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

94–981 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 114–22 

STATE REGULATORS’ PERSPECTIVES 

ON THE CLEAN POWER PLANT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 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 

MARCH 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 ........................ 3 

WITNESSES 

Myers, Michael J., Chief, Affirmative Litigation Section, Environmental Protection Bureau, New York State Attorney General ........................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe and Senator 

Boxer .............................................................................................................. 20 

Nichols, Mary D., Chairman, California Air Resources Board ............................ 26 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 33 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Sessions ............................ 38 

Easterly, Thomas, Commissioner, Indiana Department of Environmental 

Management ......................................................................................................... 41 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 88 

Parfitt, Todd, Director, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality ......... 91 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 93 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 99 

Nowak, Ellen, Commissioner, Public Service Commission of Wisconsin ............ 101 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 103 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 107 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Letter from Nature Geoscience; Ocean access to a cavity beneath Totton 

Glacier in East Antarctica ................................................................................... 192 

Articles: 

NASA; NOAA find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record .......................... 197 

Washington Post; The melting of Antarctica was already really bad. It 

just got worse. ............................................................................................... 200 

(1) 

State Regulators’ Perspectives on the Clean 

Power Plant 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 2015 

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

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 406, 

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

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

Boozman, Sessions, Fischer, Rounds, Carper, Whitehouse, Merkley, 

Gillibrand, Markey. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. We will bring this hearing to order. 

It is great to have the panel. I had a chance to meet each one 

of you. I really do think that the most important thing, when we 

get into these rules and regulations is the State perspective. Because they are the ones who have to carry these things out, have 

to pay for all this stuff. 

So we are here today with State officials on the CO2 regulations 

for existing power plants. Existing. The Clean Power Plan is unprecedented in the scope, complexity and requirements it will impose on State governments. That is what you guys are going to 

have to carry out. 

The proposal undermines the longstanding concept of cooperative 

federalism under the Clean Air Act, where the Federal Government 

is meant to work in partnership with the States to achieve the underlying goals. Instead, this rule forces States to redesign the ways 

they generate, manage and use electricity in a manner that satisfies President Obama’s extreme climate agenda. 

To date, we have 32 States who have opposed this rule. There 

is the chart. There are 32 States that oppose the rule. Twelve 

States, including my State of Oklahoma, are suing the agency over 

a lack of authority to promulgate the proposal. Nine States have 

passed resolutions in their legislatures that express limits to the 

proposal’s application. Five States have passed laws that would 

limit the proposal’s application. 

Had the EPA engaged in a meaningful dialog with all these 

States, the agency would not be rushing ahead to impose such an 

unfair and unworkable and likely illegal regulation. 

While the EPA is busy selling this as a plan to save the world 

from global warming, we know that this rule will have minuscule 

2 

impacts on the environment. In fact, last week during the EPA 

budget hearing, Administrator McCarthy admitted that the agency 

has yet to do any modeling that would measure the proposal’s impact on temperatures and sea level rise. There is a reason for that. 

And the reason for that is that NERA, which is a very highly respected group on economic modeling and analysis, used EPA’s models and numbers and found that after spending $479 billion over 

a 15-year period, we would see the double digit electricity prices increase in 43 States, reduce grid reliability, resulting in voltage collapse and cascading outages. However, the Clean Power Plan will 

reduce CO2 concentrates by less than 0.5 percent, global average 

temperature rise will be reduced by only 0.016 degrees Fahrenheit, 

and sea level rise would be reduced by 0.3 millimeters, which is the 

thickness of three sheets of paper. 

Further, any perceived benefits will be rendered pointless by the 

continued emissions growth in India and China. Hold that up higher, that is a good chart there. You can see the problems. This is 

the whole point that Administrator Jackson was talking about, 

what we do unilaterally here in the United States isn’t going to 

have that much effect. It doesn’t affect other countries. 

These results, or lack thereof, show that this rule is not about 

protecting the environment or saving lives of the local citizenry. 

This proposal is about expanding the government’s control into 

every aspect of American lives. As MIT climate scientist Richard 

Lindzen, and Richard Lindzen is noted to be one of the foremost 

climatologists in the Country, he said, ‘‘Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life.’’ 

EPA’s rushed timeline, impractical assumptions and arbitrary 

mandates pay no mind to the fact that this will be damaging to 

State economies and local residents. Their proposals are nothing 

more than a blatant and selfish power grab. 

We have been through these arguments multiple times before, 

most recently when the President failed to garner enough support 

for cap and trade under a Democrat-controlled House and Senate. 

We are talking about back when Nancy Pelosi was a majority, so 

they had the White House and the House and the Senate. They 

couldn’t get a majority vote in order to support this. 

So I appreciate very much all of the people coming so we can 

hear the voices from the States. It is nice of you to take the time 

to be here. 

Senator Boxer. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

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

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) is a law that everyone agrees is outdated 

and in serious need of modernization. I am very pleased that today we have before 

us a bill with the strong bipartisan support of 9 Democrats and 9 Republicans.— 

I am proud cosponsor of this bill and hope to move it through Committee by way 

of constructive and orderly process. 

For years Senator Lautenberg worked to update the 1976 law, releasing bill after 

bill every Congress, and in 2012, he came to me with a clear message: this law will 

not be updated without bipartisan support and input from all stakeholders. Frank 

and I held a series of stakeholder meetings, and though that process we got a lot 

of good information on all sides of the issue and I would in particular welcome Ms. 

Bonnie Lautenberg to the committee this morning. 

3 

Just about 2 years ago, Senator Lautenberg teamed up with Senator Vitter to introduce a bipartisan bill that created not only the first real momentum for meaningful reform, but a foundation for the legislation we have before the Committee today. 

We all know that Senator Vitter and myself and our Republican colleagues are 

not ones to typically offer up bills granting EPA more authority. But in this case 

I believe it is not only the right thing to do, but the conservative thing to do. 

TSCA is not a traditional environmental law that regulates pollutants like the 

Clean Air or Clean Water Acts—instead it regulates products manufactured for commerce. Under the U.S. Constitution, the job of regulating interState commerce falls 

to Congress, not the states. We support this legislation not only because it better 

protects our families and communities, but because it ensures American industry 

and innovation can continue to thrive and lead without the impediment of 50 different rulebooks. 

It is important to note that today that we have a number of witnesses focused 

on public health and the environment and none from industry. This is certainly not 

because no one in industry supports this bill—I would like unanimous consent to 

place supportive statements in the record from a number of groups including the 

American Alliance for Innovation which has sent us a letter signed by XX trade associations. The reason the majority has chosen these witnesses is to focus on the 

health and environmental provisions of the bill, which have been significantly 

strengthened as the necessary tradeoff for greater regulatory certainty for the regulated as well as better ensuring protections for all Americans, not just those in the 

few states with a patchwork of programs. 

Major environmental laws do not get passed without bipartisan support—Frank 

recognized that—and the simple fact is that any partisan TSCA reform effort will 

ensure that nothing gets done and Americans are stuck with a broken Federal system to all our detriment. I hope we get this done to honor Senator Lautenberg’s legacy. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome all of our witness. I am very proud that Mary Nichols is here. 

