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

94–978 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 114–19 

OVERSIGHT HEARING: EXAMINING EPA’S 

PROPOSED CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS 

RULES FROM NEW, MODIFIED, AND 

EXISTING POWER PLANTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 11, 2015 

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

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RYAN JACKSON, Majority Staff Director 

BETTINA POIRIER, Democratic Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2015 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 1 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 7 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 93 

WITNESSES 

McCabe, Janet , Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and 

Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ........................................... 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Inhofe .................................................................................................. 23 

Senator Booker ................................................................................................. 25 

Senator Fischer ................................................................................................. 27 

Senator Sessions ............................................................................................... 28 

Senator Sullivan ............................................................................................... 30 

Senator Vitter ................................................................................................... 32 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Senate Climate Change Legistation Vote History ................................................ 94 

Articles: 

DataLab; Every President’s executive Orders in One Chart ........................ 95 

NASA; NASA, NOAA find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record .............. 97 

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative ............................................................... 103 

The American Presidency Project; Executive Orders .................................... 105 

World Meteorological Organization ................................................................. 107 

The New York Times; Most Republicans Say They Back Climate Action, 

Poll Finds ....................................................................................................... 111 

The Washington Post; Inhofe’s misleading statements on carbon emissions rule ....................................................................................................... 115 

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 114th Congress - 1st Session: 

On the Amendment (Hoeven Amdt. No. 87, As Modified) ............................ 120 

On the Amendment (Schatz Amdt. No. 58) .................................................... 123 

On the Amendment (Whitehouse Amdt. No. 29) ........................................... 126 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING: EXAMINING EPA’S 

PROPOSED CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS 

RULES FROM NEW, MODIFIED, AND EXISTING POWER PLANTS 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2015 

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

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:03 a.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. James Inhofe (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Inhofe, Vitter, Barrasso, Capito, Crapo, 

Boozman, Wicker, Fischer, Rounds, Sullivan, Boxer, Carper, 

Cardin, Whitehouse, Merkley, Gillibrand, Booker, and Markey. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Let me get the unpopular stuff out of the way 

first. Let me assure my friends on the Democratic side that Senator 

Boxer did everything she could to change the minds of the Majority 

on opening statements. 

Quite often, I can remember going as long as 2 hours on opening 

statements while our witnesses came from far away, had to sit and 

wait. Instead of that, we are going to have longer time for questions so if individuals want to combine that with opening statements, they can do that. 

We are using the early bird rule. I will start with an opening 

statement. 

Administrator McCabe, it is very nice to have you here and we 

are looking forward to working with you. 

By mid-summer, your office plans to finalize three separate rules 

to reduce carbon dioxide emissions at power plants, which according to your own testimony before the House Energy and Power 

Subcommittee on June 19, 2014, does nothing to save us from global warming. 

That is a quote I will use when it is my turn for questions so 

that people won’t question the accuracy of that. 

No one should be surprised. We have been here before. NASA’s 

Dr. James Hansen, the father of global warming theory, said the 

Kyoto Protocol will have a little effect on global temperatures in 

the 21st century and it would take 30 Kyotos, his words, not mine, 

to reduce warming. 

2 

Even when Secretary Chu contradicted Lisa Jackson in July 

2009, she was the director of the EPA at that time, she honestly 

testified that U.S. action would not impact world CO2 levels. 

You don’t have to go back to that time because I asked her that 

question sitting right here. I said, we if we are to pass any of these 

cap and trade bills at that time, would this have the effect of reducing CO2 emissions worldwide? She said no, it would not because 

this isn’t where the problem is. The problem is China, India and 

so forth. We all know that. 

I am going to try to go through this and try to get these points 

across. Then we will hear from Senator Boxer. 

Also, by mid-summer, Ms. McCabe, your office plans to complete 

the Small Business Advocacy Review, issue a model Federal Implementation Plan and evaluate literally over 5 million public comments to your proposed rules. 

The agency has already missed its first statutorily required deadline to finalize its new source proposal by January 8, 2015. I am 

interested to learn how the EPA expects States to comply with an 

expedited timeline the agency could not meet. 

It should not be a surprise that 31 States have now opposed the 

Clean Power Plan. Today is EPA’s day but we will be inviting these 

31 State representatives, the ones paying for all this stuff, the 

stakeholders, the ones who have to comply, to a hearing. 

In the meantime, we have number of problems with the proposals. I am concerned that your agency intends to impose the 

most expensive regulations in history, yet failed to achieve your 

own goals. 

According to the economic consulting and analysis firm, NERA, 

the Clean Power Plan alone, on existing power plants, would cost 

$73 billion a year and upwards of $469 billion over the next 15 

years. 

It is hard to say on the new source because no one is going to 

be building a new coal plant. Those are the actual words of the 

President. He said, ‘‘If someone wants to build a coal power plan, 

they can. It is just that it will bankrupt them.’’ That is clearly the 

intent of this. 

What we are trying to do with regulation is what they have tried 

to do since 2002 through legislation. The first, we might remember, 

was the Byrd-Hagel rule in 1997. The vote on the Senate floor was 

95–0 not to adopt a Kyoto type. 

Then we had the McCain-Lieberman bill in 2002, another 

McCain-Lieberman bill in 2005, and another bill with Lieberman 

in 2008. Every one of them went down in defeat in the Senate. 

These were all Senate bills. They went down in defeat by a greater 

margin. 

I think you are looking at something now that we want to hear 

how EPA is steamrolling ahead requesting billions of dollars in proposals which States reject, which ignores the will of Congress, 

which relies on unreasonable assumption, costs billions of dollars, 

will increase our energy bill, and not impact global warming. 

Senator Boxer. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

3 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Acting Administrator McCabe, thank you for taking the time to be here today. By 

mid-summer, your office plans to finalize three separate rules to reduce carbon dioxide emissions at power plants. According to your own testimony before the House 

Energy and Power Subcommittee on June 19, 2014, these rules do nothing to save 

us from global warming. 

No one should be surprised; we’ve been here before. 

• NASA’s Dr. James Hansen—the father of global warming theory—said himself 

that the Kyoto Protocol will have little effect on global temperature in the 21st century and that it will take 30 Kyotos to reduce warming. 

• Lisa Jackson honestly testified that U.S. action would not impact world CO2 levels, even after Secretary Chu had contradicted her at a July 7, 2009, EPW hearing. 

• According to two recent analyses of the President’s Clean Power Plan, it’s been 

demonstrated that the initiative will only reduce the earth’s temperature by 0.02 

degrees Celsius by 2100. Another study demonstrates that CO2 concentrations will 

be reduced by less than 0.5 percent, global temperature rise will be reduced by 

0.016 degree F, and sea level rise will be reduced by a 0.3 millimeter—or the thickness of three sheets of paper. 

Similarly, your office plans to complete a Small Business Advocacy Review, issue 

a model Federal Implementation Plan, and evaluate literally over 5 million public 

comments to your proposed rules by mid-summer, 

The agency has already missed its first statutorily required deadline to finalize 

its new source proposal by January 8, 2015. I’m interested to learn how the EPA 

expects states to comply with an expedited timeline the agency itself couldn’t even 

meet. 

It should not be surprising that 31 States now oppose your Clean Power Plan. 

Today is EPA’s day to testify, but we will invite these states to have their day before 

this Committee to explain their problems. 

In the meantime, I have a number of problems with these proposals. I am concerned that your agency intends to impose the most expensive regulation in history 

yet fail to achieve your goals. According to the economic consulting and analysis 

firm, NERA, the Clean Power Plan alone would cost as much as $73 billion per year 

and upwards of $469 billion over the next 15 years. It’s difficult to know what the 

new source performance standards would cost, however, because no one will build 

a new coal plant. We’ll have to take the President at his word from his interview 

with the San Francisco Chronicle in January 8, when he said, ‘‘So if somebody 

wants to build a coal power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them.’’ 

Under the Clean Power Plan, at least 43 states will face double digit electricity price 

increases. The President is delivering on his campaign promise that under his Administration ‘‘electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket.’’ 

Additional impacts of the existing source rule include interruptions to the reliability of our nation’s electrical grid. The Southwest Power Pool, which includes 

Oklahoma, reports the rule would result in ‘‘cascading outages’’ and ‘‘voltage collapse.’’ The Clean Power Plan would also force the early retirement of coal-fired 

plants where operators have already made significant investments to install emissions control equipment in order to comply with other EPA regulations. Finally, this 

rule is an unprecedented attempt by the EPA to greatly expand its section 111 authority. This results in a Federal takeover of how we plan, develop, and consume 

energy in this country. 

Democrats may want to criticize him for submitting comments on behalf of Peabody Energy, but even Lawrence Tribe wrote in comments and in a Wall Street 

Journal op-ed, that he ‘‘concluded that the agency is asserting executive power far 

beyond its lawful authority.’’ 

The Byrd/Hagel vote in 1997 was 95–0, 2003 McCain-Lieberman, 2005 McCainLieberman, and 2008 Warner-Lieberman all failed. Waxman-Markey was simply 

DOA in the Senate in 2009. I’m eager to hear why EPA is steamrolling ahead and 

requesting billions of dollars on these proposals. Not only do states reject them, but 

they ignore the will of Congress, rely on unreasonable assumptions, cost billions, increase our energy bills, and do nothing to impact global warming. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, before we start the clock, I want 

to respond to this idea that nobody can make opening statements 

except you or me. 

I just think it is wrong. For 15 years, we all listened to each 

other. I want to lodge official opposition of the Democratic minority 

4 

to limiting opening statements to the Chairman and the Ranking 

Member. 

With the goodwill we have, I hope we can continue to talk. 

Senator INHOFE. Let me respond to that before we start your 

clock rolling. 

We talked about that in our conference. We are the majority 

now. I recall you saying at one time that elections do have consequences, so some of these things are subject to change. 

My problem has always been many of the committees, such as 

the Senate Armed Services Committee, only have the Chairman 

and the Ranking Member making opening statements. These are 

large committees. 

I can remember sitting as long as 2 hours listening to each one 

of us talk and we have people coming in from California and long 

distances away. With 8 minute rounds, which are what we will 

have, I think each member can take half of that and use that if 

the member wants to. That is going to be the policy. I know you 

don’t like it. 

Senator BOXER. No, we don’t like it and don’t like gagging members of this committee. I am sad about it. We have done it for 15 

years. Also, part of it is, you and I get to question first. 

You speak 5 minutes, I speak 5 minutes, the witness speaks, you 

get 8 minutes, and I get 8 minutes. By the time we get to our members, it is noon. 

Senator INHOFE. I would probably not speak first, but go ahead. 

Senator BOXER. Good. Let us start the clock. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, can I ask consent that my opening statement be included in the record? 

Senator INHOFE. Sure. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

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

Clean Power Plan. In Maryland we are already seeing costly and destructive effects 

of Climate change and I fully support regulating carbon from existing power plants. 

With bi-partisan support, Congress passed the Clean Air Act that President Richard Nixon signed into law on the last day of the year in 1970. The Clean Air Act 

came about in response to devastating air pollution that made it nearly impossible 

to see the sky during certain times of the year in cities like Los Angeles, New York 

and my home town of Baltimore. 

After almost 45 years, the Clean Air Act has effectively helped cleanup the air 

in most major cities. The proof is in the decline of bad-air days we experience, particularly in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast during the hot summer months. It used 

to be that in the DC-Baltimore metropolitan area during the 1970’s, 1980’s and 

1990’s, that anytime the temperature soared into the nineties we’d inevitable have 

ground level ozone levels so high that the National Weather Service would issue 

‘‘red alerts’’ for air quality advising seniors, young children and persons with respiratory diseases like asthma to stay indoors. 

The Clean Air Act is working. The number of ‘‘red alert’’ and ‘‘orange alert’’ days 

have been in decline in recent years, despite our region experiencing some of the 

hottest summers on record since the start of this century. 

The U.S. economy has grown exponentially in the decades since the Clean Air Act 

was enacted, despite what the doomsayers have said with each regulation promulgated under the Act. The chorus of concerns and fear mongering with this rule is 

no different than any of the Clean Air Act rules that have preceded it, in every instance, just as this one, the U.S. has grown its economy and improved our environment, proving time and time again that a healthy environment and robust economy 

are not exclusive choices that we must make—we can and will have both. 

5 

It’s time to turn a new chapter in the Clean Air Act and I am proud of this administration’s recognition to take bold action where others failed to do so. 

EPA’s authority to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act has been affirmed by 

the Supreme Court in two landmark Clean Air Act cases: Massachusetts v. EPA 

(2007), which affirmed EPA’s standing to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act 

pending EPA’s promulgation of an ‘‘endangerment finding’’ for GHGs. 

American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut (2011) was a unanimous 

SCOTUS decision which held that corporations cannot be sued for GHGs emissions 

under Federal common law, because the Clean Air Act delegates the management 

of GHGs emissions to the EPA—setting the stage for yesterday’s rule. 

On remand from Massachusetts v. EPA, EPA found that six greenhouse gases, 

emitted from the combustion of carbon based fuels, ‘‘in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare.’’ 

In Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, the petitioners sought judicial review of EPA’s determination in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. On June 

26, 2012, the court issued an opinion which dismissed the challenges to the EPA’s 

endangerment finding and the related GHG regulations. 

The three-judge panel unanimously upheld the EPA’s central finding that GHGs 

such as CO2 endanger public health and are likely responsible for the global warming experienced over the past half century. 

The statutory authority granted under the 1970 Clean Air Act, and three Federal 

court decisions including two Supreme Court decisions, laid the legal groundwork 

for a commonsense approach to regulating carbon pollution under Section 111 of the 

Clean Air Act. 

Sec. 111 authorizes EPA to establish baseline performance standards for power 

plants, which in the case of this rule we are talking about achieving a 30 percent 

net reduction in carbon pollution from power plants, using 2005 as the baseline, by 

2030. 

Moreover, the rule is flexible in how these ‘‘performance standards’’ are met by 

applying these standards broadly across each states’ fleet of power plants, rather 

than demanding these reductions from each individual power plant. 

This approach to regulation puts states in control of how it’s fleet of power generation facilities will these reduction targets. The performance standard is applied 

across all power generation facilities, including carbon intensive facilities like coal 

power plants, and zero emission power like nuclear, hydro and wind. 

Through this rule, solutions can be sought outside the fence, it may be possible 

for states to meet these standards through increased in-State development of renewable energy and improved energy efficiency standard, without having to shutdown 

or drastically change the operations of its coal power plants. 

The point is, states will be in control of how they will meet these standards and 

there are a wide variety of tools in the toolbox for states to use to meet these standards. 

Former Governor Martin O’Malley positioned Maryland to thrive under this rule 

through the State’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). 

Using RGGI as its model and approach for compliance with the rule, RGGI generates more than $200 million annually in revenues for Maryland, meaning compliance with this rule through will continue to bring needed revenues into the state. 

Moreover, electricity rates have stabilized in Maryland providing price certainty for 

ratepayers which would be unchanged under this rule so long as Maryland remains 

a RGGI state. Last, MD’s regulated community understands and appreciates the 

regulatory certainty the RGGI has provided. 

That’s why our state’s largest electricity generator has submitted comments that 

support the goals of the proposed rules, while at the same time suggest how the 

rule may be improved to better accommodate nuclear power generation. I applaud 

Exelon’s constructive participation and approach to the rulemaking process. 

I’m proud that Maryland’s energy companies, like Constellation/Exelon are making investments to reduce the carbon output of its power generation fleet in Maryland and in the other states they are operating in. 

These early adopters made the correct investments and assumptions about where 

regulation was headed all based on information that everyone in the power generation sector had available. These leaders in the industry will thrive under the new 

certainty these rules will provide the industry. 

The actions taken by Maryland’s power sector and State regulators show an understanding of how important addressing climate change is to Maryland. After all, 

it makes good business sense in Maryland for power providers to their part to reduce the causes of climate change, because 70 percent of the state’s population, also 

known as ratepayers, lives in the coastal regions of the state. 

6 

This gets to how climate change is impacting Maryland’s economy and our way 

of life. 

Poultry is Maryland’s number one agricultural product. Poultry dominates the 

Eastern Shore economy. Feed costs comprise more than 75 percent of the input cost 

of raising birds to market. 2012’s record drought severely reduced our nation’s corn 

supply. 

The drought, combined with the RFS’s ethanol production mandate, pushed feed 

prices to record highs. The increased risk of drought that climate change presents 

adds instability to Maryland’s poultry industry. 

At a recent event in Dorchester County, farmers remarked that they are noticing 

a change in their growing season and they feel their way of life is threatened by 

climate change. 

Another fixture of Maryland’s economy is Maryland’s watermen, who are continuing the centuries’ old traditions of harvesting the bounty of the Chesapeake 

Bay. Lately though, the quality of the Bay’s bounty in a constant State of flux as 

warmer waters and increased intensity of storms is changing the ecology of the Bay. 

Eelgrass, which provides important habitat for the Bay’s iconic Blue Crabs, died 

out almost completely during the record-hot summers of 2005 and 2010. This year 

crab population projections are anticipated to be low, due in large part to this winter’s series of polar vortexes, caused by instability in the upper atmosphere that normally keeps massive cold air masses better centered to the North in the Winter. 

When Blue Crab populations suffer Maryland’s watermen suffer, our coastal communities suffer and Maryland’s seafood industry more broadly suffers. 

Moreover, the Port of Baltimore is an economic engine in the State of Maryland 

and the Mid-Atlantic region on the whole. The Port supports thousands of dockside 

jobs in Baltimore, and the commerce going in and out of the port supports tens of 

thousands of jobs across the Eastern United States. Sea level rise threatens the productivity of the Port and the safety and utility of the harbor infrastructure at the 

Port of Baltimore. 

The tourism industry is directly affected by climate change. People love to come 

to our State to hunt and fish. One of the most valuable assets we have along the 

bay is the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. 

The recovery of the American Bald Eagle is no more evident than at Blackwater 

National Wildlife Refuge where there are more than 100 resident Bald Eagles in 

the refuge. 

Blackwater is at risk. It is important for tourism, and it is important for our environment. It is also the land in which Harriet Tubman led freedom seekers along 

the Underground Railroad, so it has a tremendous historic significance as well. Yet, 

between 1938 and 2006, the refuge has lost 5,000 acres of marshland to open water, 

and that is accelerating. It is not slowing down. If we don’t reverse the impacts of 

climate change, we are going to see a more dramatic impact on those types of treasures in Maryland and nationally. 

There is no denying that carbon gases in our atmosphere trap heat which has 

helped make our planet hospitable to life for billions of years. The carbon in the 

atmosphere that keep our planet hospitable is the same carbon that is emitted into 

the atmosphere from tailpipes and smokestacks. 

As a global society we have burned billions of tons of carbon based fossil fuels 

over the decades, while also shrinking the size of natural carbon sinks like forests. 

As a result the natural balance of carbon in our atmosphere is out of sync. 

The average atmospheric and surface temperatures on Earth are rising. More 

heat is being trapped and we are seeing the effects of these changes in our atmosphere in changing weather patterns and the increased intensity of weather events, 

and weather driven events, like wild fires, droughts, floods, and super cell storm 

systems. 

The overwhelming scientific consensus, 97 percent of climate scientists, among experts doing field research have come to determine that climate change is real and 

manmade. 

In the media and in Congress there is an inherent interest in presenting a balanced view point on issues. 

Each side gets its witnesses and advocates, which is fine and good for a political 

debate, but we’re not debating politics. We are debating scientific findings in which 

there an overwhelming, 97 percent, consensus among scientists agree that the data 

shows climate change is real. 

U.S. leadership on reducing global carbon pollution is long overdue. While it is 

unfortunate that Congress will continue to bicker over this sentinel issue facing generations to come, at least we will know show other leaders around the world that 

the U.S. is a serious partners in tackling this threat. 

7 

I am encouraged by the prospect of new economic growth potential from clean energy development and stand ready to make Maryland and the U.S. a leader into the 

future. 

The Chair. All opening statements will be made a part of the 

record. 

Senator BOXER. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, today’s oversight hearing will examine the critically important steps that the Obama administration is taking to address climate change by reducing dangerous carbon pollution from the biggest source, power plants. 

They account for 40 percent of all carbon pollution released into 

the air and we are seeing the consequences. Let us look at the 

trends across the Country. 

It is official. The year 2014 was the hottest year in recorded history and was earth’s warmest year on record. How hot was it, 2014 

was earth’s warmest year on record as data shows. 

Everyone can say whatever they want. They can say it is cold 

and it is snowing. We all know all the facts. For goodness sakes, 

how out of step can people be with the scientists and the people 

of this Country who are so far ahead? 

NASA and NOAA found that in 134 years of recordkeeping, no 

year has been hotter around the globe than 2014. The President’s 

proposal will enable America to lead the way to avert the most calamitous impacts of climate change such as sea level rise, dangerous heat waves and economic disruption to our farmers, to our 

businesses, to our tourist industry and to our people. 

I often say if people cannot breathe, they cannot work or go to 

school. We know this particular proposal will avoid up to 3,700 

cases of bronchitis in children, 150,000 asthma attacks, 3,300 heart 

attacks, 6,600 premature deaths and 490,000 missed days at 

school. 

Who are we working for, the people of this Country or the polluters? I think that is the question. The Obama administration gets 

it and so do the American people. 

Let us look at a new Stanford University poll which found that 

83 percent of Americans, including 61 percent of Republicans, say 

if nothing is done to reduce carbon pollution, global warming will 

be a serious problem into the future. Seventy-seven percent of 

Americans of all political stripes say the Federal Government 

should be doing a substantial amount to combat climate change. 

Last year, this committee heard from four former EPA Administrators, all Republicans who served under Presidents Nixon and 

George W. Bush. They all agreed that climate change requires action now and it should not be a partisan issue. I thought for sure 

that would change some minds on my Republican side. Not one 

mind was changed. 

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

Air Act, which was created with an overwhelming bipartisan consensus that I yearn for today. In 1970, the Clean Air Act passed 

the Senate by a vote of 73 to zero, passed the House by 375 to 1, 

and was signed into law by President Nixon. 

8 

The Clean Air Act has a proven track record of success. President 

Obama is building on that success. I often say in all the years I 

have been in office, a long time, no one ever complained that the 

air was too clean. Oh, gee, Barbara, the air is just clean enough; 

don’t do anything more. They want us to keep cleaning up the air. 

My home State has been a leader in proving you can reduce carbon pollution and grow this economy. California households pay the 

ninth lowest electricity bills and the per person carbon footprint is 

among the lowest in the Country. 

We also added 491,000 jobs in the first year of the State’s cap 

and trade system, a job growth rate of 3.3 percent, better than the 

national rate of 2.5 percent. Over the last 4 years, we have turned 

a $26 billion budget deficit into a projected $4 billion surplus. 

Do not tell me that if you move forward on clean air, you destroy 

the economy or destroy your budget. It is quite the opposite. 

Climate change is happening now. We cannot afford to wait. I 

commend the President and the EPA for taking action to protect 

our families and our children from the worse impacts. 

In the time remaining, I ask unanimous consent to place into the 

record, the article in today’s Washington Post. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

9 


94978.050
10 


94978.051
11 


94978.052
12 


94978.053
13 


94978.054
14 

Senator BOXER. It says, Studies on Modifying Climate Urge, Geoengineering Would Be a Risky Last Resort Scientists Say. I urge 

everyone to read this. 

