaining a safe, reasonably priced 

electricity system. They are more than welcome to ignore the facts and reject any 

reasonable plan to address climate change, but history will not treat them kindly. 

History is on the side of those who want to act on climate change; those who believe 

in the power of American innovation and our ability to successfully meet any challenge, and who look to the future rather than the past. 

Frankly, we have already wasted enough time on legislation to ‘‘just say no’’ to 

climate action, and now Congress must move on. What we cannot do, as President 

Obama said, is ‘‘condemn our children to a planet beyond their capacity to repair.’’ 

Thank you. 

8 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA 

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

You know, it’s interesting. To assist States in developing State 

plans, the EPA has proposed model trading rules. Let me read you 

from pages 42 and 43 of your proposed rule setting forth a Federal 

plan. EPA states, ‘‘The EPA strongly urges States to consider 

adopting one of the model trading rules which are designed to be 

referenced by States in their rulemaking. Use of the model trading 

rules by States would help insure consistency between and among 

the State programs which is useful for potential operation of a 

broad trading program that spans multi-State regions or operates 

on a national scale.’’ 

Now, what’s interesting about that is, I’m also going to reference 

some quotes from the past, and not the distant past, the recent 

past. ‘‘There is no cap-and-trade scheme provided for under the 

Clean Air Act. For greenhouses gases, I should say, sir, what I do 

know is what—is that we are not planning any cap-and-trade regulations or standards.’’ Former Administrator Lisa Jackson in response to Representative Steve Scalise, February 9, 2011, in this 

room. 

Administrator Jackson and Assistant Administrator McCarthy 

have stated publicly, ‘‘The agency has no intention of pursuing a 

cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air 

Act. The agency reaffirms those statements here.’’ August 3rd, 

2011. 

‘‘Both former Administrator Jackson and I have said in the past 

that the EPA has no intention of pursuing a cap-and-trade program 

for greenhouse gases, and I continue to stand by those statements.’’ 

May 15, 2013 in a letter to Chairman Upton. 

‘‘The Clean Power Plan is not a cap-and-trade program. It’s not 

going to be designed like a cap-and-trade program. This is not an 

opportunity for us to impose a cap. That’s not what it looks like.’’ 

Administrator Gina McCarthy in response to Senator Heitkamp on 

March 14 in a panel in the video. 

You know, the problem is, is that it looks like a cap-and-trade 

program. You call it a model trading plan. You say that if the 

States don’t come up with an appropriate plan, the Federal Government will come in and help them develop a plan; perhaps a capand-trade-type plan. 

I was elected in 2010. A 28-year incumbent went down because 

he voted for a cap-and-trade plan. You’re not only showing disrespect to the Congress, disrespect to what I believe the Supreme 

Court told you in the Mercury Rule. You’re also showing disrespect 

to the voters of this country that turned down an awful lot of folks. 

Cap and trade is not a policy this United States should follow, and 

so I would submit to you that you probably need to look someplace 

else. I don’t think you have legal authority for this rule, as you 

know. That will be debated in the courts, but just like the Mercury 

Rule—which was found that you all had overreached and had to go 

9 

back to the drawing board—those jobs in my district are already 

gone before the Supreme Court could make a ruling. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the gentleman from 

West Virginia, Mr. McKinley. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity on Friday to take Congressman Welch from Vermont to an underground coal mine in West 

Virginia, and prior to that going underground we had a chance to 

sit down and talk with about 12 unemployed coal miners that have 

lost their job, and to look them in the eye to understand what can 

we do? What’s happened? And, universally, Ms. McCabe, universally they said it’s regulations. Regulations are what—we have had 

seven power plants in West Virginia here have been shut down, 45 

percent of our coal miner workforce has been unemployed. And 

they were saying watch the regulations, so I just want to share 

with you, here is this list that’s 20-some pages long—feet long of 

over 1,500 regulations that have been imposed under this administration on coal mines, and coal companies, and coal miners. 

It’s no wonder they can’t find jobs. They’re willing to go someplace else, but they can’t sell their home. They’re living in communities of 1,000 people and they’ll go to another place to work someplace else, but they can’t sell their home. That’s their equity. 

This administration has taken us in West Virginia from the fifthbest unemployment rate to the 51st unemployment rate in the Nation because of these 1,500 regulations. I think it’s got to stop, and 

for anyone to testify before us and say this is fair, look them in the 

eye. Look them in the eye, that coal miner, and say it’s fair that 

you just lost your job because of our regulations. I don’t think that 

you can do that. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back, and that concludes 

the opening statements. 

So, Ms. McCabe, at this time you’re recognized for 5 minutes for 

your opening statement. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF JANET McCABE, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. MCCABE. Thank you very much, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, and members of the subcommittee. I really appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on EPA’s Carbon Pollution Regulations for New and Existing Power Plants. 

My testimony will focus mostly on the regulations for existing 

plants, also known as the Clean Power Plan. On August 3rd, President Obama and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy announced 

the final Clean Power Plan, a historic and important step in reducing carbon pollution from power plants that takes concrete action 

to address climate change, as well as final standards limiting carbon pollution from new, modified, and reconstructed power plants, 

and a proposal for a Federal plan and model rules that demonstrate clear options for how States can implement the Clean 

Power Plan in ways that maximize flexibility for power plants in 

achieving their carbon pollution obligations. 

10 

Shaped by a process of unprecedented outreach and public engagement that is still ongoing, the final Clean Power Plan is fair, 

flexible, and designed to strengthen the fast-growing trend toward 

cleaner and lower polluting American energy. It sets strong but 

achievable standards for power plants and reasonable goals for 

States to meet in cutting the carbon pollution that is driving climate change tailored to their specific mix of sources. It also shows 

the world that the United States is committed to leading global efforts to address climate change. 

The final Clean Power Plan mirrors the way electricity already 

moves across the grid in this country. It sets standards that are 

fair and consistent across the country and that are based on what 

States and utilities are already doing to reduce CO2 from power 

plants. And it gives States and utilities the time and a broad range 

of options they need to adopt strategies that work for them. 

These features of the final rule along with tools like interstate 

trading and emissions averaging mean that States and power 

plants can achieve the standards while maintaining an ample and 

reliable electricity supply and keeping power affordable. 

When the Clean Power Plan is fully in place in 2030, carbon pollution from the power sector will be 32 percent 2005 levels, and the 

transition to cleaner methods of generating electricity will better 

protect Americans from other harmful air pollution, too, meaning 

we will avoid thousands of premature deaths and suffer thousands 

fewer asthma attacks and hospitalizations in 2030 and every year 

beyond. 

States and utilities told us they needed more time than the proposal gave them, and we responded. In the final rule, the compliance period does not start until 2022, the interim reductions are 

more gradual, States can determine their own glide path and any 

State can get up to 3 years to submit a plan. 

We heard the concerns about reliability. We listened, and we consulted with the planning and reliability authorities, with FERC 

and the Department of Energy. The final Clean Power Plan reflects 

this input, and it includes several elements to assure that the plan 

requirements will not compromise system reliability. In addition, to 

provide an extra incentive for States to move forward with plan investments we’re creating a Clean Energy Incentive Program that 

will recognize early progress. 

Since issuing the final Clean Power Plan, EPA has continued to 

engage with States, territories, tribes, utilities, industry groups, 

community organizations, health and environmental groups, and 

others. To help States and stakeholders understand the Clean 

Power Plan and to further support States’ efforts to create plans 

that suit their needs, EPA has developed a variety of tools and resources which are largely available on our Web site, and we remain 

committed to assisting States with development and implementation of their State plans. 

We’re convinced both by our analyses and our experiences that 

both the carbon pollution reduction called for under the Clean 

Power Plan will extend the trajectory of the last 40 years when we 

cut air pollution in this country by 70 percent while our economy 

has tripled. 

11 

I, again, thank the committee for inviting me to speak on the 

Agency’s work to implement our Nation’s environmental laws to 

protect public health and the environment, and I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCabe follows:] 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Ms. McCabe. And I recognize myself 

for 5 minutes of questions. 

When do you expect the two rules to be published in the Federal 

Register? 

Ms. MCCABE. Congressman, we’re working with the Office of the 

Federal Register. They will make the decision about when to publish it. We expect it to be in the second half of October, and we’re 

working with them to resolve all the little formatting things that 

is a routine part of getting a rule published in the Federal Register. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, did you finalize the rule in August? Is that 

right, those two rules? 

Ms. MCCABE. That’s right. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And you’re working with the Office of the Federal Register. 

Ms. MCCABE. Correct. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And who makes the decision on when it’s published? 

Ms. MCCABE. The Office of the Federal Register makes the decision. There’s a routine set of steps that we do whenever we finalize 

a rule. We work on fixing any typos and all that sort of thing. We 

submit it to the Office of the Federal Register, and we work with 

them to resolve any issues that they have, but they make the final 

decision. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And how many pages in these rules? 

Ms. MCCABE. There are several thousands of pages in the rules. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I mean, 2,000, 3,000, 4,000? 

Ms. MCCABE. I think the 111(d) rule is about 1,500 pages, and 

the other rules are less than that. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, you know, it’s important that they be published in the Federal Register because, as you know, lawsuits have 

already been filed, but they were filed before they were published. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And if they’re not published, then there’s no 

standing to bring the suit. So, you think they’ll be published in October? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, I do. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. This month? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. We’ve moved this along very expeditiously 

given the size of the rule and the number of the rules. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, under the NAAQS rules, normally EPA 

gives States 3 years to come up with a plan. This 111(d) is unprecedented, never been used in this way before. You changed your legal 

opinions because prior to this, your lawyers have said we can’t operate this way under 111(d). But why are you giving States only 

like 13 months to issue a final plan, when under the NAAQS rules 

you give them up to 3 years? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. This is more complicated. 

Ms. MCCABE. No, they actually do have up to 3 years under 

the—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. No, no, wait. You give them 1 year to submit the 

plan and then they have to come and ask permission for an additional 2 years. Is that correct? 

21 

Ms. MCCABE. The rule is clear that States can have up to 3 years 

to do their plan. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Do you have—OK. So, what is the magic of September 2016? 

Ms. MCCABE. The rule says that by September of 2013, they either submit a plan. Some States indicated to us that they were 

well on their way and could meet an early deadline. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The rule says that they have to have the plan 

filed by September 2016. 

Ms. MCCABE. Or an initial submittal that gives essentially a status report of the work that they’re doing, and a request for additional time. And we’d made it clear—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And who makes the decision that that request 

will be granted? 

Ms. MCCABE. The EPA will make that decision. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. You make that decision. 

Ms. MCCABE. We’ve been very clear of the elements that are required. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Are you required to give them an extension, or 

is that at your discretion? 

Ms. MCCABE. If they meet the elements of an initial submittal, 

we will give them an extension. That’s quite clear. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, let me ask you this. Under the new rule, 

all of us are still scratching our heads. You picked out these four 

sites. The Boundary Dam Facility in Canada appears to be the only 

coal project using CCS, carbon capture sequestration, that is actually producing electric power today, the only facility in the world. 

Is that your understanding? 

Ms. MCCABE. I wouldn’t want to speak to the whole world. That 

one has been operating for a year. As you know, of course, the technology is being used in other facilities. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, let me just say this. I want to note for the 

record, according to an August Department of Energy communication to a committee hearing record, DOE confirmed that this small 

Canadian project, 110 megawatts, has and is not likely to achieve 

the technology-readiness level that demonstrates a commercial 

scale power system with CCS can operate over the full range of expected conditions. No one expects to be able to meet this standard 

of 1400, what is it, 1400 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt 

hour. That’s the standard. Right? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, if I could speak to that, Congressman, I’d like 

to, because you reference the standard itself. I think you know that 

the standard that we finalized in 111(b) is less strict than the 

standard that we proposed. That was based on our review of all the 

information that we—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Whether it’s less strict or not, the final is 1,400 

pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour. Is that correct? 

Ms. MCCABE. That’s correct. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, you know the cleanest plant operating in 

the U.S. today is the Turk plant, Texarkana, Arkansas, built about 

2 or 3 years ago. It’s at 1,800 pounds, so there’s no way to meet 

this standard. 

My time has expired, so I’ll recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, for 5 minutes. 

22 

Mr. RUSH. Madam Assistant Administrator, the last time you 

were here, you and I spoke about the impact that the Clean Power 

Plan would have on minorities and low-income communities, and 

at that time you assured me that the EPA would take into account 

those disadvantaged communities before the final rule was issued. 

Has there been any outreach to disadvantaged communities by the 

EPA before the issuance of this rule? And does the EPA provide 

any guidance to States for how to make sure that their plans take 

into account the impact on minorities and low-income communities? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, indeed, Congressman. I know this is a concern 

that you’ve asked us about before, so a couple of things I want to 

say in response. 

First of all, we’ve had extensive outreach with community 

groups. We know, and you reflected in your opening remarks that 

the impacts of climate change and air pollution are severely felt by 

low-income and minority communities across the country. They’re 

among the most vulnerable. They are also communities that we’re 

concerned about in terms of keeping electric rates affordable, and 

keeping jobs in those communities, so we focused on that a lot. 

So, we spent a lot of time listening to community groups and 

talking with States. We made clear in the final rule that States 

needed to pay attention to involving, providing opportunities for 

meaningful involvement for communities all across their States. 