She is really a legend in our State, and has worked on the environment for her whole adult life. She now is Executive Director of the 

California Air Resources Board. She is going to describe the successes that we are having. 

I am also proud that my home State of California has been a 

leader in this field. And here is the deal: we are prospering. We 

have to reduce carbon pollution in order to address dangerous climate change. And we can’t wait any longer, because we are seeing 

the impacts all around us. According to NASA, the 10 warmest 

years on record occurred since the year 2000. And 2014 was the 

warmest year on record. 

Now, people can put their head in the sand, but that is the fact, 

and facts are stubborn things. According to a new peer-reviewed research in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and 

I trust my colleagues respect the National Academy of Sciences, 

California’s record temperatures are driving the State’s extreme 

drought, and scientists predict it will get worse over the coming 

decades. And just 2 weeks ago, scientists at NASA and at Cornell 

and Columbia found that if we fail to act aggressively to cut carbon 

pollution, we have an 80 percent chance of a mega-drought in the 

entire west. 

In the face of all this peer-reviewed science showing the impacts 

from uncontrolled dangerous carbon pollution, States really should 

be working together to find solutions to prevent climate change. 

Let me say, we know the American people want action. This isn’t 

a guess, this is a poll. In a Stanford poll, 83 percent of Americans, 

including 61 percent of Republicans, say if nothing is done to reVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:48 Jul 21, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\94981.TXT VERN
4 

duce emissions, global warming will be a serious problem in the future. 

So again, you can sit here and say it is not an issue. But the 

American people are in disagreement with that conclusion. 

Ultimately, climate change deniers in the Senate continue to attack the landmark Clean Air Act. Just last week, our majority 

leader, Senator McConnell, told State governments to ignore the 

Clean Air Act. Imagine, ignore the law of the land, and one of the 

most popular legislative actions in our history. So we know we can 

reduce carbon while growing the economy. 

And I want to talk about California here and the Regional 

Greenhouse Gas Initiative. For New York, it is prospering as well. 

And we will hear some of that from our witness. 

California is on a path to cut its carbon pollution by 80 percent 

by 2050, as required under our greenhouse gas emissions law in 

our State, AB 32, and the people who tried to overturn that lost 

at the ballot. 

During the first year and a half of the State’s cap and trade program, California added 491,000 jobs, a growth of almost 3.3 percent, which outpaces the national growth rate of 2.5 percent. We 

are living proof that growing the economy and a safe environment 

go hand in hand. And we are a very large State. This has benefited 

the middle class. 

It may interest you to know that the Energy Information Administration found last month that California’s monthly residential 

electric bill averaged $90, compared to Oklahoma’s monthly bill, 

which averaged $110. Under California’s climate program, many 

consumers are even receiving a twice a year climate credit of $35. 

That further lowers their utility bill. So California, New York and 

other States around the Country should be proud of their leadership in putting forward real solutions to climate change and showing that meeting the goals of the Clean Power Plan will benefit our 

States and our people. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Thank you all for being here today. I ask unanimous consent to place into the 

record my statement, which lays out several reasons I oppose the Udall-Vitter bill. 

The bill I introduced with Senator Markey, the Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer 

Toxic Chemical Protection Act, addresses fundamental flaws in the Udall-Vitter bill. 

Unfortunately, the Republican majority would not permit it to be considered today. 

I want to note the presence of Linda Reinstein, Alan’s wife, and Trevor Shaefer 

who are here today, as well as consumer advocate Erin Brockovich, who endorses 

the Boxer-Markey bill and opposes the Udall-Vitter bill. 

It is clear that in its present form, the Udall-Vitter bill fails to provide the public 

health protections needed and is worse than current law. This bill still does not 

have the tools necessary to put safeguards in place—even for the most dangerous 

toxic substances like asbestos. I would like to enter into the record an analysis by 

one of the leading legal scholars on environmental law who said: 

‘‘[T]he Vitter-Udall-Inhofe bill will not make it easier for EPA to regulate harmful 

toxic substances . . . . When considered in light of its aggressive preemption of 

State law that would actually remove existing protections in many states, the bill 

is actually worse than the existing statute from a consumer protection perspective. 

And the changes to the regulatory standard and the failure to change the standard 

5 

for judicial review will provide job security for chemical industry lawyers for years 

to come.’’ [Tom McGarity, University of Texas Law Professor, March 17, 2015] 

I have never seen such an unprecedented level of opposition to any bill. I want 

you to see what that opposition looks like, and I ask my staff to stand up now and 

show you the names of more than 450 organizations that oppose the Udall-Vitter 

bill. Some of the groups listed include: 

• 8 State Attorneys General (California, Massachusetts, New York, Iowa, Maine, 

Maryland, Oregon, Washington) • Breast Cancer Fund 

• Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization 

• Trevor’s Trek Foundation 

• Environmental Working Group 

• EarthJustice 

• Safer Chemicals, Health Families 

• Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses 

• * American Nurses Association 

• Physicians for Social Responsibility 

• United Steelworkers 

Let me quote from some of the letters we have received in opposition to the bill. 

The Breast Cancer Fund said this: ‘‘The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for 

the 21st Century Act . . . undermines what few health protections from toxic chemicals now exist . . . 

It advances the interests of the chemical industry and disregards years of work 

by health care professionals, scientists, public health advocates and State legislators 

to enact meaningful reform and to prevent diseases linked to chemical exposure.’’ 

According to the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, ‘‘The fact that the 

Vitter-Udall bill will not even restrict, much less ban, the deadly substance that 

claims 30 lives a day is nothing short of a national travesty. Any Senator who supports this industry proposal is in essence supporting the continuation of the toll asbestos has already had on millions of American families.’’ 

EarthJustice had this to say about the Udall-Vitter bill: ‘‘[T]he chemical industry 

got exactly what it wanted—again.’’ 

The Director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, Andy Igrejas, said: ‘‘Firefighters, nurses, parents of kids with learning disabilities and cancer survivors all 

still oppose this legislation.’’ 

The Attorneys General from New York, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Oregon and 

Washington had this to say: ‘‘[W]e believe that, rather than bringing TSCA closer 

to attaining its goal, the draft legislation’s greatly expanded limitations on State action would move that goal further out of reach.’’ 

Massachusetts’ Attorney General says: ‘‘On the crucial issue of preserving our 

state’s abilities to protect the health and safety of the citizens within our borders 

the bill strays far from a bill that can adequately protect our citizens from the potential risks that may be posed by certain toxic chemicals in commerce.’’ 

According to California’s Attorney General: ‘‘In California’s view, this constitutes 

poor public policy that undermines the fundamental health and environmental protection purposes of TSCA reform.’’ 