We don’t need this brave new world of geo-engineering. We can 

move forward on the policies the President has put forward and 

that Republican Presidents have put forward. Let us move ahead 

and do the right thing for our children, our families and our Nation. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

We will now turn to our witness, Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant 

Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

STATEMENT OF JANET MCCABE, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. MCCABE. Thank you, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member 

Boxer and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

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

already threatens human health and welfare and economic 

wellbeing, and if left unchecked, it will have devastating impacts 

on the United States and the planet. 

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

laid out a Climate Action Plan and why this summer the EPA will 

be taking flexible, common-sense steps to cut carbon pollution from 

the power sector. 

These steps will help build a more resilient nation, and lead the 

world in our global climate fight. Beginning in January 2014, EPA 

has issued three proposals to address CO2 emissions from power 

plants. 

These rules will set standards for CO2 emissions from new, existing and modified and reconstructed fossil fuel-fired power plants. 

As we announced in January, the EPA intends to finalize these 

three rules by mid-summer 2015. 

EPA’s stakeholder outreach and public engagement in preparation for these rulemakings has been unprecedented and has resulted in an unprecedented amount of public input. We are currently reviewing the roughly two million comments received on the 

proposal for new sources and the more than 3.5 million comments 

we received on the proposals for existing, modified and reconstructed sources. 

As we work our way through the comments, what is completely 

apparent is not only the time and effort the States and our many 

stakeholders have put into developing their input, but the importance we, as a country, place on moving forward to address climate 

change. This input is especially important given the important role 

the States will play in this program. 

We have received comment on a range of crucial issues from the 

investments these rules might require to maintain reliability, a 

consideration we view with the utmost importance in implementing 

all clean air protections, to costs, the right levels of stringency, and 

15 

establishing a workable glide path that will bring about success in 

moving to a less carbon intensive energy production while safeguarding a reliable and affordable supply of electricity for all communities, businesses and consumers. 

Many comments identify opportunities to drive investment in innovative clean technologies and energy efficiency, as well as reiterating the importance of the emissions reductions in addressing 

climate change and improving air quality and public health. 

We are addressing and accounting for all of the information and 

ideas received on the three separate proposals and we are confident 

that the final rules will be improved as a result of this input. 

While EPA is firmly focused on the work needed over the next 

few months to finalize rules that take into account all of the input 

we received, we remain deeply committed to continuing our engagement with States, tribes, utilities, stakeholders, other Federal 

agencies, resource planning organizations and others. 

As part of this process, we know that States are beginning to 

think about the very real task of drafting and developing State 

plans that will be used to implement the final Clean Power Plan 

when it is issued. We are preparing to provide States the assistance they will need as they begin to develop their State plans. 

That is why we are also starting a rulemaking process to develop 

a rule that both would set forth a proposed Federal plan and, by 

providing a model, could help States to think about their plans. 

I want to be clear that EPA’s strong preference, as is always, is 

that States will submit their own plans, tailored to their specific 

needs and priorities. We believe States will want to do that here, 

but we also know that setting out a Federal plan is an important 

step to ensure that our Clean Air Act obligations are fulfilled. 

At the same time, we believe that many States will find it helpful to be able to examine a Federal plan proposal as they begin to 

develop their own compliance plans. Indeed, they have told us so. 

That is why we are aiming to issue the Federal plan proposal in 

mid-summer as well. 

When fully implemented, the Clean Power Plan is expected to 

help deliver 730 million tons of reduction in CO2 emissions, a substantial reduction of harmful pollution. Moreover, it will also lead 

to thousands of fewer heart attacks and tens of thousands fewer 

asthma attacks and other health benefits as well. 

These reductions will deliver tens of billions of dollars in public 

health and climate benefits that far outweigh the estimated annual 

costs of the plan. The soot and smog reductions that will be 

achieved along with reductions in carbon pollution alone will yield 

$7 in health benefits for every dollar we invest in meeting the 

standards. 

Because energy efficiency is such a smart, cost effective strategy, 

we predict that, in 2030, average electricity bills for American families will be 8 percent cheaper than they are projected to be without 

the Clean Power Plan. 

When he unveiled his Climate Action Plan in June 2013, President Obama made clear that among his goals was not only achieving meaningful reductions in domestic greenhouse gas emissions, 

but also asserting leadership in the international effort to combat 

climate change. 

16 

We believe that the Clean Power Plan will fulfill our obligations 

under the Clean Air Act to protect communities from dangerous air 

pollution. At the same time, it is a significant component of the Administration’s broad-based set of actions that have achieved and 

will continue to achieve significant reductions in greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

There is evidence that the Clean Power Plan has spurred 

progress and commitment from other countries and has advanced 

the international discussion as a whole. We are confident that all 

o this can be achieved in a way that strengthens the economy and 

creates new jobs here at home. 

I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCabe follows:] 

17 


94978.001
18 


94978.002
19 


94978.003
20 


94978.004
21 


94978.005
22 


94978.006
23 

RESPONSES BY JANET MCCABE TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. In 2013, four nuclear reactors prematurely closed. One of those reactors was the Kewaunee plant in Wisconsin. When EPA set the reduction target for 

Wisconsin, it did so based on electricity production in 2012, a year in which 

Kewaunee was still operating. 

a. This means Wisconsin will be forced to meet a more stringent target, correct? 

Response. Nuclear power is part of an all-of-the-above, diverse energy mix and 

provides a reliable, base load source of low-carbon power. Nuclear energy can help 

the U.S. meet its goals to reduce carbon pollution and meet clean air standards. The 

EPA is currently reviewing the more than 4.3 million comments received on the proposal, including comments about specific nuclear units and specific Electric Generating Units (EGUs), and will continue to consider this and other comments raised 

as we develop the requirements for the final Clean Power Plan. 

Question 2. There are currently five nuclear reactors under construction, in Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee. Since they are under construction, they clearly 

did NOT produce electricity in 2012. However, the congressional Research Service 

found that EPA’s plan ‘‘substantially lowers’’ the targets in those states to account 

for their investments in nuclear power, making their targets more stringent and 

harder to achieve. 

a. Did EPA similarly penalize states with wind projects under construction, assuming their existence in setting targets for those states, making those states’ targets harder to achieve? 

b. Why does nuclear energy receive such arbitrary treatment? 

c. Shouldn’t EPA treat hydropower, nuclear power, and other sources of zero-emission electricity the same? 

d. If states rely upon new reactors in their State Implementation Plans under the 

proposed rule, will EPA penalize the states if the NRC refuses to allow those reactors to begin operating? 

Response. Nuclear power is part of an all-of-the-above, diverse energy mix and 

provides a reliable, base load source of low-carbon power. Nuclear energy can help 

the U.S. meet its goals to reduce carbon pollution and meet clean air standards. In 

the proposal, we requested comment on approaches to nuclear power, including considering five under-construction nuclear units at three plants and providing an incentive to preserve nuclear power generation at existing plants across the country. 

Many commenters have provided information, including that they would like equitable treatment of the Best System of Emission Reduction (BSER) requirements 

across states and in particular would like similar treatment among the low-and 

zero-emitting sources of power. We have engaged in outreach to numerous stakeholders about nuclear power, renewable energy, and other low-and zero-emitting 

sources of power to better understand issues raised in their comments and we are 

giving careful consideration to all comments received as we develop the requirements for the final Clean Power Plan. 

Question 3. Economic modeling of climate legislation by EPA, EIA, and others has 

consistently shown that dramatic growth in nuclear energy is necessary to reduce 

carbon emissions and that constrained development of nuclear energy dramatically 

increases the costs of compliance. If fact, in 2008, EPA determined that 44 new reactors would be needed by 2025 to satisfy the requirements of S. 2191, known as the 

Lieberman-Warner bill. In 2009, EIA determined that 96 gigawatts of new nuclear 

capacity would be needed by 2030 under H.R. 2454, the Waxman-Markey bill. 

a. How many new reactor licenses are actively being reviewed by the NRC? 

b. How many new reactors, in addition to those currently under construction, are 

necessary to enable compliance under EPA’s base case for the proposed rule? 

c. How does EPA plan to meet its carbon emission reductions without increasing 

the use of nuclear energy or even replacing the units that currently provide the bulk 

of our carbon-free electricity? 

Response. Nuclear power is part of an all-of-the-above, diverse energy mix and 

provides a reliable, base load source of low-carbon power. The requirements of the 

proposed Clean Power Plan differ to a great extent from the elements that constituted both the Lieberman-Warner bill and the Waxman-Markey bill. In the Clean 

Power Plan proposal, we considered the impact of nuclear power as part of the energy mix for consideration of the proposed elements of the rule and requested public 

comment. The five nuclear units that commenced construction prior to issuance of 

the proposal were considered existing plants at the time of proposal and we have 

received several comments on this determination. New nuclear units were not projected or incorporated into the setting of the proposed BSER. 

24 

The EPA also notes that the proposed Clean Power Plan builds on what states 

are already doing to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants. The Clean 

Power Plan empowers states to chart their own, customized path to meet their goals 

in a manner that is sensitive to each state’s unique circumstances. We are aware 

of six applications for new licenses under active review at the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. In addition, we have met with Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee 

on several occasions to discuss the proposed requirements for facilities under construction and we are giving careful consideration to all comments received as we 

develop the requirements for the final Clean Power Plan. 

Question 4. For states that do not submit a State implementation plan, what 

mechanisms of enforcement will the EPA rely to impose a Federal plan under the 

Clean Power Plan proposal? Please provide the statutory cite by which EPA will rely 

for each enforcement mechanism. Will EPA depend on 3d party environmental 

groups to file suits against the states to push enforcement? Would EPA make compliance with the Clean Air Act a requisite for Federal permits? If so, what permits? 

Response. Under Section 111(d) the EPA is proposing a two-part process where 

the EPA sets state-specific goals to lower carbon pollution from power plants, and 

then the states must develop plans to meet those goals. States develop plans to meet 

their goals, but EPA is not prescribing a specific set of measures for states to put 

in their plans. This gives states flexibility. States will choose what measures, actions, and requirements to include in their plans, and demonstrate how these will 

result in the needed reductions. The Clean Air Act provides for EPA to write a Federal plan if a State does not put an approvable State plan in place. In response to 

requests from states and stakeholders since the proposed Clean Power Plan was 

issued, EPA announced in January 2015 that we will be starting the regulatory 

process to develop a rule that would set forth a proposed Federal plan and could 

provide an example for states as they develop their own plans. EPA’s strong preference remains for states to submit their own plans that are tailored to their specific needs and priorities. The agency expects to issue the proposed Federal plan for 

public review and comment in summer 2015. 

Question 5. In response to a question from Sen. Wicker about stranded assets, 

Acting Assistant Administrator McCabe testified that EPA is being careful ‘‘not to 

put plants in a position of stranding assets.’’ Please explain what specific steps EPA 

has proposed—or is contemplating—to avoid stranding assets and investments existing facilities have made to comply with Clean Air Act and other environmental requirements. 

Response. The EPA’s proposed State goals do not impose specific requirements on 

any individual source. Instead, states have the flexibility to choose their own compliance pathways, including avoiding stranded assets. Following publication of the proposed rule, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability [79 FR 64543, October 30, 

2014] that provided additional information on certain issues that had been consistently raised by a diverse set of stakeholders, including ideas about the glide path 

of emission reductions from 2020–2029 and other topics that have been identified 

as potentially related to the remaining asset value of existing coal-fired generation. 

Question 6. Acting Assistant Administrator McCabe also testified that EPA is 

working with State regulators to see whether there is flexibility ‘‘to provide a path’’ 

for avoiding stranding assets. Please identify which states you are working with on 

this issue, and describe the ‘‘potential paths’’ being discussed. 

Response. The outreach to and response from the public on the Clean Power Plan 

has been unprecedented, including outreach to and feedback from stakeholders from 

all 50 states. More than 4.3 million comments have been submitted and EPA is examining and carefully considering all the issues raised in those comments. 

Question 7. Please provide a detailed explanation of the flexibility afforded to 

states by the Clean Air Act and EPA’s 111(d) implementing regulations (40 C.F.R. 

part 60, subpart B) to grant variances to specific facilities allowing for different 

emission standards and longer compliance periods without increasing the burden on 

other facilities within the state. 

Response. The proposed Clean Power Plan builds on what states are already 

doing to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants. It does not require that 

the states actually use each of the building blocks as they develop their plans for 

meeting the State goal. Instead, it empowers the states to chart their own, customized path to meet their goals. Under the proposal, the states have a flexible compliance path that allows them to design plans sensitive to their needs, including requiring different standards from different individual sources. 

Question 8. Please identify with specificity the factors, other than plant age, location, design, or remaining useful life, that states may consider under 40 C.F.R. 

60.24(f)(3) in determining when a less stringent standard or final compliance time 

25 

is ‘‘significantly more reasonable.’’ Would the fact that a plant recently made significant capital expenditures to install pollution controls to comply with Clean Air Act 

programs qualify for relief under 40 C.F.R. 60.24(f)(3)? If so, under what circumstances? If not, why? 

Response. The proposed Clean Power Plan builds on what states are already 

doing to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants. It does not require that 

the states actually use each of the building blocks as they develop their plans for 

meeting the State goal. Instead, it empowers the states to chart their own, customized path to meet their goals. Under the proposal, the states have a flexible compliance path that allows them to design plans sensitive to their needs, including requiring different standards from different individual sources. 

Question 9. In the preamble to the proposed Clean Power Plan, EPA states that 

‘‘the flexibility provided in the State plan development process adequately allows for 

consideration of the remaining useful life of the affected facilities and other sourcespecific factors and, therefore, that separate application of the remaining useful life 

provision by states is unnecessary.’’ In other words, EPA appears to be saying that 

because EPA has provided flexibility in State plans, states are prohibited from further consideration of remaining useful lives and other factors for facilities within 

their state. Please explain with specificity EPA’s legal authority for limiting State 

flexibility in this way, including why such a restriction is not inconsistent with 

Clean Air Act section 111(d)(1), which provides that EPA ‘‘regulations shall permit 

the State in applying a standard of performance to take into consideration, among 

other factors, the remaining useful life of the existing source.’’ (Emphasis added). 

Response. Along with the proposed rule, the EPA included in the docket a Legal 

Memorandum providing background for the legal issues raised by the rule. In addition to the preamble, that Legal Memorandum details the EPA’s understanding, at 

the time of proposal, of the legal issues in the State planning process. That document can be found using Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR–2013–0602–0419. The 

EPA is currently reviewing the more than 4.3 million comments received on the proposal, including the comments on the issues addressed in the Legal Memorandum, 

and will respond to the issues raised in those comments when we issue a final Clean 

Power Plan. 

Question 10. EPA further provides in the preamble to the proposed rule that, ‘to 

the extent that a performance standard that a State may wish to adopt for affected 

EGUs raises facility-specific issues, the State is free to make adjustments to a particular facility’s requirements on facility-specific grounds, so long as any such adjustments are reflected (along with any necessary compensating emission reductions) as part of the state’s CAA section 111(d) plan submission.’’ Please explain 

with specificity EPA’s legal authority for conditioning states’ variance authority in 

this way. Also, please explain how such a restriction is not inconsistent with CAA 

section 111(d) and would not restrict a state’s flexibility to avoid stranding assets. 

Response. Along with the proposed rule, the EPA included in the docket a Legal 

Memorandum providing background for the legal issues raised by the rule. In addition to the preamble, that Legal Memorandum details the EPA’s understanding, at 

the time of proposal, of the legal issues in the State planning process. That document can be found using Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR–2013–0602–0419. The 

EPA is currently reviewing the more than 4.3 million comments received on the proposal, including the comments on the issues addressed in the legal memorandum, 

and will respond to the issues raised in those comments when we issue a final Clean 

Power Plan. 

RESPONSES BY JANET MCCABE TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR BOOKER

Question 1. Nuclear power plants currently provide 60 percent of the nation’s 

emissions-free power generation, and are especially important in states like New 

Jersey. Many of these existing power plants are under market pressures that could 

lead them to be replaced with emitting generation. The Clean Power Plan proposal 

attempts to address existing nuclear power by factoring 6 percent of emissions-free 

nuclear generation into each state’s target. In most states, including New Jersey, 

this provides a negligible incentive to avoid replacing this generation with gas. 

a. What changes are the EPA exploring to ensure the Clean Power Plan strongly 

encourages states to maintain nuclear generation as a critical resource? 

Response. Nuclear power is part of an all-of-the-above, diverse energy mix and 

provides a reliable, base load source of low-carbon power. Nuclear energy can help 

the U.S. meet its goals to reduce carbon pollution and meet clean air standards. The 

EPA is currently reviewing the more than 4.3 million comments received on the proposal, including comments about specific nuclear units and specific EGUs, and will 

26 

continue to consider this and other comments raised as we develop the requirements 

for the final Clean Power Plan. 

Question 2. After the Clean Power Plan is finalized this year, states will be able 

to comply with it by designing state-specific plans that are responsive to State and 

local needs. 

a. As states design their implementation plans, what flexibility will they have to 

support existing nuclear power beyond any mechanisms or crediting specifically included in the proposed rule? 

b. Will there be ways states can specifically encourage nuclear units to operate 

beyond their initial licensing periods, to the extent units can do so safely? 

Response. Nuclear power is part of an all-of-the-above, diverse energy mix and 

provides a reliable, base load source of low-carbon power. Nuclear energy can help 

the U.S. meet its goals to reduce carbon pollution and meet clean air standards. In 

the proposal, the EPA proposed to determine that finalizing construction of five new 

nuclear units at three plants and preserving nuclear power generation at existing 

plants across the country could be two cost-effective ways to avoid emissions from 

fossil fuel-fired power plants. One of the goals of the Clean Power Plan is to afford 

states the flexibility they require to meet the goals. The Clean Power Plan empowers the states to chart their own, customized path to meet their goals in a manner 

that is sensitive to the unique circumstances in each state. States may employ strategies, if they so choose, to encourage nuclear power. The EPA is currently reviewing 

the more than 4.3 million comments received on the proposal, including the comments on the treatment of nuclear power, and will respond to the issues raised in 

those comments when we issue a final Clean Power Plan. 

Question 3. I have heard concerns about unintended consequences that could arise 

from the Clean Power Plan as proposed. Specifically, the dramatic early reduction 

requirements proposed in the rule may render several coal plants uneconomic, and 

therefore encourage states to turn to the rapid deployment of new natural gas combined cycle generation to satisfy their energy needs. Large amounts of new natural 

gas power plants have the potential to disincentivize construction of renewable and 

other clean energy technology for decades because states can comply with the Plan 

from the reduced carbon emissions from natural gas power plants. This has the potential to tilt the playing field in the power sector toward new natural gas fired 

power plant at the expense of renewable energy. 

a. Can the EPA avoid the potential prioritization of power from natural gas power 

plants and encourage states to adopt renewable and clean energy technology? 

b. Can you please provide me with an update on some of the modifications EPA 

is considering to ensure that the final Plan incentivizes the use of renewables to 

the maximum extent possible? 

Response. The proposed Clean Power Plan builds on what states are already 

doing to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants. It does not require that 

the states actually use each of the building blocks as they develop their plans for 

meeting the State goal. Instead, it empowers the states to chart their own, customized path to meet their goals. 

Following publication of the proposed rule, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability [79 FR 64543, October 30, 2014] that provided additional information on certain issues that had been consistently raised by a diverse set of stakeholders, including ideas about the glide path of emission reductions from 2020–2029. 

Question 4. Minority communities, including communities of color, are disproportionately affected by pollution. With President Clinton’s 1994 Executive Order 

12898, and President Obama’s continued support for that executive order, the environmental justice movement has grown in the past couple of decades. The EPA, 

with the Clean Power Plan, has a unique platform to tackle issues of environmental 

justice and equity. 

a. Is the EPA contemplating requiring states to consider the environmental justice 

impacts of their State implementation plans in order to comply with the Clean 

Power Plan? 

b. If not, why not? 

c. If so, will the EPA offer states guidance on ways to measure compliance for the 

environmental justice impacts of states’ implementation plans? 

Response. During our extensive outreach process, EPA met with environmental 

justice advocates and community leaders. The EPA is currently reviewing the more 

than 4.3 million comments received on the proposal, including comments about the 

proposal’s consideration of environmental justice issues, and will respond to the 

issues raised in those comments when we issue a final Clean Power Plan. 

27 

RESPONSES BY JANET MCCABE TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR FISCHER

BUILDING BLOCK 1 (COAL PLANT EFFICIENCY)

• During our discussion at the hearing regarding Building Block 1 and the achievable heat rate improvements at coal-fired plants, you stated that EPA’s assumption 

in going into the proposal ‘‘was not that every single source would be able to achieve 

exactly the amount of reductions [you] identified in each building block[you] believed that some can do more in one area and some may choose to do less in other 

areas.’’ In Nebraska, there are no coal-fired power plants that are capable of achieving a heat rate improvement of 6 percent. Did EPA receive public comment from 

any utilities or State departments of environmental quality that identified any plant 

of being able to achieve this rate improvement? Or a rate that is more than the target identified by EPA? 

• Do you acknowledge that EPA misused the Sargent & Lundy study in setting 

the heat rate improvement goals for Building Block 1? 

• Installation of additional pollution control equipment will degrade a unit’s heat 

rate performance. Given that regulations such as MATS and Regional Haze are 

driving the installation of more control equipment on coal-fired units, what type of 

adjustments will be made in the rule to account for such EPA-driven degradations? 

Response. In the proposed Clean Power Plan, the EPA proposed four Building 

Blocks that make up the ‘‘best system of emission reduction adequately demonstrated’’ (BSER) that, in turn, serves as the basis for the State CO2 emissions 

goals. The EPA discussed its justification for why those measures, including the 

heat rate improvement you mentioned which we identified as Building Block 1, 

qualify as part of the BSER to reduce emissions at regulated sources at length in 

the preamble for the proposed rule (79 Fed. Reg. 34,830, 34,878—34,892), the GHG 

Abatement Measures Technical Support Document (http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014–06/documents/20140602tsd-ghg-abatement-measures.pdf), and the 

accompanying Legal Memorandum (Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR–2013–0602– 

0419, pages 33–93). The EPA is currently reviewing the more than 4.3 million comments received on the proposal, including the comments on the issues addressed in 

the Technical Support Documents and the Legal Memorandum, and will respond to 

the issues raised in those comments when we issue a final Clean Power Plan. 

BUILDING BLOCK 2 (NATURAL GAS CC UTILIZATION)

• Nebraska DEQ stated in its public comments that a 70 percent utilization rate 

at natural gas plants is neither sustainable, nor achievable. Nebraska does not have 

adequate natural gas supplies or pipeline infrastructure to sustain a 70 percent utilization rate of existing natural gas combined-cycle plants, particularly during colder 

months.2 FERC memos indicate that last April, FERC’s Office of Electric Reliability 

told EPA that its assumptions in building block 2 overestimated natural gas combined cycle capacity factors and that FERC ‘‘had doubts about the ability to expand 

the pipeline infrastructure as quickly as the emission targets implied.’’3 Why didn’t 

EPA go back and fix those assumptions based on FERC’s feedback? 

Response. In the proposed Clean Power Plan, the EPA proposed four Building 

Blocks that make up the ‘‘best system of emission reduction adequately demonstrated’’ (BSER) that, in turn, serves as the basis for the State CO2 emissions 

goals. The EPA discussed its justification for why those measures, including the natural gas capacity factor you mentioned, qualify as part of the BSER to reduce emissions at regulated sources at length in the preamble for the proposed rule (79 Fed. 