We asked them to tell us how they were going to do that. We didn’t 

micro manage and tell them exactly how to do it, but we have lots 

of tools available to help States do that. 

We also indicated that we intend in future years after the rule 

is in place and working to go back and take a look at air pollution 

levels in those communities and make sure that the public health 

protections that this rule promises have been delivered in a fair 

way across our States, and truly protect those vulnerable communities. 

Mr. RUSH. Other rules were supposed to invest in cleaner and 

more efficient energy measures such as the CPP proposes, and also 

provide help to the most vulnerable communities. Are there any incentives in the final rule for disadvantaged communities who might 

want to participate in a clean green economy? And can you give me 

an example, say Appalachia, how does Appalachia respond to the 

Clean Power Plan? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. So, probably the best example of incentives 

that you asked about, Congressman, is the Clean Energy Incentive 

Program, which provides additional incentives for States that want 

to get going early and, in particular, invest in wind and solar, but 

also in energy efficiency programs in low-income communities. We 

felt that it was important to provide extra incentives to get those 

projects going early. And, of course, energy efficiency while not a 

basis for the rates that we set in the Clean Power Plan, is a very 

affordable, cost-effective, and positive means that States and utilities can build into their compliance plans. 

Your question about coal country, you know, is a very, very serious and valid one. The final design of the Clean Power Plan is so 

flexible for States, especially in their ability to work regionally, and 

for the utilities to work regionally. That will provide the States the 

23 

ability to make sure that they’re preserving and protecting the important things for their States. And we predict through this plan 

that coal will still be a very substantial source of energy in this 

country well into the future, and it’s partly because of the flexible 

design of the rule. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s good to have you 

here, Ms. McCabe. We appreciate your courtesy of coming to talk 

to us. 

I think it’s a true statement that back in 1990 when we passed 

the Clean Air Act amendments, Chairman Upton and myself were 

the only two members of the committee currently that were also on 

the committee then. I don’t think any of the senior Democrats were 

on the committee at that time, but if they were, I apologize. In any 

event, the full committee chairman was John Dingell of Michigan. 

He spent several years putting together the coalition of which I 

was a small part to move that bill through this committee, and 

through the Congress. 

My recollection is that we spent an inordinate amount of time 

working on the acid rain title which implemented a nationwide 

emissions trading program for SO2. There were numerous stakeholder meetings. I remember going to the White House to meet 

with President Bush and Governor Sununu. I remember numerous 

Congressional hearings. I mean, we spent a lot of time on that. 

We spent no time on section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, none. 

Do you have any records at EPA that indicate the Congress spent, 

I mean, any public time at all on this minor provision? 

Ms. MCCABE. I really don’t know, Congressman. 

Mr. BARTON. Yes. Well, they didn’t. I mean, I—now you’re using, 

not you personally but your Agency is using section 111(d) to give 

the EPA basically total authority to create in a regulatory fashion 

a cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide, which there was no intent in the Congress in the early ’90s, no legislative record, no 

background at all. Your own attorneys at the EPA think it’s uncertain. You know there’s going to be a court case on this, and yet 

you’re trying literally to create in a regulatory fashion what the 

Congress has refused to do in a legislative fashion. I think that’s 

just wrong. 

Can you tell this committee or this subcommittee where section 

111(d) spells out clearly and specifically that the EPA has the authority to set mandatory emission limits, requirements that extend 

well beyond the actual sources being regulated? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, Congressman, I appreciate you asking this 

question because it’s obviously on everybody’s minds. So, the first 

thing that I want to make absolutely clear is that the Clean Power 

Plan does not set in place a cap-and-trade program. 

Mr. BARTON. I beg the—how can you say that with a straight 

face? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, because that’s what the rule sets. The rule 

sets—— 

24 

Mr. BARTON. With all respect, ma’am, in the State of Texas we’re 

going to have to shut down existing coal plants and build more 

wind power than the rest of the world has. If that’s not a cap-andtrade program, what the heck is it? 

Ms. MCCABE. Texas, by the way, is doing an awesome job in 

terms of wind power. It’s incredible opportunities to do that. 

The reason that I’m disagreeing with you respectfully, Congressman, is because the way the rule works is it establishes an emission rate of CO2 emissions for coal and gas-fired power plants. That 

is the way section 111 has traditionally worked, and that’s the way 

it’s working here. So, that is the primary starting point, is that 

rate. 

We then in the rule provide options and flexibilities largely in response to input and requests that we got from States and the utility industry to provide alternative ways for them to comply. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, with all respect, my time is about to expire, 

but if this rule goes through, and I hope it doesn’t, Texas has to 

build more wind generation than any other nation in the world currently has. Now that’s a fact. And the problem is, even in Texas 

we can’t make the wind blow when the EPA says it has to. I mean, 

it’s simply not going to work. 

I respect your integrity, I respect your commitment to what you 

do but, again, I was here in 1990. I voted for the Clean Air Act 

amendments. Your Agency is trying to do with it something that 

it was never intended to. We would have put it in, you can guarantee that John Dingell would have put it in if that’s what the intent of the Congress was. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired. At th is time, 

the Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Ms. 

McCABE, for your testimony. 

The Clean Power Plan is an important step in reducing emissions from power plants, the Nation’s largest source of carbon pollution. And today we’ve heard about the actions that EPA has 

taken to create strong, fair, and flexible standards that will put us 

on the path to a clean energy future and help avoid the worst impacts of climate change. 

However, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence and broad 

public support we continue to hear a litany of arguments from the 

GOP for why we shouldn’t act, you know, climate change is a hoax. 

They say carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, EPA is a rogue agency 

with no authority to limit carbon pollution. 

I’d like to give you an opportunity to respond to a few of these 

assertions. And first, you know, yes or no, is carbon dioxide a pollutant? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, it is. 

Mr. PALLONE. Can you briefly explain why EPA has the authority to address carbon pollution from power plants? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, the Clean Air Act directs EPA to address 

public health and environmental issues that result from air pollution. The Supreme Court has confirmed that. One key authority in 

the Clean Air Act that has been used many times to address air 

25 

pollution from industrial facilities is section 111, which directs us 

to look at the range of approaches that industries are using to control air pollution, in this case CO2, and to set emission standards 

based on what’s known as the Best System of Emission Reduction. 

That’s things that the best companies are doing already, and to require that over time that’s where everybody end up in terms of 

their emissions. So, that’s where our authority comes from to do 

this rule. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Is there any way we can reduce our 

emissions by enough to avoid the worst impacts of climate change 

without controlling carbon pollution from power plants? 

Ms. MCCABE. Power plants are the largest stationary source of 

CO2 in the country. They are substantial. We are taking steps to 

address CO2 emissions from the mobile source sector and from 

other sectors, but this is a global problem, of course, and the U.S. 

cannot solve it alone. But for us to take meaningful steps we need 

to look at the power sector, as well as mobile sources. 

Mr. PALLONE. I’ve also heard from my Republican colleagues that 

they say that no one goes to the hospital for breathing in carbon 

pollution so there can’t be any real public health benefits from limiting carbon pollution from power plants. Could you explain how 

the Clean Power Plan will help protect public health and welfare? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, and there’s increasing science every day on 

these issues. CO2 emissions are affecting the global climate and are 

leading to changes in the way our world responds to those levels 

in the atmosphere in a way that affects public health very directly. 

Temperatures get hotter, there are droughts, there are wildfires, 

there are unpredictable and more severe storms. These can lead to 

a number of public health issues related to respiratory issues when 

there’s more ozone because of hot weather, when the allergen seasons are longer because of changes in vegetation, vectors change 

their habitats and the length of their seasons. All of these things 

can lead to significant public health issues, as well as the disruption that can occur in our communities as a result of more severe 

flooding, or drought, or other severe weather. 

Mr. PALLONE. I know that in our previous hearings you’ve discussed the unprecedented outreach efforts undertaken by EPA to 

inform the development, to inform the public about the proposed 

rule. So, I just wanted to hear a little bit now about outreach on 

the final rule. Could you please briefly comment on EPA’s outreach 

to both the interested stakeholders and the public, and how this 

engagement has been reflected in the final rule? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, certainly. I mean, I have talked about the outreach that we did during the development of the rule, literally hundreds of meetings across the country. You referred to some of them 

yourself. We haven’t stopped, so as soon as the rule was out we 

started engaging people. We’ve had numerous and continuing opportunities, especially with our State co-regulators as they’re starting to really think about the choices that they want to make, so 

we have regular opportunities to meet with them. In fact, I was 

with a group of State air directors just this week, as were some of 

my staff, to talk about these issues. 

We’re continuing to engage with the public through webinars, 

and visits with them at appropriate venues that they might invite 

26 

us to. We have robust and ongoing relationships with the utility industry, and with all of the various agencies on the energy side that 

help make sure that utilities are moving forward in a way that’s 

going to protect reliability, and help them plan ahead. So, all of 

that is well underway, very robust, and we intend to continue it. 

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. The Chair recognizes the representative of the 

Houston Astros for 5 minutes, Mr. Olson. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the Chair. 

I know all of us have former Chairman Dingell in our prayers. 

He is in the hospital with a heart issue, but he’ll be fine. He was 

quoted in the paper yesterday saying, ‘‘Being old sucks.’’ But please 

lift him up in your prayers. 

My first question, Ms. McCabe, is when fully rolling, EPA wants 

existing coal plants to hit a standard of 1,305 pounds of CO2 per 

megawatt hour. That is pretty aggressive. It’s a nightmare for some 

States, and expensive for rate payers. But here’s what I find more 

stunning: Your standard for new plants is 1,400 pounds per megawatt hour. In other words, your new rule says existing coal plants 

have to be even cleaner than a brand new one. 

People I’ve talked to back home said they’ve never seen this. 

They know that it’s harder and more expensive to retrofit a plant 

than to build a new one from scratch with the best controls. 

Don’t you agree that it’s unusual to make these rules tougher for 

existing plants than new ones? Has EPA ever thought it’s oK for 

newer to be dirtier? 

Ms. MCCABE. I’m glad you asked that, Congressman, because I’ve 

heard that, and there’s confusion about it, but there’s a pretty 

straightforward answer to that, which is the difference between a 

standard for a new plant and a standard under 111(d). 

For existing facilities, there are a variety of opportunities that 

the utilities have through the way they manage their fleets and the 

mix of fuels that they use, and moving towards cleaner energy, 

which they are doing to on average bring that carbon intensity 

down. And they have years to do it, and the averaging time for the 

standard is very long. It’s measured in years or multiple years. 

A new plant under the Clean Air Act, whether it’s a power plant 

or some other kind of plant, in this case power plant, needs to meet 

that emission rate right away as soon as it’s built, so if a plant 

started up in a year or two, they would be expected to meet that 

rate all the time on a much shorter term averaging time continuously. So, they work very differently in a way that if you think 

about it that way, makes a lot of sense. 

Mr. OLSON. Ma’am, people back home respectfully disagree, but 

one other question which I’d like to ask with my remaining time 

is, according to IEA, current global emissions of carbon are somewhere around 36 billion tons per year, that ballpark. Others say 

it’s closer to 40 billion tons per year. Either way, we know America 

is not the top source. As billions of people in developing countries 

get their first cars, their first light bulbs, it will keep rising. 

EPA’s analysis says the way to approach this rule, reduce carbon 

emissions by 232 million tons per year in the next decade. I’m just 

an old Naval aviator who did math on a knee board with a lead 

pencil in my airplane, but my rough math says if we hit that goal 

27 

tomorrow, we’d decrease carbon by .065 percent, or 0.58 percent. 

The world’s exposure of carbon will dwarf our reductions. The main 

reason for this rule is climate change. Is that correct, yes or no, 

ma’am? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Mr. OLSON. So, how do you think this rule will impact global 

temperature? 

Ms. MCCABE. No one rule is going to address the problem of climate change, Congressman. This is going to take a global solution. 

The United States is one of the largest emitters of CO2 in the 

world, and we have a responsibility to take the steps that we can 

take in order to help push in the direction of addressing this significant public health issue. 

Mr. OLSON. How does it affect sea levels, ma’am, going up, down, 

I mean, how do you know? 

Ms. MCCABE. Sea level is rising as a result of this global threat. 

This is a step that the United States is taking in order to contribute to addressing this global problem. 

Mr. OLSON. One final question. Am I safe to assume that EPA 

could revisit this new source of rules in the future, and that rules 

on natural gas plants might get tougher like coal today, natural 

gas lumped in with coal in the future? Could that happen, possibly? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, under the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to 

revisit its technology rules on a regular basis. And we’re also, as 

you know, I think looking at rules for the oil and gas industry, 

working with the industry on sensible ways to reduce emissions. 

Mr. OLSON. I’m out of time. I close by saying Go Astros. I yield 

back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I 

ask—actually, I implore my Republican colleagues to embrace carbon sequestration. I do this every time I get a chance to talk about 

it. The atmosphere is not a garbage dump, especially in the United 

States we need to be responsible for what we’re putting into the 

air. 

Now, we repeatedly have heard this morning about the manifestations of climate change. These are real, they’re getting more 

severe. Soon enough these impacts are going to be severe enough 

that the public will demand that high carbon emitters such as coalfired power plants be shut down, so ignoring the carbon emission 

problem until that day will condemn the coal industry to extinction. For your own sake, especially if you’re a coal mine Republican, please embrace carbon sequestration. 

