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

95–744 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 114–53 

THE IMPACTS OF EPA’S PROPOSED CARBON 

REGULATIONS ON ENERGY COSTS FOR AMERICAN BUSINESSES, RURAL COMMUNITIES AND 

FAMILIES, AND A LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON 

S. 1324 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR 

AND NUCLEAR SAFETY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 23, 2015 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED 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 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JUNE 23, 2015 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West Virginia ...... 1 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 98 

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 264 

WITNESSES 

Trisko, Hon. Eugene M., Attorney at Law, on behalf of the United Mine 

Workers of America ............................................................................................. 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Response to an additional question from Senator Capito ............................. 21 

Cicio, Paul, President, Industrial Energy Consumers of America ....................... 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

Alford, Harry, President and CEO, National Black Chamber of Commerce ...... 65 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 67 

Martens, Joseph J., Commissioner, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ............................................................................................ 75 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 77 

Rice, Mary B., M.D., MPH, Instructor in Medicine, Harvard Medical School, 

Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine ............................... 84 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 86 

(1) 

THE IMPACTS OF EPA’S PROPOSED CARBON 

REGULATIONS ON ENERGY COSTS FOR 

AMERICAN BUSINESSES, RURAL COMMUNITIES AND FAMILIES, AND A LEGISLATIVE 

HEARING ON S. 1324 

TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Shelley M. Capito (chairman of 

the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Capito, Carper, Barrasso, Crapo, Sessions, 

Fischer, Merkley, Markey, and Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator CAPITO. I am going to go ahead and begin. 

I know Senator Carper is planning to be here. When he gets 

here, we will make time for him to make his opening statement. 

In the interest of the panelists and other Senator, I think it would 

be best to go ahead and move on. 

I want to welcome everyone to the hearing of the Clean Air and 

Nuclear Safety Subcommittee. The hearing is entitled The Impacts 

of EPA’s Proposed Carbon Regulations on Energy Costs for American Businesses, Rural Communities and Families, and a Legislative Hearing on my bill, S. 1324, better known as the ARENA Act, 

Affordable Reliable Electricity Now Act. 

I introduced ARENA in May and am proud to have more than 

30 co-sponsors, including Leader McConnell, Chairman Inhofe, and 

all my fellow Environment and Public Works Committee Republicans. I introduced ARENA and am holding this hearing today because of the devastating impact that EPA’s proposed regulations 

will have on the families and businesses in my home State of West 

Virginia and across the Nation. 

I am not exaggerating when I say almost every day back home 

in West Virginia, there are new stories detailing closed plants, lost 

jobs, and price increases. I have a letter here sent to me by 

Ammar’s Inc., a family owned company that operates 19 Magic 

Mart stores in West Virginia, Virginia and eastern Kentucky. The 

letter is accompanied by a petition signed by 26,000 Magic Mart 
2 

customers, calling on EPA to end its war on coal and catastrophic 

impact on local economies. 

Ammar’s Inc. has been active in the region for 95 years, and according to this letter, the present economic crunch is the most difficult challenge the company has faced. Let me quote directly: 

‘‘There was a time when your greatest obstacle was your competitor, but if you worked hard, took care of your customers and offered quality merchandise at a fair price, you could compete successfully. Unfortunately, that is now not the case. The largest impediment we have to operating our business successfully is our own 

government, particularly the EPA. The rulings issued by the EPA 

have devastated our regional economy.’’ 

Coal provided 96 percent of West Virginia’s electricity last year. 

West Virginia had among the lowest electricity prices in the Nation. The average price was 27 percent below the national average, 

but that advantage will not survive this Administration’s policies. 

Studies project our electricity prices will between 12 and 16 percent. 

Earlier this month, 450,000 West Virginians learned of a 16 percent increase in the cost of electricity. While there were multiple 

factors that contributed to this rate increase, compliance with previous EPA regulations played a significant part. If we allow EPA’s 

plan to move forward, last week’s rate increase will only be the tip 

of the iceberg. 

Affordable energy matters. The 430,000 low and middle income 

families in West Virginia, nearly 60 percent of our State’s households, take home an average of less than $1,900 a month and 

spend 17 percent of their after-tax income on energy. These families are especially vulnerable to the price increases that will result 

from the Clean Power Plan. 

This is not just about the impacts on coal producing States like 

West Virginia. This is about the impacts across the United States. 

It is important to note that all electricity has to come from somewhere. In many States, odds are that it is being imported from a 

State that relies on coal, but no one talks about that. 

We will learn from some of the testimony about the Regional 

Greenhouse Gas Initiative, RGGI. One of the witnesses we will 

hear from today, Mr. Martens, thank you for coming, is affiliated 

with RGGI, a program of nine northeastern States that uses market principles to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the power 

sector. 

Mr. Martens may not mention that RGGI’s nine States consume 

five times more energy than they produce. My little State of West 

Virginia produces twice as much energy as all nine of the RGGI 

States combined. 

There are energy-producing States and there are energy-consuming States. Only 13 States produce more energy than they consume. West Virginia ranks second and Wyoming ranks first. For 10 

of the 13 States that export energy, coal is critical to maintaining 

that net positive result. 

Put simply, there is no way that this massive, largely EPA-driven reduction in coal-fired electricity generation is going to impact 

only coal States. It is going to impact the majority of States, the 
3 

families and businesses within them. Often, the poorest and most 

vulnerable populations will bear the brunt of this increase. 

I look forward to hearing in greater detail from our witnesses 

about the impact of these proposed regulations and the need for 

clean air policies that do not overburden our States and cripple our 

economy. 

With that, we will begin testimony of our panelists. Our first 

panelist is Mr. Eugene M. Trisko. Welcome and thank you for coming. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Capito follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Welcome to this hearing of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee entitled ‘‘The Impacts of EPA’s proposed Carbon Regulations on Energy Costs for American Businesses, Rural Communities and Families, and a legislative hearing on S. 

1324’’. S. 1324 is better known as the Affordable Reliable Electricity Now Act, or 

ARENA. I introduced ARENA in May and am proud to have more than 30 cosponsors, including Leader McConnell, Chairman Inhofe, and all my fellow EPW Republicans. 

I introduced ARENA and am holding this hearing today because of the devastating impact that EPA’s proposed regulations will have on the families and businesses in my home State and across the Nation. I am not exaggerating when I say 

almost every day back home in West Virginia, there are new stories detailing plants 

closed, jobs lost, and price increases. 

I have a letter here sent to me yesterday from Ammar’s Inc., a family owned company that operates 19 Magic Mart stores in West Virginia, Virginia and Kentucky. 

The letter is accompanied by a petition signed by 26,000 Magic Mart customers, 

calling on EPA to end its war on coal and catastrophic impact on local economies. 

Ammar’s Inc. has been active in the region for 95 years, and according to this letter, the present economic crunch is the most difficult challenge the company has 

faced. Let me quote directly: 

‘‘There was a time when your greatest obstacle was your competitor, but if you 

worked hard, took care of your customers and offered quality merchandise at a fair 

price, you could compete successfully. Unfortunately, that is now not the case. The 

largest impediment we have to operating our business successfully is our own government, particularly the EPA. The rulings issued by the EPA have devastated our 

regional economy.’’ 

Coal provided 96 percent of West Virginia’s electricity last year. West Virginia has 

among the lowest electricity prices in the Nation: last year, the average price was 

27 percent below the national average. But that advantage will not survive this Administration’s policies. Studies have projected the Clean Power Plan will raise electricity prices in West Virginia by between 12 and 16 percent. 

Earlier this month, 450,000 West Virginians learned of a 16 percent increase in 

the cost of electricity. While there were multiple factors that contributed to this rate 

increase, compliance with previous EPA regulations played a significant part. If we 

allow EPA’s plan to move forward, last week’s rate increase will only be the tip of 

the iceberg. 

Affordable energy matters. The 430,000 low and middle income families in West 

Virginia—nearly 60 percent of our State’s households—take home an average of less 

than $1900 a month and spend 17 percent of their after tax income on energy. 