Reg. 34,830, 34,878—34,892), the GHG Abatement Measures Technical Support 

Document (http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014–06/documents/ 

20140602tsd-ghg-abatement-measures.pdf), and the accompanying Legal Memorandum (Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR–2013–0602–0419, pages 33–93). The 

EPA is currently reviewing the more than 4.3 million comments received on the proposal, including the comments on the issues addressed in the Technical Support 

Documents and the Legal Memorandum, and will respond to the issues raised in 

those comments when we issue a final Clean Power Plan. 

BUILDING BLOCK 3 (RENEWABLES)

• The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality thinks that its ‘‘disingenuous’’ to require states to undertake measures that the EPA itself may not have the 

authority to implement. What authority does EPA or the Nebraska DEQ have to 

mandate renewables? 

28 

Response. In the proposal, the EPA estimated the potential renewable energy 

available to states as part of BSER by developing a scenario based on Renewable 

Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirements already established by a majority of states. 

The basis for Building Block three is discussed at length in the preamble to the proposal (79 FR 34830–34950) and the GHG Abatement Measures Technical Support 

Document (http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014–06/documents/ 

20140602tsd-ghg-abatement-measures.pdf). EPA does not propose to require the inclusion of any particular type of measures as plans are developed for meeting the 

State goal. Instead, states are empowered to chart their own, customized paths to 

meet their goals. 

Under Section 111(d) the EPA is proposing a two-part process where the EPA sets 

state-specific goals to lower carbon pollution from power plants, and then the states 

must develop plans to meet those goals. States develop plans to meet their goals, 

but EPA is not prescribing a specific set of measures for states to put in their plans. 

This gives states flexibility. States will choose what measures, actions, and requirements to include in their plans, and demonstrate how these will result in the needed 

reductions. 

INTERIM TARGETS

• In December, I led a group of 23 Republican Senators in writing to EPA regarding key concerns with the proposed Clean Power Plan. Senator McCaskill led a parallel letter that was sent by a group of Democrat Senators raising the same concerns, including the unrealistic interim targets (known as the ‘‘2020 cliff’’). The consequences of these front-loaded targets have been echoed by many stakeholders. 

Will you commit to removing these interim targets? 

Response. The EPA’s proposed State goals do not impose specific requirements on 

any individual source. Instead, states have the flexibility to choose their own compliance pathways. Following publication of the proposed rule, the EPA published a Notice of Data Availability [79 FR 64543, October 30, 2014] that provided additional 

information on certain issues that had been consistently raised by a diverse set of 

stakeholders, including ideas about the glide path of emission reductions from 2020– 

2029. The EPA is currently reviewing the more than 4.3 million comments received 

on the proposal, including the comments on the issues addressed in the Technical 

Support Documents and the legal memorandum, and will respond to the issues 

raised in those comments when we issue a final Clean Power Plan. 

RFS

• As you know, renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel are an important economic driver in my state. Unfortunately, the EPA has yet to release their yearly 

volumes for both 2014 and 2015. When do you plan to release this rule? Will it no 

longer contain methodology that artificially limits the market access of biofuels producers? 

Response. EPA has issued a proposed rule to establish renewable fuels volumes 

for 2014, 2015, and 2016, as well as biodiesel for 2017; the proposal was published 

in the Federal Register on June 10, 2015. 

RESPONSES BY JANET MCCABE TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR SESSIONS

Question 1. In your written testimony, you State that if climate change is left unchecked, it will have ‘‘devastating impacts on the United States and the planet.’’ You 

write further that ‘‘the costs of inaction are clear. We must act. That’s why President Obama laid out a Climate Action Plan.’’ 

a. Does the United States Constitution authorize the executive branch to act unilaterally and impose regulatory mandates due to ‘‘inaction,’’ or the absence of a valid 

authorization from Congress? 

b. Bjorn Lomborg—who testified before the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee last Congress—wrote in the Wall Street Journal earlier this month about 

studies which have showed that in recent years, there have been fewer droughts, 

decreased hurricane damage, and a rise in temperatures that is 90 percent less than 

what many climate models had predicted. Mr. Lomborg’s July 2014 testimony to the 

Subcommittee also indicated that the cost of climate ‘‘inaction’’ by the end of the 

century is equivalent to an annual loss of GDP growth on the order of 0.02 percent. 

Given that recent temperature rises have been significantly less than what many 

climate models predicted, does it remain EPA’s position that climate ‘‘inaction’’ will 

have ‘‘devastating impacts on the United States and the planet’’? Does the agency 

agree or disagree with Mr. Lomborg’s testimony regarding the minimal loss of GDP 

29 

growth due to climate ‘‘inaction’’? Please provide all information, data, and studies 

used to support EPA’s conclusion. 

c. You are advocating dramatic action at great cost to the American people to 

avert ‘‘devastating impacts’’ of global warming. Before such costs are imposed on the 

people, it is essential that you lay out in detail the ‘‘devastating impacts on the 

United States’’ that EPA anticipates due to climate inaction. Please provide in detail 

these impacts as well as a timeline for when these impacts are expected to occur. 

d. If the latest and best available science demonstrates that the climate impacts 

projected by EPA are not occurring, or are less than anticipated, would the agency 

be willing to reconsider its climate action policy? 

Response. The EPA is acting pursuant to Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, 

which provides for the establishment of standards of performance for categories of 

stationary sources that contribute to dangerous air pollution. In the preamble to the 

proposed rule, we discussed the scientific basis for our action at page 79 FR 34841. 

Question 2. EPA’s Clean Power Plan is based in part on a ‘‘building block’’ which 

assumes states will achieve a 1.5 percent annual increase in demand-side energy 

efficiency. 

a. Please provide the provisions in the United States Constitution and Clean Air 

Act which authorize EPA to base its Clean Power Plan on consumers increasing 

their energy efficiency. How does EPA intend to implement this particular ‘‘building 

block’’? b. Please provide the peer-reviewed or technical studies which EPA used to 

establish the ‘‘building block’’ for a 1.5 percent annual increase in demand-side efficiency. c. To what extent did EPA account for population growth in establishing a 

‘‘building block’’ whose purpose is to reduce aggregate demand on power plants? 

Response. The basis for EPA’s fourth Building Block, demand-side energy efficiency, is the proposed conclusion that over time states can achieve electricity savings of 1.5 percent annually. This Building Block is one of four that make up the 

‘‘best system of emissions reduction adequately demonstrated’’ (BSER) that, in turn, 

serves as the basis for the State CO2 goals. The basis for Building Block four is 

discussed at length in the preamble to the proposal (79 FR 34830–34950) and the 

GHG Abatement Measures Technical Support Document (http://www2.epa.gov/sites/ 

production/files/2014–06/documents/20140602tsd-ghg-abatement-measures.pdf). EPA 

does not propose to require the inclusion of any particular type of measures, including demand-side energy efficiency, as plans are developed for meeting the State 

goal. Instead, states are empowered to chart their own, customized paths to meet 

their goals. The EPA is currently reviewing the more than 4.3 million comments received on the proposal, including the comments on the issues addressed in the Technical Support Documents and the Legal Memorandum, and will respond to the 

issues raised in those comments when we issue a final Clean Power Plan. 

Question 3. EPA claims that the Clean Power Plan’s ‘‘timing flexibility’’ will allow 

municipally owned utilities and some electric cooperatives to ‘‘use both short-term 

dispatch strategies and longer-term capacity planning strategies to reduce GHG 

emissions.’’ However, these providers often purchase power from dedicated units, 

sometimes crossing State lines, on long-term contracts. Long-term contracts in many 

circumstances yield the most reliable pricing. How does EPA reconcile the interim 

goals contained in the Clean Power Plan with the need of municipally owned utilities and some electric cooperatives to enter into long-term contracts in order to provide reliable pricing for their customers? 

Response. The EPA’s proposed State goals do not impose specific requirements on 

any individual source. Instead, states have the flexibility to choose their own compliance pathways. Following publication of the proposed rule, EPA published a Notice 

of Data Availability [79 FR 64543, October 30, 2014] that provided additional information on certain issues that had been consistently raised by a diverse set of stakeholders, including ideas about the glide path of emission reductions from 2020–2029. 

The EPA is currently reviewing the more than 4.3 million comments received on the 

proposal, including the comments on the issues addressed in the Technical Support 

Documents and the Legal Memorandum, and will respond to the issues raised in 

those comments when we issue a final Clean Power Plan. 

Question 4. During a recent taxpayer-funded trip to the Vatican, Administrator 

McCarthy indicated that it is important to look after the well-being of persons living 

in poverty. What has EPA done to evaluate the adverse wage and employment impacts that have fallen on middle-class workers? 

Response. Consistent with statute, Executive Order, and OMB guidance, the EPA 

conducted a Regulatory Impact Analysis that shows the benefits and costs of illustrative scenarios states may choose in complying with the proposed Clean Power 

Plan. Because states have flexibility in how to meet their goals, the actions taken 

to meet the goals may vary from what is modeled in the illustrative scenarios. SpeVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:23 Jul 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\_EPW\DOCS\94978.TXT VERN
30 

cific details, including information about how costs and benefits are estimated are 

available in the RIA (http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/20 1 4–06/documents/20 140602ria-clean-powerplan.pdf). 

Question 5. In recent years, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has proposed operational changes that would diminish the amount of hydropower available to communities in Alabama. Please explain how EPA’s proposed carbon dioxide emissions 

rules account for Army Corps decisions which may adversely affect the ability of 

Alabama communities to rely on hydropower as a low-carbon source of energy. 

Response. The proposed Clean Power Plan builds on what states are already 

doing to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants. It does not require that 

the states actually use each of the building blocks as they develop their plans for 

meeting the State goal. Instead, it empowers the states to chart their own, customized path to meet their goals. The EPA is currently reviewing the more than 

4.3 million comments received on the proposal, including comments about the proposal’s consideration of existing zero-emitting energy sources, and will respond to 

the issues raised in those comments when we issue a final Clean Power Plan. 

Question 6. President Obama has stated that ‘‘we need to increase our supply of 

nuclear power,’’ and that we should be ‘‘building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.’’ How many new reactors, in addition to those 

currently under construction, are necessary to enable compliance under EPA’s base 

case for the proposed rule? 

Response. Nuclear power is part of an all-of-the-above, diverse energy mix and 

provides a reliable, base load source of low-carbon power. New nuclear units were 

not projected and incorporated into the setting of the proposed Best System of Emission Reduction (BSER). The proposed Clean Power Plan builds on what states are 

already doing to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants. The Clean 

Power Plan empowers the states to chart their own, customized path to meet their 

goals in a manner that is sensitive to the unique circumstances in each state. 

Question 7. In its 2012 decision remanding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s 

Waste Confidence rule, the DC Circuit Court observed: 

‘‘At this time, there is not even a prospective site for a repository, let alone progress 

toward the actual construction of one. The lack of progress on a permanent repository has caused considerable uncertainty regarding the environmental effects 

of temporary [spent nuclear fuel] storage and the reasonableness of continuing 

to license and relicense nuclear reactors.’’ 

The Administration’s actions to shut down the Yucca Mountain program caused 

a Federal court to question the reasonableness of licensing nuclear plants, triggering 

a 2-year licensing moratorium at the NRC. The NRC has since revised its rule, 

which has once again been challenged by the NRDC, a proponent of the Clean 

Power Plan. 

Response. Given that nuclear energy generates nearly two-thirds of our nation’s 

carbon-free electricity, how does EPA envision achieving carbon reductions if our 

largest source of carbon-free electricity is threatened based on the Administration’s 

decision to illegally abandon the Yucca Mountain project? 

Nuclear power is part of an all-of-the-above, diverse energy mix and provides a 

reliable, base load source of low-carbon power. New nuclear units were not projected 

and incorporated into the setting of the proposed BSER. The proposed Clean Power 

Plan builds on what states are already doing to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants. The Clean Power Plan empowers the states to chart their own, 

customized path to meet their goals in a manner that is sensitive to the unique circumstances in each state. 

RESPONSES BY JANET MCCABE TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR SULLIVAN

Question 1. Has the EPA conducted any analysis specific to Alaska that proves 

the Proposed Rule on existing plants can be reasonably implemented and would not 

impair electricity reliability in Alaska? Do you have modelling or cost information 

specific to Alaska? Do you have any analysis specific to Interior Alaska? Please provide all relevant data. 

Response. Consistent with statute, Executive Order, and OMB guidance, the EPA 

conducted a Regulatory Impact Analysis that shows the benefits and costs of illustrative scenarios states may choose in complying with the proposed Clean Power 

Plan. Because states have flexibility in how to meet their goals, the actions taken 

to meet the goals may vary from what is modeled in the illustrative scenarios. Specific details, including information about how costs and benefits are estimated are 

31 

available in the RIA (http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/20 1 4–06/documents/20 140602ria-clean-powerplan.pdf). 

Question 2. How much flexibility is the EPA prepared to provide states if efficiency upgrades to power plants, building new generation sources, new or upgraded 

transmission lines or new natural gas pipelines are slowed down or stopped because 

of environmental reviews or litigation? 

Response. The proposed Clean Power Plan builds on what states are already 

doing to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants. It does not require that 

the states actually use each of the building blocks as they develop their plans for 

meeting the State goal. Instead, it empowers the states to chart their own, customized path to meet their goals. Under the proposal, the states have a flexible compliance path that allows them to design plans sensitive to their needs, including 

considering the time it will take to put in place the necessary infrastructure. 

Question 3. Alaska’s grid is quite limited, and most of our utilities are not interconnected. Also, Alaska is islanded, as we are not connected to the North American 

power grid. Does the Proposed Rule for existing plants contemplate this scenario? 

The Clean Power Plan proposal contemplated that some aspects of the four building blocks might apply differently in particular locations, including Alaska and Hawaii. One example of this is on 79 FR 34867, where we proposed to treat Alaska 

and Hawaii as separate regions in estimating the reductions they could achieve by 

increasing renewable energy generation under Building Block 3. 

4) Alaska has a single transmission line north and south of Anchorage with limited transference capacity. One of the presumptions of EPAs ‘‘building blocks’’ is the 

notion that more efficient combined-cycle gas generation can be substituted for coalfired generation. Will there be exceptions made for states where the grid does not 

allow the transfer of sufficient quantities of energy to replace local coal-fired generation? 

Response. The proposed Clean Power Plan builds on what states are already 

doing to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants. It does not require that 

the states actually use each of the building blocks as they develop their plans for 

meeting the State goal. Instead, it empowers the states to chart their own, customized path to meet their goals. Under the proposal, the states have a flexible compliance path that allows them to design plans sensitive to their needs, including 

considering the time it will take to put in place the necessary infrastructure. 

In the proposed Clean Power Plan, the EPA proposed four Building Blocks that 

make up the ‘‘best system of emission reduction adequately demonstrated’’ (BSER) 

that, in turn, serves as the basis for the State CO2 emissions goals. The EPA discussed its justification for why those measures, including the increased utilization 

of existing natural gas capacity which we identified as Building Block 2, qualify as 

part of the BSER to reduce emissions at regulated sources at length in the preamble 

for the proposed rule (79 Fed. Reg. 34,830, 34,878—34,892), the GHG Abatement 

Measures Technical Support Document (http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 

2014–06/documents/20140602tsd-ghg-abatement-measures.pdf),and the accompanying Legal Memorandum (Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR–2013–0602–0419, 

pages 33–93). The EPA is currently reviewing the more than 4.3 million comments 

received on the proposal, including comments on the availability of transmission to 

deliver energy where there are dispatch changes, and will respond to the issues 

raised in those comments when we issue a final Clean Power Plan. 

Question 5. Currently, natural gas powered electricity generation is not available 

in Interior Alaska, and due to geographical challenges, natural gas may not be an 

economical option for electricity generation in the near future. How much flexibility 

is EPA prepared to provide based on geographic challenges such as those faced in 

Interior Alaska? 

Response. The EPA’s proposed State goals do not impose specific requirements on 

any individual source or sub-region. The proposed Clean Power Plan builds on what 

states are already doing to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants. It 

does not require that the states actually use each of the building blocks as they develop their plans for meeting the State goal. Instead, it empowers the states to chart 

their own, customized path to meet their goals. Under the proposal, the states have 

a flexible compliance path that allows them to design plans sensitive to their needs, 

including considering the time it will take to put in place the necessary infrastructure. The proposal discussed the availability of new natural gas capacity at 79 FR 

34857. 

Question 6. EPA’s Legal Memorandum accompanying the Proposed Rule for existing plants states, ‘‘Central to our Best System of Emission Reduction (BSER) determination is the fact that the nation’s electricity needs are being met, and have for 

many decades been met, through a grid formed by a network connecting groups of 

32 

Electric Generating Units (EGUs) with each other and, ultimately, with the end 

users of electricity Through the interconnected grid, fungible products—electricity 

and electricity services—are produced and delivered by a diverse group of EGUs operating in a coordinated fashion in response to end users’ demand for electricity.’’ 

How does this rationale apply to Alaska? Please explain. 

Response. Along with the proposed rule, the EPA included in the docket a Legal 

Memorandum providing background for the legal issues raised by the rule. In addition to the preamble, that Legal Memorandum details the EPA’s understanding, at 

the time of proposal, of the legal rationale for our proposed determination of BSER. 

That document can be found using Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR–2013–0602– 

0419. The EPA is currently reviewing the more than 4.3 million comments received 

on the proposal, including the comments on the interconnected nature of the electric 

grid and comments on specific locations where there may be more localized needs, 

and will respond to the issues raised in those comments when we issue a final Clean 

Power Plan. 

Question 7. What consultation occurred with states during the rulemaking process? Were any State of Alaska officials involved in the drafting of the proposed 

rules? 

Response. The outreach to and response from the public on the Clean Power Plan 

has been unprecedented, including outreach to and feedback from stakeholders from 

all 50 states. EPA has met with and heard from both government and utility stakeholders in Alaska. More than 4.3 million comments have been submitted and EPA 

is examining and carefully considering all the issues raised in those comments. 

Question 8. Do you think the resources that will be spent in Alaska complying 

with the Proposed Rule on existing plants could be better spent helping our bush 

communities move away from expensive diesel generation and toward more cleaner 

and inexpensive options? 

Response. The proposed Clean Power Plan builds on what states are already 

doing to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants. It does not require that 

the states actually use each of the building blocks as they develop their plans for 

meeting the State goal. Instead, it empowers the states to chart their own, customized path to meet their goals. Under the proposal, the states have a flexible compliance path that allows them to design plans sensitive to their needs. 

Question 9. Fairbanks is reliant on coal fired power. A recent University of Alaska 

study determined that coal fired technology is the only viable affordable option for 

Interior Alaska’s electric generation. Fairbanks is also in a PM 2.5 nonattainment 

area. If our Interior coal plants shut down, or the rates increase even higher than 

they are already, more Fairbanks residents will begin heating their homes with 

wood stoves and further aggravate the PM 2.5 issue. Have you given any thought 

to how the EPA will help mitigate the social and economic impacts on communities 

if these rules are finalized? Has the EPA conducted any analysis on unrelated consequences of this Proposed Rule on existing plants, such as the PM2.5 issue? 

Response. The EPA’s proposed State goals do not impose specific requirements on 

any individual source. The proposed Clean Power Plan builds on what states are 

already doing to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants. It does not require that the states actually use each of the building blocks as they develop their 

plans for meeting the State goal. Instead, it empowers the states to chart their own, 

customized path to meet their goals. Under the proposal, the states have a flexible 

compliance path that allows them to design plans sensitive to their needs, including 

considering the time it will take to put in place the necessary infrastructure. 

Consistent with statute, Executive Order, and OMB guidance, the EPA conducted 

a Regulatory Impact Analysis that shows the benefits and costs of illustrative scenarios states may choose in complying with the proposed Clean Power Plan. Because states have flexibility in how to meet their goals, the actions taken to meet 

the goals may vary from what is modeled in the illustrative scenarios. Specific details, including information about how costs and benefits are estimated are available 

in the RIA (http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/20 1 4–06/documents/20 

140602ria-clean-powerplan.pdf). 

RESPONSES BY JANET MCCABE TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR VITTER

FOCUSING ON NRDC RELATIONSHIP WITH EPA

Under the Clean Air Act § 307(d), EPA is required to post all written comments 

and documentary information received in the docket, including information obtained 

through emails, phone calls, and meetings with Agency officials. Documents obtained by the Committee pursuant to a request for communications regarding the 

33 

ESPS and NSPS rules between EPA and NRDC reveal a significant amount of correspondence that EPA did not post to the rulemaking docket. While the requirement 

does grant the Agency discretion over what information is material to the rule, the 

fact more than a dozen phone calls and meetings on the rules were excluded from 

the docket raises questions over EPA’s level of transparency in developing the rules. 

Question 1. Ms. McCabe, as you are aware, I submitted requests for documents 

on these rules last Congress. While I understand the Agency is still producing documents to the Committee, a review of those in the Committee’s possession reveal a 

pattern of frequent meetings and phone calls between EPA and NRDC. Not only am 

I concerned by the increased access NRDC had to EPA officials developing these 

rules, but there is a real concern over a number of meetings and calls that EPA 

did not include in the rulemaking docket. Ms. McCabe, are you aware of such correspondence not being posted to the docket? Why do you think some correspondence 

with NRDC over others was excluded from the docket? Will you commit to correcting the docket? 

Response. Any rule we finalize will comply with all applicable statutory public 

participation requirements, including posting documents to the docket. 

Question 2. In one of the emails you released last fall as part of your investigation 

into EPA’s relationship with NRDC. One email in particular is important given the 

fact that many states are just going to refuse to implement a rule they view as illegal and an inappropriate usurpation of power. 

Response. ESPS requires states to submit a State implementation plan (SIP) for 

EPA’s approval, which demonstrates how the State will meet emission goals. Under 

111(d), EPA has the authority to issue a Federal implementation plan (FIP) for 

states that do not submit a SIP or submit an unsatisfactory SIP. While the EPA 

has said ESPS encourages State flexibility in developing SIPs, evidence suggests 

EPA is being disingenuous and is inclined to issue a backstop FIP. An email obtained by the Committee reveals that the idea of a Federal takeover of states 

through ESPS FIPs may have come from the NRDC. In the email, NRDC attorney 

Dave Hawkins advises senior EPA air official Joe Goffman how EPA can tamper 

with State compliance dates and issue backstop FIPs. 

Question 3. Ms. McCabe, documents obtained by the Committee suggests that 

NRDC helped develop the Agency’s strategy for issuing a model FIP to circumvent 

State implementation challenges. [SHOW POSTER] Specifically, in June 2013—before the rule was proposed—NRDC attorney Dave Hawkins advised senior EPA air 

official Joe Goffman, ‘‘as long as the compliance date for the FIP 111(d) emission 

limits is a few years after the SIP submission deadline, it appears that EPA can 

promulgate backstop FIP limits even in advance of the June 2016 SIP submission 

date.’’ Why was NRDC providing such detailed advice to EPA before the rule was 

even proposed? Prior to the email, had EPA considered issuing a model FIP? Did 

NRDC’s advice have any bearing on the model FIP EPA is currently developing? Is 

EPA in fact planning to issue its model FIP before the SIP deadline? 