Ms. McCabe, in California we’ve made significant strides toward 

increasing our use of renewable energies and cutting our greenhouse gas emissions. California passed legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, and Governor 

Brown recently set a goal of an additional 40 percent reduction in 

greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2030. So, when writing the 

Clean Power Plan, did the EPA look at early State actions as a 

model, as a potential model? 

Ms. MCCABE. We certainly looked at everything that all States 

are doing, and California is one that is out ahead on this. There 

28 

are several other States that are moving forward on this, and that’s 

our job under the Clean Air Act, is to look at what the industry 

is doing in its current operations, and where those technologies and 

approaches are good at reducing carbon emissions to make sure 

that that’s what we build into the standard. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Good. Well, when creating the final rule did you 

insure that each State has the flexibility to implement the Clean 

Power Plan in a way that is most efficient and effective, and also 

insuring reliability? 

Ms. MCCABE. We did. And, in fact, we provided a lot of flexibility 

and a lot of choice in the final rule to make sure that we could accommodate States like California that already had plans in place, 

and States that did not yet have plans in place, and also to accommodate the wide range of energy mix across the country from 

States that are significant coal users to States that are not. So, lots 

and lots of flexibility is built in. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Do you believe that the Clean Power rule has 

given China and India motive to produce their own carbon emission 

reduction plans? 

Ms. MCCABE. I think that the United States going forward with 

this rule has been a significant factor in the international debate. 

In fact, as soon as we proposed the rule that was the topic of discussion in many international conversations. And I do believe it 

has been influential in the international commitments that we’re 

seeing from other countries. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So even though the Clean Power Plan won’t 

solve the carbon plan by itself, it’s given significant impetus worldwide to help other countries reduce their carbon emissions and get 

the world to a better place in terms of the total carbon emissions 

that are being produced. 

Ms. MCCABE. I believe so. It’s shown real leadership from the 

United States. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. How does the final rule address 

States that may need more time to reach their carbon reduction 

goals? 

Ms. MCCABE. So, we built more time into the rule in terms of the 

starting date. Through the comment period we heard more about 

that, about the starting date than about 2030, so we moved the 

starting date from 2020 to 2022, and also smoothed that glide path 

down from 2020 to 2022. And based on the information we had, we 

were pretty comfortable that that met the needs that we were 

hearing from the utility industry, in particular, about the time that 

they would need to make the investments that they would need to 

make. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. And that takes into account the reliability issue. 

Reliability is certainly an issue I’ve heard from—— 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY [continuing]. Utilities across the country. They 

need to make sure that they’re not going to be put in a position 

where they lose power for their customers. 

Ms. MCCABE. Oh, that’s absolutely true. I mean, that was made 

in the context of reliability concerns, and so adding additional time 

was one key part of that. We did some other things, too, in the 

final rule to make sure we were paying attention to that, especially 

29 

in consultation with FERC. We included a reliability safety valve 

in case there’s an unforeseen situation that folks were very keen 

to have us include. States also have the flexibility to come in partway through the plan and say something’s happened that we didn’t 

expect. We need to adjust our plan. So, lots of things are built in 

to make sure that the reliability of the system is protected. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. McCabe, one way to measure the impact of your rule is to 

look at what is expected energy mix would be without the rule 

using what is called a reference or base case, and then what the 

projected energy mix would be with the rule. Do you agree? 

Ms. MCCABE. Those are the kinds of things that we would look 

at, sure. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, you agree, that’s how we do it. 

Ms. MCCABE. Right. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Or that’s how you should do it. When EPA proposed its rule on June 14, it projected a base case that said there 

would be an estimated 244 gigawatts of coal generation in 2020 

under existing regulatory and economic conditions. Does that sound 

right to you? 

Ms. MCCABE. You know, I—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. It’s right here. Say yes. I can show it to you. 

Ms. MCCABE. OK. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Today, EPA says that the base case shows an estimated 208 gigawatts of coal generation capacity by 2020. My understanding is there have been no significant regulations or economic changes since your first estimate, so can you explain why 

EPA would eliminate 36 gigawatts of coal generation from its baseline? 

Ms. MCCABE. So, we look to information that’s put out by other 

agencies who follow these issues. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK, 244 in June, 208 in August of ’15. that’s 72 

power plants. 

Ms. MCCABE. We know that there are trends in the industry that 

are moving away from the older coal—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. 36 gigawatts of power. 

Ms. MCCABE. And more gigawatts are coming—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK, let me go to the next question. According to 

EPA’s data when it eliminated all that coal generation from last 

year’s baseline, 31 gigawatts, 70 power plants of coal capacity drop 

off in 2016 alone, 1 year. You’re projecting 70 coal-fired power 

plants to drop generating in 1 year. Will you please explain why 

EPA in 1 year’s time has eliminated that 31 gigawatts? 

Ms. MCCABE. Congressman, we’re not eliminating power plants. 

We’re reflecting information that we have about what’s—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Your baseline of the initial rule, you dropped off 

31 gigawatts of generation in a year, 70 power plants. 

Ms. MCCABE. But not all of that would be—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Could I ask you to give us a detailed explanation 

about this for the record? 

30 

Ms. MCCABE. We’d be happy to follow up with that. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. In total, EPA projects 214 gigawatts of coal 

capacity in 2016, while the Department of Energy’s Information 

Agency, administration projections are 261 gigawatts. Can you explain why the Energy Information Agency says 261 gigawatts of 

power, coal-fired power, and you say 214? 

Ms. MCCABE. I’ll be happy to get back with you on that, Congressman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. For the record, I would appreciate that. 

In March of 2015, EPA estimated 238 gigawatts of coal generation in its baseline, then just a few months later in August that 

number dropped to 214 gigawatts, in just a few months. Will you 

please explain why EPA according to its own documents eliminated 

between March and August of this year, 23 gigawatts of coal generation from its baseline. That would be about 46 power plants. 

What possibly could change in a few months time? 

Ms. MCCABE. Again, Congressman, we’ll be happy to provide a 

thorough explanation of—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. For the record—— 

Ms. MCCABE [continuing]. All of those numbers for the record. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. Now, the last question. Would you agree that 

if EPA is underestimating coal power capacity in the baseline of 

this rule, the agency is significantly under-reporting the impacts of 

its rule on coal generation? 

Ms. MCCABE. Congressman, we do our best to use the information available to us, and the modeling tools that are available to 

us. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK, but part of this debate is going to be the cost 

to the individual, the companies, the rate increases. So, if you’re 

underestimating by your 2014 June analysis and your 2015, and 

you drop off 70 coal-fired power plants, base-load going to my 

friend, Jerry McNerney’s question, your final analysis you’re going 

to under-report the impact because you have sliced major gigawatt 

production of coal in this country with no explanation that we can 

find in any of these documents. 

Ms. MCCABE. I would point to the history of the Clean Air Act, 

where it has been proven time and time again that compliance 

comes in—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But that’s when we had technology to meet it. 

There’s no technology right now, as has been already identified, 

that’s affordable and accessible to the industry, penalizing those existing generations, and make it more difficult for new generation. 

This is a disaster. We’re trying to help you from yourselves, and 

if we don’t get the real numbers, there’s no way you can adequately 

defend this in the courts. And I yield back my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the 

Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Capps, for 5 

minutes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

Ms. McCabe, thank you very much for your testimony. 

Adapting to and mitigating climate change should be front and 

center in our discussions at every level of society and Government. 

As representatives who should be advocating for the best interests 

31 

of our constituents and future constituents, we should be jumping 

at the chance to pursue avenues to protect their health and wellbeing, and to insure that we provide a safe and vibrant world to 

live in. Fortunately, we seem to be having the same discussion over 

and over again mired in the same shortsighted rhetoric. 

So my first question, we’ve heard the majority repeatedly claim 

that the Clean Power Plan will harm rate payers, and particularly 

disadvantaged and low-income individuals; however, both the EPA 

and independent organizations have demonstrated that increase 

use of renewables and energy efficiency will over time lead to significant decreases in the cost of electricity for American families. 

Could you elaborate on how the Clean Power Plan will impact cost 

to rate payers over the short, but also particularly over the long 

term? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, thank you. And I appreciate your mentioning 

the long view, that’s what we’re about here. So, there are a couple 

of ways in which I would respond. 

The first way is to look at the information that we got in response to our proposal about the costs of cleaner energy, and they 

are coming down. Solar energy, wind energy, those things are becoming more affordable which is why people are building them, 

even without our rule they’re building them. So, we know that 

that’s good for the system. 

We did an analysis. Again, it’s illustrative because States will design their own plans, utilities will figure out the best ways to comply, they always do, the cheapest ways to comply because they care 

about these issues, as well. And what we show is, especially because of the increased use of energy efficiency which lowers demand, lowers bills, that by 2030 we expect to see about a 7 percent 

drop in energy bills for households on average across the country. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. I think you partially answered my second question, but to emphasize, can you speak to how we could accelerate the transition to renewables and energy efficiency? I mean, 

long term it isn’t very appetizing to some people who are having 

trouble making it month to month. What are some ways we can 

help to speed up that process? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, one of the elements of the final Clean Power 

Plan that I mentioned already is the Clean Energy Incentive Fund. 

That’s intended to be a signal from the Federal Government that 

we want to help support early adoption of energy efficiency programs, especially in low-income communities. But States and utilities have the ability now to front load those types of activities, and 

we certainly would encourage them to do that. We have a lot of information and expertise at our agency and there are many other 

organizations and companies that are working right now to invest 

in these sorts of energy-saving technologies. 

Mrs. CAPPS. OK, thank you. Another topic or aspect to this: My 

colleagues often discuss the issue as a matter of dollars and cents, 

focusing only on the cost to polluters, while ignoring the benefits 

for customers, consumers. And that’s partly because you can’t really put a price tag on human well-being, but there are definite tangible economic benefits, wouldn’t you say, both for employers and 

employees that come from having a healthier workforce. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

32 

Mrs. CAPPS. EPA has projected the climate and health benefits of the Clean Power Plan to be between $34–54 billion. Could you 

elaborate on this, or give us some specific examples of how cleaner 

air translates into more money in people’s pockets? 

Ms. MCCABE. Absolutely. We know that that is the case. Cleaner 

air means healthier workforce, it means healthier children, it 

means fewer missed school days, fewer missed work days, it means 

less time at the hospital, less time at the doctor, fewer medical 

bills, fewer hospitalizations for those sort of things, and that’s just 

the respiratory issues that result from polluted air and the climate 

change impacts on that. 

There are, of course, other expenses and burdens that people 

bear as a result of climate change, especially when we see the 

droughts and the severe storms and flooding that are affecting people today. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Right. I’m going to just put this out there, but 

there’s not going to be time for you to answer it. We have in my 

home State of California been very proactive at reducing emission 

rates through our California Air Resources Board. Is there a way 

that the Clean Power Plan and other EPA actions like the Ozone 

Rule could produce similar results nationwide? 

Ms. MCCABE. Absolutely. I think we all can learn from one another, and we certainly can learn from the States that are moving 

forward with a lot of these programs. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West 

Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought there were 

going to be some folks in between, but thank you again for your 

appearance with us. 

I want to follow back up again with some of the earlier remarks. 

There was in Forbes Magazine had said that China and India, 

quoting, ‘‘China and India collectively consume about 60 percent of 

all the coal produced in the world, and that in the next 10 years 

Asia will be increasing their demands for coal by 31 percent.’’ 

They’re already at 60 percent, and they want to increase 30 percent. I find that incredible. 

And then I want to follow back up again with the remark that 

you made to the Congressman from California. You said India may 

very well be following our lead by making these reductions, but yet 

the quote in this article says that ‘‘India has rejected any absolute 

cuts, and that it needs to emit more as it grows to beat poverty.’’ 

So, I’m not sure that anyone is following what you think is happening around the world. It goes to that old adage, a leader that 

has no followers is merely a man taking a walk. And I think that’s 

what you have here, is no one in the country. They may very well 

go if they did to Kyoto and elsewhere, Stockholm and make these 

agreements, but then they don’t uphold them. So, I don’t know that 

Paris is going to be any better with this. So, I’m looking back at 

the question more directly, what you’re trying to propose, you’re 

willing to sacrifice the economy of this country. When everyone else 

is going to continue to use coal, you’re going to sacrifice our economy to this rule, and drive another dagger into the hearts of the 

coal fields of this country, and all across because the electricity. 

33 

I think it’s curious, and I wanted to hear your explanation of why 

in the initial rule, for example, West Virginia was supposed to have 

a 20 percent reduction, but then when the final rule came out, it 

went to 37 percent. And North Dakota went from 11 percent to 45 

percent, and Kentucky went from 18 to 41, and Wyoming 19 to 44. 

Are you trying to suggest that during your hearings in those respective States that the people actually said we want more stringent controls on our emissions in Kentucky, and Wyoming, and 

West Virginia? 

I want to hear that answer, but I also want to add one more, 

backdrop information. I just got notice just here just a minute ago, 

that Patriot Coal has just now issued a warn notice to the miners 

in West Virginia that 2,000 more coal miners in West Virginia are 

going to lose their job in the next few days, and you all can sit 

there and just say we need—this is going to be good for our air, 

when other nations are polluting our atmosphere far greater than 

we are. So, can you tell me why you doubled and tripled the standards for—when they can’t meet the first standard, why you’ve tripled it? 