These families are especially vulnerable to the price increases that will result from 

the Clean Power Plan. 

But this isn’t just about the impacts on coal producing States like West Virginia. 

This is about the impacts across the United States. 

It is important to note that all electricity has to come from somewhere. In many 

States, odds are that it is being imported from a State that relies on coal. But no 

one is talking about that. 

Turning to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) States. One of the witnesses we will hear from today, Mr. Martens, is affiliated with RGGI, a program 

of nine northeastern States that uses market principles to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions from the power sector. Mr. Martens probably won’t mention that RGGI’s 

nine States consume five times more energy than they produce. Or that my little 

State of West Virginia produces twice as much energy as all nine of the RGGI 

States combined. 
4 

There are energy producing States, and there are energy consuming States. Only 

13 States produce more energy than they consume. West Virginia ranks second, behind only Wyoming. And for 10 of the 13 States that export energy, coal is critical 

to maintaining that net positive result. 

Put simply, there is no way that this massive, largely EPA-driven reduction in 

coal fired electricity generation is going to impact only coal States. It’s going to impact the majority of States, and the families and businesses within them. Often, the 

poorest and most vulnerable populations will bear the brunt of this increase. 

I look forward to hearing in greater detail from our witnesses about the impact 

of these proposed regulations and the need for clean air policies that don’t over burden our States and cripple our economy. 

STATEMENT OF HON. EUGENE M. TRISKO, ATTORNEY AT LAW, 

ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 

Mr. TRISKO. Thank you very much, Chairman Capito, Chairman 

Inhofe and distinguished members. 

I am Eugene Trisko, an energy economist and attorney in private 

practice. I am here today to summarize the findings of a study of 

the impacts of energy costs on American families. 

I have conducted household energy cost studies periodically since 

2000 for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity and its 

predecessor organizations. The study I will summarize today, Energy Cost Impacts on American Families, estimates consumer energy costs for households in 2016. 

The principal findings of this study are as follows. One, some 48 

percent of American families have pre-tax annual incomes of 

$50,000 or less, with an average after-tax income among these 

households of $22,732 or a take-home income of less than $1,900 

per month. 

Second, 48 percent of households earning less than $50,000 devote an estimated average of 17 percent of their after tax incomes 

to residential and transportation energy. Energy costs for the 29 

percent of households earning less than $30,000 before taxes represent 23 percent of their after-tax family incomes, before accounting for any energy assistance programs. This 23 percent of income 

is more than three times higher than the 7 percent of gross income 

paid for energy by households earning more than $50,000 per year. 

Third, American consumers have benefited recently from lower 

gasoline prices, but higher oil prices are now reducing consumer 

savings at the gas pump. Meanwhile, residential electricity prices 

are continuing to rise. Residential electricity represents 69 percent 

of total household utility bills. 

A 2011 survey of low-income households for the National Energy 

Assistance Directors Association reveals some of the adverse health 

and welfare impacts of high energy costs. Low-income households 

reported these responses to high energy bills. 

Twenty-four percent went without food for at least 1 day. Thirtyseven percent went without medical or dental care. Thirty-four percent did not fill a prescription or took less than the full dose. Nineteen percent had someone become sick because their home was too 

cold. The relatively low median incomes of minority and senior 

households detailed in the study attached to my statement indicate 

that these groups are among those most vulnerable to energy price 

increases. 

Recent and prospective increases in residential energy costs 

should be assessed in the context of the long-term declining trend 
5 

of real income among American families. The U.S. Census Bureau 

reports that the real pre-tax incomes of American households have 

declined across all five income quintiles since 2001, measured in 

constant 2013 prices. The largest percentage losses of income are 

in the two lowest income quintiles. In 2014, the average price of 

residential electricity in the U.S. was 32 percent above its level in 

2005, compared with the 22 percent increase in the Consumer 

Price Index. 

DOE projects continued escalation of residential electricity prices 

due to the cost of compliance with environmental regulations and 

other factors. Moreover, DOE, EPA, NERA and others project that 

electricity prices will increase even more because of EPA’s proposed 

Clean Power Plan. 

Lower income families are more vulnerable to energy cost increases than higher income families because energy represents a 

larger portion of their household budgets. Energy costs reduce the 

amount of income that can be spent on food, housing, health care 

and other basic necessities. 

Fixed income seniors are among the most vulnerable to energy 

cost increases due to their relatively low average incomes and high 

per capital energy use. Senior citizens and other low income groups 

will bear the burden of higher energy costs imposed by EPA’s 

Clean Power Plan but will be among the least likely to invest in 

or to benefit from the energy efficiency programs the proposed rule 

envisions. 

Thank you for the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Trisko follows:] 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness is Paul Cicio, President of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL CICIO, PRESIDENT, INDUSTRIAL 

ENERGY CONSUMERS OF AMERICA 

Mr. CICIO. Thank you, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Carper and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity. 

The Industrial Energy Consumers of America is a trade association whose members are exclusively large companies who are energy intensive trade exposed. These industries, often referred to as 

EITE industries, consume 73 percent of the manufacturing sector’s 

use of electricity and 75 percent of the natural gas. As a result, 

small changes in energy prices can have relatively large impacts to 

our global competitiveness. 

As a manufacturing sector, we use 40 quads of energy and this 

has basically not changed in 40 years. Meanwhile, manufacturing 

output has increased 761 percent. This is a true success story. 

The industrial sector is the only sector of the economy whose 

greenhouse gas emissions are 22 percent below 1973 levels. These 

industries are very energy efficient. IECA supports action to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions so long as it does not impact our competitiveness. We must have a level playing field with our global 

competitors. 

Several countries we compete with control electric and natural 

gas prices to their industrials. Two of them are China and Germany. They provide subsidies and practices to give them competitive advantages. 

If we were military, one would say we are engaged in hand to 

hand combat in competitiveness. All costs of unilateral action by 

the United States through the Clean Power Plan will be passed on 

to us, the consumer. 

As proposed, the Clean Power Plan will dramatically increase the 

costs of power and natural gas, accomplish little to reduce the 

threat of global climate change and provide offshore competitors an 

economic advantage, potentially creating an industrial greenhouse 

gas emission leakage with harmful effect to the middle class, the 

economy and the environment. 

The EPA cannot look at the Clean Power Plan in isolation from 

the significant cumulative cost that it will impose on the industrial 

sector either directly or indirectly through a number of recent 

rulemakings. 

Since 2000, the manufacturing sector is still down 4.9 million 

jobs. Since 2010, manufacturing employment has increased 525,000 

jobs. We are still in the early stages of recovery. We do fear that 

the Clean Power Plan and also the ozone rule are going to threaten 

this recovery. 

In contrast, for example, China, our primary competitor, has increased employment by 31 percent since 2000. The U.S. manufacturing trade deficit since 2002 has grown $524 billion, 70 percent 

with one country, China. 

China’s industrial greenhouse gas emissions have risen over 17 

percent since 2008 alone. China produces 29 percent more manu-
26 

factured goods than we in the United States and emits 317 percent 

more CO2. That is over three times the amount of CO2 than the 

U.S. industrial sector. 

Despite our low greenhouse gas emission levels, the EPA will increase our costs and will make it easier for China’s carbon intensive products to be imported, which means the Clean Power Plan 

will be directly responsible for increasing global emissions. 

There are consequences to increasing energy costs on the industrial sector and it is called greenhouse gas leakage. The EPA has 

failed to address this issue and thus, the costs are under-estimated. 

For example, when a State’s electricity costs rise due to the Clean 

Power Plan, companies with multiple manufacturing locations will 

shift their production to States with lower costs, along with the 

greenhouse gas emissions creating State winners and losers. When 

they do, it will increase the price of electricity to the remaining 

State ratepayers, including the households. 

If these companies cannot be competitive, they move offshore, 

moving jobs and greenhouse gas emissions, accomplishing nothing 

environmentally. One only needs to look at California. 