Response. The Clean Air Act provides for EPA to write a Federal plan if a State 

does not put an approvable State plan in place. In response to requests from states 

and stakeholders since the proposed Clean Power Plan was issued, EPA announced 

in January 2015 that we will be starting the regulatory process to develop a rule 

that would set forth a proposed Federal plan and could provide an example for 

states as they develop their own plans. EPA fully expects that, as contemplated by 

the Clean Air Act, states will want to submit their own plans, and will use that 

as an opportunity to tailor their plans to their specific needs and priorities. The 

agency expects to issue the proposed Federal plan for public review and comment 

in summer 2015. 

Question 4. Ms. McCabe, I think EPA is delusional if the agency believes there 

isn’t going to be a serious problem with a number of states refusing to implement 

the ESPS and put forward a State implementation plan. Has EPA begun developing 

a litigation strategy with NRDC to force compliance or otherwise enter into settlement agreements? And has NRDC, which is perhaps America’s largest environmental law firm, discussed options for NRDC to help pay for energy price increases. 

In other words, NRDC is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, if they’re so comfortable increasing energy prices on America’s poor and elderly have they discussed 

with you options for using some of their endowment to help the consumers they plan 

on hurting 

Response. The EPA is not coordinating with outside organizations in the manner 

you suggest. 

34 

SOCIAL COST OF CARBON

EPA’s regulatory impact analysis for ESPS is primarily based on climate benefits 

derived from the convoluted 2013 social cost of carbon (SCC) estimates, as well as 

of course the PM benefits that EPA’s now infamous fake CIA agent John Beale 

worked on. You have made several requests, along with other Members of Congress, 

for information on the Interagency Working Group (IWG) that developed the estimates. None of the Administration’s responses have been fully responsive to such 

requests. There is still zero transparency over who participated and the extent of 

their participation. 

Question 1. Ms. McCabe, you may recall I previously asked whether or not you 

participated in the Interagency Working Group developing the social cost of carbon 

(SCC) estimates, and I know at that time your answer was no. I also know that 

despite congressional requests for information, the SCC remains stuck in a black 

box. There is still zero transparency. And since we last spoke on this topic, the EPA 

proposed the ESPS—one of the most expansive and expensive regulations—which 

relies on climate benefits from the flawed and secretive SCC. That said, what was 

your role in developing the cost-benefit analysis for ESPS which relied on the SCC? 

Have you had any interaction with the SCC Interagency Working Group? Why have 

you not provided my office with the names and titles of those officials under your 

supervision in the Office of Air Radiation that have participated in the Interagency 

Working Group? 

Response. Consistent with the Office of Management and Budget’s guidance, the 

SCC estimates are used in the EPA’s analyses of regulations subject to benefit-cost 

analysis under E.O. 12866 and 13563 to estimate the welfare effects of quantified 

changes in carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions. The SCC estimates were applied in the 

benefit-cost analysis for the proposed Clean Power Plan in the same way they are 

for other EPA regulatory actions subject to E.O. 12866 and 13563. 

As noted in the EPA’s response to previous letters from you on this topic, EPA 

officials from both the Office of Policy (OP) and the Office of Air and Radiation 

(OAR) participated in the interagency SCC discussions, including technical staff 

(economists and climate scientists) from the National Center for Environmental Economics in OP and the Office of Atmospheric Programs in OAR. The EPA staff provided technical expertise in climate science and economics to the broader workgroup 

as needed. For example, the professional economic staff used the modeling input parameters developed by the interagency group and oversaw the primary modeling 

and calculations for both the 2010 and the 2013 SCC estimates. Consistent with the 

Administration’s commitment to transparency, the EPA has, upon request, provided 

to researchers and institutions more detailed output than is presented in the 2010 

or 2013 Technical Support Document (TSD), as well as instructions, input files, and 

model source code. 

GAO completed a review of the process the Interagency Working Group (IWG) 

used to develop the SCC estimates and published a report in 2014, ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis: Development of Social Cost of Carbon Estimates,’’ that discusses the 

participating entities, and processes and methods the IWG used to develop the 2010 

and 2013 SCC estimates. After interviews with scientists and officials who participated in the development of the SCC, along with reviews of relevant technical documents, the GAO concluded that the IWG (1) used consensus-based decisionmaking, 

(2) relied on existing academic literature and modeling, and (3) took steps to disclose 

limitations and incorporate new information by considering public comments and revising the estimates as updated research became available. The GAO also highlighted the various opportunities for public input on the SCC in general and the 

interagency estimates, including public comments received in response to numerous 

rulemakings. The GAO concluded that the level of documentation for this interagency exercise was equivalent to those from other comparable interagency exercises. 

Finally, while I do not attend IWG meetings, I am aware that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently responded to public comments received 

through OMB’s solicitation for comments on the SCC. The OMB comment solicitation was conducted independently from, and in addition to, multiple opportunities 

for comment on individual agency rulemakings. As explained in the response document, after careful evaluation of the full range of comments, the IWG believes the 

SCC estimates continue to represent the best scientific information on the impacts 

of climate change available for incorporating the impacts from carbon pollution into 

regulatory analyses and continues to recommend their use until further updates can 

be incorporated into the estimates. Therefore, EPA will continue to use the current 

SCC estimates in the analysis of the Clean Power Plan. 

35 

TECHNICAL QUESTIONS

Question 1. In his Presidential Memorandum directing the Agency to undergo this 

rulemaking process, President Obama explicitly directs EPA to take ‘‘into account 

other relevant environmental regulations and policies that affect the power sector’’ 

and to ‘‘tailor regulations and guidelines to reduce costs’’. In the event that a coalfired power plant has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to comply with EPA 

rules such as the Mercury Air Toxics Standard and the Cross State Air Pollution 

Rule, how does EPA’s Clean Power Plan ensure that such an entity will be able to 

meet its financial obligations due to these investments? 

Response. The EPA’s proposed State goals do not impose specific requirements on 

any individual source. Instead, states have the flexibility to choose their own compliance pathways, including avoiding stranded assets. Following publication of the proposed rule, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability [79 FR 64543, October 30, 

2014] that provided additional information on certain issues that had been consistently raised by a diverse set of stakeholders, including ideas about the glide path 

of emission reductions from 2020–2029 and other topics that have been identified 

as potentially related to the remaining asset value of existing coal-fired generation. 

Question 2. Beyond achieving a certain level of efficiency gains, there are no commercially available technologies to reduce CO2 emissions from coal-fired power 

plants. According to EPA’s regulatory impact analysis, the Clean Power Plan will 

increase electricity rates. For certain coal plants operating in organized electricity 

markets, this increased cost is likely to reduce plant production to the extent that 

alternative lower emitting sources of production are less expensive and hence will 

operate at higher utilization rates. Thus, the financial impact on the generating unit 

will be a combination of lower revenues associated with lower production and lower 

earnings associated with higher costs not being offset by higher sales revenues. As 

CO2 emission standard compliance costs increase, reductions in production will increase. 

These increased costs will lead to different outcomes for certain coal-dominated 

entities, including rural electric cooperatives, municipals, and merchant power producers. Higher electricity costs will be either (1) borne directly by ratepayers, in the 

case of a cooperative or municipal; or (2) result in decreased financial operating 

margins, in the case of a generator dependent solely on the wholesale market for 

revenues. Do you agree with these conclusions? If not, please explain why. Please 

further explain how EPA plans to address these disproportionate impacts, and how 

a State in a SIP would be allowed to deal with them. 

Response. The EPA’s proposed State goals do not impose specific requirements on 

any individual source. Instead, states have the flexibility to choose their own compliance pathways, including avoiding stranded assets and maintaining electric reliability. Consistent with statute, Executive Order, and OMB guidance, the EPA conducted a Regulatory Impact Analysis that shows the benefits and costs of illustrative scenarios states may choose in complying with the proposed Clean Power 

Plan. Because states have flexibility in how to meet their goals, the actions taken 

to meet the goals may vary from what is modeled in the illustrative scenarios. This 

assessment found that nationally, in 2030 when the plan is fully implemented, average electricity bills would be expected to be roughly 8 percent lower than they would 

been without the actions in State plans. That would save Americans about $8 on 

an average monthly residential electricity bill, savings they wouldn’t see without the 

states’ efforts under this rule. Specific details, including information about how costs 

and benefits are estimated are available in the RIA (http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/20 1 4–06/documents/20 140602ria-clean-powerplan.pdf). 

EUROPEAN DISASTER QUESTION

Question 1. Fortunately last Congress we had some really great witnesses that 

were able to testify on the State of climate science, and the fact that our climate 

always has been and always will be changing, as well as to the impacts policies 

similar to what EPA is trying to implement have had on the citizens and economies 

of European countries that have adopted similar requirements. Can you provide for 

me your thoughts on how Germany, Spain, France and the U.K. have benefited from 

their global warming polices and energy mandates? Specifically, can you walk me 

through how the changes in energy prices have impacted the poor and elderly as 

well as the economies and investment in those countries? And of Germany, Spain, 

France and the U.K., which ones do you think stand out as a good model for what 

EPA wants to do with the ESPS and regulating CO2 ? 

The EPA did not use any European country as a model in designing the Clean 

Power Plan. 

36 

SCIENCE QUESTIONS

Question 1. Is carbon dioxide critical to the process of photosynthesis and life on 

earth? 

Response. Yes. 

Question 2. As EPA moves forward with regulating carbon dioxide will carbon dioxide be the first gas regulated under the Clean Air Act that humans exhale at a 

higher rate than they inhale? 

Response. No. 

Question 3. What percent of CO2 in the atmosphere is emitted by humans? 

Response. Approximately 30 percent of the CO2 level in earth’s atmosphere today 

is a result of emissions caused by human activities, primarily the combustion of fossil fuels. 

Question 4. In earth’s geologic history is their evidence that CO2 2 in the atmosphere has been higher than it is today? 

Response. Response. Yes, though not for at least 800,000 years. 

Question 5. In 2009 Al Gore predicted ‘‘The entire north polar ice cap will be gone 

in 5 years.’’ Did this prediction come true? 

Response. I am not familiar with the quote you mention. When referencing Arctic 

sea ice trends, the EPA relies on the major scientific assessments and standard 

sources like the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Arctic sea ice has continued 

to decline, at an average of 13 percent per decade in September over the satellite 

era. The Arctic sea ice minimum in September •12 was the lowest extent ever observed, at 49 percent below the 1979 to 2000 average. 

Question 6. Stephen Schneider, who authored The Genesis Strategy, a 1976 book 

warning that global cooling risks posed a threat to humanity, later changed that 

view 180 degrees when he served as a lead author for important parts of three sequential IPCC reports. In an article published in Discover, he said: ‘‘On the one 

hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other 

hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, 

we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our 

working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we 

need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of 

course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts 

we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being 

effective and being honest.’’ Does EPA agree with these statements? 

Response. The EPA is committed to using sound science and data as the foundation for protecting human health and the environment. For climate change, we rely 

primarily on the scientific assessments of the U.S. Global Change Research Program 

(USGCRP), the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

and the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies. These assessments synthesize and assess research across the entire body of scientific literature, 

including consideration of uncertainty, in their development of key scientific findings. 

Question 7. Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-CO) and former U.S. Undersecretary of State for global issues, at the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit Rio de 

Janeiro stated: ‘‘We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory 

of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic 

policy and environmental policy.’’ Does EPA agree with these statements? 

Response. I am not familiar with the statement you mention. That said, as the 

National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences has stated, ‘‘there 

is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing, and that these changes are in large part caused 

by human activities.’’ 

Question 8. Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the 

Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: ‘‘For the 

first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one 

that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which 

France and the European Union would like to see established.’’ Does EPA support 

reaching a treaty in Paris so that there can be a ‘‘global governance’’ of U.S. economic policy? 

Response. No. 

Question 9. On November 14, 2010, Ottmar Edenhofer, a U.N. IPCC Official, stated, ‘‘First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of 

37 

the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the 

world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be 

enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international 

climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore . . .’’ Does EPA agree with these statements? 

Response. I am not familiar with the statement you mention. The EPA’s analysis 

of the Clean Power Plan proposal makes clear that there is a significant role for 

coal and natural gas in our electricity generating mix going forward. 

Question 10. Attorney David Sitarz, a key editor of the UN’s Agenda 21 document, 

stated at the UN’s 1992 Conference on Environment and Development in Brazil, 

‘‘Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human 

society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced—a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of 

human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and 

collective decisionmaking at every level.’’ Does EPA agree with these statements? 

Response. I am not familiar with the statement you mention. The proposed Clean 

Power Plan builds on what states are already doing to reduce carbon pollution from 

existing power plants. 

OTHER

Question 1. Section 111 of the Clean Air Act provides EPA the authority to regulate new and existing ‘‘stationary sources’’ which it defines under subsection (a) as 

‘‘any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any air 

pollutant’’. That seems pretty straight forward, and yet you propose a rule for existing sources that would force states to significantly increase renewable—which do 

not emit any air pollutants. What percent of the claimed reductions under your proposed rule does EPA anticipate will come from increases in renewable energy? Given 

the plain meaning of the statute, how can you set a standard that in essence relies 

on such an increase in renewable power—a non-emitting source of electricity not 

covered by Section 111? 

Response. Along with the proposed rule, the EPA included in the docket a Legal 

Memorandum providing background for the legal issues raised by the rule. In addition to the preamble, that Legal Memorandum details the EPA’s understanding, at 

the time of proposal, of the legal issues in the proposal. That document can be found 

using Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR–2013–0602–0419. The EPA is currently reviewing the more than 4.3 million comments received on the proposal, including the 

comments on the issues addressed in the legal memorandum, and will respond to 

the issues raised in those comments when we issue a final Clean Power Plan. 

Question 2. Section 111(d), the authority for the Clean Power Plan, regulates existing sources. However, your proposed rule seeks comment on including new 

sources in a state’s 111(d) plan. What new sources do you think should be included 

in a state’s plan for existing sources. Isn’t it true that Section 111 has a separate 

subsection for the regulation of new sources under subsection (b)—not (d). Why do 

you think you have the authority to regulate new sources under section 111(d)? 

Response. Along with the proposed rule, the EPA included in the docket a Legal 

Memorandum providing background for the legal issues raised by the rule. In addition to the preamble, that Legal Memorandum details the EPA’s understanding, at 

the time of proposal, of the legal issues in the proposal. That document can be found 

using Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR–2013–0602–0419. The EPA is currently reviewing the more than 4.3 million comments received on the proposal, including the 

comments on the issues addressed in the Legal Memorandum, and will respond to 

the issues raised in those comments when we issue a final Clean Power Plan. 

Question 3. Your proposed rule for NEW units would require CCS for new coal 

units despite the fact that CCS has not been adequately demonstrated and is not 

considered to be commercially viable. In fact a recent DOE authorized study just 

concluded in January that ‘‘CCS does not yet meet this best system of emission reduction (BSER) standard, because it has not yet been adequately demonstrated.’’ (pg 

103 of http://insideepaclimate.com/sites/insideepaclimate.com/files/documents/ 

jan2015/epa20 15—0144.pdf) What will happen to your existing plant rule if your 

new rule is overturned in Court? Do you believe you have the authority under Section 111 to issue an existing plant rule if your rule for new units is vacated? 

Response. Along with the proposed rule, the EPA included in the docket a Legal 

Memorandum providing background for the legal issues raised by the rule. In addition to the preamble, that Legal Memorandum details the EPA’s understanding, at 

the time of proposal, of the legal issues in the proposal. That document can be found 

using Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR–2013–0602–0419. The EPA is currently reVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:23 Jul 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\_EPW\DOCS\94978.TXT VERN
38 

viewing the more than 4.3 million comments received on the proposal, including the 

comments on the issues addressed in the Legal Memorandum, and will respond to 

the issues raised in those comments when we issue a final Clean Power Plan. 

Question 4. There are many coal plants out there that have just spent millions 

of dollars to comply with the MATS rule. And yet, under your proposed rule, these 

units will likely be allowed to run only at very low capacity levels that make the 

units uneconomical. Has there ever been a major rulemaking by EPA where the 

standard was not based on specific control technologies but rather a limit on how 

often a unit can be run? Do you believe the CAA allows you to establish regulations 

that can force the closure of existing coal plants by establishing de-facto limits on 

how often they can run? 

Response. The EPA’s proposed State goals do not impose specific requirements on 

any individual source. The proposed Clean Power Plan builds on what states are 

already doing to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants. It does not require that the states actually use each of the building blocks as they develop their 

plans for meeting the State goal. Instead, it empowers the states to chart their own, 

customized path to meet their goals. 

Question 5. If you are forced to issue a Federal implementation plan, which entities do you have enforcement authority over in the context of this rulemaking? Do 

you believe EPA can enforce renewable energy targets or demand side management 

programs in a State that fails to submit an implementation plan? Does your authority extend to the states directly or just to the existing stationary sources as defined 

by the Clean Air Act? If your answer is that you are working through these issues 

now—how EPA can propose a rule without knowing the limits of its own regulatory 

authorities? 

Response. Under a State plan approved under Clean Air Act (CAA) § 111(d), all 

measures that a State adopts into the plan and submits to EPA for approval, and 

that EPA approves, become federally enforceable. Under the proposed rule, the 

states have significant discretion in determining what types of measures to adopt 

and submit to EPA for approval. The EPA will approve a State plan if it meets the 

State goal. EPA discussed the concept of Federal enforceability, including the availability of citizen suits, in the preamble to the proposed rule (79 Fed. Reg. 34,830, 

34,902–34,903) and the accompanying legal memorandum (Docket ID Number EPAHQ-OAR–2013–0602–0419, PAGE 4) and the agency will review any comments we 

receive on this issue. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much, Ms. McCabe. 

We are going to be using the early bird rule. It is my understanding that Senator Markey is under a time constraint. I think 

the Ranking Member is going to let you have her time. It is my 

understanding that also Senator Fischer has some time constraints. I would be very happy to yield my time to her for questions. 

We are going to have 8 minute rounds. Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy. 

Thank you, Ranking Member. 

Thank you, Ms. McCabe, for being here today. I am glad to have 

the opportunity to talk with you about the impacts of your power 

plant rules on my home State of Nebraska. 

As you know, Nebraska is the only State in the Nation with a 

wholly, publicly owned utility power sector. Public power utilities 

are cost-based entities with no profit motivation or obligation to 

provide stakeholder dividends. 

That is vitally important, I believe, to keep in mind as EPA considers these proposed rules. The compliance costs will be directly 

borne by Nebraska residents through their electric rates. 

Today, I would like to touch on some of the concerns raised in 

the public comment period by my State’s public power utilities and 

by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality regarding 

the mandates for carbon emission reductions from existing power 

plants. 

39 

Our State has written that the building blocks contain ‘‘inaccurate assumptions and unrealistic expectations that will result in 

emission goals that may be unattainable regardless of the emission 

reduction strategies employed.’’ 

Let us start with building block ONE. The Nebraska DEQ states, 

‘‘Heat rate improvements of 4 to 6 percent are not achievable at 

Nebraska coal-fired plants. Nebraska utilities are required by law 

to deliver least cost reliable electricity. As such, they have already 

implemented most if not all achievable heat rate improvements at 

existing facilities. 

As you know, as a basis for setting the building block 1 level, 

EPA relied on a 2009 study by Sargent and Lundy. It is now widely 

known that EPA misconstrued this study, hypothesizing heat rate 

improvements discussed in the study on a cumulative basis when 

this was not indicated by the study. 

In fact, the Sargent and Lundy has explicitly stated that ‘‘the 

ranges presented in the report ‘‘do not support the conclusion that 

any individual, coal-fired, EGU or any aggregation of coal-fired 

EGUs can achieve 6 percent heat rate, improvement through implementation of best practices and equipment upgrades as estimated by the EPA.’’ 

Our State DEQs say that building block one is unachievable. 

Sargent and Lundy say that you got it wrong. Is this an area that 

EPA plans to correct before finalizing the rule? How can EPA justify emission reduction targets based on building blocks if the 

building blocks themselves are so very flawed? 

Ms. MCCABE. Thank you for your question, Senator. This gives 

me the opportunity to start saying something I think I will be saying a lot today. 

We have received many, many comments on the proposed rules 

and are looking very closely at all of them. This is just one area 

where we received significant comment. We expected we would. 

That is what the public process is about. 

Let me also mention that in designing the proposal and setting 

up the building blocks, EPA looked across the range of activities 

currently in use by the power sector that have the result of reducing carbon emissions. They are numerous and go way beyond the 

four we identified and included in our building blocks. 

Our assumption in going into the proposal was not that every 

single source would be able to achieve exactly the amount of reductions we identified in each building block. In fact, we believe some 

can do more in one area and some may choose to do less in other 

areas. 

The types of comments we are getting that suggest in some 

States in particular one approach is more suitable than another is 

exactly the type of comment we expected. That being said, of course 

we are looking very closely at any comments that suggest our factual conclusions need to be rethought. 

We will be looking at that very closely and making adjustments 

as appropriate, as we always do after reviewing comments on a 

rule. 

Senator FISCHER. I appreciate hearing that, because sometimes 

the statements that I hear from EPA, my constituents and our pubVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:23 Jul 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\_EPW\DOCS\94978.TXT VERN
40 

lic power in Nebraska, the DEQ in Nebraska, what we hear from 

EPA is that things are pretty well set. 

We hear that while there is a public comment period, we haven’t 

felt there will be much accommodation to the concerns that we 

have in our State with these specific concerns. You give me some 

hope here. I hope you will follow through with that as well. 

According to Sargent and Lundy, even with the best maintenance 

practices in place, performance of many of the heat rate improvement methods included in the 2009 report will degrade over time. 

EPA did not take into consideration the normal heat degradation 

when it applied the heat rate improvement ranges across the coalfired fleet. Nor did it consider the units are the most efficient at 

full load and their efficiencies decrease with decreasing loads and 

with frequent load changes. 

Don’t you think those are significant oversights by the EPA and 

an overestimation of the real heat rate improvements that can be 

achieved and sustained across a coal-fired fleet? 

Ms. MCCABE. These are important issues people have raised that 

we are reviewing very closely, Senator. 

Senator FISCHER. Do you feel that you can work with States in 

trying to really address that over estimation? 

Ms. MCCABE. We spend a lot of time talking with States and 

with the utilities which have raised these kinds of issues with us 

as well. We have one-on-one conversations with States and we are 

meeting with groups of States to talk about a whole range of 

issues. 

In particular, States have been very forthcoming with us about 

particular concerns in their States as have utilities. As I say, when 

there are needed one-on-one conversations, we have them and then 

look at these issues as they apply across the whole spectrum of the 

rule. 

I do want to emphasize that in the final rule, we very much want 

to maintain the flexibility of the States to have choices as to how 

they comply. 

Senator FISCHER. Would you commit to me that when you are 

contacted by our public utilities in Nebraska or State government 

in Nebraska that you will respond to their concerns and let me 

know that you have done so? 

Ms. MCCABE. I can certainly commit that we will converse with 

anybody who calls us from Nebraska and will certainly keep you 

up to date on those conversations. To the extent that we have already had those, we will be certain to give you information about 

that. 

Senator FISCHER. I think you will be getting a lot of calls. 

Ms. MCCABE. We are happy to get them. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boxer, did you want to yield your time? 

Senator BOXER. I do. I yield to Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. I thank the Senator from California. 

I apologize, the policemen and firemen who captured the bombing suspect after the marathon bombing in Massachusetts in 2013 

are about to be honored at the White House and they were in my 

41 

congressional district as well. Through your graciousness, I am 

going to be able to make that ceremony. I thank you so much. 