Ms. MCCABE. Absolutely, Congressman. I’d be glad to address 

that. There’s a lot in your question there. I’m not sure I’ll get to 

respond to everything, but let me focus on the changes between the 

proposal and the final rule, especially as it relates to the States 

that you mentioned. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Yes. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, very fair question, and we’ve been having 

those discussions with State officials and utilities, and others since 

the final rule came out. In fact, I was meeting with some West Virginia officials just last week, and had this very discussion. 

So, as we do rulemaking, we put out a proposal, we lay out our 

reasoning, our legal support, we lay out the information that we 

have, and then we put it out, and people comment on it, people 

give us additional information, people give us their different views. 

And as I’ve said, there was just an extraordinary amount of input 

on this rule. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. But that led you to doubling down the penalties 

on West Virginia, Wyoming, Kentucky, all these other coal producing—you actually got testimony that we should double down the 

penalty? 

Ms. MCCABE. Congressman, I certainly object to the use of the 

word ‘‘penalty.’’ That’s not an appropriate term for this rule. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Well, I object to your use of the word ‘‘fair,’’ when 

I’m talking about all these people losing their job. 

Ms. MCCABE. Can I explain why I used the word ‘‘fair?’’ 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Good luck. 

Ms. MCCABE. OK. In the proposed rule, we took a very State-centric approach, and that led to a certain proposal which, in fact, set 

differential rates for the same type of plant across the country, so 

a coal rate in one State was significantly different than a coal rate 

in another State. And through—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. I want to hear what’s fair when you shut 

down a coal-fired power plant and it destroys the fabric, the economic basis to run a school system in a county, when millions of 

dollars are lost. I want to talk, that’s fair. Is that fair? 

34 

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

the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator McCabe, when you appeared before this committee 

for previous hearings on the proposed rule, I had voiced my concern 

that only 6 percent of existing nuclear power in States would be 

counted towards developing a State’s goal, while 100 percent of existing renewable power was credited. Now, in the final rule credits 

for both of those are gone. However, I understand that States will 

have the option to choose mass-based goal for compliance that 

would insure that we value all existing zero carbon resources within a State similarly. Is that correct? 

Ms. MCCABE. Actually, whether a State chooses a mass-based approach or a rate-based approach, all new and increasing zero emitting generation whether it’s renewable or nuclear can be part of a 

compliance—— 

Mr. DOYLE. New, but there’s no credits for existing. 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, we start in 2012, so anything that’s new from 

that point on. The mix of generation from before 2012 has already 

led to a particular profile for—— 

Mr. DOYLE. Well, let me ask you this. If a State adopts a massbased goal and implements stringent leakage mitigation policy. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Do you believe nuclear plants will not be able to prematurely retire unless they’re replaced by equivalent zero carbon 

power or energy efficient measures? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, Congressman, there’s a lot more that goes 

into the economic viability of nuclear plants than this rule can address, so I really can’t speak to—— 

Mr. DOYLE. Well, if the nuclear plant retires prematurely just for 

cost factor, you know, because it’s priced—— 

Ms. MCCABE. Right. 

Mr. DOYLE [continuing]. Out of the market and a State adopts 

a mass-based goal, will they have to replace that with zero—you 

know, will their only choice for replacement of that be zero carbon 

power? 

Ms. MCCABE. It really depends on the State’s situation and how 

they design their plan. 

Mr. DOYLE. What happens if these nuclear plants retire in a 

State with a rate-based plan? What’s the difference between nuclear plants retiring in a rate-based plan versus in a mass-based 

plan? 

Ms. MCCABE. So, in a—this is probably a longer conversation. 

We’ll be happy to follow-up with you, but in a mass-based plan 

what’s counted is the emissions coming out of the smokestacks 

from the fossil fuel generation. In a rate-based plan, the State is 

allowed to take account of other types of generation and sort of discount that against the emission rate of the fossil generation. So, either way they can take credit for or count for zero generating facilities, whether nuclear or renewable. 

Mr. DOYLE. Let me ask you another question. In my State in 

Pennsylvania, our Governor is not a Governor that’s saying he 

won’t comply. He’s looking forward to working to come up with a 

35 

plan. My State is a net exporter of electricity. We could benefit 

from the option to submit multi-State plans. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Mr. DOYLE. So, adopting a mass-based rather than a rate-based 

goal may facilitate the kind of a plan, but I’ve heard that this 

mass-based goal could handicap future economic growth as emission limits in total are capped. So, how do you respond to the concerns that some States have about that? Could these multi-State 

plans shift to accommodate new sources of power? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, we believe that that can be fully accommodated. And your point about multi-State plans, the final rule is 

very flexible in terms of States working with one another either 

formally or informally. 111(d) of the Clean Power Plan does not 

constrain new growth, and so new power plants can be built in this 

country to meet new load growth, just as they always can. 

In terms of a Clean Power Plan that is using a mass-based approach, we’ve given the States some guideposts to use to make sure 

that that plan is not artificially distorting the relationship between 

new generation and existing generation. We’d be happy to provide 

more information to you. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes, I’d appreciate that. And, finally, the formula for 

the first building block of the Clean Power Plan, EPA determined 

that States could reasonably improve coal fleet efficiency between 

2.1 and 4.3 percent rather than the 6 percent across the board 

under the proposed rule. 

Ms. MCCABE. Correct. 

Mr. DOYLE. Can you elaborate on how the EPA determined this 

range for efficiency improvements in the final rule, and how the 

EPA reached different rates for different parts of the country? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, that’s a really good question. And, again, that 

came out of the response and the comments that we got. So, as you 

reflected, in the proposal we looked across the universe and came 

up with our 6 percent number as we thought was a reasonable national number, not that every single plant would be able to do that. 

The comments that we got back showed even more range of abilities, and what we did was we looked regionally across the country 

in the three interconnects, which are the three main sections of the 

power grid, and we found that when we looked at the data on an 

interconnect basis, we actually came up with slightly different capabilities, different capacities, because of the age of the fleet, and 

other characteristics of the regional fleet. So, that’s how we got to 

those different rates. And to us, that made a lot of sense based on 

that input that we got. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Pittsburgh Pirates this evening, the team that I represent in Congress, 

are going to take the major leagues’ best pitcher, Mr. Arrieta, and 

give him a massive beating tonight. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, I should have introduced—— 

Mr. DOYLE. Let me say that for the record. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and Administrator, thanks 

very much for being with us today. 

36 

Under 111(d) the States must file a State plan by September the 

6th, 2016 unless it submits an extension request that is approved 

by the EPA. EPA has said that, ‘‘This approval of State extension 

requests is a ministerial action.’’ Before rejecting a State’s extension request will EPA allow for public notice and comment? 

Ms. MCCABE. The requirements are very straightforward for 

what’s required in the extension request, so we’re not contemplating a formal notice and comment period, but we certainly will 

be in consultation with the State. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. If the EPA then rejects a State’s extension request, EPA believes it can issue a Federal plan for that State. In 

that case, will EPA allow for notice and comment before imposing 

a Federal plan? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, we have a proposed Federal plan out now 

that will be going through notice and comment, so if we are put 

in a position, which I hope we will not be, because I think States 

want to go forward with plans, if we’re put in a position of finalizing a plan, we will have already gone through the proposal process, have gotten people’s input on that proposed Federal plan. 

Mr. LATTA. So, if I understand then, that you won’t have a notice 

and comment period then if a State is disallowed. Is that correct? 

Ms. MCCABE. If a State does not submit a plan, we would go forward and finalize a plan. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. But in this case, though, if a State rejects—if the 

EPA rejects a State’s plan, if it rejects it? 

Ms. MCCABE. If we receive a plan from a State and our evaluation is that it doesn’t meet the requirements of the rule, we would 

propose to disapprove it. We would not—— 

Mr. LATTA. OK. But in that case, though, are you still saying 

then there won’t be a notice and comment period? 

Ms. MCCABE. No, there would be. 

Mr. LATTA. There would be. 

Ms. MCCABE. There would be. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. And how long would that be for? 

Ms. MCCABE. It would be at least 30 days. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. 

Ms. MCCABE. That’s generally—— 

Mr. LATTA. At least 30 days. Now, will you be in direct contact 

with the States, or—— 

Ms. MCCABE. Oh, absolutely. 

Mr. LATTA. Ohio—my home State—the Ohio EPA has repeatedly 

asked EPA to consider investments made before 2012 to lower CO2

emissions which especially affects the coal plants in my State. 

Would you explain why the original baseline date of 2005 was 

abandoned for the 2012? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, I need to correct the way you stated that last 

part. We’ve never had a baseline, we’ve never had a baseline of 

2005. We’ve always had our starting point in this rule be 2012. 

This is a technology-based rule, so we always pick a year to start 

from to go forward, and 2012 was the year in the proposal, as well 

as in the final, where we had the most current, and complete and 

accurate data about the generation fleet, so that’s why we started 

with that year. 

37 

Mr. LATTA. Let me ask, because of that, since we have in Ohio, 

until recently had about 70 percent of our energy is coal-fired. 

What factors did you consider for the State of Ohio when you were 

looking at that 2012 date? Did you look at the number of coal-fired 

plants we have, our manufacturers, our consumers? Did you take 

into, you know, the cost and expense that’s going to incur out 

there? Could you explain a little bit on that? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, sure we did. 2012 is the year we use nationally. And as I say, that’s because we want to have everybody starting from the same place. For each State, once we established a national uniform rate that was reasonable to expect in our view based 

on our review of the approaches that were available, we then took 

that emission rate and applied it to each State, which is why each 

State ends up with its target in the rule. So, a State like Ohio or 

like my home State of Indiana that has a lot of coal-fired generation, ends up with a significantly higher rate in the final plan than 

a State with less coal-fired generation. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, you say in your testimony that this rule sets 

an achievable standard for power plants, but seeing as Ohio has 

achieved approximately 30 percent reduction in CO2 emissions between 2005 and 2014 in its coal-fired power plants, doesn’t your 

choice of a 2012 baseline mean power plants that are not coal-fired 

at that time then? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, it treats all the States the same, so many 

States and utilities across the country have been moving towards 

cleaner energy. That’s what our rule found to be the case, and that 

can continue. So, we took a snapshot in 2012 and said oK, going 

forward what’s reasonable to achieve beyond where people are in 

2012? And it—— 

Mr. LATTA. Well, let me just—I’m cutting you off because my 

time is running out here. Just real quick, because I know since 

Ohio was over 70 percent coal-fired, my recollection was since—I’m 

right next to Indiana. Wasn’t your State about 90 percent coal-fired 

just a few years ago? 

Ms. MCCABE. 90 plus, I think it still is, Congressman. 

Mr. LATTA. Do you think there’s going to be a measurable impact 

on industries in the State of Indiana because of what’s going to 

happen there, that you are over 90 percent in the State? 

Ms. MCCABE. I think that with the amount of time in the rule 

and with the options that are out there for cleaner energy, that 

we’re going to be able to move forward, implement this, and it is 

not going to have significant impacts on the economy, that it’s 

going to be positive. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back. 

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

the Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, for 

5 minutes. 

Ms. CASTOR. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this 

hearing on the Clean Air Act and the Clean Power Plan. 

The Clean Air Act is one of America’s bedrock environmental 

protection laws, and it has been for over 40 years. I believe the 

Clean Air Act reflects our values. We value the air that we breathe, 

we are willing here in America to tackle significant environmental 

threats, and to tackle these threats EPA uses the best science, pubVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:40 Apr 26, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X83CO2REGSSCANS042216\114X83CO2REGSPENDING WAY
38 

lic input, examines health impacts. And what we understand here 

in 2015 is that we’ve got to tackle one of the most critical modern 

challenges yet, the changing climate, and the very costly impacts 

of the changing climate. 

I believe EPA has developed a flexible carbon pollution reduction 

plan that is good for consumers, it’s good the environment, it’s good 

for the public health, and it will be good for our economy. And I 

think, Ms. McCabe, that EPA is right to encourage and spur States 

to meet the challenges, and the rising costs of the changing climate. 

Coming from the State of Florida, these costs are daunting looking ahead. You’ve detailed some of them relating to public health, 

but what I see on the horizon if we do not act: increases in property 

insurance in Florida, flood insurance—boy, that’s really hitting 

home now, watching what’s happening in South Carolina. 

I was a county commissioner before I came to Congress. Storm 

water fees, the ability of local governments, what they’re going to 

have to do to replace storm water and waste water facilities, beach 

renourishment costs are going to increase. 

Another cost unless we act will be the failure to tap into these 

clean energy jobs and innovation. And I noticed in the Clean Power 

Plan you have—EPA has included a Clean Energy Incentive Program to reward early investments in renewable energy generation, 

specifically solar and wind during 2020–2021. Now, coming from 

Florida where we have huge potential for solar projects like other 

States do, I’m excited about what a program like this could mean 

for my State. Could you please elaborate on that initiative? 

Ms. MCCABE. Sure. And you’re sure right that local government 

is really on the front lines of facing these issues. So, the Clean Energy Incentive Program was intended to do exactly what you said, 

which is we know that these projects are going forward. They’re 

teed up, they’re moving forward, the costs are coming down, especially because we moved the start date from 2020 to 2022. We 

didn’t want to inadvertently put the brakes on any projects that 

were going forward anticipating the Clean Power Plan, so this program would allow States if they opt into it, they certainly don’t 

have to, to bring forward some of their compliance plan, which the 

Federal Government will then match to encourage, to provide that 

little bit of extra incentive for solar projects, for wind projects, and 

for energy efficiency in low-income areas to get a head start and 

really get rolling. 