Since AB32, to our knowledge, there is not a single energy-intensive trade-exposed company that has built a new facility in California. The same goes for the EU under the ETUS. California is 

importing their energy intensive products and they are losing or 

forfeiting jobs. 

It is for this reason we would urge policymakers to hold offshore 

manufacturing competitors to at least the same carbon content 

standard as we in the United States. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cicio follows:] 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness is Mr. Harry Alford, President and CEO of the 

National Black Chamber of Commerce. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HARRY ALFORD, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

NATIONAL BLACK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

Mr. ALFORD. Good afternoon, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member 

Carper and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

My name is Harry Alford. I am President and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. 

The NBCC represents 2.1 million Black-owned businesses within 

the United States. I am here today to testify about the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to regulate greenhouse gas 

emissions from power plants and the potential impacts of those 

proposed regulations on energy costs for American businesses, 

rural communities and families. 

In particular, I would like to focus on the potential adverse economic and employment impacts of the Clean Power Plan on low income groups and minorities, including individuals, families and minority businesses. 

While increased costs often come with increased regulation, the 

Clean Power Plan in particular seems poised to escalate energy 

costs for Blacks and Hispanics in the United States. According to 

a recent study commissioned by the National Black Chamber of 

Commerce, the Clean Power Plan would increase Black poverty by 

23 percent, Hispanic poverty by 26 percent, result in cumulative 

job losses of 7 million for blacks, nearly 12 million for Hispanics 

in 2035, and decrease Black and Hispanic median household income by $455 to $550, respectively, in 2035. 

For these minority and low income groups, increased energy 

costs have an even greater impact on their lives, jobs and businesses because a larger percentage of their incomes and revenues 

are spent on energy costs. 

What may seem like a nominal increase in energy costs to some 

can have a much more harmful effect on minorities and low income 

groups. Our members are very concerned about these potentially 

devastating economic impacts of the Clean Power Plan. We appreciate the opportunity to highlight them for the committee. In light 

of these concerns, the National Black Chamber of Commerce undertook an effort to examine the potential economic and employment impacts of the Clean Power Plan on minorities and low income groups. 

On June 11, 2015, the NBCC released a study on the threat of 

the EPA regulations to low income groups and minorities. The 

study finds that the Clean Power Plan will inflict severe, disproportionate economic burdens on poor families, especially minorities. In 

particular, the rule imposes the most harm on residents of seven 

States with the highest concentrations of Blacks and Hispanics. 

The EPA’s proposed regulation for greenhouse gas emissions 

from existing power plants is a slap in the face to poor and minority families. These communities already suffer from high unemployment and poverty rates compared to the rest of the Country. Yet, 

the EPA’s regressive energy tax threatens to push minorities and 
66 

low income Americans even further into poverty. I want to highlight some of the key findings of the study. 

The EPA rule increases Black poverty by 23 percent and Hispanic poverty by 26 percent. In 2035, job losses will total 7 million 

for Blacks and 12 million for Hispanics. In 2035, Black and Hispanic median household income will be $455 and $515 less respectively. 

Compared to Whites, Blacks and Hispanics spend about 20 and 

90 percent more of their income on food, 10 percent and 5 percent 

more on housing, 40 percent on clothing and 50 percent and 10 percent more on utilities, respectively. The rule will especially harm 

residents of seven States with the highest concentration of Blacks 

and Hispanics. Those States are Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New York and Texas. 

The study demonstrates that the EPA Clean Power Plan would 

harm minorities’ health by forcing tradeoffs between housing, food 

and energy. Inability to pay energy bills is second only to the inability to pay recent as the leading cause of homelessness. 

Business groups like the NBCC are not the only entities expressing concerns about the Clean Power Plan. States, which would be 

responsible for implementing the Clean Power Plan, have criticized 

the plan for numerous deficiencies. 

Officials from 28 States say the EPA should withdraw its proposal citing concerns such as higher energy costs, threats to reliability and lost jobs. Officials from 29 States have said EPA’s proposed rule goes well beyond the agency’s legal authority under the 

Clean Air Act and 50 States have already joined in lawsuits. 

The NBCC totally supports the ARENA Act, S. 1324. We certainly encourage all members of this committee to put the bill to 

vote and make it law. 

Thank you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Alford follows:] 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness is Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner, New York 

State Department of Environmental Conservation. Welcome, Mr. 

Commissioner. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH J. MARTENS, COMMISSIONER, NEW 

YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 

Mr. MARTENS. Thank you, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member 

Carper and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for providing 

the opportunity for me to testify this afternoon. 

My name is Joseph Martens and I am the Commissioner of the 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. I am 

also Vice-Chair of the Board of Directors of RGGI Inc., which administers the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a program of 

nine northeastern States that uses market principles to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector. 

I thank the committee for providing me the opportunity to discuss the success we have had in reducing carbon emissions in New 

York, while creating jobs and keeping energy bills in check. 

I have spoken with many of my colleagues from other States 

across the Country and have heard many of them discuss their concerns about the rule. I recognize that each State faces different circumstances but I think in RGGI, we have a successful model for 

reducing emissions while creating jobs and reducing energy bills. 

Other States can use similar approaches to comply with the Clean 

Power Plan tailored to their own circumstances. 

RGGI was started in 2005 by a bipartisan group of Northeastern 

and Mid-Atlantic Governors. It sets a declining cap on emissions 

and allows the market to determine efficiently where the emission 

reductions will occur. 

In addition to their participation in RGGI, each of the RGGI 

States has aggressive energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. The RGGI cap collects the reductions from these efforts 

under a single emission cap and shares the carbon reductions from 

these programs are realized and accounted for. 

Proceeds from RGGI allowance options helps fund many of these 

initiatives, creating a virtual cycle of consumer benefits for taxpayers and ratepayers. Our program has been a resounding success. 

The State greatly exceeded the original 10 percent reduction target, achieving a 40 percent reduction by 2012. To achieve even 

greater reduction, the RGGI States acted to further reduce the cap 

to 50 percent below 2005 levels in 2020. 

We achieved this reduction in an economy that grew 8 percent 

over the period from 2005 to 2013, adjusted for inflation. In New 

York, we have realized economic benefits from RGGI and associated programs, including creating jobs and reducing energy bills. 

For example, Governor Cuomo’s New York Sun program has made 

New York fourth in the Nation for solar jobs. 

As of the end of 2014, we have committed more than $550 million in proceeds from the auction of RGGI emission allowances to 

programs that will provide energy bills savings of over $1 billion 

or other benefits to over 130,000 households and 2,500 businesses. 
76 

Beneficiaries of programs funded by RGGI proceeds include low 

income families and businesses. For example, two energy efficiency 

programs targeted specifically at income eligible families are providing 100,000 low and moderate income families with more than 

$80 million in cumulative energy bill savings. 

To those who say reducing emissions will cause electric rates for 

businesses to rise, we have actually reduced industrial electricity 

rates while reducing carbon emissions from 50 percent over the national average to 13 percent below. 

We have enjoyed similar outcomes across the RGGI region. An 

independent analysis undertaken by the highly respected Analysis 

Group concludes that the reinvestment of auction proceeds from 

the first 3 years of the program is reducing total energy bills in the 

RGGI regions by $1.3 billion, adding $1.6 billion to regional economy and creating an estimated 16,000 jobs. 

Reducing emissions also provides substantial public health benefits, including saving lives, reducing illness, health care costs and 

lost work days. Our experience demonstrates that a group of States 

can substantially reduce emissions and grow the economy at the 

same time. Therefore, instead of asking whether we can afford to 

reduce that pollution, a more pertinent question is whether we can 

afford not to act now to reduce the emissions that are causing our 

climate to change. 