And California EPA says, ‘‘Unfortunately, rather than reforming TSCA to ensure 

that State and Federal agencies can efficiently and effectively work together to protect the public, this legislation takes a step backward from what should be the common goal of achieving strong public health and safety protections under a reformed 

version of TSCA.’’ 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

We are going to have some introductions, by request, of some of 

the members of the panel. Let’s start with Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It 

gives me great pleasure to bring greetings from the committee to 

one of those witnesses this morning, who is Todd Parfitt, the Director of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. He has 

a long history of working in the State of Wyoming and specifically 

working in this department. You will remember, Mr. Chairman, 

that our former Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

director, John Corra, testified here a number of years ago. Todd 

has worked closely with him and has succeeded him and is now our 

director. 

6 

It is interesting, Mr. Chairman, because today, as Todd testifies, 

he will have worked with a Democrat Governor and a Republican 

Governor in Wyoming. He has always put Wyoming first. He has 

done what is best for our State and our environment. So it is a 

privilege today for me to introduce one of those testifying, the Director of the Department of Environmental Quality for Wyoming, 

Todd Parfitt. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

Anyone else here for introductory purposes? I don’t believe they 

are. 

We are going to go ahead and start with our testimony. We 

would like to ask you to do your best to confine your time to the 

time required. We will start with you, Mr. Myers, then we will to 

the end, to Ellen Nowak. You are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. MYERS, CHIEF, AFFIRMATIVE 

LITIGATION SECTION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU, NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Mr. MYERS. Thank you, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member 

Boxer and members of the committee, for inviting me today to testify. 

I am Michael Myers, from the New York Attorney General’s office. My perspective is slightly different from those of other members of the panel. As an environmental lawyer, I have worked for 

the past 15 years at the Attorney General’s office, counseling State 

regulators on legal issues related to air pollution and climate 

change, and also litigating those issues in the courts. 

It is particularly appropriate that the committee should seek to 

hear State perspectives. Because under the provisions of the Clean 

Air Act that EPA is using for the Clean Power Plan, Section 111(d), 

States are in the driver’s seat. But for us to succeed in this critically important area, each State has to be willing to take the 

wheel. 

From the perspective of a State, New York, that has already 

taken action to cut power plant greenhouse gas emissions, I have 

good news for other States: you can significantly reduce these emissions from the power sector and do so in a way that helps grow 

your economy. New York and other States in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative have reduced greenhouse gases from the electricity sector in our region by 40 percent from 2005 levels. Reinvesting the proceeds from the auction of pollution allowances in renewable and energy efficiency projects has kept down electricity 

costs in our region. 

EPA’s Clean Power Plan would build off the work that the RGGI 

States and others like California have done in this area. The plan 

would cut greenhouse gases from power plants by about 730 million metric tons, equivalent to the annual emissions of powering 

half the homes in America. 

The shift to cleaner generation would also result in substantial 

public health benefits, including 150,000 fewer asthma attacks by 

2030. 

But back to the point I started with: for this plan to work, States 

have to be willing to step up. Some are discouraging States from 

7 

doing so on the grounds that the Clean Power Plan is unlawful. My 

written testimony highlights why such arguments are meritless. 

First, action under Section 111(d) to address greenhouse gases 

from fossil-fueled power plants is required under the Clean Air Act. 

The law requires EPA to ensure that States achieve emission reductions from power plants necessary to protect human health and 

welfare from the harms of carbon pollution. 

Second, EPA’s regulation of hazardous air pollutants from existing power plants under one provision of the Clean Air Act does not 

preclude the use of Section 111(d) to require those plants to cut 

their greenhouse gas emissions. The implication of that claim is 

that EPA had a choice. It could either use the Act’s hazardous air 

pollution program to cut power plant mercury emissions that poison the fish we eat, or it could combat climate change by using the 

provision the Supreme Court speaks directly to power plant carbon 

emissions. Not only does this interpretation defy common sense, it 

is wrong as a matter of law. 

Third, it is clear that EPA has the authority to set substantive 

emission limitations for States to meet. In the absence of such a 

benchmark, State plans could vary widely in terms of their stringency and effectiveness. States have a lot of flexibility, however, on 

how to achieve their emission targets in a way that best suits their 

respective circumstances. 

Fourth, it is also clear that EPA has the authority to interpret 

the best system of emission reduction to reflect the various ways 

in which States and utilities have reduced greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector. EPA’s building blocks approach appropriately recognizes successful strategies, such as cap and invest 

programs, renewable portfolio standards, and energy efficiency that 

States and utilities have already shown can significantly reduce 

carbon emissions and do so cost effectively. 

In conclusion, here is what I would urge State regulators to consider. The world’s scientists are telling us that we need to act now 

if we are to have a chance at avoiding catastrophic harms from climate change. Our faith leaders are telling us we have a moral imperative to act. The law, the Clean Air Act, requires us to act. And 

EPA’s plan for cutting greenhouse gases from existing power plants 

is on sound legal ground. 

Both EPA and your fellow States are open to working with you 

on how best to cut emissions in your State. The time is now for 

State leadership. So take the wheel. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering the committee’s questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Myers follows:] 

8 


94981.001
9 


94981.002
10 


94981.003
11 


94981.004
12 


94981.005
13 


94981.006
14 


94981.007
15 


94981.008
16 


94981.009
17 


94981.010
18 


94981.011
19 


94981.012
20 


94981.013
21 


94981.014
22 


94981.015
23 


94981.106
24 


94981.107
25 


94981.108
26 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Myers. 

Mary Nichols is the Chairman of the California Air Resources 

Board. You are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF MARY D. NICHOLS, CHAIRMAN, 

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

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

Boxer, members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to be 

here. I am Mary Nichols, Chair of the California Air Resources 

Board, and I am honored to be here to support EPA’s proposed 

Clean Power Plan, which we believe will unlock State innovation 

across the Country to protect our people and grow our economies. 

The framework proposed by EPA is a workable, practical plan 

that will cut carbon pollution, along with other forms of pollution, 

with a focus on increasing energy efficiency and the use of cleaner 

domestic energy sources. It provides an opportunity for a better future. 

This is a future that we are already working to create in California. Our success story has been one of bipartisanship. The 2006 

California Global Warming Solutions Act was signed by our Republican former Governor, Schwarzenegger, who appointed me to this 

position, and our Democratic Governor, Jerry Brown, who has reappointed me and also, more importantly, has placed climate 

change at the core of his agenda, championing our enormously successful carbon market, ramping up green energy programs and 

working nationally and internationally to spread solutions that will 

protect our vulnerable citizens, our extremely valuable agricultural 

industry, our coastline and our forests against the already-growing 

reality of climate change. 

Californians overwhelmingly support our board’s efforts to move 

California toward cleaner and more efficient sources of energy and 

to address the grave threat that global warming poses to America 

and to the world. 

I am here today to share some of our successes with you and to 

emphasize that EPA is using its Clean Air Act authority in the way 

that it was meant to, to spread success across the Country and to 

encourage each State to develop its own plan to cut carbon pollution and to grow its economy. 