I might also make this point. I think, from my perspective, if 

each member was given at least 1 minute to make an opening 

statement, because of the busy schedules of Senators and then 

have the remainder for questions, at least each Senator would be 

allowed in the opening to make their main point, if only for 1 

minute. I just make that suggestion, Mr. Chairman. 

In the House, if you wanted to, you could waive your opening 

statement and then just add it to the question period that you had 

but only that each member would at the beginning of the hearing, 

if they are there, to be able to make their point if only for 1 

minute. 

I would just make that suggestion. I think it might be helpful 

given the busy schedule of the members. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, it is fitting that we are holding 

this hearing today. Fifty years ago Sunday, Lyndon Johnson became the first President to warn about the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 

In a special message to Congress on that day in 1965, he included the emissions of carbon dioxide, the main cause of global 

warming, in his warning on the impacts of air pollution. 

Fifty years later, global temperatures are increasing. Glaciers 

around the world are melting. Sea level is rising. Heat waves are 

hotter. Rainfall and snowfall are more extreme. As daunting as the 

challenges seem, we have solutions available that can reduce pollution, create jobs and inspire new technology. 

Just months before his death, President Kennedy proposed the 

Clean Air Act in February 1963. In December of that year, it became the second law President Johnson signed as President. The 

original Clean Air Act created a program in the Public Health 

Service to address air pollution, establishing a public health foundation that has supported the strengthening of the law over the 

years. 

The Clean Air Act has succeeded. Smog, soot, other pollutants 

have dropped an average of more than 70 percent since 1970, even 

as America’s GDP grew by 219 percent. 

Now President Obama is using the Clean Air Act to reduce carbon pollution from power plants. The same Kennedy-Johnson skyward vision that inspired an era of space exploration can spark a 

new clean energy revolution. 

Since the inception of America’s space program, solar panels 

have been a critical power source for missions throughout the solar 

system. That same technology is now landing on rooftops and fields 

across the Country. The solar industry now employs more than 

170,000 people across our Country and is adding workers nearly 20 

times faster than the general economy. 

This connection that exists between lowering pollution while increasing employment is pretty steady throughout the years. 

Let me turn to Massachusetts and the Regional Greenhouse Gas 

Initiative States. Those are Massachusetts, Maine, New York, 

Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island 

and Vermont. Since 2005, those States have reduced their greenVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:23 Jul 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\_EPW\DOCS\94978.TXT VERN
42 

house gas emissions by 40 percent while continuing to see gross domestic product growth in their economies. Do you believe that is a 

model which is going to be used by other States under the proposed 

regulations which the Obama administration is considering right 

now? 

Ms. MCCABE. Senator, as you just described, the REGGI approach has been quite successful, both in terms of environmental 

improvements and economically and very good investments for 

those States. We certainly think it is one model that States might 

want to look at. 

I cannot speak to whether other States would go down the same 

path but I think the REGGI approach has laid the groundwork and 

shown other States how this can be done in a way that is locally 

successful. 

Senator MARKEY. I think it is obvious that the model is already 

there. I am sure many States are going to use it. 

Let me move on to the question of reliability. There is criticism 

that the proposed rules of the Administration are going to cause a 

reduction in reliability of the system, but we already know that extreme weather, climate change, is, in fact, impacting the reliability 

of our electricity grid in our Country. 

Could you deal with the issue of these proposed rules and the reliability of the electrical grid system in the United States? 

Ms. MCCABE. We agree that the worst thing to do for reliability 

is to do nothing. Keeping reliability very much in mind as the 

President directed us and as the Administrator always reminds us, 

we looked at how to design the proposed plan in a way to make 

sure reliability would not be put at risk and would, in fact, be enhanced. 

There are a number of things built into the proposal in order to 

make sure that will happen. One is the length of time that we put 

into the proposal for the reductions to be achieved. There is a 15- 

year trajectory before the final compliance date. 

That was intended to be quite consistent with the request that 

we have always received from utilities, reliability agencies and others that utilities need a long planning horizon. 

Senator MARKEY. Do you think the proposed rules will actually 

drive the electricity system to become more resilient and stronger? 

Ms. MCCABE. We do think the planning activities that will be 

going on and are going on now are intended to assure a reliable 

electricity system. 

Senator MARKEY. I think that is very helpful. 

Finally, the American Gas Association comments on the proposal 

were complimentary of the EPA’s outreach efforts but they ask 

whether or not there could be more flexibility in terms of the planning at the State level in order to comply with the carbon reduction 

goals that will be set for State after State. 

Could you deal with that in terms of the flexibility beyond the 

four building blocks that are in the EPA’s plan that the States 

might be able to rely upon? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. I will emphasize again that the building 

blocks were intended to be a starting point. States have ultimate 

flexibility to decide on just what approach they want to take. If 

43 

they want to rely more on natural gas than our proposal suggests 

they might, they would have every opportunity to do so. 

Senator MARKEY. I think it is pretty clear that it is going to be 

possible to reduce carbon, to increase the GDP, to enhance the reliability of the system while engaging in significant job growth in 

our Country. 

I thank you so much. 

I thank you, Senator Boxer, for your courtesy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

I want to use about half of my time and save some to accommodate some of my members. 

First, we will hear over and over again what science says and all 

that. We are going to have a hearing and we are going to have scientists at a hearing. I think when you don’t have science on your 

side, if you keep saying science is settled, science is settled, science 

is settled, there is this assumption that is the case. 

That is not the case. When you stop and realize what we are 

doing today, we are talking about doing, through regulation, what 

we have not been able to do through legislation. In other words, 

those of us who are accountable to the people—talking about members of the House and the Senate—we have resoundingly rejected 

the very thing we are talking about today on CO2 on five different 

occasions in the last 13 years. 

Each time there has been a vote, it has been even more strongly 

rejected. What they are trying to do right now is do through regulation what they have not been able to do through legislation. I want 

to mention a couple things here today. 

The recent analysis finds that China emits 800 million tons of 

CO2 in 1 month. According to EPA’s proposal, the maximum 

amount of CO2 reduction under the Clean Power Plan is around 

550 million tons in 1 year. 

A question I would have for you, Ms. McCabe, is how will the 

Clean Power Plan impact global CO2 emissions when China is producing more CO2 in 1 month than the Clean Power Plan could potentially reduce in 1 year, even if it is implemented? 

Ms. MCCABE. The Clean Power Plan will certainly result in less 

CO2 emissions as well as our clean car rules and other measures 

we are looking at. There will be less domestic CO2 from the U.S. 

as a result of the Clean Power Plan. 

This is why it is important for the United States not only to be 

working domestically but to be working internationally. We recognize this is a global problem and that other countries are emitting 

CO2. That is why we have been very aggressive and involved with 

China. 

Senator INHOFE. You don’t disagree with this chart, do you? This 

chart is an IPCC chart, a United Nations chart, right? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t know, Senator. 

Senator INHOFE. What we have in the global greenhouse gases 

is a total figure. The green over here is what you are proposing. 

This is the reductions we have had. I want everyone to use a little 

common sense and look at this. 

44 

If your projections are correct, they are going to continue to have 

these emissions and we would only be able to reduce the emissions 

in 1 year. I appreciate your honesty in saying there is the problem. 

Are you operating on some kind of a delusion that somehow 

China is going to change their behavior? Is that what it is predicated on? 

Ms. MCCABE. We have been working with China. Recently an announcement of certain actions China has committed to take was 

made. 

Senator INHOFE. Let me tell you what those were. I am going 

from memory so you can correct me if I am wrong. 

They had the meeting. China said, if you want to do this, if you 

want to have these reductions, you can go ahead and have them 

but we are going to increase our emissions of CO2 until 2030. They 

amended that downward to 2020. 

One, if you believe China is going to do something, that would 

not happen. They are still going to increase as they are doing right 

now until 2020. 

I have talked to the people from China. They sit back and smile. 

The thing they would love to have us do in this Country is make 

our reductions so we will be chasing our manufacturing base over 

there. 

I would like to confine it to this. If you don’t disagree with this, 

where is the logic here? What do you think is going to happen to 

change that green two tons a year? 

Ms. MCCABE. For the first time, China has agreed to curb its 

growth in CO2. 

Senator INHOFE. Is there a document they have signed saying 

they are committed to doing that? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t know if there is a document, Senator, but 

they have made that announcement, they have made that commitment in conjunction with the United States. 

Senator INHOFE. The commitment is that they will start reducing 

it by 2020? 

Ms. MCCABE. That they will peak emissions and that they will 

invest significantly in 20 percent of non-fossil fuel generation in the 

coming years which is a very significant commitment as well. 

Senator INHOFE. I will retain my 3 minutes. 

Senator BOXER. 

Senator BOXER. I am going to yield to Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Ms. McCabe. It is a pleasure to have you here to address such an important issue. 

Part of the conversation we are having, as initiated by the Chair, 

was how the U.S. changes operate in the context of a global challenge. This really is a global tragedy of the commons. We all share 

in the atmosphere on this planet. 

The gases we put in the atmosphere travel everywhere. It is only 

in the sense that there is an international strategy that we have 

some sense or opportunity to take on this issue. 

What happens if each nation, among the nations of the world— 

India, China and the U.S. are the major carbon dioxide polluters— 

if each of those nations says, let’s not act until the other two naVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:23 Jul 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\_EPW\DOCS\94978.TXT VERN
45 

tions act and then we will come along later. What happens to the 

planet in that situation? 

Ms. MCCABE. This is the dilemma, the tragedy of the commons, 

Senator. We all have to act. If everybody says we are not going to 

act because we don’t think anybody else will act, then CO2 emissions will continue to increase, temperatures will continue to rise, 

and the oceans will get more acidic. 

We will have more droughts, we will have more heat waves, and 

we will have more suffering around the globe and in this Country 

as a result of the impacts on the climate. 

Senator MERKLEY. Is there some possibility that by the U.S. taking this issue seriously and engaging in dialog with all the nations 

of the world but also with India and China, that we can accelerate 

action among all three nations? 

Ms. MCCABE. We absolutely believe so. We believe it is essential 

for the United States to be asserting and showing leadership. 

Senator MERKLEY. When we look at this, we look at the total carbon dioxide production but much of the world looks at it in the context of individual footprint, if you will, per capita carbon dioxide. 

In that sense, is it the Chinese, the Indians or the Americans 

who have the largest per capita footprint? 

Ms. MCCABE. I believe it is the United States that has the largest footprint in carbon dioxide. 

Senator MERKLEY. Do you have a sense of the proportion with 

the other nations? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t off the top of my head but I would be glad 

to get that information for you. 

Senator MERKLEY. If I was to tell you that the footprint here in 

America is more than three times larger than that of China, would 

that sound in the ballpark? 

Ms. MCCABE. I think that could well be in the ballpark. 

Senator MERKLEY. If I was to tell you the most recent statistics 

who that our footprint is 12 times per capita that of India, does 

that sound about right? It is right. Thank you for confirming that. 

Certainly we have benefited, if you will, from utilizing fossil fuels 

on a scale much larger than individual citizens in China or India. 

In some sense, that gives us an obligation to help be leaders in the 

world in taking this on. 

China has obligated itself to proceed to produce, by 2030, renewable energy, non-fossil fuel energy, that is equal to the amount of 

electric energy produced in the United States from all sources as 

of this moment. Were you aware of that commitment? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. That is pretty phenomenal. In other words, all 

of our fossil fuel energy from coal, from natural gas, from solar, 

from wind, all combined together, China is going to match that 

amount with renewable energy in the next 15 years. That is a pretty extraordinary commitment that we didn’t have in the previous 

year. 

Ms. MCCABE. That is correct. 

Senator MERKLEY. That commitment came out of a dialog with 

China about the need for all the nations of the world to proceed 

to take on this issue? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is correct. 

46 

Senator MERKLEY. We are all going to suffer if the planet continues on its warming pace? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. Currently, we are on a path where our carbon 

pollution has gone up to 400 ppm, up from about 270 ppm for the 

industrial revolution, and the pace has doubled in the last few decades. That is, we were going up about 1 ppm on this planet. 

We are at 2 ppm now, which means that within the time many 

members on this panel will serve in the U.S. Senate, we are going 

to see carbon levels that go up from 400 ppm where we are now 

quite possibly through 450 ppm and higher. 

With that comes a global challenge in which we will surpass the 

point where we have a 50 percent possibility of keeping temperature rise from under 2 degrees. Is that something we should be 

concerned about? 

Ms. MCCABE. We absolutely should be concerned. 

Senator MERKLEY. Does that help drive the current policy of saying this is why we need to look at the most efficient ways. You 

have laid out a plan which says basically each State should find 

the most efficient ways to tackle carbon pollution. That makes a lot 

of sense economically. 

I am seeing that carbon pollution is having a huge impact in Oregon. Our oyster production is faced by a challenge where oysters 

are having trouble forming their shells because the ocean is 30 percent more acidic. 

If the ocean is 30 percent more acidic now than before the industrial revolution and oysters are having trouble forming their shells, 

what else is going wrong in the ocean and the food chain? It could 

be a lot more, I imagine. 

Ms. MCCABE. Right. 

Senator MERKLEY. We are having fire season that is several 

weeks longer now than it was 30 years ago, which is having a devastating impact, not to mention the pine beetle expansion. That is 

a big economic issue for our State. 

We are having substantial droughts, three of the worst ever 

droughts in the Klamath Basin in just the last decade and a half, 

three of the worst ever droughts, having a huge impact on our agricultural base. That is an economic issue. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. It isn’t just a matter of some theory about 

some computer model in the future, this is something having a 

huge impact on our economy, on our rural way of life, on our fishing, our farming and our forests right now. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you for bringing forward a plan that 

encourages each State to find the most cost effective, flexible way 

of taking on carbon dioxide. That makes a tremendous amount of 

sense. If each State is going to follow a different path, maybe we 

will learn from each other. Your plan allows partnerships to occur 

between States as another form of flexibility? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. That also makes a lot of sense. 

47 

You have laid out these four building blocks. This is basically one 

set of ways we can get to these numbers, but go find the best way 

possible for your State? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is correct. 

Senator MERKLEY. I thank you for putting forward a plan that 

helps put the United States in the leadership role of working with 

the nations of the world to take on this devastating challenge, a 

challenge that is having a huge economic impact in my State right 

now and a huge impact on rural America right now. 

It is the responsibility of our generation to take it on and of each 

President who serves in the Oval Office to take it on. Thank you 

for doing so. 

Ms. MCCABE. Thank you, Senator. 

The Chair. Thank you, Senator Merkley. 

Senator WICKER. Senator WICKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Ms. McCabe, for being with us today. 

I do believe the regulation we are discussing today is EPA’s most 

blatant overreach thus far, and there have been a number of them. 

First, let me observe from the poster that the Ranking Member 

displayed earlier listing three headlines from national newspapers 

saying it is official, I was reminded of a scene from the movie ‘‘The 

King’s Speech’’ in which the speech therapist, Lionel Logue, is talking to King George. One of the things Lionel says is ‘‘You need to 

quit smoking.’’ King George says, ‘‘My doctors tell me smoke relaxes the throat.’’ Lionel says, ‘‘They are all a bunch of idiots.’’ The 

King replies, ‘‘They have all been knighted.’’ Lionel replies, ‘‘Then 

it is official.’’ 

To say that we have some headlines from the Washington Post 

and other newspapers and that makes it official, I would just observe these were the smartest people in Britain at the time. They 

were giving the King of England exactly the wrong advice about 

what he should be doing with regard to smoking. 

It is possibly conceivable that the smartest people of our time 

might be wrong and that some of the very learned and educated 

contrarians on the issue of climate change will turn out to be vindicated in the end. 

I think you will agree, Ms. McCabe, that when my colleagues on 

the other side of the aisle talk about carbon pollution, it is a new 

term that has been coined over the last several years. They are not 

talking about smog or carbon particles in the air, they are talking 

about CO2, carbon dioxide. 

It sounds so sinister, pollution, dirty and slimy, carbon pollution, 

but actually they are talking about carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide 

doesn’t cause lung disease in children or asthma. Carbon dioxide 

hasn’t been shown to cause children to miss school. 

I just want the public and the people listening to this, both in 

the hearing room and perhaps on television, to understand when 

we use the term dirty carbon pollution, we are talking about nothing other than carbon dioxide. 

Let me ask you about minimum incremental capital costs and 

the remaining useful life of coal-fired facilities. The Clean Air Act 

says the agency is supposed to consider the remaining useful life 

of existing sources they are proposing to regulate. 

48 

The Mississippi Development Authority says the minimum incremental capital cost to Mississippi of this rule, if it is implemented 

as it is written now, will be $14.2 billion. The cost will be mainly 

constructing generating facilities that we don’t need right now 

under the current law and the current regulations. 

Your own impact analysis says over 50,000 megawatts of coalfired plants across the Country will have to be retired because of 

the rule. Many of these plants in Mississippi, they have spent billions of dollars to come into compliance with EPA rules and are 

now in compliance. Yet, because of the new rules, they will have 

to retire anyway, irrespective of the fact that they have years of remaining useful life. 

Tell me how your proposal considers the remaining useful lives 

of these coal plants if the rule will force them to retire prematurely? 

Ms. MCCABE. Of course the rule does not require any particular 

plant to take any particular action. We looked across the industry, 

across the Country at the age of plants, and the average age of 

coal-fired plants is I believe over 40 years, so there are a lot of 

plants that have certainly lived out or are close to living out their 

remaining useful life. 

We understand business decisions are being made by utilities 

about how to proceed with those plants. The remaining useful life 

is absolutely something we are to take into account. We did so in 

the proposal and will do so in the final, further informed by all the 

input we have received. 

We were very mindful of not putting States in the position of 

stranding assets, in particular, the types of plants you just mentioned, ones that have recently invested in pollution control equipment and expect to produce electricity in a controlled way into the 

future. 

One of the reasons that we have a long trajectory in the plan is 

to take into account those sorts of considerations, another reason 

the plan is so flexible. 

Senator WICKER. How long is that trajectory? 

Ms. MCCABE. The final compliance date is 2030. 

The States, in planning over that period of time, are able to 

make their own choices about what to do. If they have a plant that 

has many years of remaining useful life, has been recently upgraded, they certainly have the ability to continue operating that 

plant. 

In fact, our projections are that in 2030, still 30 percent of the 

power in this Country would be produced by coal plants. We expect 

and assume that coal plants will continue to operate, even through 

and after these plans are fully in place. 

Senator WICKER. But if the only way my State of Mississippi can 

achieve the CO2 emission targets is to close these coal plants, are 

you saying we will be able to work with your agency to avoid this 

and keep those coal plants in use during their remaining useful 

life? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t know whether that is the situation in your 

State, but we certainly would be happy to have that conversation 

with the environmental and utility regulators in your State. 

49 

Indeed, we may have already done so. My staff has been spending a lot of time on the phone with States to understand why that 

is their conclusion, seeing what our reaction to that is, and see 

whether the flexibilities we have built into the proposal can provide 

a path for them. 

Senator WICKER. It is my understanding that among the numerous items of input that you have received during the time of this 

is some 3 million comments from around the Country. Among those 

are comments from people in Mississippi who would have to comply 

with this. 

What they are saying is flexibility sounds great, but if the only 

way we can achieve this goal is to shut down our power plants, we 

have no flexibility at all. I have to go back to what the people on 

the ground in Mississippi are telling me. That is, we are going to 

have to, in short order, close down the entire current coal-fired production in Mississippi. 

I hope what you are saying is true, but it seems to me this is 

absolutely going to be a regulatory nightmare for electric providers, 

for users and for working families in the State of Mississippi. I 

hope we can avoid this with something more reasonable. 

Ms. MCCABE. One of the issues that we have heard from many 

people right in this area is the interim goal the proposed rule set 

in 2020, a lot of the anxiety is about meeting an interim goal in 

that time period. That is something we are looking very, very closely at. 

The Chair. Thank you, Senator Wicker. 

Senator BOXER. 

Senator BOXER. I will yield to Senator Cardin. 

The Chair. Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Wicker and I usually agree on many issues. This is not 

one of them. We do agree on King’s Speech being a great movie, 

but I am afraid King George got too much advice from the tobacco 

industry on their findings on the use of tobacco rather than from 

science at the time. 

It seems to me also that if you look at the scientific information 

we have today and exclude some of the information from the fossil 

fuel industry, it is clear that carbon is a problem. 

Senator WICKER. It is official. 

Senator CARDIN. It is official. Thank you. We are in agreement 

then. 

Carbon combined in our environment, causing climate change, is 

real. It is causing serious risks not only to the people in our Country but globally. We have a responsibility to act. 

I would also like to point out that the Clean Air Act has been 

widely hailed as being very successful. Many of us remember all 

the red alert days have now been declining dramatically. In New 

York, Los Angeles and Baltimore, we have seen incredible improvements. 

Our older people, our younger people and people who suffer from 

respiratory problems are much safer today. The cost benefit ratios 

are very clear. We are building on that. I thank you very much, 

Ms. McCabe. 

50 

Power plants are the largest, single source of carbon, 40 percent 

of all carbon. EPA not only has the legal authority, you have the 

responsibility to act, to deal with that single largest source of carbon emissions. 

In the regulation you issued in June, which is now subject to 

comment, a 30 percent reduction by 2030 of the 2005 limits, was 

based upon your best judgment on science where we can achieve 

that, correct? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator CARDIN. It didn’t just come out of thin air. It was a scientifically based analysis that we could achieve in regards to carbon reductions? 

Ms. MCCABE. Correct. 

Senator CARDIN. The cost benefit we talked about before, but by 

achieving those levels, first of all, it is not just by more efficient 

energy sources, it is also by conserving energy? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is correct. 

Senator CARDIN. I have heard about the cost to consumers but 

as we become more efficient, consumer save, don’t they? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, they do, Senator. If you use less electricity, 

overall your bills can go down. That is what we predicted. 

Senator CARDIN. I just want to make that point. The cost benefit 

analysis that we go through when looking at EPA rules under the 

Clean Air Act or under the Clean Water Act, there are direct savings as Senator Boxer discussed, the number of premature deaths 

that will be saved, the number of work days that parents have to 

stay home because their child can’t breathe, or the days lost at 

summer camp because children can’t go to camp. Those are direct 

savings that we have as a result of implementing these laws. 

We also get more efficient use of energy which will also save us 

money? 

Ms. MCCABE. Correct. 

Senator CARDIN. We haven’t even discussed it to the extent that 

we do reverse some of the trends we have today on climate change 

and have less of these extreme weather conditions. We can tell you 

the billions of dollars these extreme weather conditions are costing 

the United States. 

If you look globally at those who are becoming climate refugees 

who are being displaced, the cost is incredible. 

All that builds into the fact that in Maryland, we have taken 

steps to deal with our power emissions through our power plants. 

We have done that and have had a growing economy. It has helped 

our economy. 

The enactment of the Clean Air Act in the 1970’s, we have seen 

tremendous economic growth in our Country. We believe that a 

healthy environment and a robust economy go side by side. As I 

understand it, that is the philosophy of the rule you brought forward and the comments you are receiving because you have a dual 

objective—a clean environment and a robust economy. 

I want to talk about local flexibility. Maryland is one of nine 

States that is part of the regional initiative in the northeast and 

the mid-Atlantic, the REGGI proposal. We have taken some pretty 

extreme measures in order to reduce carbon emissions. We are 

51 

downwind, so we have to worry about what is going on around the 

Country. 