Ms. CASTOR. I wondered, as well, the Union of Concerned Scientists recently issued a report as they do routinely, and they said 

that most States are already well on their way to complying with 

the Clean Power Plan. They released an analysis in mid-August. 

They said they find that 31 States are on track to be more than 

halfway to meeting their 2022 emission rate benchmark, and that 

20 States are on track to be more than halfway toward meeting 

their final 2030 compliance targets. They said they see great movement because of renewable energy standards, energy efficiency initiatives, nuclear power in States, and transition to natural gas. Do 

you agree with their analysis that we’ve got 31 States on track to 

be more than halfway to 2020, and the other 20 States closing in 

on halfway of 2030 targets? 

39 

Ms. MCCABE. I think what this is reflecting is exactly what we 

saw when we looked at the record, which is that States and utilities are moving forward to move to cleaner natural gas, to build 

new nuclear facilities, to invest in renewable and solar. That’s the 

trend that we’re seeing all across the country, that’s what the rule 

is built on, that’s what we’re supposed to do in building the rule. 

So, without speaking to the exact numbers in the study, yes, that’s 

exactly the idea, that these things are already underway. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, and I yield back my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady yields back. At this time, the 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Pompeo, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to get to the substance of this rule, but it’s difficult to do 

if we can’t expect the witness to fulfill commitments that they’ve 

made to this committee. In June of last year when you testified, 

I asked you a question, I asked you a question about how many 

times you and EPA had spoken with Mr. Podesta, who is now the 

chairman of the Hillary Clinton for President campaign. I asked 

you that question, you said you’d take it back and you’d get us an 

answer. We submitted a formal QFR asking you about meetings 

with the White House, and we got a letter back that said we had 

a lot of meetings, that we met with thousands of people. Ms. 

McCabe, how many times did you meet with Mr. Podesta? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t know the answer to that. 

Mr. POMPEO. So, still a year and two months later you haven’t 

bothered to go back and look at your records to answer a legitimate 

question presented by this committee. 

Ms. MCCABE. Congressman, we do our best to respond to the 

questions that we get from you, and we’ll certainly do that in the 

future. 

Mr. POMPEO. So, the best you can do is tell this committee that 

you’ve met, when asked a direct question about the politics of this 

rule and who you met with, a simple administrative question, the 

best you can do is say we met with thousands of people. I have the 

letter, that’s what it says. It’s your response, it’s the EPA’s response. 

Ms. MCCABE. Without seeing my response, Congressman, I 

can’t—— 

Mr. POMPEO. I’ll read it to you. 

Ms. MCCABE [continuing]. What else we might have said in response to your question. 

Mr. POMPEO. It says, ‘‘We reached out to thousands of people 

through hundreds of meetings, listening sessions, video conferences, phone calls, conference calls, and almost 2,000 emails.’’ 

No mention of Mr. Podesta in the entire response, no mention of 

any officials from the White House in the entire response. You 

didn’t answer the question, Ms. McCabe. It’s a simple question. 

Ms. MCCABE. I will go back and talk with folks about how we 

responded to your question. 

Mr. POMPEO. When you see the frustration and you hear Members of Congress talk about the EPA being out of control, can you 

understand when you won’t answer simple questions why someone 

might conclude that you don’t give a darn what Congress thinks? 

40 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, it’s unfortunate if that’s your view, because 

I think that we’re all here to serve the public. 

Mr. POMPEO. Not just my view, Ms. McCabe, it’s the view that 

you expressed when you said we’re not going to give you an answer, Mr. Pompeo. We’re going to blow you off. Unacceptable, unacceptable. 

You said today that if a State needs more time, it’s a ministerial 

action, you’ll give them an incremental 2 years. At the end of those 

3 years, if the Governor of Kansas, this one or the next Governor, 

concludes that there’ll be massive brownouts in Kansas as a result 

of complying with this rule, and writes you a letter to that effect, 

what will the response of the EPA be? 

Ms. MCCABE. I can’t speak to a future eventuality like that. We 

did ask the States—— 

Mr. POMPEO. No, no. You can answer it. This is a legal question, 

this is about the rule. The Governor says we can’t comply, or we’re 

going to have poor people freezing in the winter in Kansas if we 

comply with this rule. Tell me what the EPA’s actions will be in 

response to what I’m sure you will view as noncompliance with the 

State’s obligation under this rule? Tell me what the Environmental 

Protection Agency is going to do to those poor people in Kansas? 

Ms. MCCABE. I cannot speak to a future action of the EPA based 

on facts that we’ll need to look at very carefully. 

Mr. POMPEO. All right. But you’ll have the right to put a Federal 

plan in place. 

Ms. MCCABE. We will go through a process to make a determination—— 

Mr. POMPEO. That’s a yes or no question, Ms. McCabe. You’ll 

have the right to put a Federal program in place. You might conclude not to do so, but you’d have the right do so under this rule. 

Ms. MCCABE. If a State submits a plan that we feel does not 

comply with the law, we have the authority. It’s not a question of 

right, we have the authority and the responsibility under the Clean 

Air Act. 

Mr. POMPEO. Right. So, you talked earlier about States cooperating. You said they’re cooperating. I don’t view it as cooperation. 

If someone comes up to me on the street and threatens my life, and 

I hand them my money, I just simply don’t view that as cooperation. These Governors will be under enormous pressure. It’s not 

about them cooperating, it’s about the heavy hand of the EPA forcing them to make decisions that they believe are inconsistent with 

their duty to the State, and to protect the citizens of their States. 

But that’s a far cry from cooperation, the word that you used three 

times so far this morning. 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, I know from conversations that I’ve had and 

meetings that I’ve had with people that States are talking about 

working—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Because they know what’s coming. Let me go down 

a—you said there were fewer missed school days. How many fewer 

missed school days per student per year will there be as a result 

of the Clean Power Plan? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, I’d be happy to get you the numbers that we 

put together, Congressman. No, really. I mean—— 

41 

Mr. POMPEO. I’ll look forward to it. I mean, this is the kind of 

data. If you’re going to make assertions here to this committee 

today about fewer missed school days, and you said there will be 

shorter allergen seasons, it would seem to me, response of you to 

say this allergen season in a particular region will be shorter by 

7 hours, 26 minutes, plus or minus whatever your science can determine. But you throw these things out without any foundation in 

the data set and expect us to accept that as a fait accompli. So, I’d 

just like to know how many fewer school days as a result of this. 

And I’ll look forward to your letter. 

Mr. POMPEO. Do you have a response? Sure. 

Ms. MCCABE. I can answer that. 

Mr. POMPEO. Sure. 

Ms. MCCABE. Because we did put that information together. 

Mr. POMPEO. Great. Tell me what it is. 

Ms. MCCABE. I just didn’t want to fish through a bunch of papers 

while I was listening to you. What we predicted is that in 2030 

when the plan is in place, there would be 140,000 fewer missed 

school days. 

Mr. POMPEO. Great, thank you very much. I’m way out of time. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, the Chair recognizes Mr. Loebsack 

of Iowa for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I do want to thank 

Administrator McCabe for testifying here today. 

I may not take up the whole 5 minutes. I want to focus on the 

2012 date that was already mentioned and go to my home State, 

Ms. McCabe. You know that over 28 percent of our electricity in 

Iowa is generated by wind power. We’re the leader in the country. 

And I applaud the EPA, of course, for working to cut America’s carbon pollution. I think it’s a great idea, and we’ve got to move our 

energy and environmental policy into the 21st century. But in my 

State we’ve made a hell of a lot of progress over the years, and I 

just—I have a concern that starting this 2012, doesn’t really recognize what States like Iowa have already done. Can you talk to me 

about that, you know? I mean, it’s really difficult, you know, to sort 

of start it at a particular point when a place like Iowa has made 

so much progress, and then a number gets attached after 2012, and 

it just didn’t seem to honor the commitment that folks in Iowa 

have already made up to this point. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, I’m glad you asked that, Congressman. I think 

that there are a number of States who can legitimately make a 

similar claim and utilities where they have invested early. And the 

way this program works, it actually reflects the good work that 

States who have been forward-looking have already done because 

they have less far to go, ultimately, in getting to that 2030, because 

they’re already well along the way. So, the way the Clean Power 

Plan works, since it takes into account each State’s mix, current 

mix as of 2012, States that are further ahead were further ahead 

when we took that snapshot and projected into the future. So, 

there’s lots of opportunity, and for those technologies to continue 

to be invested in, but States, some of them are well along the way. 

It’s similar to what the Congresswoman cited before. 

42 

Mr. LOEBSACK. I’ve seen a 42 percent number attached to Iowa. 

I don’t know if that’s accurate or not, but that’s going to be very 

difficult, of course, and we’ve already come a long way. If we had 

set that date back to 2010 or whatever the case might be, it would 

be a less onerous burden certainly on the State of Iowa. We all 

want clean energy, we all want to cut, you know, obviously carbon 

pollution. We all want to do those things, and Iowa is going to continue to do the right thing. The Governor there is just now putting 

together a team to try to come up with some kind of an energy 

plan, and I commend him for that. And we’re going to do the right 

thing, we’re going to keep doing it. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. But it just does seem a bit unfair to start it at 

that 2012 date and not recognize all the progress that was already 

made in a place like Iowa. And, hopefully, we’ll be able to take advantage of the incentive program, as well. You know, we’ll continue 

to work with you on that but, you know, I’m making a plea for 

some degree of flexibility in all this at this point. 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, I think the fact that the final plan focuses 

much more than the proposal did on the regional nature of the 

power market, goes directly to your point, as well. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Right. 

Ms. MCCABE. Because it allows the regions, the utilities and the 

regions to work together. And, again, States that are further ahead 

are further ahead, and will benefit from that investment that 

they’ve made. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Right. Well, we’ll stay in touch going forward, 

and I just wanted to express the concern that I have about that 

date. And, hopefully, we’ll have a little bit of flexibility that we’ll 

see from you folks moving down the road. Thank you so much. 

Ms. MCCABE. Thank you. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, and I yield back the rest. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes 

the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. McCabe, I’ve heard some confusion here today. I read you 

some quotes out that said on four occasions over the last few years 

it said that you all weren’t going to move towards a cap-and-trade 

program. I then read you something that indicated you are going 

to a cap-and-trade program, and then you told Congressman Barton that you weren’t going to a cap-and-trade program. And I find 

that hard to understand. Is it your position that you all are not 

heading towards a cap-and-trade program? 

Ms. MCCABE. This rule does not set up a cap-and-trade program, 

Congressman. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. I beg to differ. Let me go through some 

of the documents, and I guess we just have to start with your own 

documents. You know, when you take a look at it in the Environmental Protection Agency in the pre-plan that’s out there and the 

summary, it says, ‘‘This proposal,’’ talking about your plan, and I 

can be glad to give you a copy of this after I finish reading it. ‘‘This 

proposal presents two approaches to a Federal plan for States and 

other jurisdictions that do not submit an approvable plan to the 

EPA: a rate-based emissions trading program, and a mass-based 

43 

emissions trading program.‘‘ Now that to me sounds like cap and 

trade of one form or another. 

It goes on to say on page 43, ‘‘As discussed at length in the emission guidelines, electric generation units operate less as individual 

isolated entities, and more as multiple components of a large interconnected system designed to integrate a range of functions that 

insure an uninterrupted supply of affordable and reliable electricity, while also for the past several decades maintaining compliance with air pollution control programs. Since as a practical matter under both the emission guidelines and any Federal plan, emissions reductions must occur at the affected electric generation 

units, a broad scale emission trading program would be particularly effective in allowing the electric generation units to operate 

in a way that achieves pollution control without disturbing the 

overall system of which they are a part, and the critical functions 

that this system performs. In addition, consistency of requirements 

benefits the affected electric generation units, as well as the States, 

and the EPA in their role as administrators and implementers of 

a trading program. The EPA believes that there are,’’ skip a line, 

and then, ‘‘The EPA believes there are compelling policy reasons 

that support the provisions of a proposed model trading rule at this 

time.’’ 

It goes on to talk about the public hearings that you had which 

you didn’t have in my district, where you would have heard something completely different. As I told you before, I was elected on 

this issue, and a 28-year incumbent who agreed with you all isn’t 

here because of this issue, cap and trade. And you go on to talk 

about, ‘‘There’s strong interest in seeing a model State program,’’ 

and then it goes on to say and I find this fascinating. ‘‘In addition, 

some States have indicated that they may prefer to rely on a Federal plan, either temporarily or permanently, rather than develop 

a plan of their own. This proposal of a model trading rule addresses these policy interests. The approach of proposing model trading 

rules that are identical in all key respects to proposed Federal 

plans that may be promulgated later is consistent with prior Clean 

Air Act Section 111(d).’’ 