I am going to skip some of what is in the prepared testimony, 

because I really want to focus on the fact that we believe that 

working together, not just as an environmental agency, but under 

the direction of our Governor, with the Public Utilities Commission, 

and our Energy Commission, as well as the independent system operator that controls the transmission wires, we can deliver not only 

a more resilient energy system but we can also meet and even exceed the targets that EPA has set. We are on track for a third of 

our State’s energy needs to be met by renewable energy by the year 

2020. And Governor Brown has established a goal of getting to 50 

percent of our energy from renewable resources by 2030. 

Our carbon-wide carbon intensity has already fallen by nearly 5 

percent since 2009, and it will keep falling. Now, that is not only 

due to electrical power plants, it is also due to cleaner fuels and 

cleaner vehicles, which are an integral part of our plan. The power 

27 

plan, the EPA power plan, is only one piece of the overall President’s climate plan. But it is an important one. 

But the main thing I want to emphasize is that this is happening 

at the same time that California is prospering. We are growing 

jobs. We are growing our economy faster than the rest of the Country. We have grown our jobs since the carbon market has gone into 

operation by 3.3 percent. Personal income and wages are up, again, 

growing at rates well above the national average. Our electric 

power grid delivers power reliably, resiliently and efficiently, 

thanks to the continued stewardship of the transmission operators. 

And as Senator Boxer indicated, power bills are actually down. 

Californians pay the ninth lowest electricity bills in the Country. 

States all across the Country, and we do talk to many of our colleagues, are discovering that clean energy pays big dividends. For 

example, Oklahoma is on track to exceed its 15 percent renewable 

energy target for 2015, thanks to a very successful wind energy industry, a policy that has yielded billions of dollars in investment 

in that State and helped to cut pollution. 

And of course, California and Oklahoma are not alone. We know 

that Texas, often billed as our rival in many ways, leads the Nation 

in wind industry. Many States in the Midwest, as well as the West 

and the South, are taking action to ensure their ratepayers and 

their citizens against risks to reliability that come from dirty and 

inefficient coal plants by replacing them with cleaner power and 

energy efficiency investments are being used, again, in States red 

and blue, to cut power bills. 

We think that the Clean Power Plan will encourage States to 

take broader advantage of strategies that they are already using, 

saving money and invigorating economies across the Country. And 

of course, to the extent that they choose to work together around 

their regional grids, they will do even better, because we all know 

that a regional approach will be more cost effective for all. 

As a result, we believe the net benefits of this plan amount to something like $48 billion to $82 billion in 2030, representing lives 

saved, sick days avoided and climate risks abated, as well as greater productivity, lower costs and a more efficient and secure energy 

system. 

So bottom line is, the Clean Power Plan builds on 40 years of 

Clean Air Act success, federalism, as the Chairman indicated, and 

now confronts us with an opportunity to address one of the most 

severe challenges of our time in a way that can also create new 

jobs and increase our energy security. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Nichols follows:] 

28 


94981.016
29 


94981.017
30 


94981.018
31 


94981.019
32 


94981.020
33 


94981.022
34 


94981.023
35 


94981.024
36 


94981.025
37 


94981.026
38 


94981.027
39 


94981.028
40 


94981.029
41 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Ms. Nichols. 

Thomas Easterly is Commissioner of the Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management. You are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS EASTERLY, COMMISSIONER, 

INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 

Mr. EASTERLY. Thank you, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member 

Boxer and members of the committee. Good morning. 

My name is Thomas Easterly and I am the Commissioner of the 

Indiana Department of Environmental Management, also known as 

IDEM. I bring you greetings from Governor Pence of Indiana, and 

I appreciate the opportunity to share with you Indiana’s current 

perspective on the Environmental Protection Agency’s 111(d) regulations for fossil fuel electric generating units. 

The proposed regulations will detrimentally impact Indiana for a 

number of significant reasons. We are the most manufacturing-intensive State in the United States. More than 80 percent of Indiana’s electricity comes from coal. We have a 300-year supply of coal 

in our State, and 28,000 Hoosiers are employed in the coal industry. We recognize that we need all forms of energy to power our 

economy, and the Pence administration is developing an updated 

energy plan for the State that will foster greater use of renewables 

and other energy sources. At the same time, we know that coal is 

a crucial Hoosier energy resource that must continue to be utilized. 

IDEM’s mission is to protect Hoosiers and our environment. Following the release of the proposed rule, my office carefully examined the proposal in light of our mission. We also engaged private 

sector stakeholders and other State agencies in an extensive review 

of the proposal and its potential impacts. Our analysis came to only 

one conclusion. This proposal will cause significant harm to Hoosiers and most residents of the United States without providing an 

measurable offsetting benefits. 

For those reasons, Indiana’s Office of Energy Development, Office 

of Utility Consumer Counselor, Department of Natural Resources, 

Utility Regulatory Commission and my agency filed joint comments 

urging the USEPA to withdraw this proposal. A copy of the joint 

comments and a letter from Governor Pence that accompanied the 

joint comments has been shared with the committee. 

The most ironic impact of the proposed regulations is that they 

are likely to increase worldwide greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the international competitiveness of U.S. businesses due 

to increased energy costs. Competitive businesses have been investing in cost-effective energy savings activities for decades. Under 

this proposal, the total cost of the products produced in the United 

States will need to increase, eroding our international competitiveness and resulting in the loss of manufacturing jobs in Indiana and 

across the Nation. 

When these businesses close, U.S. emissions will decrease. But 

worldwide greenhouse gas emissions will increase, as our businesses move to areas with less efficient and more carbon-intensive 

energy supplies. 

Indiana once held a competitive advantage due to our low cost 

of electricity. But not anymore. Indiana’s low cost of electricity advantage has slipped and EPA regulations have significantly conVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:48 Jul 21, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\94981.TXT VERN
42 

tributed to that change in position. The State Utility Forecasting 

Group in Indiana has forecast that a 30 percent increase in Indiana electrical costs, in part, from USEPA regulations already in 

place, and the 111(d) proposal will add additional costs on top of 

that 30 percent. USEPA itself predicts that its 111(d) proposal will 

increase the cost of natural gas and the cost per kilowatt hour of 

residential electricity by about 10 percent in the next 6 years. Furthermore, increases in energy costs hit the poor, elderly and most 

vulnerable in our society first. At a time when Indiana is doing all 

that it can to grow its economy and create jobs, the EPA’s proposal 

creates a very real possibility that the increased energy costs will 

slow our economic progress and raise people’s utility bills. 

In Indiana, we are obviously concerned about the economic impact of EPA’s proposed rules on business and consumers, but we 

have also filed 31 pages of technical comments. We want to make 

sure the rule does not result in unintended consequences, such as 

reduced reliability resulting in brownouts, or not yet having all of 

the necessary infrastructure in place to convert from coal to natural gas. For purposes of due diligence, Indiana is evaluating all 

available responses to the proposed regulations from submitting a 

State plan to participating in a regional approach or simply refusing to comply at all, known as the just say no option. 