We want other regions to do their share because it is not only 

important for our global responsibility, it is important to the people 

of Maryland that we have clean air. We can only do so much in 

our own State. 

Talk a little bit about the flexibility that we have in our State 

as part of a regional effort. How have you taken into consideration 

the numbers based upon States that have joined regional compacts? 

Ms. MCCABE. As we mentioned before, REGGI is a great example 

of States coming together to find very efficient ways, in a regional 

area, to make reductions in a way that is very helpful to the environmental goal and the economy. 

In our rule, we give the States flexibility to do a plan on their 

own or to join regionally. Our cost analyses show that regional 

plans tend to be more cost effective because there are more choices. 

I think that is what you are getting at, Senator, more choices for 

States to use different strategies, more choices for utilities, many 

of whom operate across State lines to have flexibility to make the 

most cost effective changes available to them and have a broader 

pool from which to choose. 

REGGI has demonstrated that is an effective way to achieve the 

lower greenhouse gas emission goal. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, let me comment on China because there has been a lot of conversation concerning China. 

Another responsibility I have in the Senate is as the Ranking 

Democrat on the East Asia and Pacific Subcommittee. I have been 

to China. China is leading the world right now on renewable energy. They have invested over $50 billion. 

This is not a country that has the same values we have as far 

as our global responsibilities looking at ourselves in a democratic 

state; they have done it because the people are demanding it. When 

you go to China, you see pollution. I was in Beijing for about 4 

days, never saw the sun and there were no clouds in the sky. 

They also do it because they don’t have a lot of fossil fuel 

sources, so they really need to become less dependent. They recognize that it is in their economic interest to invest in cleaner energy 

sources. 

I applaud the efforts of the Administration to bring China into 

specific achievable goals as we all work toward our universal responsibilities to deal with climate change. Whereas Maryland cannot deal with the healthy air without the help of our surrounding 

States, we cannot deal with climate change unless we have global 

cooperation. That requires U.S. leadership and I applaud the 

Obama administration for its leadership. 

The Chair. Thank you, Senator. 

For clarification, put the chart back up, if you would. When Senator Merkley was talking about the greenhouse gas, he was talking 

about greenhouse gases per capita which obviously India and 

China are not as industrialized as it is here, and they have millions 

and millions more people. 

I just wanted to make sure that everyone understands that did 

not refute accuracy of this chart. 

52 

Senator SULLIVAN. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. McCabe, thank you for your testimony today. 

I want to make a few statements. There has been a lot of talk 

about the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. I think all of 

us think they have been very successful. I think we all love clean 

air and clean water. 

People are bragging about their States. I can talk a little bit 

about my State. We have the cleanest air and the cleanest water 

probably in the world. We have the most pristine environment 

probably in the world. We have the highest standards on protecting 

the environment at the State probably in the world. 

We have one of the best records in the world of responsibly developing our resources and protecting our pristine environment. These 

are all very important. We all recognize that. 

I also think jobs are important and affordable energy is very important. In my State, ironically, the citizens of Alaska pay some of 

the highest energy costs in the Country. I also very importantly 

think the rule of law in the Constitution is important, which I assume you do as well. 

There has been a lot of talk about the agreement with China. I 

certainly don’t think that relatively flimsy agreements between the 

President and China authorize the EPA to do anything that Congress has not authorized. 

Do you think agreements with the Chinese give the EPA authority to take any action that Congress hasn’t? I am curious because 

there has been a lot of discussion about these Chinese agreements. 

We haven’t really seen them and it seems you are almost taking 

action based on an agreement we have with China. 

The last time I looked at the Constitution, that wasn’t where the 

EPA derives its authority. 

Ms. MCCABE. Absolutely not, Senator. That is not why we are 

taking action. We are taking action under the Clean Air Act. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Let me get to another concern of mine. I just 

wanted to get that China agreement issue off the record, on the 

record in terms of where you are deriving your authority. 

One of the things I have had a concern about, I think a lot of 

Americans have had a concern about, is what I call the Obama administration two-step. It goes something like this. 

The President and his Administration want to get something 

done. That is laudable. The elected President can certainly lay out 

a vision. A lot of these require actions by Congress under the Constitution. 

The President will do a head nod to the Constitution, to the statutes with regard to what he wants to get done. If that doesn’t work 

out, he ends up taking executive action anyway. There are numerous examples. 

Immigration is one. The President wanted Congress to move on 

immigration. Congress didn’t. That is the way the system works. 

Twenty-two times he says he can’t take certain action, then he reverses himself and says, I can take that action. 

Anwar is very important to my State. There is no doubt that the 

1002 coastal area, you are probably familiar with it, in Alaska, in 

53 

order to designate it wilderness, no doubt that has to be done by 

Congress. 

The President supposedly is going to put forward a bill to do 

that. It will go nowhere in this Congress. Yet, he has already said, 

I am going to move forward and designate through Executive 

Order, I will manage Anwar for wilderness anyway. 

The waters of the United States, EPA wanted to expand its authority over the waters of the United States and put forward legislation in 2009 that didn’t go anywhere because Congress and the 

American people didn’t want to expand that authority. Through a 

regulatory action, you expanded the authority. 

Now you are doing this. I think the Chairman has already laid 

out that what you were trying to do was move through Congress. 

It didn’t pass. That is the way our constitutional system works, but 

it doesn’t work for agencies to then say, it didn’t pass through Congress, so I will do it anyway through a regulation. That is not how 

the system works. 

Your agency, in my view, has been one of the biggest abusers of 

this two step approach. It is not just my view. Are you familiar 

with the recent Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA decision by 

the U.S. Supreme Court? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, I am. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Did you read that decision? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, I did. 

Senator SULLIVAN. It was a decision in which the Supreme Court 

was also chastising the EPA for taking actions and authority that 

it clearly said it didn’t have. Let me read a provision of that recent 

Supreme Court decision. 

It says, ‘‘EPA’s interpretation is also unreasonable because it 

would bring about an enormous transformative expansion of EPA’s 

regulatory authority without clean congressional authorization.’’ 

Do you think this rule brings about an expansion of your regulatory authority? 

Ms. MCCABE. The rule we are talking about here today? 

Senator SULLIVAN. Correct. 

Ms. MCCABE. If I could respond? 

Senator SULLIVAN. No, just respond to that question. 

Ms. MCCABE. I believe the rule we have proposed and that we 

are going through comment on today is squarely based on our authority in the Clean Air Act. 

Senator SULLIVAN. What provision of the Clean Air Act? 

Ms. MCCABE. Sections 111(b) and 111(d). 

Senator SULLIVAN. Have you read the CRS analysis of your authority? 

Ms. MCCABE. I am not sure exactly what you are referring to. 

Senator SULLIVAN. The congressional Research Service did an 

analysis of your authority on this regulation and the questions CRS 

had with regard to your authority to issue this reg. Have you read 

that? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t believe that analysis suggests that we don’t 

have the authority to do what we are doing. 

Senator SULLIVAN. It did. It looked at a number of areas where 

it raised questions. I would ask, if you haven’t done that, if the 

EPA General Counsel’s Office can respond to the CRS analysis of 

54 

this regulation and your authority under the Clean Air Act to issue 

that. Can you do that? 

Ms. MCCABE. We would be happy to do that. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Let me get back to what the Supreme Court 

mentioned. It mentioned when the EPA undertakes a reg that is 

an enormous and transformative expansion in its regulatory authority, they are very skeptical of your power. 

Do you think this regulation dramatically expands your authority? 

Ms. MCCABE. I do not. 

Senator SULLIVAN. You don’t? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t. I don’t. I believe that we are following what 

the Clean Air Act requires. This is a statute Congress enacted to 

protect the public health from air pollution. The agency over a 

number of years on a very sound scientific record has made a determination that CO2 endangers public health and welfare. 

That determination was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The 

EPA then has taken actions based on that finding of 

endangerment. 

Senator SULLIVAN. I think you are doing exactly what the EPA 

reprimanded you from doing in its recent Supreme Court case 

where you are taking significant power under the Clean Air Act 

that is dramatically expanding your powers over the U.S. economy 

without clear congressional authorization. 

As a matter of fact, you tried to get this authorization before and 

Congress has not passed it. You are not allowed to then move forward with the regulation to do what Congress won’t allow. 

Let me ask another question. You talked a lot about the States’ 

flexibility. It sounds great. It sounds wonderful. Thirty-two States 

have raised legal objections to this rule; 12 have already sued you, 

even though you haven’t finalized it. 

There was testimony by FERC Commissioner Tony Clark who 

stated, ‘‘The proposed rule on existing plants has the potential to 

comprehensively reorder the jurisdictional relationship between the 

Federal Government and the State’s, dramatically altering the traditional lines of authority.’’ 

He later said, ‘‘In spite of EPA’s promise of flexibility, States are 

ceding ultimate authority to the EPA.’’ Do you think that shows 

flexibility toward the States? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t agree with the way Commissioner Clark has 

characterized it. The States are clearly in charge of developing 

plans to reduce carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act and 

under our proposed rule. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I have 

several additional questions that I will submit for the record, particularly as it relates to interior Alaska communities such as Fairbanks which pay enormously high energy costs and will be severely, negatively impacted by this rule if it goes through. 

I would like the EPA to specifically answer questions as relates 

to communities in Alaska. 

Ms. MCCABE. I would be happy to answer your questions. 

The Chair. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. 

Let me give you an additional minute of my time because you 

have taken that and it is because you are discussing something I 

55 

was going to bring up. The mere fact that 31 States oppose this 

power plan and more than half believe it is not legal under the 

Clean Air Act. 

I would be asking in my remaining time how are you are going 

to coerce these people into doing something they don’t want to do? 

You cannot take their highway funds away. Think about that. 

Senator BOXER. 

Senator BOXER. I yield to Senator Whitehouse. 

The Chair. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Chairman. 

We always have an interesting discussion in which one side if 

the committee only looks at one side of the ledge and that is the 

coal economy and the fossil fuel industry economy. Many of us have 

different economies that are paying the price of carbon pollution. 

My colleagues have heard plenty from me about this over the 

months and years. Let me bring in a couple of other voices. 

In late 2014, fishery regulators announced that for the second 

consecutive year, there would be no shrimp fishery in the Gulf of 

Maine this winter. The principal culprit is warming ocean water 

caused by global climate change. 

The author goes on to say, ‘‘The lobster has been disappearing 

from its traditional habitat in southern New England’’ and described a phenomenon that scientists dubbed an ocean heat wave 

in the spring of 2012 that led to an early molt and migration of 

lobsters that caused a supply glut and subsequent price collapse. 

The author goes on to say, ‘‘The message here is clear. Climate 

change is taking dollars and jobs away from New England’s fishing 

communities. Generally fish species off the northeast United States 

are collectively moving to higher latitudes and deeper water in 

search of the cooler temperatures they require to survive.’’ We certainly see that in Rhode Island. 

She adds, ‘‘The potential for dramatic storm surge events in 

which higher sea levels combine with more intense weather activity 

increase flooding and storm damage.’’ We certainly have seen that 

in Rhode Island with Sandy. 

The author comes to the conclusion what is needed is ‘‘honest, 

fact-based discussion and a genuine bipartisan commitment to solutions.’’ The author of that article is none other than our former Republican colleague in the Senate, Olympia Snowe. 

Another voice that has come out recently comes from the Economist Magazine. The Economist Magazine is a very conservative 

publication but it inhabits the space where it is conservative but 

not under the control of the fossil fuel industry. 

Here is an article they recently posted. ‘‘If the coal, electric power 

and automotive industries had their way in the early 1970’s, American cities would look like Chinese cities today. The 1970 Clean Air 

Act triggered the same kind of hysterical industry denunciations 

we are seeing today in response to the move to force the electric 

power industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

‘‘Among them was Ford claiming that the 1970 Act ‘could cutoff 

automobile production in just 5 years, lead to huge price increases 

for cars, even if the production were not stopped and do irreparable 

damage to the American economy.’ ’’ 

56 

Again, in 1972, when the industry was being asked to adopt catalytic converters, General Motors threatened ‘‘complete stoppage of 

the production line and the president of Ford said it could cause 

Ford to shut down.’’ 

In 1974 when we were acting on sulfur emissions, American Electric Power spent $3.1 million on an ad campaign to convince 

that installing scrubbers on coal-fired power plants would be a disaster. 

The article continues, ‘‘Needless to say, this was all nonsense. 

America’s GDP has grown 212 percent since then while emissions 

of traditional air pollutants fell by 68 percent. Adult mortality in 

the United States would have increased by 160,000 in 2011,’’ that 

is dead people, adult mortality in 2011 alone. ‘‘Over the course of 

40 years, the Clean Air Act’s pollution reductions have quite literally saved millions of lives.’’ 

The author then goes on to describe what he calls ‘‘a fairly reliable pattern. Whenever the government considers environmental or 

safety regulations, manufacturing, energy companies and industry 

associations put out ‘studies’ that grossly overestimate the costs 

and underState the benefits. 

‘‘In retrospect, the industry response to environmental regulation 

in the 1970’s can best be described as mendacious, homicidal, 

greedy, whingeing’’ which is Brit speak for pointing. 

He concludes, ‘‘The fact that the carbon, which utility companies 

turn out is gradually cooking the climate, and when considering 

the industry response to stronger greenhouse gas limits, one should 

keep in perspective that in the past they have been laughably 

wrong and that the positions they have advocated would have led 

to the deaths of millions.’’ 

He continues, ‘‘In the struggle for clean air, executives in the 

power, mining and automotive industries made fools of themselves 

at the time by cooking up economic and scientific arguments 

against pollution regulations that turned out to be utterly wrong. 

It is infuriating to see them now cough up the same, tired, halfbaked arguments against carbon emission limits that they have 

been making wrongly for four decades against the whole slate of 

government environment and safety regulations, the very regulations that have made America the cleaner, safer Country we know 

it to be.’’ 

I take that statement from a conservative publication. This is not 

the publication of the Sierra Club; this is the Economist Magazine 

show that there is room for a principled, conservative position that 

acknowledges the reality of climate change, that acknowledges the 

reality of what is happening in my State. 

I am keenly aware of what the economic damage could be if we 

get this wrong in West Virginia, Wyoming, Arkansas and other 

States. I am willing to work with my colleagues to try to see what 

we can do to get that right. 

I cannot have a situation in which the other side refuses to acknowledge the reality of what is happening in Rhode Island, of 

what is happening in Maine, of what is happening in Oregon, of 

what is happening around the world and around the Country because carbon pollution, to use the Economist phrase, is cooking our 

environment. 

57 

That doesn’t even get you into what it is doing to our oceans. You 

can actually measure sea level rise. You do that with the equivalent of a yardstick. You can measure the warming of the ocean. 

You do that with a thermometer. This stuff is not complicated. 

You can measure the acidification. You do that with essentially 

pH type tests that people use for their aquarium. This is not complicated. When you measure it, you see it happening. It is real. We 

are in the process of having the ocean acidify at a faster rate than 

has ever occurred in the history of our species. 

If you never want to go near the ocean, if you never want to eat 

anything from the ocean, if you don’t think the ocean provides anything useful in terms of oxygen and cooling for the planet, that 

may be a matter of no interest to you. 

It is pretty significant because when you go back into geologic 

time to look for the previous occasions, when you have seen that 

sort of calamitous change in ocean acidification and look at what 

is happening on the rest of the planet, those were not the high 

points for planetary habitability. 

I wholeheartedly support this rule. I urge my colleagues to look 

at both sides of the ledge, not just the fossil fuel industry side and 

with any luck, in a reasonable amount of time, we will be able to 

do the job in Congress that if we had done it in the first place, you 

might not be here having to answer these questions. 

Because of our failure, you have had to proceed. I don’t think it 

is fair to blame you for having to proceed when we are the ones 

who failed. 

The Chair. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. McCabe, are you aware of the new source performance 

standard in the existing source performance standard rules for 

coal-fired power plants as a result of the 2010 EPA Sioux and Settlement Agreement with the National Resources Defense Council 

and others? 

Documents obtained by the committee reveal that this agreement 

was reached in close coordination with the NRDC above all other 

petitioners, above all over interested parties such as the States. 

One document in particular suggests that these rules were crafted to please the NRDC with Gina McCarthy going so far as to tell 

the NRDC climate advisor David Doniger, ‘‘This success is yours as 

much as mine.’’ That was on the day the settlement agreement was 

made public. 

Yet, it doesn’t appear that the rule is a success to any of the real 

affected parties like the States or the American people who are facing high electricity bills and job loss. Do you believe that these 

rules are a success of the NRDC? 

Ms. MCCABE. No, Senator. These rules have come about because 

the EPA made an endangerment finding about the fact that CO2

was harming public health and welfare and that we have a responsibility and an authority under Congress’ Clean Air Act to move 

forward to set standards for new sources of carbon dioxide as appropriate for existing sources of carbon dioxide and we have methodically looked at the most emissive sectors, starting with transportation and now fossil-fired utilities with 40 percent of the Country’s CO2 emissions. 

58 

Senator BARRASSO. Would you say that Wyoming, West Virginia 

or any of the other States of this committee had the same input 

and access to the EPA officials as the lobbyists and attorneys from 

the NRDC in reaching this settlement agreement? 

Ms. MCCABE. I speak with States all the time. They have very 

good access to discuss all of these issues with us. They certainly 

know how to reach us and do. 

Senator BARRASSO. Actually, 32 States did submit legal objections to the rule in the form of comments, including my home State 

of Wyoming. When a majority of States object to a rule, I think you 

have done something wrong. 

I want to move on to the way you evaluate benefits. Most of the 

benefits claimed by the EPA in the 111(d) proposal for existing 

power plants come from reducing conventional pollutants like PM 

2.5 and not carbon. 

Why is the EPA justifying a carbon rule with benefits from PM 

2.5? 

Ms. MCCABE. There actually are significant benefits associated 

with the effects of reducing carbon. Those are all laid out in our 

IRA. 

Senator BARRASSO. Once again, it does seem most of the benefits 

claimed by the EPA in the proposal for existing power plants comes 

from reducing conventional pollutants like PM 2.5 and not from 

carbon. 

I wonder if the EPA is double counting PM 2.5 benefits that it 

is also taking credit for in other rules. I would ask how you justify 

counting the health benefits which misleads the American people 

to the actual health benefits of the rule? 

Ms. MCCABE. First of all, we certainly are not double counting. 

We are very careful in all of our regulations to make sure that we 

don’t do that. In addition, it is a standard and an accepted approach to acknowledge when there are co-benefits associated with 

the reductions that are happening as a result of the rule. 

It would not make sense to not acknowledge those additional 

public health benefits and that they have value to the American 

people. 

Senator BARRASSO. So you double count the co-benefits where 

you count them both over here and then both over there? 

Ms. MCCABE. No. 

Senator BARRASSO. The DOE announced this week that after 10 

years of work, it was canceling the FutureGen, the CCS Project, ‘‘in 

order to best protect taxpayer interests.’’ That was the reason 

given. 

How can the Federal Government require the private sector to 

build CCS power plants under your proposed rule when it can’t 

even build a CCS power plant on its own? 

Ms. MCCABE. The rule in no way requires anybody to build anything in particular, including CCS. 

Senator BARRASSO. DOE advisors released a study requested by 

Secretary Moniz that concluded that CCS is not ‘‘adequately demonstrated and should not be required under 111(b) of the new 

sources.’’ The energy experts are telling DOE that CCS isn’t adequately demonstrated. My question is, is the EPA really listening? 

59 

Ms. MCCABE. We are paying attention to all the input that we 

have gotten on 111(b) as well as 111(d). I will note that since last 

fall there has been a plant operating using CCS at 90 percent capture. That is moving along as everybody expected. 

The technology is out there in use. That is certainly not the only 

example. As I said, we will, of course, pay attention to all the input 

we get on this issue. 

Senator BARRASSO. On November 12, the U.S. announced a U.S.- 

China joint climate change agreement. The announcement stated 

that the President of the United States and China had stated their 

respective post-2020 actions on climate change. 

According to the State Department, the agreement states the 

United States ‘‘intends to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its emissions by 26 to 28 percent below its 2005 level in 2025.’’ 

According to the State Department the same agreement says that 

China intends to achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions around 

2030. 

We have to do all these things and there is not even peaking 

until 2030 and to make the ‘‘best efforts’’ to peak early and tends 

to increase the share of non-fossil fuels and primary energy consumption to around 20 percent by 2030. 

The State Department has stated in Capital Hill meetings that 

the EPA actions, such as your proposed rule for new and existing 

power plants, will achieve the reductions of 26 to 28 percent. What 

role did the EPA play in setting these big targets for the U.S. in 

the U.S.-China agreements and what role do you see Congress 

playing in setting this policy, of which the economic impact is 

sweeping? 

Ms. MCCABE. I may have misheard you, Senator, but to the extent that you suggested that the Clean Power Plan was intended 

to achieve the 26 to 28 percent all by itself, that is certainly not 

correct. 

Senator BARRASSO. It is a big part of it, not all by itself but a 

significant part of it. 

Ms. MCCABE. It is significant reductions as are the clean car 

rules, as are other things. 

Senator BARRASSO. The question is, what role did the EPA play 

in setting these targets in the U.S./China agreement? 

Ms. MCCABE. We have, as have many agencies, participated in 

conversations and discussions about what types of approaches 

would be feasible within our authorities to reduce carbon dioxide. 

Senator BARRASSO. What role do you see Congress playing in setting this policy? 

Ms. MCCABE. This is a matter for the President as he is discussing these targets in the international community. I am sure 

that he is paying attention. 

Senator BARRASSO. Is the Administration’s position that Congress has no role, responsibility, obligation or opportunity in all of 

these things? 

Ms. MCCABE. Senator, I don’t want to speak to that today. That 

is not really my responsibility. I would defer that to others to speak 

about. I am focused on the Clean Air Act and our authorities under 

that. 

60 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Whitehouse, who has left, was 

quoting The Economist on some issues. Regarding the specific deal 

between the United States and China, The Economist said that the 

costs to the United States are much more real than they are to 

China. 

It is something many of us here oppose and are going to continue 

to try to dismantle. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chair. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BOXER. Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I want to put in the record a PolitiFact that when Mitch 

McConnell says U.S./China climate deal means China won’t have 

anything to do for 16 years, PolitiFact found that mostly false. I 

want to put that in the record, if I can. 

The Chair. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

61 


94978.019
62 


94978.020
63 


94978.021
64 


94978.022
65 


94978.023
66 


94978.024
67 


94978.025
68 


94978.026
69 


94978.027
70 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

We are hearing from a couple of my Republican friends, they are 

my friends, this isn’t personal, this is quite important, a series of 

scare tactics about the results of continuing to implement the 

Clean Air Act. I want to compliment you, Ms. McCabe, for your 

very calm presentation. 

This is a situation where the Clean Air Act requires you to act. 

It doesn’t require us to act; it requires you to implement the Act 

unless we repeal the Clean Air Act. I haven’t heard anyone say 

they want to repeal the Clean Air Act. If they do, bring it on. 

It is true that since Richard Nixon signed the modern Clean Air 

Act in 1970—I want to make sure this jibes with your understanding—the U.S. GDP has grown by 219 percent, private sector 

jobs have grown by 101 percent and common air pollutants have 

dropped by 72 percent. Is that your understanding? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is my understanding. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Sullivan, I think in a very aggressive 

way and good for him, said that Obama is abusing his authority. 