In New York, we are already experiencing the destructive effects 

of climate driven extreme weather. Three years ago, Hurricane 

Sandy decimated many communities and tens of thousands of 

homes in New York and New Jersey at a cost of $67 billion. Over 

70 lives were lost in the area struck by the storm. A year earlier, 

Hurricanes Irene and Lee caused 66 deaths and $17 billion in damage. These storms disproportionately harmed low income families 

and small businesses in communities located in low lying areas 

most vulnerable to flooding. 

Our choice as a Nation is straightforward. We can invest in clean 

energy, creating jobs as a result at little or no net cost and reap 

the benefits of better health, lower health costs and reduced risk 

of climate change or we can ignore the science and expect more frequent storm events causing tens of billions of dollars in damages. 

To New York, the answer is clear. We have demonstrated it is 

possible to use energy more efficiently, stimulate economic growth, 

provide healthier air and reduce the potential damage from climate 

change. 

That concludes my testimony. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martens follows:] 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Our final witness is Mary B. Rice, M.D., MPH, Instructor in 

Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Division of Pulmonary, Critical 

Care and Sleep Medicine. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF MARY B. RICE, M.D., MPH, INSTRUCTOR IN 

MEDICINE, HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL, DIVISION OF PULMONARY, CRITICAL CARE AND SLEEP MEDICINE 

Dr. RICE. My name is Dr. Mary Rice. I am an adult 

pulmonologist and critical care physician at Beth Israel Deaconess 

Medical Center and Harvard Medical School in Boston. 

I care for adults with lung disease, most of whom have asthma 

or emphysema. I also care for critically ill adults in the intensive 

care unit. 

My message is simple. Climate change is becoming the worst 

public health crisis of modern medicine. Hundreds of research studies have demonstrated that greenhouse gas emissions have already 

changed our climate over the past several decades, causing heat 

waves that last longer and happen more frequently, dangerous 

spikes in ground level ozone, increased wildfire activity and longer, 

more potent pollen seasons. These effects hurt American families. 

My physician colleagues and I are already seeing these health effects among our patients. The American Thoracic Society recently 

conducted a survey of our U.S. members who are doctors from all 

around the Country, caring for children and adults. 

We found that the vast majority of doctors said climate change 

is affecting their patients today. Let me describe just a few of the 

health effects that my colleagues and I see. 

Consider heat waves. Several doctors commented that their patients with emphysema, already struggling to breathe, cannot handle extreme heat. Studies have found that people with asthma and 

emphysema visit their doctors more often and get hospitalized 

more often during heat waves. The elderly, who may already be 

weakened by heart and lung disease, die during heat waves. 

Extreme heat also increases ozone to levels that are harmful to 

the lungs of people, not only people with asthma and emphysema 

but also the lungs of babies and young children, and even healthy 

adults. Ozone spikes during heat waves have been found to contribute to premature mortality. 

The hot conditions promoted by climate change favor forest fires 

and grassland fires, which are at a great cost to human health. 

During a heat wave in May 2014, for example, multiple wildfires 

broke out simultaneously in San Diego County, causing $60 million 

in damage. 

This estimate does not capture the damage to the health of families who were affected by those fires. Wildfires can travel great distances and release a mixture of toxins that are especially irritating 

to the lung making it harder for people to breathe. 

A colleague of mine in San Diego told me that he advised all his 

patients to stay inside and keep the air conditioning on. Is this the 

future we want for American families, one where it is not safe to 

go outside? There is no doubt that wildfires increase hospitalization 

for asthma in children and adults and for respiratory illness among 

the elderly. 
85 

Climate change is also bad for people with seasonal allergies, 

about 30 percent of all Americans and for the roughly 10 percent 

of Americans with asthma. Warmer temperatures lengthen the pollen season because plants bloom earlier in the spring and also 

higher levels of carbon dioxide increase the amount of pollen that 

is produced. 

In the northern States of the U.S., pollen seasons have lengthened by more than 2 weeks to date than they were in 1995. They 

are also more powerful. Studies have found that when pollen levels 

are higher, people use more medications, visit their doctors more 

for allergies and emergency room visits for asthma among children 

and adults go up. 

One of my patients, a single mother with a teenage son, both of 

whom have severe asthma, called me on a weekly basis this spring 

because of trouble breathing. Between the missed days of school for 

her son and missed days of work for her, this allergy season was 

a disaster for her family. 

I am a physician and a researcher, but my most important job 

is my role as a mother to three children under the age of 6. My 

1-year-old son has had two emergency room visits and a hospitalization for respiratory illness. 

When my son develops a cough or wheeze, I am terrified because 

this could mean the next ambulance ride. When he is sick, I cannot 

go to the hospital and take care of my patients or my husband cannot work. 

We are more fortunate than many Americans, many of whom 

risk losing their job or struggle to pay for the next emergency room 

visit when they or a loved one suffers an acute respiratory illness. 

My son and every American deserves clean air. 

I have only described a few of the threats to the health of Americans from climate change. Experts predict that we can avoid the 

most frightening scenarios if we reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

and better yet, when we address climate change, we redeem immediate health benefits right here in the U.S. When we reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we also reduce air pollutants that trigger 

heart attacks, asthma and emphysema attacks, stroke and death. 

As a mom, a doctor and a representative of the American Thoracic Society, I favor taking firm steps to address climate change 

because I support clean air and a healthy future for all Americans. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Rice follows:] 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Doctor. 

I want to thank you all. We will begin the questions and I will 

begin. 

Mr. Trisko, you mentioned in your remarks the impacts of the 

conservation building block of the Clean Power Plan and how elderly citizens and those on fixed incomes would probably be least likely to be the ones to benefit from that or be able to afford to make 

those changes. 

It says the Energy Information Administration projects that consume energy prices will go up by 4 percent by 2020 which seems 

rather low since we just had a 16 percent rise in our prices in West 

Virginia. 

How do you see these two converging, the rising price and the 

lack of the conservation and deficiency aspects of this Clean Power 

Plan for the elderly citizen and those on fixed incomes? 

Mr. TRISKO. Let me first address the observation I offered with 

respect to senior citizens being least likely to benefit from the energy efficiency aspects of the Clean Power Plan. 

That observation derives from two facts. First is the payback period that is required to support major investments in energy efficiencies such as replacement of windows and heating and ventilating systems. 

Those payback periods typically are too long to be economically 

feasible for lower income senior citizens. It is also true in general 

for the population that American houses tend to be owned for a period of about 7 years on average. 

If you are a homeowner looking at a $10,000 window replacement project that is going to save a few hundred dollars a year on 

your energy bills, that payback period is not consistent with the period that typical homeowners expect to live in those dwellings. 

Second, I have heard this from senior utility executives as well. 

One of the difficulties in securing energy efficiency gains from 

lower income consumers is the quality of the housing stock, the relatively poor quality of the housing stock, will not support investments in fairly high cost energy efficiency upgrades such as windows and HVAC systems. 

Certainly lower cost options, the simple things such as better 

attic insulation, weather stripping and the like have short payback 

periods and are feasible. The magnitude of the energy efficiency investments EPA is projecting in the Clean Power Plan, which NERA 

estimates to cost some $500 billion for American consumers, those 

investments simply will not be made by the elderly and the lower 

income consumers. 

I hope that is responsive to your question. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Mr. Alford, the Energy Information Administration recently concluded the Clean Power Plan could reduce the GDP by $1 trillion. 

Based on the analysis that you just did and explained, could you 

reemphasize for us how you think that is going to impact low income or even minority citizens across the Country? 

Mr. ALFORD. It is going to be very critical and tragic. As far as 

the 2.1 million Black-owned businesses we represent, their customer base is going to whither and I think the quality of life is 

going to hurt in our communities. I think people will start to short- 
98 

shrift moneys that would be used for health care or education. I 

think people who would resort to crime and violence because they 

are poor and broke would increase. 

I think it would hurt our communities severely. 

Senator CAPITO. A final question very quickly, Mr. Trisko. Part 

of the ARENA Act says we should not move forward with these 

regulations until all the legal aspects are settled. As you know, 

States are challenging this and will challenge when the final rule 

comes out. 