However, the fact that this misguided policy will harm Hoosiers 

and other people in our Country while actually increasing the 

worldwide level of the very emissions it is designed to decrease 

compels Indiana to oppose the proposed regulations. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share our views and I welcome 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Easterly follows:] 

43 


94981.030
44 


94981.031
45 


94981.032
46 


94981.033
47 


94981.034
48 


94981.035
49 


94981.036
50 


94981.037
51 


94981.038
52 


94981.039
53 


94981.040
54 


94981.041
55 


94981.042
56 


94981.043
57 


94981.044
58 


94981.045
59 


94981.046
60 


94981.047
61 


94981.048
62 


94981.049
63 


94981.050
64 


94981.051
65 


94981.052
66 


94981.053
67 


94981.054
68 


94981.055
69 


94981.056
70 


94981.057
71 


94981.058
72 


94981.059
73 


94981.060
74 


94981.061
75 


94981.062
76 


94981.063
77 


94981.064
78 


94981.065
79 


94981.066
80 


94981.067
81 


94981.068
82 


94981.069
83 


94981.070
84 


94981.071
85 


94981.072
86 


94981.073
87 


94981.074
88 


94981.075
89 


94981.076
90 


94981.077
91 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Easterly. 

Todd Parfitt is the Director of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. You are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF TODD PARFITT, DIRECTOR, WYOMING 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Mr. PARFITT. Good morning, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member 

Boxer and members of the Senate Environment and Public Works 

Committee. 

My name is Todd Parfitt. I am the Director of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. I thank the committee for inviting the State of Wyoming to share its perspective on the Clean 

Power Plan. The State of Wyoming has provided extensive comments to the Environmental Protection Agency on its proposed 

rule. 

In Wyoming, we take great pride in how we manage our natural 

resources, providing for both environmental stewardship and energy production. As our Governor, Matt Mead, has stated, it is a 

false question to ask, do we want energy production or environmental stewardship? In Wyoming, we must and do have both. 

Wyoming sends electricity to both the eastern and western power 

grids, reaching from Iowa to Washington. Wyoming generated 49.6 

million megawatt hours of electricity in 2012, with 66 percent of 

this electricity consumed beyond our borders. This electricity generation includes 88 percent coal and 9 percent wind. 

EPA’s proposal impacts States differently. Each State has unique 

characteristics and energy portfolios that drive the application of 

each of the four building blocks. For Wyoming, the proposed goal 

is problematic and unrealistic to achieve. EPA is proposing a compressed time line in which States are to develop and submit their 

State plans. Considering the complexities of the proposal and developing a compliance plan, along with any needed State legislation, the time lines are problematic if not unrealistic. Wyoming’s 

emission reduction required by 2020, which is 70 percent of the 

proposed State goal, is far greater than can be achieved through 

heat rate improvements alone. This disparity is often referred to as 

the cliff. 

Wyoming’s evaluation identified either data errors or incorrect 

assumptions in all four building blocks. I will focus on key concerns 

with block three, renewable energy, since it has the largest impact 

on Wyoming’s proposed goal. One hundred percent of CO2 emissions from fossil-fueled power plants, regardless of end user, will 

be attributed to the energy-producing State. Sixty-six percent of 

electricity generated in Wyoming is consumed outside its borders. 

According to EPA, renewable energy credits will be attributed to 

the consuming State, not the producing State. Eighty-five percent 

of 4.3 million megawatt hours of wind energy generated in Wyoming is consumed outside its borders. Yet when EPA calculated 

Wyoming’s State goal, they applied a 6 percent escalation factor to 

all 4.3 million megawatt hours generated in Wyoming. 

More than half of the land in Wyoming is owned and managed 

by the Federal Government, subjecting many renewable transmission projects to NEPA. While the intent is good, the process is 

slow. A BLM high priority wind project took over 4 years for a 

92 

NEPA decision. Now the Fish and Wildlife Service requires an additional NEPA decision. Two Federal fast track transmission 

projects in Wyoming are in their eighth year of the NEPA process. 

Both are still awaiting a final decision. 

Finally, EPA’s assessment of available land in Wyoming for wind 

energy development failed to consider high priority environmental 

conflicts such as greater sage grouse habitat, other designated critical habitats, and protected areas of cultural and historical significance. Factoring in these considerations reduces available lands for 

renewable, as proposed, by 83 percent. All of these factors lead to 

an unrealistic goal for Wyoming. 

Now, directing your attention to the two graphs. Graph one depicts as a bar graph Wyoming’s glide path as proposed by EPA. 

Senator INHOFE. Which one is one? 

Mr. PARFITT. Graph one is on your right. 

Graph one depicts a bar graph of Wyoming’s glide path as proposed by EPA. One can observe the dominant influence of the renewables component as shown in green. 

After review, Wyoming determined what is practically achievable, given EPA’s proposed avenues. This is shown in graph two. 

The line in the graph represents Wyoming’s carbon emission requirements according to EPA’s analysis. The colored bars were derived through extensive analysis by the State, representing what 

may be possible in Wyoming. 

As can be seen, there is a wide gap between EPA’s and Wyoming’s analysis. Based on the proposed goal and with limited options, the simplest illustration to show an avenue for Wyoming to 

meet the initial 2020 goal is to consider how many coal-fired power 

plants must be closed. This would result in four plants closing, representing nearly 4,200 megawatts of the State’s total coal fleet of 

over 6,700 megawatts. Stranded investment for these four would be 

nearly $1.5 billion, and does not include the cost of replacement 

power. 

We look forward to continued dialog with EPA and the other 

States as EPA considers our comments and reconsiders their proposal. Thank you for allowing me to provide input to your committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Parfitt follows:] 

93 


94981.078
94 


94981.079
95 


94981.080
96 


94981.081
97 


94981.082
98 


94981.083
99 


94981.084
100 


94981.085
101 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Parfitt. 

Ellen Nowak is a Commissioner, Public Service Commission of 

Wisconsin. You are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF ELLEN NOWAK, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC 

SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN 

Ms. NOWAK. Good morning, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member 

Boxer and members of the committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the State of 

Wisconsin and provide you with a summary of our State’s assessment and concerns with the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. 

My name is Ellen Nowak. I am the chairperson for the Public 

Service Commission of Wisconsin. Last fall, I was intimately involved with the construction of the comments that the State of Wisconsin submitted to the EPA. I submitted those comments, together 

with our analysis, with my written testimony for the record. 

Wisconsin is a manufacturing-heavy State, with industrial customers representing over one-third of energy sales. More than 60 

percent of our State’s power generation comes from coal. If the 

problems in the Clean Power Plan are not remedied, the work Wisconsin has done to restore our manufacturing sector will be threatened. 

As a regulator, I also remain concerned about the reliability of 

the grid, considering the dramatic, fast shift in energy production 

required by this proposal. With that background, and because of 

the far-reaching impacts of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, we 

brought together an interdisciplinary team. This team consisted of 

public service commission experts in utility rate modeling, economics, environmental regulation and engineering, along with department of natural resource experts in environmental regulation, particularly the Clean Air Act. Using a standard accepted utility modeling program, we forecasted the cost of this regulation under a 

number of scenarios with varying assumptions about the future. 