Now, I don’t know in what kind of a universe or what English 

language you’re looking at, but I just picked out some small parts 

here, and every time I turn around it’s talking about this rule 

pushing on the States a trading plan similar to cap and trade, if 

not cap-and-trade-heavy, it’s cap and trade of some form, and two 

different versions of it. And then it says, and I will—I interpret it 

differently. It says, ‘‘In addition, some States have indicated they 

may prefer to rely on a Federal plan.’’ That’s because they’re not 

going to do it, because isn’t it—am I correct that if a State says 

like we heard earlier that one of the States feared blackouts and 

people freezing in their homes, if they choose not to do it, you all 

are going to come in with your Federal trading program and do a 

Federal program. Isn’t that correct, yes or no? It’s a simple yes or 

no. 

Ms. MCCABE. No, it’s not, it’s not a simple question to answer. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. It is a simple question: Are you going to make the 

States do a trading program? If they don’t comply with your Clean 

44 

Power Plan, are you coming in there and imposing a Federal trading plan on them, and the answer is either yes or no. 

Ms. MCCABE. We have not finalized a Federal plan. We have a 

proposal out there, so I cannot speak to what the—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK. Under this proposal, wouldn’t that be the natural and logical conclusion, for someone reasonable reading the 

English language that I just read to you out of your own document. 

Would that not be reasonable? 

Ms. MCCABE. We have proposed trading programs, a rate-based 

one, and a mass-based one, and I would commend you to the comment record, Congressman, where we got overwhelmingly inputs 

from States and utilities saying—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Where you—— 

Ms. MCCABE [continuing]. The trading programs were effective 

and efficient, and they were using them, and it works. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And where you disenfranchised the people of Appalachia because you didn’t come to talk to any of the coal-producing areas in Central Appalachia. You refused to come and have 

a hearing there. We asked you all to do it, you wouldn’t do it, didn’t 

have to be my district, could have been Mr. Johnson’s district, or 

Mr. McKinley’s district, or somebody else’s district. You wouldn’t do 

it. That’s why your comments are going to support what you got, 

because you went out and found the people that agreed with you 

to go put your hearings in. 

Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I am over my time. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, who I 

guess represents part of Houston, as well, Astros. 

Mr. GREEN. Yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK, 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. I’m proud to be a co-fan with my good friend from 

the South with the Astros. But I want to thank the Chair and the 

ranking member for holding the hearing, and I want to thank Acting Administrator McCabe for coming. The EPA’s Clean Power 

Plan has been subject to much debate. We’re happy to have you 

here today. 

Administrator, the EPA’s Clean Power Plan changed significantly 

from the proposed rule to the final product. My understanding was 

the EPA wanted to be responsive to stakeholder feedback, including many concerns brought by the industry. The final rule included 

both reliability safety valve, and what looks like a reliability assurance mechanism. My question is, does the Memorandum of Understanding between DOE, EPA, and FERC function as the beginning 

of a reliability assurance mechanism? Can you explain what steps 

EPA took to insure that reliability before the implementation? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, that’s a good question, Congressman. The 

Memorandum between the three agencies is really a continuation 

of the relationship that we’ve developed, our three agencies, to 

make sure that we’re focused collectively on what’s going on in the 

power industry as they’re responding not just to EPA rules, but to 

the various trends in the industry, and moving forward, how it’s 

going so that we’re all on the same page, and in good communication. 

45 

The variety of things that we built into the Clean Power Plan 

that were directly responsive to the reliability issues that we heard 

were more time, more flexibility in the glide path, making sure 

that the States in developing their plans specifically address reliability which may involve, up to them, but may involve consulting 

with their reliability entities or with their PUCs, making sure that 

those conversations are happening. 

The reliability safety valve that you mentioned is also something 

that we put in that was very important, the ability for States to 

adjust their plans. So, it’s the whole package really that collectively 

addresses the reliability concerns. 

Mr. GREEN. Both Congressman Olson and Congressman Doyle 

over the past two Congresses and I have worked on legislation to 

address the must-run orders. Through a strange twist in the law, 

the DOE told a power plant to run even in violation of the Clean 

Air Act, the operator could be civilly liable. Does CPP include your 

reliability safety valve that allows 90-day must-run orders in the 

event of an emergency? Would an operator face potential litigation 

for following those orders? 

Ms. MCCABE. We actually think it’s very unlikely that an operator would be put in that position because of the flexibility in the 

plan, and how States can set up their plans. But in the event that 

an operator was put in that position, that’s the purpose of the reliability safety valve, to give them the ability to go forward without 

being worried about being in violation of the Clean Air Act. 

Mr. GREEN. EPA stated that Federal implementation has not 

been finalized. EPA is deciding between rate-based or mass-based 

Federal implementation plan. The final rule indicated a 90-day 

comment period. How many comments has the agency received 

thus far? 

Ms. MCCABE. We actually—that comment period will start when 

the Federal Register publishes the rule, which we expect to be later 

this month, so we haven’t gotten any formal comments yet. 

Mr. GREEN. Does the agency anticipate extending the comment 

period? I guess will that depend on the amount of comments you 

receive? 

Ms. MCCABE. If we get those requests, Congressman, we’ll take 

a look at them and decide. We wanted to start out with quite a 

lengthy comment period to make sure that people had time to put 

their thoughts together. 

Mr. GREEN. The final rule changed the way EPA views nuclear 

power. Can you explain further how existing or under construction 

nuclear could be counted? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. So, any under construction or upgraded nuclear power since 2012 can be included by a State as part of its 

compliance plan, just like any—it’s treated just the same as any 

other zero emitting generation, which was a lot of the feedback 

that we got from folks. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Well, in Texas we have invested significant 

amounts in wind power, and I’d like to see the same done with 

solar. How does EPA envision the Clean Energy Incentives Program encouraging new construction of solar? 

Ms. MCCABE. It allows States, if they choose, to sort of front load 

by providing some extra incentive to those projects. And in order 

46 

to make that an incentive, the Federal Government will match the 

investment that the State would put in in terms of compliance allowances or credits, however they choose to do it. 

Mr. GREEN. My last 20 seconds, how does EPA envision the 

Clean Energy Incentive Program encouraging new construction? 

The EPA wants to establish a credit reserve, and will run into 

problems of verification, authenticity issues before, but how is EPA 

going to do that? 

Ms. MCCABE. So, we proposed an approach for people to have accountability systems. It’s very important, as you recognize, that everybody be following a good set of rules, and there’s a lot of information out there because of the renewable energy markets that already exist. So, we’ll work with all of that information and get a 

set of guidelines out there for people that everybody’s comfortable 

with. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, 

Mr. Flores, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to have this important hearing today. Thank you for being 

here, Ms. McCabe. 

States have to file, if they want an extension to produce plan, 

they’ve got to file before 2016. Correct? 

Ms. MCCABE. In September of 2016. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. If the Texas legislature doesn’t meet until 2017, 

how are they supposed to file a plan in 2016? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, every State is different, but in many States 

it’s the environmental agency or on behalf—the Governor through 

the environmental agency that has the responsibility for filing the 

plan. 

Mr. FLORES. But the representatives of people really don’t have 

any input into it, because the legislature doesn’t meet. Did cap and 

trade pass Congress? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well—— 

Mr. FLORES. No, it didn’t. 

Ms. MCCABE. For acid rain, it did. This is not a cap-and-trade 

rule, Congressman. 

Mr. FLORES. Well, I think, Mr. Griffith, if you look at pages 1174 

and 1775 of the rulemaking, it’s pretty clear that Mr. Griffith was 

right. He was on to something. EPA is going to have cap and trade 

in this, and we both know that that’s the direction you’re trying to 

go. 

Let’s talk about new natural gas EGUs for a minute. Do those 

improve the emissions profile of the country? 

Ms. MCCABE. Sure they do. Yes, that’s clean energy. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Does EPA support the construction of new natural gas EGUs? 

Ms. MCCABE. We support the move towards cleaner energy. Natural gas is a very important part of our diverse energy mix. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. On page 346 of the 111(d) rule, it says in the 

second full paragraph, the EPA says, ‘‘Unlike emission reductions 

achieved through the use of any of the building blocks, emission reduction is achieved through the use of,’’ and I’m going to put parenthetically here, ‘‘natural gas combined cycle plants require the 

47 

construction of additional CO2 emitting generating capacity, a consequence that is inconsistent with the long-term need to continue 

reducing CO2 emissions beyond the reduction that will be achieved 

by the rule.’’ So, can you explain what that means? 

Ms. MCCABE. I think what that’s reflecting is that natural gas 

is a fossil fuel. It does have CO2 emissions, and there’s a range of 

options that this country has to make sure that we’re always moving towards a cleaner energy supply. Natural gas and some coal is 

part of that, but there are also even cleaner types of energy that 

we want to encourage. 

Mr. FLORES. So, does the EPA support or oppose the construction 

of natural gas EGUs? 

Ms. MCCABE. We do not oppose the construction of clean energy 

in this country. 

Mr. FLORES. OK, thank you. Because solar is not going to 

produce base load, wind is not going to produce base load power, 

but natural gas EGUs do produce base load power, as coal does, as 

nuclear, but you’re not giving any credits for nuclear power. 

This is going to be fully implemented by 2030 according to your 

present plan. What will the emissions reduction be across the Nation for CO2 in the year 2050 versus today? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t have that number. We’d be glad to get some 

information back to you on that. 

Mr. FLORES. Yes, that would be good. I mean, you give us these 

metrics about 140,000 fewer lost school days, and a shorter allergy 

season. You know, it seems to me like you start with what’s the 

sort of the headline number, we’re going to have experts that said 

reduction. It seemed like that that would be a number that would 

be on top of your mind. 

In order to get to this 2030 standard, how much of the technology exists today to get to that standard? 

Ms. MCCABE. All of it. 

Mr. FLORES. All of it, every bit of it. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. What’s the mean cost per reduced ton of CO2

emissions to get there? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t have that number off the top of my head. 

Mr. FLORES. That would be a really good number to have. 

Ms. MCCABE. Sure. 

Mr. FLORES. So, when we have—let’s roll back out to 2050 again. 

So, what’s the change in the mean temperature going to be around 

the world? 

Ms. MCCABE. Again, we’d be happy to provide you more information about the specific metrics. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. And what’s the change in sea levels going to 

be? 

Ms. MCCABE. Again, that’s something—— 

Mr. FLORES. But we talk about school days, but the whole thing 

here—all the arguments I’ve heard, particularly from the other side 

of the aisle, about how this is going to make the world a better, 

happier place. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Mr. FLORES. But you don’t have the information we need, so I’d 

really like to know. 

48 

So the other thing that would be nice to know, what’s the economic impact of reduced reliability? I mean, you’ve heard the 

States say that there’s going to be reduced reliability. The only people in this room that say we’re going to have improved reliability 

are the folks in the EPA. 

Ms. MCCABE. Respectfully, I disagree with that. There are many 

people who weighed in on the climate plan that have taken just the 

opposite view and gave us advice about how to make sure that our 

rule would not impair reliability. 

Mr. FLORES. Well, I can tell you in the winter of 2013, and this 

plan had been in effect in Texas where we had a record cold snap, 

there would have been a lot of school days missed because there 

was no power for schools because a big chunk of the coal-powered 

plants would have been offline because of this. And I’m at the end 

of my time, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Assistant Administrator McCabe, for joining us today. Thank you for your patience and your responses, which are very much governed by civility, so I appreciate that. 

The Clean Power Plan has the goal of reducing carbon emissions 

by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. States will have 15 years 

to achieve those goals under this plan. This is definitely achievable, 

in my opinion. New York’s experience demonstrates that it, indeed, 

is possible. Since 2005, New York and the other States participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or REGGI, have 

seen a decrease in carbon emissions of more than 45 percent. And 

we have not sacrificed economic growth or reliability to achieve 

those given reductions. And according to several reports done by an 

independent group, New York’s auction proceeds generated over $1 

billion in savings for New Yorkers, so this can be done. So, I look 

at a charge of 32 percent over 15 years, and look at a record 

achieved of 45 percent over 10 years in contrast. 

Ms. McCabe, one of the current statements the opposition to the 

Clean Power Plan is making is that the rule mandates an emissions trading scheme. As I read it, there is no mandate to use emissions trading as the way to meet the standard. Is that correct? 

Ms. MCCABE. That’s correct. 

Mr. TONKO. And as I understand it, it was utilities and system 

operators who advocated for including this compliance option in the 

final rule, not just State governments that were already participating in these systems. Is that correct? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, we heard from many utilities that this was a 

preferred way that they’re already operating. 

Mr. TONKO. What reasons did the utilities and system operators 

offer in support of including this option? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, trading has been shown through the acid 

rain program and a number of other programs to be the most flexible way for operators to manage their assets. Many utility companies operate in multiple States. They have a range of assets, they 

may have coal, they may have renewables, they may have gas, and 

having a system where they can average, they can trade back and 

49 

forth, it just makes sense. They’re going to have more ability to 

make the investments where they are the most cost-effective, and 

not make them in places where they won’t. And then they can use 

the system to average over. And if they can trade with other companies, it just broadens the capacity for the system to find the 

cheapest and most cost-effective technologies and approaches. 

Mr. TONKO. Was it just about that cost, or was reliability also a 

consideration? 

Ms. MCCABE. Reliability is—the more flexible and open the system is, the easier it is for companies to feel confident that they 

have play in the system, and they’ll be able to meet the load needs. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. I also want to express my appreciation 

for the agency’s efforts at outreach, outreach to State governments, 

and to the wide range of stakeholders in this effort. 