I want to place into the record how many executive actions the last 

three Presidents took: Clinton, 364; George W. Bush, 291; and 

Barack Obama, 200. 

Maybe I am wrong but I have not really heard anyone on the 

other side complain about George W. Bush’s 291 executive orders, 

Nixon’s 346 executive orders, or Regan’s 381 executive orders. However, with Barack Obama’s 200, oh, my God, the sky is falling. Isn’t 

this awful. 

I am sorry, the record just disproves your point. 

I believe this not an Administration gone rogue. This is an Administration following the Clean Air Act. Don’t you agree that is 

what you are doing? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is what we are doing. 

Senator BOXER. Don’t you agree there have been three Supreme 

Court decisions that tell you that you need to proceed? The first 

case was Massachusetts v. EPA, the second case was American 

Electric Power v. Connecticut; and the third was Utility Air Resources Group v. EPA. Is that correct? Is that your understanding? 

Ms. MCCABE. Correct. 

Senator BOXER. Don’t you have to follow the law? 

Ms. MCCABE. We do. 

Senator BOXER. Don’t you have to follow the Supreme Court? 

Ms. MCCABE. We do. 

Senator BOXER. The Supreme Court in that last case, which Senator Sullivan quoted, confirmed the Clean Air Act covers carbon 

pollution. Isn’t that correct? 

Ms. MCCABE. Correct. 

Senator BOXER. If you didn’t do your work, you would be sued 

for not doing it. Am I right? 

Ms. MCCABE. In all likelihood, we would. 

Senator BOXER. I think so because I know some of the folks that 

would do it, including me, probably, if I had a chance. We have a 

lot of people at home who care about clean air. We have the largest 

number of people. We are up to 38 million people. Cleaning up the 

air is a primary focus. 

71 

With all due respect and admiration, we get along so well, I have 

to say my Chairman misconstrues the votes in the Senate. I am 

going to put in the record the actual votes, if I might. 

The Chair. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Here is what they are. October 30, 2003, 

McCain-Lieberman went down. It was McCain’s bill and was called 

The Climate Stewardship Act of 2003. He was right, it went down. 

We only had four Republicans: Collins, Greg, McCain and Snow, 43 

to 55. 

On June 22, 2005, the McCain amendment, 826, went down in 

a worse way, 38 to 60. Then we had Chaffee, Collins, Greg, Lugar, 

McCain and Snow, Republicans. On June 6, 2008—this is the one 

I remember—the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 

lost because it was a filibuster. Six people were absent and they 

asked their intention to vote yes be entered into the record. We actually had 54 votes at that time. We didn’t have the 60 but we had 

a majority. 

What I want to say to you is in this recent debate on Keystone, 

here is what happened: 99 to 1, the White House amendment declaring that climate change is not a hoax passed with the support 

of the Chairman and 59 to 40, the Hoeven amendment said climate 

change is caused by human activity won the day, 59 to 40 but was 

filibustered, so it never got where it should have gotten. 

Then the Schatz amendment, which says climate change significantly is caused by human activity, passed 50 to 49. 

My colleague from Mississippi went into this whole thing about 

that great movie, The King’s Speech. I didn’t quite get the connection but it was cleverly put forward. 

The bottom line is he is saying that these two newspapers are 

confusing the matter. I am going to put into the record all of the 

news outlets that reported this story. I have 40 and there are many 

more. 

Let me tell you who is included who said the same thing: The 

Christian Science Monitor, UPI, Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, AP, 

Financial Times, Politico, USA Today, National Journal, Virginia 

Pilot, Time Magazine, Newsweek, Kansas First News, National Geographic, Blumberg, Smithsonian Magazine, and Salt Lake City 

Tribune. 

There was no question that all these outlets reported this not because they reported it for any particular reason other than this is 

the truth. 

Unless my colleague from Mississippi has a right to say that he 

doesn’t believe in NOAA and doesn’t believe in NASA, this is a fact. 

You cannot make up this stuff. Would you agree this is accurate 

reporting? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is certainly what I have understood from 

those agencies you mentioned. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Climate change is projected to harm human health. I wish my 

colleague from Mississippi was here because I really would love to 

get into a debate with him but he is not here because we all have 

so many obligations and I understand. 

We know that climate change increases ground level ozone and 

particulate matter in some locations. Is that accurate? 

72 

Ms. MCCABE. That is accurate? 

Senator BOXER. When you cleanup this carbon, you are really 

helping the health of the people. Isn’t that true? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is correct. 

Senator BOXER. Relying upon substantial scientific evidence, 

EPA determined that man-made climate change threatens both 

public health and public welfare. Is that correct? My understanding 

is that was put forward in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. 

EPA? That was the case. 

Ms. MCCABE. That was the endangerment finding, correct. 

Senator BOXER. In the endangerment finding, you found extreme 

weather events, changes in air quality, increases in food and water 

borne pathogens. We know that happens because we know it happened in a lake in Ohio which was devastating. We know these increases in temperature are likely to have adverse effects. Is that 

correct? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is correct. 

Senator BOXER. Isn’t it clear that those of us who believe that 

carbon pollution does increase the likelihood that people will have 

breathing difficulties and heart attacks a proven fact? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, it is. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chair. Senator Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for your time this morning. 

I would like to read a bit of a summary of what has happened 

in my State of South Dakota and the challenges that we face. I 

would then like your response, please. 

In the year 2012, the base year, South Dakota’s Native electricity 

production was approximately 74 percent renewable energy and 26 

percent from fossil fuels. We have one coal-fired power plant that 

employs 80 people, the Big Stone plant, and one natural gas combined cycle plant, the Deer Creek Station. 

Each of these plants dispatches power into a different regional 

transmission organization. In your plan, you calculated Deer Creek 

Station’s actual 2012 capacity factor at 1 percent despite the fact 

that the Deer Creek Station was not commercially operational until 

August of that year. 

Had the EPA considered Deer Creek Station under construction 

in 2012, the plan would have assigned Deer Creek an assumed capacity factor of 55 percent in the year 2012. 

Because of these calculations in your plan, it would require that 

the Big Stone plant, the coal-fired plant, which now operates approximately 8,000 hours a year to operate at between 2,000 and 

2,500 hours per year in order to comply with your targets for the 

State of South Dakota. 

The results of this coal plant running less than half of the time 

it runs now doesn’t work. The Big Stone plant employs approximately 80 people. Under your preferred plan, we simply have to 

wonder whether or not those jobs would remain in the State or 

whether the plant would continue to operate. 

Further, operating a baseline or a baseload coal unit 2,000 hours 

per year is literally uneconomical and is basically unfeasible. Big 

73 

Stone power plant and Deer Creek Station operate in separate 

RTOs. The electricity in one RTO cannot be transferred to the consumers in another RTO who depend on the plants to keep on their 

lights. 

Adding an additional layer of complexity to this is the fact that the Big Stone plant is in the middle of a $400 million upgrade in 

order to comply with the EPA’s regional haze rule and South Dakota’s 2012 State implementation plan to comply with that rule. This project isn’t completed yet and after a $400 million investment—the largest single private investment our State has ever 

seen—you are now telling this plant they may not even be able to 

operate at all in order to comply with your latest regulations. 

My question is this. We have a limited number of electric generating resources in South Dakota. Each facility is absolutely vital to 

meeting the energy needs of my State and our surrounding States. 

In light of this, what if any flexibility is built into your proposed 

rule for a State like South Dakota? What flexibility is there for facilities in the midst of a major upgrade at your direction and are 

now being told they need to do even more to meet these additional 

regulations you plan on implementing? 

Ms. MCCABE. We certainly welcome conversations at this level of 

detail from States. We are having many of them. I trust and hope 

your State has provided that input to us in their comments and 

that we are having those conversations. 

I want to emphasize that the proposal we put out is not proscriptive. We do think States can find ways to reduce carbon in order 

to meet the targets. We are looking very closely at all of the kinds 

of issues you are raising with us. 

In particular, if States think we got something factually wrong, 

we have urged them to tell us. Many have. Again, I presume your 

State is having that conversation with us. If we got something factually wrong, we will address that because we want to make sure 

the final rule is appropriate and correct and still maintains flexibility. 

There are opportunities across the regions and across the States 

to have investment in clean technologies, energy efficiencies and renewables. I believe your State has been a leader in some of those 

technologies. We applaud that. That is why we think this can work. 

We also appreciate there are complexities. Especially in the west, 

there are large States who are divided in terms of their energy 

markets. We are having conversations with States and with the energy regulators about those sorts of issues to make sure the final 

Clean Power Plan can accommodate all those sorts of considerations. 

Senator ROUNDS. To the best of my knowledge, we have received 

no suggestions of how to fix the problem we share with you today. 

This is a major proposal. Clearly we think there should be a significant amount of thought put into the original rule to begin with. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Senator ROUNDS. We have no feedback suggesting there is an alternative at this stage of the game. I am curious, are you suggesting that a final rule would be significantly different than the 

proposed rule based upon the information we have already provided to you? 

74 

Ms. MCCABE. I am suggesting, as is usually the case with EPA 

regulations, the comments we receive may well lead to adjustments 

in the final rule. In fact, I do not have any experience with an EPA 

rule where that has not happened. 

That is why the public comment process is so important. I would 

emphasize that even beyond the formal public comment process, 

the tremendous relationship and discussions we have had with 

States and stakeholders is to make sure we get this right. 

Yes, to the extent that adjustments are appropriate within our 

authority and needed to make sure the rule can work properly, we 

certainly will be looking at those kinds of things. 

Senator ROUNDS. All of us want clean air. The challenge is how 

do we get there? How do we maintain what we have already? How 

can we afford to pick up the costs for making it better in the future? 

The United States Chamber of Commerce in a report last year 

suggested that the cost to the average American family would be 

approximately $1,400 per year to comply with this particular rule. 

Did you have or are you aware of what the estimated costs were 

when the rule was proposed or what the anticipated costs would be 

to a family to comply with this rule? 

Ms. MCCABE. For every significant rule like this, we do a regulatory impact analysis along with the proposed rule. We did that 

here. It is all available for everyone to take a look at. 

I am not sure about the specific study you cited, but we did do 

a forward look. I need to make sure everyone knows that because 

States will ultimately decide exactly what to do, our projections can 

only be illustrative. We are confident States will make the best 

choices for the families within their borders and that will take into 

consideration the costs. 

This rule is all built on the things happening now in this industry. Utilities are using less carbon intensive, more economical fuels, 

investing in renewable energy and investing in energy efficiency. 

Those things together reduce carbon emissions but overall, because 

of the tremendous impact energy efficiency can have in the amount 

of energy we use, we expect bills to go down. 

Senator ROUNDS. Mr. Chairman, my time is up. May I just read 

one sentence into the record? 

In July 2014, the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission said 

‘‘Some South Dakotans will see their electricity rates almost double 

as a result of the CPP disproportionately impacting the Midwest.’’ 

Thank you. 

The Chair. Thank you, Senator Rounds. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this very important hearing. 

Thank you, Ms. McCabe, for testifying about the Administration’s actions to protect clean air by reducing carbon emissions for 

power plants. 

From my perspective, the science is clear. Climate change is real. 

The burning of fossil fuels contributes to it significantly and is an 

immediate threat to families and communities in every corner of 

this Country and the world. 

75 

Industrial activity in the United States has been a major contributor to carbon pollution over the years. Whether we like it or not, 

our Country has the dubious distinction of having been a leader in 

creating the problem. Now, thanks to the hard work of this Administration, we are on track to solving this problem. 

Something I think is often overlooked by many of the opponents 

of rules that limit carbon pollution from power plants is the benefit 

families will see in terms of public health. The Administration’s 

proposed rules are strongly supported by health professionals. 

In fact, I am sure you are aware the Academy of Pediatrics, the 

American Heart Association, the Lung Association, the Thoracic 

Society, the Public Health Association and several other public 

health organizations sent a letter to the EPA which stated, ‘‘The 

changing climate threatens the health of Americans alive now and 

future generations. Consequently, the Nation has a short window 

to act to reduce those threats.’’ 

Given that statement from some of these leading and well respected public health organizations, can elaborate on the public 

health risks that American families will continue to face if we fail 

to act to reduce carbon emissions from power plants? 

Ms. MCCABE. There are some pretty immediate impacts. As we 

see temperatures go up, those kinds of conditions are more conducive to ozone formation. Ozone has very well demonstrated immediate impacts on families, including exacerbating asthma, bringing 

on asthma attacks leading to all kinds of medical expenses as well 

as missed school and work. 

Severe drought which is occurring has significant impact on public health. The changes in temperatures are changing the seasons 

of various allergens and changing the patterns of various vectors 

that can lead to disease. 

These are the kinds of things that scientists are seeing as a result of occurring climate change impacts. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. The northeast has recently experienced a 

greater increase in extreme precipitation than any other region in 

the Nation. Sea level rise along New York’s Atlantic coast has exceeded 18 inches since 1850. 

Recently, the northeast has experienced extreme weather events 

that are more intense and frequent than we have seen before. 

While there is much talk of the potential cost of reducing emissions, there are significant costs to the economy if we decide to do 

nothing. 

Has the EPA looked at the cost to other areas of the economy of 

failing to enact strong carbon emissions reductions? Would you 

agree that the cost of rebuilding our infrastructure and shorelines, 

providing billions of dollars in disaster assistance every year from 

extreme weather and destructed agriculture and fishery production, among other economic effects, far outweigh the cost of comply 

with the rules? 

Ms. MCCABE. I certainly would. The greatest cost is to do nothing. The kinds of impacts you cite are ones scientists say are happening and will happen more in the future. Those are very, very 

costly events. 

Particularly implementing the rule as we have proposed it here, 

providing flexibility for States to invest in their local communities, 

76 

bring jobs, invest in energy efficiency, which will reduce the need 

for electricity, provides very positive economic benefits. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chair. Senator Vitter? 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks, Ms. McCabe, for being here. 

I want to thank my colleagues for letting me jump ahead because 

I have another commitment in a few minutes. I will be brief. 

As you know, I submitted requests for documents on these rules 

and development of these rules in the last Congress. EPA is still 

producing some of those documents but from what has been produced, there is a dramatic pattern of very frequent, detailed meetings and phone calls and emails between EPA and NRDC, a leading outside environmental group. 

The number of these communications is pretty staggering and 

unprecedented as far as I can see. In addition, there is some correspondence between EPA and NRDC that has not been produced 

or posted to the docket. Why is that and will that excluded correspondence and documentation be submitted? 

Ms. MCCABE. I am not exactly sure of the answer to that question. I will be glad to get back to you on that. 

Senator VITTER. If you could get back to us, hopefully that will 

be corrected in terms of the docket by including that additional correspondence and documentation. 

Some things have been produced by EPA already. It shows a 

level of communication and detail and consultation that I think is 

pretty staggering. Let me put up one email of June 2013 before the 

rule was proposed. 

In this, NRDC attorney, Dave Hawkins, advised senior EPA air 

official, Joe Goffman, ‘‘As long as the compliance date for the FIP 

111(d) emission limits is a few years after the SIP submission 

deadline, it appears EPA can promulgate back stop FIP limits even 

in advance of the June 16 SIP submission date.’’ 

There is very detailed advice, direction I would say, before the 

rule was even proposed. Do you think that sort of thing is appropriate? 

Ms. MCCABE. We get a lot of detailed advice from a lot of people 

and have many meetings with a lot of different stakeholders who 

weigh in with us. We take all of that input and put it in a proposed 

rule which is fully open for everyone to look at. 

If the rule is not grounded in science and the law, then people 

tell us. That is how we proceed. 

Senator VITTER. Prior to this email, had EPA even considered 

issuing a model FIP? 

Ms. MCCABE. I can’t speak to exactly when we would have had 

those conversations, but I can assure you that the notion of a Federal implementation plan is fully laid out in the Clean Air Act. 

That is what is motivating us to think about the need for a backstop Federal plan. 

Senator VITTER. If you could followup and answer that question 

directly, whether EPA considered issuing a model FIP prior to the 

email, that would be useful. 

Did NRDC’s advice have significant bearing on the model FIP 

EPA is now developing? 

77 

Ms. MCCABE. We have not yet proposed a model FIP. We are 

going through that process right now. We have gotten a number of 

comments in the public comment period from a variety of stakeholders urging us to consider doing a model FIP. We will be working our work through the process to figure out what the appropriate proposal is. 

Senator VITTER. Is EPA planning to issue its model FIP before 

the SIP deadline? 

Ms. MCCABE. We announced in January that we intended to propose a FIP this summer around the same time that we finalize the 

111(b) and 111(d) rules. 

Senator VITTER. That would be before the other deadline? 

Ms. MCCABE. I am not sure which deadline you are talking 

about. Are you talking about the deadline for States to submit 

plans? 

Senator VITTER. Correct. 

Ms. MCCABE. That deadline has not yet been finalized. That will 

be finalized in the final rule. We proposed it would be 13 months 

after the 111(d) rule is finalized. We will have a proposed FIP out 

in the summer. I would expect we would have that finalized within 

a year. 

Senator VITTER. I just want to point out that it is perfectly consistent with this direction and advice. 

My final question is this. I continue to be very concerned with 

the very secretive work on the social costs of carbon estimates. I 

asked you previously for the names and titles of those folks under 

your supervision in the Office of Air and Radiation who have participated in the Interagency Working Group. We haven’t gotten 

that. Can you provide that to us? 

Ms. MCCABE. It really has not been a secretive process at all. 

The GAO has confirmed that it was not an inappropriate process 

and that agencies across the government participated. It is not a 

process that the EPA was in charge of. I feel we have been responsive. 

Senator VITTER. Can you provide me the names and titles of 

those folks under your supervision in the Office of Air and Radiation that participated in the Interagency Working Group? 

Ms. MCCABE. I will take back that question and we will get you 

a response to that. 

Senator VITTER. So it is not a secretive process but you won’t 

commit to that? 

Ms. MCCABE. It is not a secretive process. 

Senator VITTER. Will you commit to that? 

Ms. MCCABE. I will commit to get back to you. 

Senator VITTER. You won’t commit to that. Thank you. 

The Chair. Thank you, Senator Vitter. 

Let me thank both Senators Boozman and Capito who have been 

very flexible with their time to accommodate the others. I appreciate that very, very much. 

Senator CARPER. Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. McCabe, welcome. It is very nice to see you. Thank you for 

joining us today. Thank you for your service. You have a tough job. 

We appreciate your willingness to do it. 

78 

For those of us who live in States, there are actually millions of 

people in States already seeing the impacts of climate change. The 

EPA’s proposal to regulate our Nation’s largest sources of carbon 

pollution has been, frankly, a long time coming. 

However, with any substantial regulatory action, there is always 

room for improvement. While we strive for perfection—I think all 

of us strive for perfection—we know it is hard to achieve. 

I look forward to working with our colleagues on this committee, 

the Senate and the House, working with the Administration and 

other stakeholders in trying to make sure this regulation, as good 

as it is, becomes even better before it is finalized. 

One such issue I hope to address is inequities in the State targets. We had some discussion of this before. It is my understanding 

that different States will have different targets based on feasibility 

of electrical systems and other variables under the Clean Power 

Act. 

However, as written, I have heard from stakeholders that the 

proposal requires more of States that have already made substantial carbon reductions. Believe it or not, one of them is my State, 

Delaware. It would require more of us than States who have not 

yet acted. 

For example, Delaware has already made substantial investments in energy efficiency and cleaning up coal plant emissions 

compared to a lot of other States. These stakeholders have expressed that if this issue is not addressed, States may be at a competitive disadvantage. 

Have you heard similar concerns from other stakeholders? If the 

answer is yes, is the EPA considering adjusting the State targets 

to address these inequities? If so, what are those possible actions? 

Ms. MCCABE. This certainly is an issue that has been raised in 

comments from all different directions and from a number of different stakeholders. It is something to which we are paying a lot 

of attention. In fact, we paid so much attention to it that in the 

fall we put out a Notice of Data Availability identifying some of the 

issues people had raised so we could be sure to get as much input 

as possible on it. 

Our final rule has to be founded in our authority under the 

Clean Air Act to determine the best system of emission reduction 

for this sector. That is what we will be striving to do but we are 

looking very closely at all of these things. 

While I can’t speak to what any final decisions might be, because 

the rule won’t be final until June or mid-summer, I can assure you 

that we are looking hard at those questions. We certainly don’t 

want a rule that will disincentivize States from moving forward 

with early actions. That would not be good. 

We want to make sure that we make as many adjustments as 

we can to, as you say, improve the rule while staying within the 

legal authority that we have. 

Senator CARPER. There is a precedence for this—I think it is in 

Medicaid—for States that acted early in terms of increasing coverage under Medicaid. Under the Affordable Care Act, they were 

actually put at a disadvantage. I think we managed to fix that. My 

hope is we can be sure to do the same thing here. 

79 

I come to the issue before us today with a unique perspective. As 

the Senator from West Virginia knows, I was born in a place called 

Beckley. I don’t come from a place called Hope. I come from a place 

called Beckley, West Virginia. I still have a lot of family in the 

Mountain State and had the opportunity to go back there as recently as last month. 

The importance coal plays in the livelihood of a lot of folks, not 

just in West Virginia but in other places, is real to me. However, 

I now live and have the privilege of representing Delaware which 

is the lowest lying State in the entire United States of America. 

I understand if we don’t curb our power plan fossil fuel emissions 

over time, significant portions of my State will be lost to the sea. 

In fact, some parts of it are already starting to be lost to the sea. 

Can you take a few moments to talk with us about how this rule 

might address both concerns? How does this rule help make sure 

that my native State, West Virginia, doesn’t end up in economic 

ruin or damaged substantially while at the same time helping to 

make sure my State remains on the map? 

Ms. MCCABE. Let me address those things first, Senator. 

As has been discussed this morning by many of the committee 

members, CO2 emissions need to be reduced globally in order to addressing the kinds of impacts in Delaware about which you speak. 

This is one step that the United States can take which the Clean 

Air Act authorizes us to take along with others that this Country 

and others must take in order to address this. We believe that is 

a responsible and appropriate thing to do. 

We are very aware of the impacts occurring in the electricity generating sector today. There are many forces that way beyond what 

EPA might or might not do in this or any other rule that is changing the way energy is produced in this Country. As we talk with 

the industry, we understand that from them. 

We also understand that can have impacts on local communities 

built up around certain types of industries. This is not the first 

time that has happened. We must be very, very sensitive to those 

impacts as well. 

This rule, as we predict, looks to the future. We see a significant 

portion of power in this Country still being generated by coal, 

about 30 percent. It will be clean and well controlled coal and investments there are very important. 

We see another 30 percent being fueled by natural gas, another 

very important domestic industry that employs many, many people 

in this Country. There are other sources of energy, including ones 

where there is tremendous opportunity for investment in our local 

communities—thinking of renewable and energy efficiency, particular. 

For we are keeping all of those things in mind and fully believe 

that the flexibility this program allows will allow for that range of 

types of operations. That is good and healthy. 

Senator CARPER. One of the major sources of electricity generation of which I am aware, which does not create any emissions or 

harm, is nuclear. That provides electricity for about 20 percent of 

our need in this Country and has for a long time. 

My staff and I continue to hear concerns that the EPA is not 

treating all zero emission resources the same in this proposal. SpeVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:23 Jul 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\_EPW\DOCS\94978.TXT VERN
80 

cifically, we have heard that the proposal discounts nuclear generation in the State targets as compared to renewable energy putting 

nuclear energy at a disadvantage to other clean technologies. 