If States begin to make changes in the meantime, what kind of 

scenario does that present to you in terms of how States are going 

to be able to react not knowing whether the legal issues have been 

settled as yet? 

Mr. TRISKO. Senator, you have hit upon one of the most desirable 

aspects of the ARENA Act. Let me put it in the context of the current situation that the electric utility industry faces. 

With respect to EPA’s 2011 Mercury and Air Toxic Standard 

Rule or the MATS rule, the MATS rule is currently before the Supreme Court. A decision is expected shortly within a matter of 

days. 

It is possible the Supreme Court decision could result in vacating 

the rule. And yet, utilities, in order to comply with that rule already have retired dozens of power plants across the United States 

and are scheduled to retire even more over the course of the next 

year. 

Wouldn’t it be advisable as a matter of public policy before implementation of the most expensive rule ever imposed on the electric 

utility sector, $9.5 billion a year, to know up front whether the rule 

is legal? 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

To our Ranking Member, Senator Carper, a fellow West Virginian, I want to say welcome and also ask if he could do his opening statement and then do questions which I say most certainly 

you can. 

Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thanks for holding the hearing. 

To all of our witnesses, it is great to see you and thank you for 

joining us, some of you not for the first time. 

Dr. Rice, I will think about your son and hope he grows up to 

be 101 or 102 years old and has a great life. 

One of the issues we always wrestle with here is, is it possible 

to have cleaner air, cleaner water and at the same time, have a 

strong economy. For most of my life after the Navy, I focused on 

job creation and job preservation and what we do to foster a nurturing environment for job creation and job preservation. 

If you go back to January 2009, the week Barack Obama and Joe 

Biden were sworn into office, that week 628,000 people filed for unemployment insurance. Think about that, 1 week in January 2009. 

In the last 6 months of 2008, we lost 2.5 million jobs. The first 6 
99 

weeks in 2009, we lost another 2.5 million jobs. That is 5 million 

jobs literally in a 12-month period of time. 

Since 2010, we have adopted new mercury regulations on power 

plants. We have adopted new carbon pollution or fuel economy 

standards on cars and trucks. We have also adopted across State 

air pollution standards. Since 2010, we have added 762,000 manufacturing jobs and millions other jobs, but three-quarters are manufacturing jobs. 

This leads me to believe that maybe it is possible to have cleaner 

air and cleaner water and at the same time actually do better by 

virtue of our economy and economic growth. I would ask that we 

keep that in mind. 

As the Chairman said, I was born in Beckley, West Virginia, a 

coal mining town. I grew up there in Roanoke and Danville, Virginia. Now I represent the State of Delaware, the lowest lying 

State in the Country. We see every day the effects of climate 

change and global warming. Sea level rise creeps up higher and 

higher on the east coast of my State. It is very, very real to us. 

For decades, the fear of the cost to combat climate change prevented any real action on this issue in Congress. Since coming 

here, I have tried to work with my colleagues on a climate compromise that would harness market forces to reduce carbon pollution and reduce the cost of compliance. 

As part of that compromise, I worked with Senator Byrd and a 

handful of other coal State Senators on language that would have 

provided more than $10 billion in incentives to support the deployment of clean coal power plants. 

This language, along with other language, intended to buffer impacts to the coal industry, was included in the Kerry-Boxer bill 

which regrettably was not enacted into law. Instead, in coming to 

a compromise on climate change, Congress came to a stalemate. All 

the while, it is becoming clear that the price of inaction is much 

greater than the price of action. 

The EPA just released a comprehensive report that outlines the 

alarming truth that failure to act on climate change will result in 

dramatic costs for our environment and for our economy. Findings 

are pretty clear concerning low lying States like Florida, Delaware 

and others up and down the east coast. 

Without action on climate change, we are going to need to spend 

billions of dollars in this century to protect States from rising sea 

levels and extreme storms. 

The study also projects that inaction on climate change could 

lead to extreme temperatures and cause thousands of deaths 

throughout the northeast and the mid-Atlantic regions of our Country. 

At least it is clear to me that as each year passes without action, 

the more severe, the more costly and perhaps more irreversible the 

effects of climate change are becoming. For those of us who come 

from States already being impacted by climate change, I think the 

message is clear and that is, we can no longer afford inaction. 

Many States such as New York, represented here today and welcome, and Delaware have already taken action to reduce the emissions of the largest emitters of carbon pollution, power plant. 
100 

As we will hear today, the economics of these States continue to 

grow at a faster rate than the States that have yet to put climate 

regulations in place. However, we need all States to do their fair 

share to protect the air we breathe and stem the tide of climate 

change. 

The EPA’s Clean Power Plan attempts to do that. Under the 

Clean Power Plan, States are given their own carbon pollution targets and allowed to find the most cost effective way to find reductions. In fact, it sounds similar to the compromise I tried to foist 

on my colleagues here a number of years ago. 

I believe instead of undercutting the Clean Power Plan, we 

should be working in good faith with the agency to find ways to improve the regulation. For example, the regulation could be improved in several ways. 

One, to ensure early action, States are not penalized for being 

climate inefficiency leaders. Two, ensure that all clean energy, including nuclear, is treated equitably. Three, ensure we meet our 

carbon reduction goals. 

No compromise is ever perfect. The worse thing we can do is to 

do nothing while we try to find the perfect solution. We must act 

now while the ability to mitigate the most harmful impact is still 

within our grasp. 

The choice between curbing climate change and growing our 

economy is, as I have suggested here many times, a false one. Instead, we must act on curbing climate change in order to protect 

the future economy prosperity of our Country. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Thank you, Chairman Capito, for holding this hearing today. I want to welcome 

the witnesses to the subcommittee. In today’s hearing we will focus on the costs and 

benefits of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) proposed carbon regulations, known as the Clean Power Plan. 

I was born in Beckley, West Virginia, and have spent most of my adult life in 

Delaware. As a native of a small town supported by coal mining, and now as a Senator representing the lowest-lying State in the Nation, I have a unique perspective 

on the balance that we must strike to make climate regulations work for each State. 

The debate on the costs and benefits of climate change action is not a new one. 

For decades, fears of the costs to combat climate change have prevented any real 

action on this issue in Congress. 

Since coming to the Senate I have tried to work with my colleagues on a climate 

compromise that would use market forces to reduce carbon pollution and reduce the 

costs of compliance. As part of a compromise, I worked with Senator Byrd and a 

handful of other coal-State Senators on language that would have provided more 

than $10 billion in incentives to support the deployment of clean coal power plants. 

This language—along with other language intended to buffer impacts to industry— 

was included in the Kerry-Boxer bill, which regrettably did not pass into law. 

Instead of coming to a compromise on climate change, Congress came to a stalemate. All the while, it is becoming clearer that the price of inaction is much greater 

than the price of action. 

The EPA just released a comprehensive report that outlines the alarming truth 

that failure to act on climate change will result in dramatic costs for our environment and for our economy. The findings are particularly concerning for low-lying 

coastal States like Delaware. Without action on climate change, we will need to 

spend billions of dollars in this century to protect our State from rising sea levels 

and extreme storms. The study also projects that inaction on climate change could 

lead to extreme temperatures and cause thousands of deaths throughout the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. 
101 

It is clear that as each year passes by without action the more severe, the more 

costly, and perhaps irreversible, the effects of climate change are becoming. For 

those of us from States that are already being impacted by climate change, the message is clear—we can no longer afford inaction. 

Many States, such as New York and Delaware, have already taken action to reduce the largest emitter of carbon pollution—power plant emissions. As we will hear 

today, the economies of these States continue to grow at a faster rate than the 

States that have yet to put climate regulations in place. However, we need all 

States to do their fair share to protect the air we breathe and stem the tide of climate change. The EPA’s Clean Power Plan attempts to do just that. 

Under the Clean Power Plan, States are given their own carbon pollution targets 

and allowed to find the most cost-effective way to find reductions. In fact, it sounds 

similar to the compromises I tried to find with my colleagues. 