One of the things that the original proposal did not include was 

a reliability safety valve. This was something mentioned by a number of witnesses at our hearings on the original proposal. The final 

rule does include a safety valve, and I heard you exchanging with 

Representative Green a few moments ago. Can you further develop 

or describe for us how that would work? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. So, as I mentioned, States can certainly design plans that will minimize the chance that an operator will be 

put in the position of having to choose between complying with a 

must-run order and violating the Clean Air Act. But if that should 

occur, what the reliability safety valve does, is it allows that plant 

to continue running. In fact, our expectation is that if a plant gets 

a must-run order in an emergency situation, it will run. And it sets 

up a period of 90 days for the company to take a breath, do what 

they need to do, and figure out whether there’s a problem with the 

State plan, whether this is a situation that’s going to resolve itself, 

and what it needs to do long term. So, for that safety valve period 

of time, they can do what they need to do, relax, and figure out the 

next steps. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. I believe the final rule addresses a number of the concerns raised and provides an achievable, affordable 

path for reducing emissions. And, you know, it’s been stated time 

and time again that there are many concerns about climate change 

in this Nation, and for our world. And I believe that the leadership 

that we can all provide will inspire responses around the world to 

make certain that we, in fact, will have a global response to what 

is a critical situation that faces not only this generation, but the 

many to follow. So, thank you very much, again, for our appearance 

here. 

Ms. MCCABE. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Assistant Administrator McCabe, I’m incensed and I think the 

American people are incensed, and I’m certain that the people that 

I represent in Eastern and Southeastern Ohio are incensed at the 

logic that’s being used by the EPA as it addresses the concerns 

around employment. The logic that seems to be applied to coal regions of the country where we’ve got communities of 1,000, 1,500 

people that are all coal miners, and such, that they can just plant 

50 

seeds like a seasonal garden and all of a sudden industries and 

new job opportunities might crop up. The logic that the EPA is 

using in their rationale, I certainly understand it because every 

time a new Government regulation by the EPA comes out, new offices are stood up, employees are hired, and the Washington bureaucracy grows ad nauseam. It happens like that at the expense 

of the American taxpayer. 

I’m concerned about that, and if you look at page 47 of the Clean 

Power Plan, and the heading that reads, ‘‘Addressing Employment 

Concern,’’ on page 47 your agency states, ‘‘The EPA encourages 

States in designing their State plans to consider the effect of their 

plans on employment and overall economic development to assure 

that the opportunities for economic growth and jobs that the plans 

offer are realized. To the extent possible, States should try to assure that communities that can be expected to experience job losses 

can also take advantage of the opportunities for job growth or otherwise transition to healthy, sustainable economic growth.’’ 

You’re obviously not familiar with Appalachia, Ohio, and rural 

America, and how these rules will affect places like that. So, I’m 

trying to understand what you mean by economic development. 

You’re asking States to prematurely retire and replace existing 

plants with new energy infrastructure, and then claim this as a net 

benefit for jobs and economic growth. This is like breaking a window and then claiming the spending on the replacing of that window as a net benefit. So, what would the EPA do if a State chooses 

to show it could use the funds that the EPA wants it to spend on 

replacing perfectly good and reliable energy infrastructure by putting those funds toward a more productive economic use? 

Ms. MCCABE. Congressman, our job under the Clean Air Act is 

to implement the Clean Air Act, and we believe that we put forward—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. I’ve heard that, Assistant Administrator McCabe. 

That incenses me even more. You work for the President of the 

United States, who was elected by the American people with a 

mandate to care for all of the American people. For the EPA to 

blindly like a mule going down a furrow say that we don’t have to 

look to the right and the left, and our job is to keep the air clean, 

or job is not to consider the economic viability of the communities 

that we’re affecting, that is not only irresponsible, it is incomprehensible that an agency in the United States Federal Government 

would do that to its own people. So, I’m not even going to engage 

in that dialogue because it doesn’t make any sense. 

Ms. MCCABE. Could I reply? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I’ll give you—— 

Ms. MCCABE. I wasn’t able to get very many words out. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Quickly. 

Ms. MCCABE. The President and the administration absolutely 

cares about these issues. That’s a key reason why he put forward 

the Power Plus Plan, which is specifically targeted at the transitions that are happening in coal country, and—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. All right. Let me ask you a specific question. If 

that’s what the President really believes, and that’s what Administrator McCarthy really believes, and if that’s what you really believe, tell me what you’re going to do in Beallsville, Ohio, when you 

51 

shut down that coal mining operation that employs about 1,500 

people. Tell me what you’re going to do to establish a new industry 

there and create economic growth. 

Ms. MCCABE. These are the conversations that—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, it’s not a conversation. It’s not a conversation 

that needs to be had. A conversation is not going to put food on 

the table, clothes on the kids, pay for school supplies. A conversation is not going to solve this problem. And I don’t understand how 

you folks in the administration do not see the devastating impacts 

that it’s going to wreak on—you know, I’m totally off my questions, 

Mr. Chairman, but I’m just so incensed by the answers to these 

questions. And I’ve extended my time, and I apologize. I yield back. 

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

the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. WELCH. Well, I want to in a way take up where Mr. Johnson 

was speaking. I had a chance to go to West Virginia and go into 

a coal mine with Mr. McKinley, and I’ll tell you, it was a really 

powerful experience. Those folks work hard, as you know, and we 

don’t have coal in Vermont, but we have electricity, and those coal 

miners, many from the UMW, they kept the lights on for us, kept 

our farms humming, kept the factories going. And there is dislocation. It happens to be the case that I am a strong supporter of efforts to clean our air and to move away from fossil fuels, but that 

trip really brought home to me that there is an impact on real people who are proud, who are hard-working, who approach things in 

a patriotic and team-oriented way, and are doing good work. 

And what I think this whole committee has to do, not just the 

administration, is get behind some legislation that my friend, Mr. 

McKinley, is sponsoring. Two things, in particular. One, a lot of 

folks who have paid into their health care and the retirement benefits are in jeopardy of having them be lost, and Mr. McKinley and 

others have legislation that would protect that. And I strongly support it, and I hope a lot of my colleagues, whatever side of the debate they are on on the Clean Air rule, support Mr. McKinley in 

that. 

And the second is, there is that kind of economic dislocation that 

my colleagues who are from coal country are acutely aware of. And 

it’s amazing to meet those coal miners, and I saw Mr. McKinley in 

his heartfelt relationship with them in real world understanding. 

One very vivid example, we were there on Friday. Friday night the 

big custom down there is to go to the high school football games. 

They used to have—in this region they used to have eight high 

schools, now they have three. So, it’s really, really tough. 

So, I’m a supporter. I think that climate change is a real issue, 

and some of my colleagues disagree. But there in my view can’t be 

any disagreement about the reality that there is dislocation. These 

are good people, and somehow, some way we’ve got to help them, 

and Mr. McKinley has two ways to do it. 

But it also suggests to me that to the extent that you in doing 

your job at EPA can also have some flexibility, I think it’s worthy 

of as much consideration as possible because while we have to 

make this transition, in my view, we also have to mitigate the real 

world consequences of what’s happening. 

52 

So, I appreciate you being here, I appreciate the work that you’re 

doing. I say to my colleagues that this is not just an EPA issue, 

because whatever impact is occurring because of rules, there are 

also market forces that are very much at work. The price of natural 

gas is a big factor, efficiency which is a good tool is reducing the 

demand in some cases from what it would be. So, this is a kind of 

all-of-the-above approach that we have to take. 

And I just want to end by saying thank you for the work you do, 

but I also want to say to my colleagues from coal country that 

you’ve got some allies on our side who want to be there to help you 

help those extraordinary people who have kept the lights on in 

Vermont, kept our farms running, kept our factories operating. So, 

thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Harper, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. McCabe, thank you. 

You know, I come from a State where we rely heavily on electric 

co-ops to help keep lights on. I’ve been in close contact with them 

as the Clean Power Plan has been discussed, and I would like to 

share just one of their concerns today, if I may. 

South Mississippi Electric. One of South Mississippi Electric’s 

biggest concerns is the drastic and unproven shift to renewables in 

the final version of the Clean Power Plan that would require that 

21 percent of SMEs generation come from renewables by 2030. If 

I could put that in perspective, SME just executed a power purchase agreement for all of the output of a 52 megawatt solar facility being constructed in Lamar County, Mississippi. The capital 

cost associated with this one solar facility is $102 million with a 

30 percent tax credit. The output of the facility will total less than 

1 percent of SME’s total generation in a year. Therefore, to meet 

the 2030 emissions rate, over 21 of these facilities would be required at a cost in excess of $2 billion. To put that further in perspective, SME currently has just over $2 billion in assets that have 

been accumulated over about a 50-year time frame, and under this 

rule it would double in a mere decade. 

So my question for you is, how will people in my State be able 

to afford costs associated with the dramatic shift from fossil generation to renewable energy generation set forth in the Clean 

Power Plan? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. We’ve spent a lot of time with co-ops, and they 

have some particular concerns that they’ve raised to us. I think the 

important thing to think about in response to that question is that 

the way the Clean Power Plan, no individual company needs to do 

it on its own, no individual State needs to do it on its own. The 

regional approach, ability to average and trade allows people to 

make appropriate choices so that the most cost-effective and 

achievable—— 

Mr. HARPER. Trade as in cap and trade? 

Ms. MCCABE. Trading as in trading. Trading as in trading. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. 

Ms. MCCABE. Which is a perfectly reasonable approach to use 

whether you’re in a rate-based approach, or whether a State chooses to go with a mass-based approach. 

53 

Mr. HARPER. Here’s what it appears. It appears that the President and the Environmental Protection Agency have, in effect, declared war on affordable energy for families in my State and 

throughout the country. And I want to remind you, and I know you 

know it, is what then Candidate Obama said in 2008. And I just 

want to repeat what he said, because we’ve addressed this on concerns on coal plants, as well. He said, ‘‘So, if somebody wants to 

build,’’ and this is President Obama when he was running in ’08. 

‘‘So, if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s 

just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged 

a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s been emitted.’’ Further, he said, ‘‘Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity 

rates would necessarily skyrocket, even regardless of what I say 

about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse 

gases, coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, 

whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would 

have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will 

pass that money on to consumers, pass that cost on.’’ 

So, when you were asked earlier by Mr. Pompeo about meetings 

that you would have had that were political meetings within the 

administration, have you ever had a political meeting with anyone 

in the administration, not the number, but have you ever had any? 

Ms. MCCABE. We certainly meet with staff from the White House 

on major rulemakings that we do. 

Mr. HARPER. I’m just curious, have you ever discussed this with 

President Obama himself? 

Ms. MCCABE. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting the President only 

a couple of times. 

Mr. HARPER. Was this discussed? 

Ms. MCCABE. No. 

Mr. HARPER. My remaining time that I have, I’m going to yield 

to Mr. Griffith from Virginia. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you very much. The overarching policy of 

the Clean Power Plan is to limit the amount of carbon that an individual State can put out. Isn’t that correct? 

Ms. MCCABE. The overarching approach of the rule is to set 

emission rates for power plants that—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And certain limit on the emissions. 

Ms. MCCABE. The amount of carbon they emit per megawatt 

hour. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And isn’t another word of saying that a cap? 

Ms. MCCABE. No, it is not. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. We’re going to disagree on that. I will 

say this: I appreciate very much Mr. Welch’s comments, appreciate 

his help. We are having problems. I also agree with Mr. Johnson, 

it’s not something you just have a conversation on. I’ve got a county 

where they fight over flat land because there’s only about three 

pieces of it in the whole county that don’t already have something 

built on them, or in a floodway, so it’s not something you just easily 

say we’re going to be able to create jobs. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Kentucky, Mr. Yarmuth, for 5 minutes. 

54 

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. 

McCabe, thank you for being here, and I want to thank you in advance—well, thank you initially for the responsiveness you’ve had 

both to our State officials in Kentucky, but also to me personally 

and our office. We certainly appreciate the goals of this plan. 

Before I get to the question I have, I have to set the record 

straight, or at least revisit history a little bit about cap and trade, 

because I was here in 2009 when we passed Waxman-Markey in 

the House. No, it didn’t pass the Senate, it didn’t get 60 votes. It 

had a majority of Senators for it, but when Waxman-Markey was 

introduced, those of us who were from States where a significant 

majority of our power was produced by coal couldn’t support the 

initial plan because it was going to cost our consumers a lot of 

money. So, a group of us led by Rick Boucher, who’s the incumbent 

that Mr. Griffith defeated, went to our leadership and said, ‘‘We 

can’t support this, and you need our votes in order to do it.’’ And 

what we were able to do was change Waxman-Markey in a way 

that made it very, very reasonable for our States to comply, was 

not going to have an undue impact on our consumers. As a matter 

of fact, when I surveyed our businesses and our utility company, 

they said it would have minimal impact. It might raise rates 15 

percent over 10 years if the users did nothing else, and it would 

also create tens of thousands of new jobs in Kentucky. So, the reason we did that was because we didn’t want to be here today, because we didn’t want EPA to have a plan that might unduly impact 

our States. 

We had no way of guaranteeing that that wouldn’t happen, and 

we knew that because of the Supreme Court decision and so forth, 

the obligation of EPA was to regulate carbon emissions. So, that’s 

where we were. We’re here today because Republicans stopped 

Waxman-Markey. That’s why we’re here. So, if they have a complaint about that, they can blame themselves. 