Why does the proposal discount nuclear generation? What is the 

EPA doing to address this issue? 

Ms. MCCABE. This rule is about the fossil fuel-fired electricity 

generation. That is the sector that emits the air pollutants we are 

authorized to address. Looking at the types of emission reduction 

approaches that fossil fuel-fired generation fleet can adopt, we 

identified some key approaches that industry is now taking, shifting to less carbon intensive, energy efficiency, renewable and all 

that sort of thing. 

This rule is not an energy plan. It should not be an energy plan. 

That is not Administrator McCarthy’s job. We understand the significant role nuclear power generation plays in the Country and 

that it is subject to various pressures and issues. 

We want to make sure States who have invested in nuclear energy and wish to do so, that can be a significant compliance option 

for States. It will be. 

We have received a lot of comment on the exact question you 

asked about how we figured that into the targets. We will be sorting through all that information and resolving that in the final 

rule. We take the point people are making very seriously on that 

question. 

Senator CARPER. My time has expired. Thank you so much for 

taking that seriously. 

The Chair. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

To the last and arguably the most patient members of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I appreciate very much 

your patience. Senator Capito, you are next. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank Ms. McCabe for coming before us today to 

discuss this extremely important rule. 

I hope you know that I represent the State of West Virginia. 

Ms. MCCABE. I do. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

We have just under 2 million hardworking Americans who receive 95 percent of our electricity from coal power generation. The 

West Virginia coal industry supports families, strengthens national 

security and affordably powers not only my State but provides affordable electricity to many of our neighbors. We export over half 

the electricity that we produce. We could be keeping the lights on 

in this room. 

Like many colleagues, I have some serious concerns about the 

proposed regulations. I am concerned about the cost to the taxpayer and also to the bill payer. We have already heard today that 

32 States have raised serious objections. 

A large percentage of our Country’s power comes from coal, yet 

you predict by effectively eliminating one-half of our energy generation, we will reduce electricity prices by 8 percent. This, to me, 

doesn’t simply add up. 

In our State, our monthly electrical bills are 23 percent lower 

than the national average because our coal is cheap, reliable and 

very plentiful. 

81 

I am also concerned that in formulating these regulations, EPA 

has not considered the impact. You kind of touched on this but I 

think we need to get into it some more, the reliability of our electricity grid. 

You don’t really have great track record here because if you look 

at the max rule, the EPA predicted that regulation would result in 

the closure of 5,000 megawatts of generating capacity. In reality, 

the DOE now says that between 50,000 and 60,000 megawatts of 

generation capacity will be taken offline. That is a ten times mistake. 

The cumulative effect of these regulations on our grid cannot be 

overstated. I think there is concern about the reliability. Looking 

back to last winter and touring some power stations, First Energy 

and others in my State, some of these coal-fired power plants to be 

taken offline were running at near capacity to keep our homes and 

our seniors warm. 

Our hardworking coal miners in West Virginia have made our 

State the second largest coal producer behind Senator Barrasso’s 

State of Wyoming. We mine it, we transport it, we burn it, our families depend on it. It has a huge economic impact. 

You say in your opening remarks that EPA stakeholder outreach, 

public engagement and preparation have been unprecedented. You 

talked a lot about, I think you said, the millions of comments. How 

many comments? A lot? 

Ms. MCCABE. A lot. 

Senator CAPITO. I am interested in your definition of outreach. 

This is not just me. Senator Manchin has lodged an invitation for 

the EPA to come to a coal-producing State like West Virginia— 

please West Virginia—to talk about these. None of the meetings on 

this were ever conducted in the coal-producing States, certainly not 

in the State of West Virginia. 

I reached out and invited EPA to come to West Virginia to talk 

about the economic impacts of this rule and these rules in our 

State. 

Can we count on EPA to come and talk to the people of West Virginia about how this is affecting their livelihood and their electrical 

bills? Why haven’t you come to a State like West Virginia to talk 

about this with its citizens? 

Ms. MCCABE. There is a lot in what you just said. I will do my 

best to respond. I want to mention a couple things because you 

raise some very real points. I appreciate your thinking about your 

State as of course you would. 

The estimates and the projections we include in our RIA for this 

rule are illustrative because we don’t know exactly what every 

State will do. They are also at a national level, so we understand 

there could be some differences in how regulations impact local or 

regional areas that might differ from nationally. We are hearing a 

lot in the comment from people about that. It is important that we 

hear that. 

I also want to mention that in establishing the targets in the 

rule, somebody mentioned earlier that the targets are different for 

every State. They are and indeed, the one result of that is that 

very coal intensive States actually remain coal intensive, even 

under our proposed rule. 

82 

I come from Indiana which is in the 93 to 95 percent. Those 

States as we looked at the application of these different technologies across the Country, States like yours and mine that are 

very coal intensive remain that way. Their targets are not as onerous some would say as States that are less coal intensive. 

The design of the rule was to take each State where it was in 

its power generation and acknowledge that. Some of that is what 

was prompting Senator Carper to note that some States perceive 

inequities in the rule because of that. 

We very much tried to build this into the design of the rule because we recognize there are differences around the Country. It is 

not reasonable to expect Indiana or West Virginia to suddenly become a Delaware in terms of its energy mix. That just won’t happen. 

Wherever the State is, whatever its mix is, there are opportunities there. There are opportunities in Indiana, West Virginia and 

everywhere to reduce the carbon intensity of the power production. 

That is how the rule lays out the process. 

To the extent we haven’t got it right, people are telling us how 

they think we should adjust it in order to get that right. 

Senator CAPITO. What about the visit to West Virginia? Why 

didn’t you visit coal producing States? 

Ms. MCCABE. We did have a lot of meetings around the Country. 

We met in many States. When we were scheduling national level 

meetings, we wanted to have those in locations where people were 

comfortable coming. We used a lot of EPA offices. 

Senator CAPITO. That is not really a great answer. I am not trying to be antagonistic. I don’t think it is a great answer. You can 

get to West Virginia. We are not that isolated. It is a beautiful 

spot. 

This heavily impacts the economics of our State and our ability 

to compete. All the time we get, you have to transition out of coal, 

you have to make a change and all these kinds of things. You say 

we have to use CCS technology or you have to use clean coal technology. It is not economically feasible. It hasn’t been proven to be 

able to be run in a cost efficient way. We are beyond that. 

Do I want that? Yes, I want that because that will help my State 

tremendously. Let’s push forward on the research and development. 

In the final analysis, of the 32 States that have lodged major objections, what if the States refuse to submit a plan? What is the 

EPA’s reaction to that? 

Ms. MCCABE. I would be happy to answer. First, if I could say 

we got comments from a lot of people. Because this is a proposed 

rule, everybody always tells us things they we can do better. 

Senator CAPITO. It sounds like us. We get that too. 

Ms. MCCABE. We welcome that. I am not counting, I don’t have 

States in a tally but to answer your question, the Clean Air Act 

says if a State does not submit a plan or a State submits a plan 

that is not approvable, then EPA would put in place a Federal plan 

to implement the obligations we finalize in the rule. 

Senator CAPITO. You mentioned forming regional alliances. I 

guess there is one in the northeast. If someone was listening to me 

83 

say coal provides 95 percent of the electricity in my State of West 

Virginia, who is going to want to be my regional alliance? 

Ms. MCCABE. I think States are having a lot of conversations 

about that. States will need to find mutual reasons to come together. They also don’t have to. I am not sure what conversations 

West Virginia is having with other States. 

Senator CAPITO. Again, because of where we are, what we have, 

the natural resource we have, we are definitely disadvantaged. 

Thank you. 

The Chair. Thank you, Senator Capito. 

I want to recognize Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. On behalf of Senator Sanders, thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

He really wanted to be here but he is at a Budget Committee 

hearing. He wrote a very interesting opening statement where he 

quotes the Department of Defense saying climate change is an immediate risk to U.S. national security. I ask to put that entire 

statement in the record. 

The Chair. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Sanders follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON BERNARD SANDERS, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT

Last month, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration determined that 2014 was the warmest year ever on record. 

The determinations by NOAA and NASA highlight a pattern of continued and 

alarming temperature increases. For instance, the ten warmest years on record have 

all occurred since 2000, and this past year the months May, June, August, October, 

and December were the hottest instances of each of those months ever recorded. 

For those of us who have been focusing on this crisis, this comes as no surprise. 

In 2009, the U.S. Senate received a letter signed by virtually every major scientific 

organization in this country. In that letter, these scientific organizations wrote the 

following: 

‘‘Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an 

objective assessment of the vast body of peer reviewed science. Moreover, there is 

strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the United States, climate 

change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of extreme 

weather events, and increase risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, 

western wildfires, and a disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. 

The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the 

coming decades.’’ 

At least 37 American scientific organizations, 135 international scientific organizations and national academies, and 21 medical associations share these views: climate change is real, it is significantly caused by human activities, and it poses 

grave risks to the planet. 

These risks truly are grave. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that without any additional efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 

‘‘warming is more likely than not’’ to exceed 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of 

the century, and sea levels have already risen by nearly seven inches over the last 

century, and are expected to rise another 10 inches to more than two and a half 

feet by the end of this century. 

That the scientific community shares an overwhelming consensus about the perils 

of climate change should be enough to provoke aggressive action on our part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

But it isn’t just the scientific community. The chorus of those sounding the alarm 

is already vast and continues to grow: key players in the insurance and financial 

industries, including Munich Re, Swiss Re, Standard & Poors, and the World Bank; 

84 

a wide array of prominent economists and prominent Republicans like former Secretary of State and Treasury George Schultz and former Treasury Secretary Hank 

Paulson; more than 700 major U.S. companies, including Google, eBay, Intel, and 

Nike are calling for climate action; and a host of former EPA Administrators appointed by Republican presidents among them. 

In fact, even our own national security community is sounding the alarm. Less 

than 1 week ago, the President released the National Security Strategy. Among its 

most important conclusions: climate change is one of our country’s ‘‘top strategic 

risks.’’ 

In October, the Department of Defense called climate change a ‘‘threat multiplier’’ 

and concluded that it poses an ‘‘immediate risk to U.S. national security,’’ amplifying calls by numerous national security experts for assertive climate action, including former National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, former Secretary of State 

Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of Defense and U.S. Senator William Cohen, 

and General Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander Europe of 

NATO. 

Our challenge, consequently, is to dramatically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and the proposal under discussion in today’s hearing does exactly that. Power 

plants are the largest source of the nation’s harmful carbon pollution accounting for 

nearly 40 percent of all carbon released into the air. The Environmental Protection 

Agency’s proposed reductions in carbon pollution focus on the most important source 

of greenhouse gas emissions among power plants: high-pollution coal-fired generating plants. 

The EPA proposed rules for power plants would require any newly constructed 

power plant to emit roughly 40?50 percent less carbon pollution than a traditional 

coal power plant, and the proposed carbon pollution standards for existing power 

plants will reduce U.S. power plant carbon pollution by 30 percent compared to 2005 

levels. 

The benefits will be considerable. The EPA’s Clean Power Plan will put Americans back to work in the clean energy and energy efficiency sectors. Americans’ electric bills would drop by roughly 8 percent in 2030, according to an EPA analysis. 

The reduction in household and business savings across the country would amount 

to more than 37 billion dollars in 2020, according to an analysis conducted by ICF 

International. 

An NRDC study found that the EPA’s proposed carbon pollution limits will create 

as many as 274,000 energy efficiency jobs. These are good jobs that cannot be 

outsourced, reducing pollution and saving working families significant amounts of 

money. 

We would dramatically improve America’s energy independence and national security. By transitioning away from fossil fuels and toward sustainable domestic energy sources, we will permanently shed our dependency on energy imports. 

And perhaps most importantly, the EPA’s proposed carbon pollution limits will result in a significant reduction of the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change. 

The American public overwhelmingly supports government action to curb global 

warming, as a New York Times/Stanford University poll just 2 weeks reported. Although an enormous percentage of Democrats hold that view, the poll found that 

more than half of Republicans shared this view, as well. Nor is there a debate about 

the science itself, despite the best efforts of the fossil fuel industry to inject doubt 

into the conversation. 

Just as the American public believes in science, the enormous threats posed by 

climate change, and clear government action to reduce carbon pollution, today I express my strong support for the EPA’s proposed carbon pollution limits. 

The Chair. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to followup on the Senators from West Virginia and South 

Dakota in regard to the baselines. 

I feel the 2012 baseline is arbitrary. You have a complicated formula to determine the targets the States must meet. In Arkansas, 

because we have a new coal power plant not online until December 

2012, it really doesn’t accurately represent where Arkansas is. 

We are going to be in a situation where we are six or seven on 

the list. In reality, because of the formula descriptions, it is really 

two or three. The bottom line is you talk about opportunities for 

States to cut emissions. That is true but the reality is, the elecVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:23 Jul 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\_EPW\DOCS\94978.TXT VERN
85 

tricity bill for the average person in Arkansas, people on fixed incomes, single moms, things like that, is going to significantly increase. 

I would like you to look at the 2012 baseline and look at the 

catch–22 situations you are putting States in, like Arkansas and it 

sounds like South Dakota is in the same situation. I would like you 

to commit to work out the targets in that regard. I disagree totally 

with the rule but at least it could be fair. 

Ms. MCCABE. We have had a number of discussions about Arkansas’ situation. In particular the 2012 issue has been brought up by 

a number of States. In our Notice of Data Availability we put out 

last fall, we included information from 2010 and 2011 so people 

could take a look at how that might make a difference, looking at 

different years. 

We are very open to hearing those concerns and trying to work 

them through. 

Senator BOOZMAN. The other thing I would like to discuss is reliability. You talk a lot about costs and things. Are you familiar with 

Southwest Power Pool? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Senator BOOZMAN. For those who aren’t, Southwest Power Pool 

is mandated by FERC to ensure reliable supplies of power, adequate transmission infrastructure and competitive wholesale prices 

of electricity. 

I think you would agree that they are the folks that when you 

flip the switch, the electricity comes on. As a result of that, if they 

don’t do a good job, if they don’t provide reliable power, then they 

pay fines and are held responsible to the Federal Government. 

I think you would also agree they are non-partisan. It is just an 

agency that is doing its best to make things work. They reviewed 

your mandates and produced a reliability impact assessment. Have 

you reviewed that? 

Ms. MCCABE. Not that one specifically, Senator, but I am aware 

they have done that. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I really think you should. I think it is important. They found significant new generating capacity not currently 

planned will be needed to replace the retirements that EPA is predicting, about 9,000 megawatts in our region alone by 2020. 

Significant new transmission infrastructure will be needed. It 

currently takes up to eight and a half years to study, plan and construct transmission and costs up to $2.3 million per mile of new 

transmission. 

Their scenario is such that it is going to be very, very difficult 

to do as you are proposing without it affecting reliability. They 

have come up with four things they have asked you to do. I think 

they are very, very reasonable. 

First, they recommend a series of technical conferences jointly 

sponsored by the EPA and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission focusing on the impacts on regional markets and power system 

reliability. 

My question to you is, would you agree to do that? To me, that 

is a very common sense approach. Today, we have heard a lot of 

talk that we need to do something. We need to do the right thing. 

Would you actually commit to doing that, getting the groups toVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:23 Jul 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\_EPW\DOCS\94978.TXT VERN
86 

gether and talking about the unintended consequences we might 

see? 

Ms. MCCABE. Actually, those technical conferences are already 

scheduled, Senator. The first one will happen next week. There are 

several more around the Country. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. 

Second, they recommend a detailed, comprehensive and independent study of the North American Bulk Power System conducted by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation before EPA adopts its final rules. 

Again, would you consider going forward with getting a good, 

independent study to address the potential unintended consequences that Southwest Power Pool and I think several of the 

other independent systems are concerned about? 

Ms. MCCABE. I believe that NAERC is already doing that kind 

of work and has put out some information. 

I want to note that until the States decide what they intend to 

do by way of compliance, it is really not possible to do a real reliability study. What is good about the conversations that are happening and the work SPP and others are doing is they are doing 

exactly what you described their job to be, which is thinking ahead, 

looking ahead, planning, thinking about contingencies, thinking 

about how things might roll out, whatever the incoming factors are, 

whether it is an EPA rule, anticipating weather events that could 

affect the power system, or shifts in use of fuels based on anticipated prices. 

Those kinds of conversations are exactly what should be happening and what is happening. 

Senator BOOZMAN. To the study of Southwest Power Pool coming 

up with 9,000 megawatts and the difficulty in construction, I would 

also add the difficulty in getting easements and all of the hassle 

that goes with that. One of their recommendations is to extend the 

compliance schedule by 5 years. 

Ms. MCCABE. We have heard that not just from them but from 

others. We have also heard concerns, as I mentioned earlier, about 

the interim compliance date of 2020. That is causing a lot of anxiety, less than the ultimate compliance date. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Is it causing enough anxiety that you are 

going to do something? 

Ms. MCCABE. We are looking very, very closely at it, Senator. 

Senator BOOZMAN. The last thing they recommend is you adopt 

reliability safety valves recommended by the independent system 

operators and regional transmission organizations. 

Ms. MCCABE. That is an idea that several people and organizations have raised. That is another thing we are looking at very 

closely. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I am very much opposed to the rule but I do 

think you need to really look at the reliability and the impact it 

is going to have and the significant impact. 

I know you mentioned States will have the ability to reduce their 

footprint. The reality is at the end of the day, lots of people are 

going to have significantly increased utility bills as a result of the 

regulation. I think there is pretty good data to show it is all pain 

and very limited gain. 

87 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chair. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

I do have 2 minutes remaining. I want to make a couple comments. 

First of all, don’t forget not only is it the tax increase, it is the 

most regressive tax increase that you can have. These are the people who have to have their homes. That seems to have gone unnoticed, the regressive nature of this. 

When Senator Capito asked a question about the 32 states, these 

are the States who are rejecting this. These States have actually 

said they cannot comply with it and some of them will not. Even 

Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard recently stated the proposal 

is unconstitutional. 

Senator Capito asked the question, what happens if they don’t do 

a SIP? Your response was, they would be forced to take a FIP, correct? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is what the Clean Air Act says. 

The Chair. What enforcement authority do you have to do that? 

You can’t take away their highway funds. What are you planning 

to do to coerce them to do something that is unconstitutional that 

they don’t want to do? 

Ms. MCCABE. First, I would respectfully disagree that the program is unconstitutional. There are a variety of opinions out there. 

Professor Tribe’s is one. 

The Clean Air Act says if a State does not go forward with a 

State plan, then EPA would put in place a Federal plan. 

The Chair. It is the enforcement I was asking about. I am running out of time. 

Let me conclude with this. There are certain incontrovertible 

facts that we have dealt with. One, this is a proposal that the 

States reject. There it is right there. They reject it. 

It ignores the will of Congress. You can argue the different times 

it has come up. It has never passed. The type of regulation that 

would come through a bill that was introduced—as I mentioned the 

first was not by a Democrat, it was by a Republican in 2002—it 

was rejected. 

They cannot do it by the support of people who are answerable 

to the people, so they have to go to the unelected bureaucrats to 

do it. That is why they are trying to do it through regulation because they cannot do it through legislation. 

The third thing is it relies on unreasonable assumptions. You 

saw the other chart we had up here a minute ago. If you look at 

it and use common sense, this is not reliable. It will cost millions 

and increase our energy bills. 

Senator Boozman is right, it is going to be on those who can afford it the least. Then, if all of that happens, if all that is correct, 

in all the hysteria and all the talk about the science, even if that 

were true, it still is not going to reduce the CO2 emissions worldwide. 

We heard that not from people on my side or any other side except we have heard that from the first director of the EPA in response to our questions and in response to a House member. 

These things are out there. I know this has become a religion 

and I know we will have a lot more discussions about it. We are 

88 

going to do what we can to keep my people in Oklahoma from incurring the largest tax increase in history for something that is not 

going to be corrected. 

Senator BOXER. May I put something in the record? May I ask 

for 30 seconds? 

The Chair. Yes, not 30 seconds because I have to have the last 

word. 

Senator BOXER. You can have the last word after I do my 30 seconds. 

The Chair. Put something in the record. 

Senator BOXER. I will. I am asking unanimous consent that I 

have 30 seconds and you can have whatever time you want. Is that 

fair? 

The Chair. The answer is no. Go ahead and put that in. 

Senator BOXER. Then I will have a press conference immediately 

afterwards to tell you what he is stifling me from doing. 

I want to put in information from the U.S. Energy Information 

Administration showing that California’s electricity bill is far lower 

than Oklahoma’s and that we are prospering because we have 

taken on climate change and have cheaper costs than they do in 

many other States. 

The Chair. Without objection, that will be made a part of the 

record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

89 


94978.009
90 


94978.010
91 


94978.011
92 


94978.012
93 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

The Chair. We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 

STATEMENT OF HON JEFF SESSIONS, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Thank you Chairman Inhofe for holding today’s hearing. I am pleased to see that 

the Committee is conducting important oversight over the Administration’s unprecedented climate policies. These regulations present yet another instance where the 

Obama administration is seeking to impose its regulatory will on the American people, regardless of what the law or Congress has said, and regardless of the costs 

to struggling families and workers. 

It’s important to note the alarmism surrounding the President’s proposed carbon 

emissions regulations. For example, our witness today, Ms. Janet McCabe—the Acting Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, claims that if climate change is ‘‘left unchecked, it will have devastating impacts on the United 

States and the planet.’’ 

In reality, the scare tactics used by EPA are not working with the American people, and the specific warnings put forth by the Administration and others are not 

coming to fruition as predicted. The facts are dramatic. For example, in the Wall 

Street Journal last week, Bjorn Lomborg—director of the Copenhagen Consensus 

Center and who testified before the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee last 

Congress—wrote about studies which show that in recent years, there have been 

fewer droughts, decreased hurricane damage, and only a small rise in temperatures 

that is 90 percent less than what many climate models had predicted. Dr. Lomborg 

suggested that ‘‘the narrative that the world’s climate is changing from bad to worse 

is unhelpful alarmism.’’ 

The costs for these unilateral policies are truly astounding. The Heritage Foundation estimates that the that there will be approximately $1.47 trillion in lost national income by 2030. These costs are certain to hammer middle-class workers who 

are already struggling to survive this weak job market. Worse yet, the Administration is fully aware of nuclear energy as a more cost-effective way to pursue its carbon emissions goals, but has consistently put up roadblocks to this common-sense 

approach. 

At bottom, the proposed regulations that are before the Committee today will 

harm the poor, the middle-class, and the elderly while doing virtually nothing to 

change the trajectory of global climate trends. EPA’s climate policies are dangerous 

and misguided, and I am glad the Committee has committed to conducting important oversight early on during this Congress. 

94 


94978.032
95 


94978.007
96 


94978.008
97 


94978.013
98 


94978.014
99 


94978.015
100 


94978.016
101 


94978.017
102 


94978.018
103 


94978.028
104 


94978.029
105 


94978.030
106 


94978.031
107 


94978.042
108 


94978.043
109 


94978.044
110 


94978.045
111 


94978.046
112 


94978.047
113 


94978.048
114 


94978.049
115 


94978.055
116 


94978.056
117 


94978.057
118 


94978.058
119 


94978.059
120 


94978.033
121 


94978.034
122 


94978.035
123 


94978.036
124 


94978.037
125 


94978.038
126 


94978.039
127 


94978.040
128 

Æ 


94978.041