I believe instead of undercutting the Clean Power Plan we should be working in 

good faith with the agency to find ways to improve the regulation. For example, the 

regulation could be improved to: 

(1) ensure early action States are not penalized for being climate and efficiency 

leaders; 

(2) ensure all clean energy is treated equitable; and 

(3) ensure we meet our carbon reduction goals. 

No compromise is ever perfect, but the worst thing we can do is to do nothing 

while we try to find the perfect solution. We must act now while the ability to mitigate the most harmful impacts is still within our grasp. The choice between curbing 

climate change and growing our economy is a false one. Instead, we must act on 

curbing climate change in order to protect the future economic prosperity of our 

Country. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Madam Chairman, thank you for letting me 

give my statement and ask some questions. 

I was delayed today because we had a caucus lunch. Part of our 

caucus lunch discussion, you would be interested to know, was 

about the transportation bill, the 6-year transportation bill authored by Chairman Inhofe, Senator Boxer, Senator Vitter and myself which I think is going to be well received. We are excited about 

that. We had a discussion about that and I got here a little late 

and I apologize for that. 

I like to joke around a bit and I thought I was going to come in 

and say I had taken a call from the Pope but I am not Catholic 

and he rarely calls me. I must say I am impressed with this guy. 

I am impressed with him because I think he actually read the 

New Testament and has a real commitment to the least of these 

in our society. You know, when I was hungry, did you feed me? 

When I was thirsty, did you give me drink? When I was naked, did 

you clothe me? When I was sick in prison, did you come to visit 

me? He gets that and really calls on all of us to do the same. 

The other thing that he gets, for those of you familiar with Scripture, most of you probably more than me, is we have a moral obligation to make sure we have a planet with a decent quality of life. 

He believes and a lot of folks believe that there is a real serious 

problem here. We have a moral imperative to do something about 

it. 

We can talk about all these other studies and everything until 

the cows come home, but I would have us keep that thought in 

mind. Now I have a couple of questions. 

First, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record two 

items. One is the latest report from the Lancet and the University 

College London Commission on Health and Climate Change entitled Health and Climate Change Policy, Responses to Protect Public Health. 
102 

I would also ask unanimous consent to submit the EPA’s peerreviewed report entitled Climate Change, the United States Benefit 

of Global Action. 

Senator CAPITO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Dr. Rice, mother of three, you mentioned in your testimony the 

many different ways that climate change is already impacting the 

health of Americans. Who would you say are the most vulnerable 

to the health effects of climate change and who would have the 

most to gain from reductions in carbon pollution? 

Dr. RICE. Thank you for this question, Senator Carper. 

A number of groups are especially vulnerable to the health consequences of climate change. The ones I would identify would be 

the elderly because many of them already have chronic health conditions like heart and lung disease that makes them especially vulnerable to the health effects of high heat and high air pollution levels. 

Another very important group is low income people. People who 

have less income have less access to air conditioning during heat 

waves. There have been a number of studies looking at cities which 

suffer the most in some ways from extreme heat because of an island effect of the buildings in the cities. The poor neighborhoods of 

cities have been found to have the worse urban heat problem. 

People who have low income also are the same people who are 

often exposed more to higher levels of air pollution to begin with 

and have less access to health care and resources to help them 

manage climate change. 

There is a third group. I know I am short on time, but that is 

children. Asthma is especially prevalent in children. They are at 

high risk from all of the issues I identified, high heat, high ozone 

levels, air pollution from wildfire, and higher pollen levels. It is 

going to be a major consequence for American children. 

Senator CARPER. One quick yes or no answer, if you will. In a 

study released last week by the Lancet, one of the world’s oldest 

and best known German medical journals concluded that the impacts of climate change threaten to undermine the last half-century 

of gains in development and global health. Would you agree with 

this conclusion, yes or no? 

Dr. RICE. I certainly agree it is a major public health problem 

facing the planet. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

My time has expired. Thank you. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking 

Member Carper. 

Mr. Cicio, Nebraska is a public power State. One hundred percent of our power is owned by the people of Nebraska. We are going 

to be hit especially hard by these regulations proposed in the Clean 

Power Plan. We are going to see rate increases that I believe will 

be substantial. 

What do you believe will be the impact of the increase we are 

going to have in the electricity rates on business operations like 

manufacturing? What will be the impact there? 

Mr. CICIO. All of these companies compete globally. There is almost no exception anymore. As I specifically alluded, the competition is very fierce. Companies win or lose business based on a cents 
260 

a pound or pennies on a ton of product they make, so all of these 

costs are additive. 

When we get to the Clean Power Plan, it is not just the cost of 

the Clean Power Plan. Embedded in those electricity rates that 

give your State a problem, there is already the cost of PM2.5 and 

there is already the mercury rule cost. 

For us in industrials, there is already the industrial boiler MATS 

cost. Now there is the Clean Power Plan cost. On top of that is 

coming the ozone cost. It is a cumulative cost of doing business 

that our competitors do not have overseas. 

There is no way around higher costs and loss of competitiveness. 

Eventually it impacts jobs. Most of our jobs are middle class jobs. 

Senator FISCHER. What is the impact then on American families? 

When we see these costs on businesses continue to increase, that 

has a direct cost on American families, correct? How would you say 

the ARENA Act will address some of these issues? What specifically is in the proposed legislation? 

Mr. CICIO. I would like to say from a commonsense standpoint, 

everyone in the Country that has followed this knows this is going 

to be litigated, 100 percent sure. There is no doubt about it. 

The EPA knows there are costs. The EPA does not want to hurt 

people by higher energy costs but this rule will. It is commonsense 

to say let us wait until we have this settled by the courts before 

States act to particularly shut down, as the EIA report of last 

month said, they are not going to shut down 40,000 gigawatts, it 

is now 90,000 gigawatts of coal fired power plants prior to 2020. 

That will have a dramatic impact on increasing electricity costs. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. 

Mr. Alford, I think most of us in this room take our ability to 

have electricity for granted. As you mentioned, there is a large 

number of Americans who are balancing whether they can afford 

an electric bill or pay rent or put food on the table for their families. As you mentioned, that is going to lead, I think, to those hard 

choices that people make and send some of them to the streets 

where they become homeless. 

Can you talk more about those tough choices that low income 

families have to make when they look at their electricity bills, why 

you think the costs are going to be driven up through this action 

by EPA, and why it will be so harmful? 

Mr. ALFORD. Dr. Rice is a mother of three. I am a father of six. 

I guess I am up to 11 grandchildren. My wife and I have been the 

godmothers and godfather of the very extended family. 

There are a lot out there who need help and we do all we can 

to connect them with some of our members who can create jobs for 

them, but it is an ongoing task. It is rough out there. 

I have children in Mobile, Atlanta and Los Angeles and it gets 

worse and worse and worse. Lord knows what happens to someone 

who does something wrong and gets into the judicial system, they 

will never have a job unless I create a job for them. It is very rough 

out there. 

I think we need a government that is sensitive to what is going 

on in these communities and will come up with some policy that 

builds a greater America and a more secure America and not put 

people on thin ice. 
261 

Senator FISCHER. Well said, well said. We all want clean air, we 

all want clean water, but we need to be aware of what these regulations will do to American families. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. ALFORD. I have been having discussions with the Omaha 

Black Chamber of Commerce too. 

Senator FISCHER. Great. Thank you. 

Senator CAPITO. Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

I wanted to follow up with Dr. Rice. The statistics that I have 

seen say that 78 percent of African-Americans live within 30 miles 

of a coal-fired power plant and that an African-American child is 

three times more likely to go to an emergency room for an asthma 

attack than a White child and twice as likely to die from an asthma attack. 

Is there a correlation or connection between the coal-fired power 

plants and the higher death rate for African-American children? 

Dr. RICE. The health effects of air pollution from coal-fired power 

plants and other sources of particle air pollution are very well documented. It is now well established in the scientific community 

that air pollution causes increases in hospitalization for asthma, 

asthma attacks, and more medication to treat the asthma symptoms. 