Now to my question, and this relates to the line of questioning 

that Mr. McKinley raised earlier. Kentucky is one of those States, 

as he mentioned, that in the initial plan we were supposed to reduce our emissions by 18 percent. We felt comfortable with that. 

We thought that was doable. In the final plan, we’re up—it wasn’t 

41. I think we’re closer to 30, but still it’s a significant increase. 

And I understand the rationale for doing that, the way the utilities 

deliver power is not commensurate with a State-specific target. But 

what I am concerned about is that with this increase, while the 

projections for long-term cost-savings seem attractive, there’s the 

possibility of short term price increases to rate payers, and certainly, if I were not in the United States Congress, I would say I’m 

all for the plan. I’m for clean air, I’m a tree hugger, you know. I’m 

fine, but I do have responsibilities to my constituents to make sure 

that this doesn’t unduly impact them. 

So, my fear is that if in our regional network, whatever that region might be, in our mix, that the way that the ultimate resolution of this, or accomplishment of this goal is something that Kentucky’s utilities bear the brunt of, and that our prices rise disproportionately to those other areas in our region that are affected 

by this mix. So, my question is, is there any analysis, or is there 

any consideration in your Agency about how we would, if we’re 

55 

going to spread the responsibility over regions, how we might 

spread the increased costs so that one State doesn’t have their 

rates go up 30, 40, 50 percent, and another State doesn’t have their 

rates go up at all? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, our analysis doesn’t show that even if you 

look at smaller regions than the whole country or the interconnect 

that there would be a wide range of increases. But I think 

everybody’s concerned about this, everybody wants to protect 

against that. And now that the plan is out and people are starting 

to dig in and think about, there’s a lot of discussion going on about 

how to manage this in a way that would avoid that situation. So, 

the reliability entities are talking, the States are talking to find 

those ways to make sure that that doesn’t happen. 

Mr. YARMUTH. OK. Well, I appreciate that. I look forward to 

being a part of those conversations. 

Ms. MCCABE. Absolutely. 

Mr. YARMUTH. And once again, I thank you for your consideration in our dealings together. And thank you for appearing today. 

I yield back. 

Ms. MCCABE. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Long, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Ms. McCabe, in 

terms of complexity, the rules contain hundreds of pages regarding 

variations in State plans and emissions trading. For example, you 

could turn to page 65 of the proposed Federal plan/model trading 

rule, beginning at the top of the page EPA states, and I quote, ‘‘In 

the final emissions guidelines the EPA also discussed a concern 

that CO2 emissions reductions would be eroded in situations where 

an effective EGU in a rate-based State counts the megawatt hours 

for measures located in a mass-based State, but the generation 

from that measure acts solely to serve load in the mass-based 

State. In that scenario, expected CO2 emissions reduction actions 

in the rate-based State are foregone as a result of counting the 

megawatt hours that resulted in CO2 emissions reductions in a 

mass-based State.’’ Can you decipher that for me? 

Ms. MCCABE. I think you’re reflecting that there is some complexity in this rule. It’s partly because of the choices and the flexibility that we provided in response to people’s requests on it, but 

that’s reflecting particular situations where States have been asking how do we deal with one another because power does flow 

across State borders. 

Mr. LONG. Well, what does that have to do with standards of performance of a power plant? I mean, how does that relate to the 

States trying to work together? How does this relate? 

Ms. MCCABE. It’s all about the flexibility, and it’s reflection that 

the power sector works as an integrated system. So, a system that 

demanded that each individual unit meet a specific rate would be 

more costly, would be more difficult, would have more reliability 

implications than a system that affords a lot of flexibility across 

the system, recognizing the way it actually works. 

Mr. LONG. OK, I’ve got another question here, and this has been 

reflected today by other members that have used coal to supply a 

lot of their electricity. But in my home State of Missouri, we rely 

56 

on coal for 83 percent of our energy generation, and I know that’s 

not true on the east coast and the west coast, but in Missouri it 

is, and that’s what the folks I represent are concerned about. 

The Clean Power Plan places a huge burden on coal-fired power 

plants, and this rule also restricts, and I don’t understand this, the 

construction of new natural gas plants as a compliance measure. 

Could you explain to me why the EPA restricts the construction of 

natural gas-fired power plants as a compliance measure? 

Ms. MCCABE. So, new generation to meet new load is subject to 

its own set of rules. This particular rule which addresses existing 

facilities is intended to manage that existing fleet of power plants 

and bring those emissions down. So, there’s some provisions in 

there to make sure that that’s what the rule is focused on, and 

those plans are actually delivering the reductions from that existing fleet. 

Mr. LONG. I still don’t understand the restriction on new construction of natural gas-fired plants. 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, we’d be happy to follow-up with you or your 

staff and walk through it a little bit in more detail, Congressman. 

Mr. LONG. OK. My staff is here today, so if we can do that, that 

would be greatly appreciated. 

And the final rule’s interim and final goals for Missouri are even 

more stringent than the proposed rule’s. What factors did the EPA 

consider when reaching this adjustment? 

Ms. MCCABE. So, in the final rule there was adjustment across 

the board, across all States, and some of the States’ targets went 

up, and some of them went down. It’s a reflection of a couple of 

things. One is that, as I mentioned earlier today, in the final rule 

we set a uniform emission rate for all coal plants across the country. That’s not the way the proposal was designed. And another key 

feature was information that we got from commenters, from States, 

and utilities, and others really suggesting that the appropriate way 

to look at this was on a regional basis because that’s the way the 

power system worked. So, when you look at it across a regional 

basis, States have, and utilities in those States have, more opportunities to invest in renewables and cleaner energy than if they were 

restricted to looking within their State borders, which is an artificial boundary when it comes to the way the industry works. 

Mr. LONG. OK, so we end up with more stringent rules in flyover 

countries, so we’re used to that. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The Chair at this time recognizes the gentleman 

from New York, Mr. Engel, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your 

courtesy very much. Hello, Administrator. It’s good to see you 

again. Last time we spoke, the Clean Power Plan was still a proposed rule, and now it’s been finalized. And I really just want to 

applaud you for your commitment to this important issue. So, 

thank you. 

Ms. MCCABE. Thank you. 

Mr. ENGEL. We know the U.S. emits more carbon pollution than 

any nation except China, and existing power plants are the country’s largest single source of carbon pollution. And before now, most 

power plants could emit unlimited amounts of carbon dioxide, and 

57 

those emissions have significant health impacts. They’ve threatened the lives and well-being of all people across America. 

I say this because my district has some of the highest rates of 

asthma in the United States. I’m from New York City, from the 

Bronx, and death rates from asthma in the Bronx are about three 

times higher than the national average, and hospitalization rates 

are about five times higher. And the EPA estimates that the climate and public health benefits of the Clean Power Plan will range 

between $34–54 billion in 2030, and it will help avoid between 

1,500 and 3,600 premature deaths, and 90,000 asthma attacks in 

children in the year 2030 alone. So, I believe that the Clean Power 

Plan is important because of the public health benefits associated 

with reductions in domestic emissions, and also because it signals 

to the international community that the U.S. is serious about 

reigning in its contribution to global greenhouse gas pollution. 

So, let me ask you this. When President Obama entered office, 

he set out to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent below 

2005 levels by the year 2020. The intended nationally determined 

contribution that we submitted to the U.N. Framework Convention 

on Climate Change says that we plan to reduce our emissions by 

26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. Do you think we’ll hit 

those targets, and would we hit them without the Clean Power 

Plan? And how does implementation of the Clean Power Plan impact the international climate negotiations coming up in Paris in 

December? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, the Clean Power Plan along with a number 

of the other programs that we have underway across the Federal 

Government are critical to the United States meeting that ambitious goal that we’ve set for ourselves, and it would be extremely 

difficult to get to those targets without the reductions from the 

power sector, which as you said is the largest stationary source of 

emissions in the country. So, it’s really important. 

And as I mentioned earlier this morning, putting the Clean 

Power Plan out even in proposal really changed the debate internationally, and showed that the U.S. is really serious about doing 

this in a way that really counted, and would really result in reduced emissions. So, we think it has been hugely beneficial. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. I certainly agree with you. And let me 

ask you this question. Since 1990, a vast majority of the new electric generation capacity in the United States has been built to burn 

natural gas, the second largest source of new capacity has been 

wind power which creates no air pollution at all, as we all know. 

I understand that with State flexibility built into the Clean 

Power Plan it’s impossible to know the precise mix of fuels that 

will result, but do you anticipate the Clean Power Plan changing 

the fuel trends that we’ve seen emerging over the last 25 years? 

And if so, how? 

Ms. MCCABE. What we see is that the Clean Power Plan will continue and enhance the momentum that you’ve already reflected, 

which is moving towards greater reliance on natural gas, and 

greater reliance on renewables, recognizing that you need a diverse 

supply, and you need a variety of sources to provide base-load 

power, and increased use of renewables, which is becoming more 

and more affordable. So, we see a greater percentage becoming reVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:40 Apr 26, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X83CO2REGSSCANS042216\114X83CO2REGSPENDING WAY
58 

newables of all sorts, a greater percentage becoming natural gas reliant over the period of time of this Clean Power Plan. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, thank you very much. I’m happy to hear that, 

and keep up your good work. We really appreciate it. And thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. MCCABE. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, that concludes the hearing. I have one additional question, and you may or may not have an additional question, Mr. Rush. But, Ms. McCabe, we will be electing a new Governor in Kentucky next month. The Democratic candidate who is 

currently attorney general, is one of those that filed the lawsuit 

against EPA. Of course, the lawsuit was dismissed for lack of 

standing because the rule has not been published in the Register 

yet, but he’s indicated that he will not be submitting a State implementation plan. The Republican candidate for Governor said if he 

wins, he would not submit a State implementation plan. My question is, what would be the earliest if that occurred that EPA could 

impose a Federal plan? 

Ms. MCCABE. So, the rule requires that, by September 6th of 

2016, the State either submit a plan or a request for an extension. 

If the State does not submit something on September 6th, EPA 

would then look to the steps that it needs to take in order to fulfill 

our responsibilities under the Clean Air Act. So, that would be the 

first event that could trigger our consideration. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So, what do you think it would be, like 30 days 

after September 6th? 

Ms. MCCABE. I really couldn’t speak to the timing, Congressman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I mean, you don’t have any idea? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, I think we will work to—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Would it be a year, or would it be 30 days? 

Ms. MCCABE. I think we will look to work with those States and 

move in a prompt manner, but as to a specific calendar, I don’t 

have one. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Do you have any questions? 

Mr. RUSH. No, I don’t have any. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. All right. That concludes today’s hearing. Thank 

you very much. 

Ms. MCCABE. Thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes. 

Mr. RUSH. I would like to ask unanimous consent to entering two 

letters entered in the record, one being a letter from the Medical 

and Health Community Organization supporting the Clean Power 

Plan. This is numerous organizations, community health organizations. And two, the letter from the American Lung Association urging the EPA to adopt strong standards to reduce carbon pollution 

from existing power plants. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection, and the record will remain 

open for 10 days. That concludes today’s hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

59 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

It has been nearly 5 years since a Democratically controlled Congress last rejected 

cap-and-trade legislation. At the time, the American people recognized cap and 

trade for what it was—a massive, economy-wide energy tax—and Congress wisely 

listened to them. And since that time, neither the House nor the Senate has made 

a serious effort to revive this discredited approach. But now, the Obama administration is attempting to regulate where it failed to legislate with EPA issuing final 

rules to regulate carbon dioxide from new and existing fossil fuel-fired plants. 

These two rules, which exceed 3,000 pages, as well as the proposed Federal plan 

that imposes a cap-and-trade scheme on States that don’t have their own approved 

plans, raise all the same issues we had with the legislative version. And since it 

is being done through the regulatory route, it also raises questions about the legal 

authority to impose such sweeping measures on the States under Clean Air Act provisions never intended for this purpose. 

I didn’t support the legislative version of cap and trade, and I don’t feel any better 

about today’s regulatory equivalent. This is especially true given the predicted double-digit impact on electricity prices for most States, according to a study conducted 

by NERA, as well as the risks to reliability. 

In my home State of Michigan, 54 percent of electricity generated comes from 

coal, and electricity rates are expected to increase 12 percent between 2020–2029. 

And access to affordable and reliable electricity can be a matter of life or death in 

the winter months. Additionally, manufacturing States like mine need low energy 

costs in order to remain globally competitive. And for all of the costs of these rules, 

the payoff is a change in future global temperatures that will be no more than a 

few hundredths of a degree by 2100 based on EPA’s prior modeling. 

The threat of being subject to a Federal plan is putting States between a rock 

and a hard place—either devote significant State resources to develop a State plan 

in response to a rule that is likely to be struck down by the courts, or become subject to mandatory Federal controls in less than a year after the rule’s publication. 

As it is, electricity rates have risen in recent years, and other EPA regulations 

have been a contributor. The rules we’re examining today will further add to this 

burden that disproportionately hurts low-income households and will continue to 

threaten grid reliability across the country. At a time when our fragile economic recovery is teetering on the edge amidst global market volatility, EPA’s regulations 

on their own do significant damage—but cumulatively they will break the camels 

back. 

It is important that Congress, who is charged with writing laws, continues to demand answers on behalf of those impacted by the new and existing rules, especially 

now that EPA is beginning the process of implementing their provisions. 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 

83 

84 

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

Æ