Candidly, our team felt that taking into account the impacts of 

this regulation on every family and every business in the United 

States is the kind of analysis that should have been done by the 

EPA before making such a proposal. The results of our analysis 

have been provided to the committee. Here are two highlights. 

First, this single Federal regulation will cost Wisconsin ratepayers between $3.1 billion and $13.4 billion. This is only a production cost increase. It does not include necessary upgrades to the gas 

and electric transmission infrastructure that will add significantly 

to the cost of compliance. These costs are also on top of the $11.6 

billion in carbon dioxide reduction measures that Wisconsin ratepayers have paid for since 2000. Not only do we not receive credit 

for these investments under the Clean Power Plan, but the proposal actually penalizes Wisconsin for being an early actor. 

Second, as our assumptions about this rule became more realistic, the cost rose. For instance, would you assume that this massive increase in reliance on natural gas would drive natural gas 

prices higher? That very reasonable assumption significantly raises 

the cost of this regulation. 

At the heart of the matter, we question the very foundation of 

this proposal. The EPA constructed four building blocks, each of 

102 

which was evaluated independently. Then to determine the foundation for each State’s target reduction, the best system of emission 

reduction, or BSER, they added the carbon dioxide reductions resulting from each of those individual building blocks. 

Unfortunately, EPA ignored how the building blocks would affect 

each other when all four were implemented together. For example, 

increasing reliance on natural gas, as suggested by building block 

two, would severely decrease the heat rate improvement achievable 

in the coal fleet to far below the 6 percent required under building 

block one. 

Furthermore, EPA used indiscriminate and unsupportable approaches to determine the four building blocks. For example, building block one applies a national level heat rate improvement to 

each coal-fired plant, regardless of the ability of an individual plant 

to realize these gains. In contrast, building bock three, the State 

renewable goals, takes a regional approach and is driven by the average renewable portfolio standards found in States arbitrarily 

grouped together. 

As it is currently written under any previous interpretation of 

the Clean Air Act, the BSER system proposed by the EPA is actually not a system at all. First, the building blocks are outside the 

coordination and control of the emission unit owner or operator. 

Second, they are not recognizable systems of work or practice or 

control that can be applied to an emission unit. And third, they 

cannot guarantee a certain, conclusive greenhouse gas emission reduction when implemented as a whole. 

To further highlight this point, engineers at the Public Service 

Commission modeled the EPA plan and concluded the building 

blocks would deliver a 15.6 percent reduction in carbon dioxide 

emissions. This is a far cry from the 34 percent that the EPA 

claims is attainable and necessary for Wisconsin to comply. 

Finally, the compliance timelines in the proposal are unrealistic 

and unworkable. The lead time required for planning, permitting 

and construction, not to mention the EPA’s own requirements, will 

require the full proposed compliance period through the end of 

2030. 

In conclusion, I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to speak to 

this esteemed committee today. You will find my submitted written 

testimony delves much deeper into the issues of modeling and the 

technical aspects of the rule that we find troubling. 

We can all agree on the need to protect our environment. But 

this proposed rule does not strike the right balance in protecting 

public health, reliability of the grid and economic security. Thank 

you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Nowak follows:] 

103 


94981.086
104 


94981.087
105 


94981.088
106 


94981.089
107 


94981.090
108 


94981.091
109 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Ms. Nowak. The end of your remarks answered the first question I was going to ask you, the problem that if you submitted a SIP in compliance with building block 

one, and yet they came along and say, no, we have to have a FIP, 

a Federal program for two, three and four, would that create a 

problem. I think you adequately answered that. 

But very similarly, I would like to ask you, North Carolina proposed to delay the Clean Power Plan until a final ruling by the 

courts on the plan’s many legal uncertainties. If you remember, 

during our budget hearing, the administrator of the EPA talked 

about, I think it was $3.5 million to hire a bunch of new attorneys 

because of all the lawsuits and problems. I would ask you, in your 

State of Wisconsin, you could end up taking steps to comply with 

the Clean Power Plan that the State came back and found that it 

was ultimately out of compliance. So what kind of problem would 

that be for Wisconsin? 

Ms. NOWAK. It creates a lot of uncertainty. As a regulator, the 

parties we regulate, ratepayers all want and deserve certainty 

about where rates are going to go and what we may do. When we 

become commissioners, they don’t give us crystal balls. So unfortunately, we can’t look into the future. But we have to make the best 

decision, based on the information before us. 

We ran into a similar issue with the Cross State Air Pollution 

Rule, when it was hung up in the courts, and utilities were starting 

to make movements to attempt to comply. We have to do the best 

to allow them to try to recover. But we have to be judicious, obviously, in spending ratepayer dollars. So we will work closely and 

obviously monitor the legal proceedings and any legal proceedings 

that Wisconsin is involved in, so we don’t unnecessarily spend ratepayer dollars. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Easterly, in your written testimony you 

talked a little bit and elaborated a little bit more on how the Clean 

Power Plan proposal could actually increase, increase the cost. This 

is an increased amount of emissions, and this is a position that I 

have held ever since Lisa Jackson said that doing something unilaterally in the United States is not going to affect it. Because this 

isn’t where the problems are, as you saw on this chart, with China. 

Did you want to elaborate any more on that concept about that, 

could it increase instead of decrease emissions? 

Mr. EASTERLY. Most of our businesses, the basic bottom of our 

economy, the steel industry, the auto industry, rely on energy costs. 

And they are internationally competitive. So you can buy steel from 

Brazil, you can buy steel from India, you can buy steel from Russia 

and use it. Actually, why would you bother to bring the steel to the 

United States? You just bring the finished product here. 

So the emissions will happen in those countries. Some of those 

countries have decided to, I understand China signed an agreement 

to consider stopping the growth of their emissions by about 2030. 

But between now and 2030, those emissions, they are so much 

higher per unit of production than we have here. So as our businesses have to stay in business by being internationally competitive, I am very concerned that total emissions will go up. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. Thank you very much. 

110 

Ms. Nowak, have you done an analysis as to how much of a rate 

increase would the PSC have to approve to implement this plan? 

Ms. NOWAK. We expect it to be in the double digits, depending 

on which method of compliance we use. It could be easily into the 

upper 20 percent of an increase. Right now, we have an aggregate number of a $3 billion to $13 

billion for the State to comply. How that is eventually broken down 

on a per ratepayer increase is something that will be fleshed as we 

know more details and utilities come in and ask for recovery. But 

this is going to be a significant increase on ratepayers all across 

the board, low income to our large manufacturers. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

I am going to be asking you for the record, Mr. Myers, or if there 

is time at the end of my 6 minutes, if you would agree with the 

position that many have taken, that wouldn’t it be better to wait 

until these controversial legal issues are cleared up before requiring them to comply? I hope we have time, because I do want to 

hear your answer to that. 

So I would say to Ms. Nowak, Mr. Easterly and Mr. Parfitt, what 

parts of the Clean Power Plan will require enactment of new laws 

in your State, and how long would it take to develop, pass and implement these laws? Let’s start with you, Mr. Parfitt. 