There are also inequities in where people live and where the 

sources of air pollution are located. That is an issue called environmental justice. Communities of color and low income communities 

are disproportionately exposed to air pollution from coal-fired 

power plants and other sources of air pollution. Therefore, if we reduce greenhouse gas emissions, those communities stand the most 

to benefit locally, right there where the pollution is emitted. 

Senator MERKLEY. To summarize, you are saying yes, there is a 

connection between the coal-fired power plant pollution and the illnesses and deaths that are disproportionately occurring? 

Dr. RICE. The simple answer is yes. I do agree with you. 

Senator MERKLEY. It sounded like you were withdrawing the explanation of why that was indeed the case. 

You ended on the note that disproportionate benefits from changing the quality of the air go to those who are most affected and 

that would be those closest to sources of pollution. Public health 

and climate benefits from this law are estimated to be somewhere 

between $55 billion to $93 billion per year 15 years from now. That 

is compared to the estimates of $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion for the 

rule. 

On the order of 8 to 1 or 10 to 1 of health benefits versus cost, 

that seems a pretty good tradeoff for an investment when you can 

get an eightfold return. It is a huge quality of life issue. Would you 

share that opinion? 

Dr. RICE. Senator, I agree that the public health benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions are tremendous. They have been 

studied in a number of different ways, including the report you just 

cited that showed the public health benefits for mortality and other 

health issues far outweighed the implementation costs. 

That is just one study but there have been many other studies. 

There is one done by Jason West and a group at UNC, Chapel Hill, 
262 

looking at just the mortality benefits of the better air quality from 

reducing greenhouse gas emissions, not even looking at all the 

health effects I talked about from climate change, but just the air 

pollution benefits that would be gained right away. They estimated 

that those mortality benefits would exceed abatement costs by 

2030. 

Senator MERKLEY. In your testimony, you noted the impact of 

forest fires. This is particularly occurring out west where we have 

large coniferous forests that are a major part of our rural lifestyle 

with our lumber and timber industries. 

In the last 40 years, we have seen an increase in the fire season 

by about 60 days with a huge correlation of more acres of timber 

burning. In your testimony, you pointed out the health impacts of 

that smoke and the smoke plumes basically traveling across the 

Nation. 

Dr. RICE. Senator, I can give an example. Wildfire smoke can 

travel very far distances. There are health effects for communities 

right there where the fires take place, but there are also respiratory and heart health effects in very distant places. 

The wildfires that affected Russia some years ago, those plumes 

traveled the distance from Chicago to San Francisco, that equivalent difference. That means that thousands and thousands of people in the regions of wildfires are experiencing health effects due 

to the reduced air quality. 

Senator MERKLEY. Since the prevailing winds go from west to 

east, when our forests are burning out in Oregon, California and 

Washington State, the rest of the Nation is experiencing those impacts. There is also an impact on our rural economy because when 

we lose both to fire and pine beetles, and I realize that is not your 

expertise, but with the warmer winters, the pine beetles are doing 

very well and the timber not so well. 

I am over my time, so thank you very much for your feedback. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

I would like to turn it over to the Chairman of our full committee, Chairman Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I remember when we had the first appointed Director of the 

EPA, Lisa Jackson in the room. It was during the COP in Copenhagen. I asked her, if we are to pass the legislation that has been 

proposed here, let us keep in mind it started way back in 1997 

when we passed the Byrd-Hagel rule by 95 to zero, that if you come 

back from Rio de Janeiro or one of these places with a treaty that 

either hurts our economy or does not require the same thing from 

China and other countries, then we would not ratify it. Consequently, they never put it forward for ratification. 

I said if we were to pass either by regulation or by legislation 

these reductions, is this going to have the effect of lowering CO2

emissions worldwide? Her answer was no, because it only affects 

us here in the United States. This is not where the problem is. The 

problem is in India, China, Mexico and other places. 

In fact, would you say, Mr. Cicio, that it would actually have the 

effect of increasing CO2 worldwide emissions if we were to unilaterally reduce our emissions here by an amount that is going to be 

driving our manufacturers overseas, where do they go, they go to 
263 

places where they have the least restrictions. Am I missing something there? 

Mr. CICIO. No, you are not missing anything. As a matter of fact, 

I testified before the House Energy and Power Subcommittee, and 

one of the key points I made is if we want to be serious about reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, the single most important 

thing we need to do is increase the manufacturing of products in 

the United States versus China, for example. 

Senator INHOFE. Exactly. 

Mr. CICIO. When China produces goods, they emit 300 percent 

more CO2 than we do here. If energy cost goes up here, then it is 

going to result in more imports of these energy intensive products. 

As a reminder, 70 percent of our manufacturing imports is from 

one country, China. 

Senator INHOFE. That is right. 

Mr. Alford, it is good to see you again. I asked for the printed 

copy of your study. The key findings are fascinating. It concentrates on the regressive nature of this type of legislation or rule. 

Is that right? 

Mr. ALFORD. That is absolutely correct, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. I have not seen it done specifically like this before, so this is something we will use. Was this done for you by an 

outside group? 

Mr. ALFORD. It was done by Dr. Roger Bezdek of Management 

Information Systems. We do a study about every two or 3 years 

with that group. They are very on the money. 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Trisko, I think you made a vague reference to a study of decisions to middle or low income people. I asked to get the written 

copy. Could you elaborate a bit on that? I do not think you had a 

chance to do that in your opening statement. 

Mr. TRISKO. The study I attached to the statement is one of a 

long running series going back to the time of the Kyoto Protocol. 

We wanted to know what American families spent on energy defined as residential utilities and gasoline. I have been updating 

that study more or less on annual basis ever since. We found, as 

a general matter, the percentage of after tax income that American 

households spend on energy has more than doubled over the course 

of the last 10 to 15 years. 

You mentioned the regressive aspects of energy costs and energy 

price increases. The study I have attached to my statement today 

looks in particular at the percentage of after tax income for energy 

spent by households with gross incomes of $30,000 or less. That is 

about 30 percent of our population. Those households are spending 

23 percent of their after tax income on energy. 

Senator INHOFE. Of their expendable income? 

Mr. TRISKO. Twenty-three percent of their after tax income goes 

to residential utilities and gasoline. That compares with an average 

of 7 percent for households earning more than $50,000 a year, so 

it is three times greater for the low income category of $30,000 or 

less. 

The impact of energy price increases is three times greater on those households than it is for households making $50,000 or more 

per year. 
264 

Senator INHOFE. That is good and is almost exactly what you are 

saying, Mr. Alford, that it is regressive in that respect. 

Mr. ALFORD. Yes, it is. You brought up asthma. If you look at 

the Mayo Clinic, there is no prevention for asthma and there is no 

correlation of asthma and air. Asthma has been increasing even 

though through the Clean Air Act, we have been good stewards and 

decreasing and decreasing ozone and all the emissions, asthma continues to rise. No one knows why. 

There is this big false projection that global warming causes 

asthma. We do not know what is causing asthma. Most of the people who have it get out of it by the time they are adults because 

their lungs and bodies are strong enough to fight it off. 

I am getting very sick of people saying asthma and dirty or global warming. It is a myth. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Alford. 

My time has expired. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

We are here today to talk about the President’s climate agenda with a particular 

focus on its impacts to American businesses and families. There is no doubt, and 

wide reaching consensus that the price of power would increase under the President’s latest regulations, with primary attribution to the so-called Clean Power 

Plan. 

Despite the rhetoric from President Obama and his EPA, his domestic climate 

agenda has nothing to do with improving the environment or the lives of American 

citizens. His carbon regulations for new, modified and reconstructed, and existing 

power plants are nothing more than high-cost, unprecedented power grabs. The 

Clean Power Plan alone would cost $479 billion, result in double digit electricity 

price increases in 43 States and reduce grid reliability. Some regions would not only 

be dealing with cascading outages and voltage collapse, but paying for long-term investments in power generation that is prematurely shut down. 