Mr. PARFITT. Mr. Chairman, as far as legislation that may need 

to be put into place, anything that would relate to a multi-State 

plan, if there were to be one developed, would certainly need some 

legislative discussion. Anything dealing with a renewable portfolio 

standard, basically the building blocks three and four would likely 

require some sort of legislation. 

Now, the timing of that, our legislature meets for a 40-day session and then a 20-day session. So, alternating. Our next session 

coming up is a budget session. So there are some timing concerns 

related to when something could be brought forth to the legislature 

in a meaningful way through an interim topic study as well. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. Mr. Easterly? 

Mr. EASTERLY. So, in Indiana, our legislature also doesn’t meet 

year-around. So the next time they could consider things is 2016. 

We don’t have authority for building blocks two, three and four. 

And then if I have to pass rules, we have an 18-month rulemaking 

process. We will be years out. 

Senator INHOFE. Any further comment? 

Ms. NOWAK. We have at least a 3-year rulemaking process on a 

controversial rule, which I would submit this would be one. And we 

would also have to change, we don’t have authority over building 

blocks three and four. If we were to increase our RPS, or change 

our energy efficiency standards, those would all require legislative 

action as well, which adds to the timelines. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

What I am stunned by is some of the States’ attitude of gloom 

and doom when we have States that are doing this prospering far 

more than your States. That is what kind of stuns me. But it is 

OK, I respect your view. 

I want to ask Mary Nichols this question. When you listened to 

Mr. Easterly respond to my chairman, in where they said, well, acVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:48 Jul 21, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\94981.TXT VERN
111 

tually, these rules could mean that we would be increasing carbon 

worldwide, because some companies will leave the States, they will 

be so upset at these rules. Have we found companies running away 

from California? Last I checked, Silicon Valley was booming. We 

have increases in manufacturing. Am I wrong on the point? 

Ms. NICHOLS. You are not wrong, Senator Boxer. We have experienced growth across the board. But particularly in the clean energy 

sector in California, because of our policies. We are the leading 

State in terms of investment in clean technology, and also in renewable energy in the Country right now. Solar energy in particular is building. 

Obviously we have some natural advantages in California in 

terms of renewables. And I think it is important to say that there 

needs to be transition time for all industries and all States. When 

we implemented our cap on carbon emissions with a trading program, there were many who were concerned about the rising costs 

of electricity to our manufacturing sector. It is a critical concern for 

everybody, along with reliability. No State, no Governor can afford 

to take risks with the lights going out in their State. That is job 

one. No matter how much we care about the environment or greenhouse gases, and we do, profoundly, we know that our job is also 

to make sure that the lights stay on. 

So I think it is important to recognize that this proposal that 

EPA has put out does have within it the flexibility and the time 

that is needed. I recognize the concerns of my fellow States, and 

I think they are legitimate concerns. But I would assert that the 

proposal, as EPA has put it out, which admittedly they will be 

modifying as they go forward, can address those concerns. 

Senator BOXER. I think that is such an important point. Because 

you make it very clear that we need transition time. And we started a little earlier. I think EPA does get that, Gina McCarthy does 

get that. She is very sensitive to the States. 

Mr. Myers, I wanted to ask you, last year former EPA Administrator Christy Todd Whitman, who served under George W. Bush, 

testified before our Clean Air Subcommittee that it was settled law 

that the Clean Air Act can be used to control carbon pollution. Are 

EPA’s proposed carbon standards supported by the three Supreme 

Court decisions in Massachusetts v. EPA, 2007, American Electric 

Power v. Connecticut, 2011, and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. 

EPA, June 23d, 2014? 

Mr. MYERS. Yes, they are, Senator. The Massachusetts v. EPA 

case, as you may recall, recognized that EPA has the authority 

under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. And 

the Connecticut v. American Electric Power case was a case that 

New York was involved in, where we sought to get the very same 

emissions that the EPA Clean Power Plan is going to get at. The 

Supreme Court in that case told us that Federal common law nuisance did not apply, because Section 111 speaks directly to these 

power plant emissions. 

And with respect to the last decision, the UARG decision that 

you mentioned, the Supreme Court again reaffirmed EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, 

and there found that under the Act’s stationary source permitting 

program, if you are emitting a certain amount of conventional polVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:48 Jul 21, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\94981.TXT VERN
112 

lutants, then you also have to apply the best available control technology for CO2 emissions. 

So I think all told, those decisions provide a sound foundation for 

EPA’s Clean Power Plan. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Myers. 

Mr. Parfitt, last month the Chief Environmental Counsel at 

Berkshire Hathaway Energy, which owns a dozen utilities across 

the Country, including Rocky Mountain Power, a regulated utility 

serving Wyoming, stated about the State’s compliance with the 

Clean Power Plan, and I would like to get your reaction to that, 

‘‘If the State wants to push back against the plan, that is OK. But 

we really do have to have a backup plan, because if not, we will 

be caught in a situation where we don’t have any option, and that 

is the worst of all positions to be in.’’ 

She also stated the Clean Power Plant’s 2030 targets are achievable and urged Wyoming to collaborate with other States to meet 

them. 

Do you agree with Rocky Mountain power that Wyoming would 

be best served by completing a State compliance plan? 

Mr. PARFITT. I can’t speak specifically to the comments of Rocky 

Mountain Power. But what I can say is that our evaluation, when 

we look at the entirety of the plan, it doesn’t work for Wyoming. 

Because as shown in the charts that we displayed, the options, the 

building blocks as presented by EPA in the proposal don’t work for 

Wyoming. So we would say that no, the plan doesn’t work. We have 

more than one utility within the State. 

Senator BOXER. I totally appreciate that. Last question. Have you 

told EPA your concerns and have you given some options to the 

EPA? Because they really want to work with the States. Have you 

let them know how you feel and specifically what is wrong with 

what they are doing for Wyoming? 

Mr. PARFITT. Yes, we have provided comments from both the 

DEQ and Public Service Commission, and have had discussions 

since the comment period. 

Senator BOXER. Good. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. Senator Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

During the time that we were on the campaign trail this last 

year, and I am new to the committee and new to the process up 

here, one of the items that we talked about a lot was the anticipated cost to the average American family with regard to an increase in their costs for electric rates. The United States Chamber 

of Commerce, last summer, I believe, estimated the average cost to 

the average American family to be approximately $1,400 more per 

year in their electric rates. 

I was curious, Mr. Parfitt, in a recent statistic that comes in the 

case of my State, South Dakota, that our electric rates would increase probably about 20 percent or more as a result of the Clean 

Power Plan, this is significantly than the 8.8 cents per kilowatt 

hour that South Dakotans pay now. According to the Wyoming 

Public Service Commission, compliance costs for the 111(d) proposal could well exceed $50 per ton of carbon. 

What impacts will this have, not only on ratepayers in Wyoming, 

but also on ratepayers in surrounding States? I know that people 

113 

in South Dakota receive power from Wyoming. Wyoming, as you indicated earlier, supplies power, because of your location to the natural resources available, you are an exporter of power. Could you 

share a little bit about what effect this will have on the rates for 

people in the other States as well? 