Although these policies make up the core components of President Obama’s climate agenda they would have a negligible impact on the environment—impacts the 

EPA did not even bother to measure—and would be rendered completely pointless 

by business as usual in India in China. Further, both of these countries stand to 

inherit the economic activity and jobs that would be shipped overseas, which has 

the projected result of actually increasing overall emissions. 

When it comes to the climate science this President relies on, I would like to remind everyone that he is using the same science from the same institution that was 

caught up in the Climategate scandal of 2009. The UK Telegraph described 

Climategate as ‘‘the ‘‘worst scientific scandal of our generation’’ when it was discovered scientists were manipulating temperature data to produce the outcomes they 

wanted. 

When it comes to health benefits, much of what the EPA relies on comes from 

benefits associated with reductions in particulate matter (PM), not carbon. Further, 

PM is already regulated under the Clean Air Act and set at a standard the EPA 

itself identifies as safe. 

When it comes to the legality of this proposal, it is on equally questionable 

ground. The EPA relies on a reimagined interpretation of the Clean Air Act that 

is counter to the law’s historical application and extends far beyond what Congress 

ever intended. 

It makes sense that 32 States oppose the President’s climate proposals and 16 

have already challenged the EPA in court. While preliminary challenges have hit 

a minor, technical speed bump, once the rule is final and the courts get to the merits of these legal challenges, the Clean Power Plan will not withstand judicial scrutiny. It does not make sense for States to spend limited resources planning out how 

to comply with a rule that we know will ultimately be stricken down. 

As an original cosponsor to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, I know what 

good environmental policy looks like. It balances environmental improvements with 

economic growth. It improves our standard of living while strengthening access to 
265 

the American dream. It builds on existing partnerships and opens up the doors for 

new ones. Most importantly, it comes from Congress. 

Good environmental policy looks nothing like the Clean Power Plan or any of the 

climate regulations this Administration has proposed. I thank Senator Capito for 

drafting S. 1324, the Affordable Reliable Electricity Now Act of 2015 to address 

these problems. Her bill sends the EPA back to the drawing board and provides a 

host of new requirements that will ensure future proposals actually improve the environment in a balanced and healthy way. Her bill increases transparency, protects 

the role of States, and provides certainty to the regulated community. Finally, it 

protects energy consumers—from industrial manufacturers to the kitchen table— 

from unnecessary costs and unjustified price increases. 

I have no doubt this Country will continue down the path of an ever improving 

and healthier environment, but these gains will be achieved through American ingenuity and innovative advancements, not Government mandates. 

I thank the witnesses for being here today and I look forward to your testimony. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Rice, you are here from Harvard Medical School. People are 

getting sick, are they not? They are not getting sick the way Harry 

Alford is getting sick. They are really getting sick, aren’t they? 

Maybe you can bring to us a little bit of your information about 

the increased hospitalizations, the respiratory related diseases and 

all of the things that are actually implicated in having this additional pollution in our atmosphere. Can you talk a bit about how 

it is impacting especially children in our Country? 

Dr. RICE. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

This is certainly an area where I feel I have a lot to add to the 

discussion because I am a lung doctor, I take care of patients with 

lung disease and I also study air pollution when I am not taking 

care of patients. 

In addition to my personal observations as a doctor, I see patients come to see me more often because the pollen level is worse 

or the ozone levels in Boston sometimes get very high on very hot 

days. 

We also have the observations of the physicians of the American 

Thoracic Society and the survey I mentioned. Of the doctors completing the survey, the vast majority of them commented they have 

personally observed that their patients’ lung function is worse and 

their symptoms are worse during high air pollution days. 

Senator MARKEY. There are real implications for the 12 million 

Americans who already have respiratory illnesses? 

Dr. RICE. Certainly. We can look back at the incredible success 

story of the Clean Air Act. The reductions in air pollution as a result of the Clean Air Act have been astounding. We have really 

come a long way. 

When we look back, researchers look back at the health benefits 

of the Clean Air Act, they have been astounding, not just for respiratory illness or asthmatic symptom control, but also mortality 

and heart disease. 

Senator MARKEY. Earlier in your testimony, you mentioned your 

own son who has a respiratory illness. What can additional pollution that we send up, uncontrolled mean for him and for those others of millions of victims across the Country? 

Dr. RICE. There are a variety of sources of air pollution. One is 

the power plants through the burning of greenhouse gases. There 

is also traffic and other things. 
266 

The reality is that if we do not do anything about greenhouse gas 

emissions, the EPA report looked at just that piece of the pie and 

found that ozone levels will increase, predict that we will actually 

have increases in ozone whereas ozone levels have actually declined and we have experienced health benefits as a result of those 

gains. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you for putting that out there. There is 

real sickness, not metaphorical sickness, that is occurring because 

of global warming. 

Mr. Martens, you are here representing New York and one of the 

RGGI States, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative States, all of 

New England, those six States, New York, Maryland and Delaware, nine States that banded together. 

Over the last 7 years, Massachusetts has actually seen a 40 percent reduction in the greenhouse gases that we are sending up 

while we are seeing a 22 percent growth in our economy. 

Can you talk a bit about that virtuous cycle that seems to elude 

the observation of those who are critical of our ability to be able 

to increase the health of individuals and the economy simultaneously? 

Mr. MARTENS. As I said in my testimony, the RGGI experience 

has been an extraordinarily successful one. We had an independent 

study done by the Analysis Group that quantified the benefits over 

a 3-year period from 2009 to 2011. There was $1.3 billion in reductions in bills over the RGGI region; $1.6 billion in extra or incremental economic activity. It has 

been an extraordinarily positive experience, all the while, as you 

said, the region has experienced economic growth. We have reduced 

bills for low and moderate income families. 

Senator MARKEY. Say that again. You have reduced the electricity bills for low and moderate income people? 

Mr. MARTENS. Yes. The cumulative benefit to just New York low 

and moderate income bill payers has been $60 million to date 

through the first quarter of this year. Those benefits will continue 

on into the future because New York has specified income eligible 

ratepayers in two of its programs. 

The beauty of the program is that States have the flexibility to 

target the revenue from the sale of those allowances to a variety 

of programs. Industrial customers can benefit; low and moderate 

income ratepayers can benefit; businesses and your average homeowners can benefit. It has been a tremendous success story. 

Senator MARKEY. It is my understanding, Mr. Martens, that 

under the proposed rulemaking, for example, New Jersey or Pennsylvania could join our Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. They 

can plug into an already existing system that is working, that is 

lowering costs for low and moderate income, lowering the amount 

of greenhouse gases while seeing tremendous growth in our GDP. 

I think there is a reason to be very optimistic. 

Listening to the Pope’s admonitions to us that we should be the 

global leader on this, we can use market forces to accomplish the 

goal while still enjoying tremendous economic growth and taking 

care of the poor and the moderate income people in our Country. 

Mr. MARTENS. I agree with you entirely, Senator. I think there 

are places around the Country that could benefit from that model. 
267 

It may not be identical to the RGGI model but certainly States cooperating makes great sense because the efficiencies of dealing 

with multiple States and energy systems that cross State boundaries has obviously been a great advantage in the RGGI States. I 

think it could be elsewhere also. 

Senator MARKEY. I am afraid too many people are just pessimistic in general. They are just not optimistic about our ability as 

Americans to be the global leader, to use new technologies, to invest in the future, protect young people and our economy at the 

same time. Unfortunately, they harbor a great doubt about our 

Country’s ability to do that. 

I thank the two of you for your testimony because you point out 

the problems and the solutions. You all have done it in a way 

which I think should really give people some hope. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator CAPITO. I think that concludes our hearing. I want to 

thank the witnesses for bringing forth some great information and 

facts and lots for us to think about. I appreciate you all taking time 

today to be with us. 

I want to thank my Ranking Member. 

With that, we will conclude the hearing. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:19 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