Mr. PARFITT. Yes. We do provide power to many other States. If 

our compliance path, as we have viewed it, based on the proposal, 

results in the premature closure of plants and the stranded assets, 

it would likely result in raising of rates for all the customers, not 

just those in Wyoming. It would be shared across the network. 

Senator ROUNDS. What does the EPA propose or how does the 

EPA propose that you respond to those stranded costs? What is 

their expectation? 

Mr. PARFITT. This is an issue that we had raised with EPA before the proposal was put out to notice, in hopes that would be 

taken into consideration. In our view, that hasn’t been taken into 

consideration and we don’t see, at least at this point, the off ramp. 

We have expressed this concern to EPA in our comments. So we 

are waiting to see how they might respond in June when they come 

out with the final proposal. 

Senator ROUNDS. So you have not had a comment back, or there 

is not a process within this to get a response back for the stranded 

costs that you have indicated our State would have, and would 

have to pass on to other States that also expect the electricity or 

the places where your organizations have contracts with them to 

provide ongoing electric power, those stranded costs? You don’t 

know how those would be handled? 

Mr. PARFITT. At this point, EPA has not conveyed to us how they 

would address that particular comment. The conversations that we 

have had with EPA have been primarily to get clarification on 

some of the corrections that we pointed out within the proposal 

itself. 

Senator ROUNDS. The EPA claims that the rules give States flexibility to create their own plans. But it appears that it overlooks the 

fact that electricity transmission does not stop at State borders. 

Many States, including South Dakota, depend on neighboring 

States to help support their own electricity generation and ensure 

the reliability of the grid. EPA’s modeling suggests that under the 

111(d) proposal, Wyoming could cut its generation by 7.5 million 

megawatts, or million megawatt hours. How will you continue to 

power the regional economy with cuts like this, and is that an accurate statement? 

Mr. PARFITT. As far as how we would continue, if we were looking at closing down existing power plants, that would create a reliability issue. However, this is getting a little bit out of my expertise, within the expertise of the Public Service Commission in 

terms of how to maintain the reliability of service to all of its customers. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, I appreciate your time. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Rounds. Senator Carper? 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

114 

To each of you, welcome. I am glad to see you. Thanks for what 

you do and thanks for sharing your thoughts with us and responding to our questions. 

My colleagues know I come before many of these issues not as 

a sitting Senator but as a recovering Governor. I want to share 

with you a little bit of a perspective from the little State of Delaware, from a guy who was born in West Virginia, a guy who was 

a coal miner for a little bit of time. So I come with a lot of different 

perspectives. 

When I was Governor of Delaware, I could have shut down the 

economy of my State in order to try to be in compliance with the 

clean air standards. And we would have been out of compliance. 

The reason why is the folks who were creating cheap electricity to 

the west of us, some of them put bad stuff up in the air and it 

came our way. We are at the end of America’s tailpipe, similar to 

Maryland, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, New York. 

I am a big believer in the Golden Rule, treat other people the 

way I want to be treated. The concerns that you are laying out here 

for us today, I think they are important concerns and we have to 

be mindful of them. I get it. EPA needs to be mindful of them as 

well. But I just want you to know that there are other folks who 

have been adversely affected by the ability of some people in our 

Country to develop cheap electricity, dirty electricity, and we suffer 

the consequences. I don’t like it. We haven’t liked it. We tried to 

go to court to resolve that and we finally have succeeded in doing 

that. 

I want you to get in a car with me, use your imagination. We’re 

in southern Delaware. We are driving on Prime Hook Road to the 

east, to the Delaware Bay. We get to the Delaware Bay. There used 

to be a parking lot there, a big parking lot there. It is not there 

anymore. Well, actually, it is; it is underwater. You look off to the 

right, you will see a bunker sticking up out of the water, about 500 

feet out. That used to be about 500 feet on the land, now it is 500 

feet out in the water. 

Something is going on here. We can’t just make this stuff up. 

And the key is for us, is how can we have cleaner air, how can we 

address the issues of rising waters? Delaware is the lowest-lying 

State in the Country. It is a real problem for us. And in order for 

us to address this, we need to figure out how to do it together. I 

am not interested in seeing EPA jam anything down your throats. 

But we need to figure out to work on this together. 

One of the issues is, why are we creating a lot of electricity? It 

sounds like you export a lot of electricity. My understanding under 

the rules that are being contemplated here, you don’t get a lot of 

credit for that. And the credit, I guess, goes to California and those 

other States. We have to be able to figure out how to deal with 

that. We ought to be able to use some common sense in figuring 

out how to deal with that. 

I want to ask a question of the lady from California. It sounds 

to me like your economy is doing pretty well. And the question of 

can you have a cleaner environment and a stronger economy, I 

think you have answered that. We think the answer is yes, you 

can. I think it is a false choice. I think most of you at this table 

would agree with that. 

115 

There are a couple of things the folks from California, you are 

in a situation where you acted early, you have been a good citizen, 

a good steward. And my sense is you are going to be punished for 

it, if we are not careful, by EPA. We are in the same situation. We 

don’t like that. What do you think we should do about it? 

Ms. NICHOLS. I think your comment earlier about States needing 

to work together is exactly correct. To my friend from Wyoming, 

my local utility, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, 

just concluded a very large agreement with a Wyoming wind company to import wind-generated electricity from Wyoming to help replace some of the coal-fired energy that they have been relying on. 

They are actually taking responsibility for being the largest emitter 

in our State, even though the electricity that we were using was 

coming from Utah, as it happens. And there will be costs associated 

with transitioning away from the coal and into the wind. 

But overall, the net of it is that Los Angeles ratepayers will still 

be doing OK, because the utility is taking steps to help their customers become more efficient in their use of energy. That I think 

is kind of the critical ingredient here, that if our rates go up because of new investments that we are making, that has to be offset 

in order to shield the ratepayers from rate shocks and fro things 

that would just make it untenable for them to move forward on 

this cleaner electricity plan that we are on. 

But given some time for the transition, we can do it. I do think 

that it was right to come up with a crediting mechanism. I think 

EPA needs to do this if they want to encourage regional cooperation as they say they do. They are going to have to allow States 

to work together on either a bilateral or regional basis to come up 

with programs where they can effectively share the cost and the 

benefits. 

That is what we are doing right now through our agreement with 

the Canadian province of Quebec, where we now run literally a biState, bi-national trading program with emissions allowances. Obviously, not everybody is going to want to go that far afield. But 

the concept, I think, is one that has been proven to work. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. Very briefly, can each of you just give 

me what you think is a fair compromise to the issue of Wyoming 

generating all this clean electricity by wind and shipping it off to 

California and other places, not really getting the credit for it? It 

sounds like the credit, as I understand it, goes to California or the 

other Sates that are the customers. What is a fair way to deal with 

this? What is a fair compromise? Ms. Nowak, very briefly. 

Ms. NOWAK. I didn’t fully understand your question. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Parfitt, can you try to answer this? It certainly pertains to you. 

Mr. PARFITT. As it pertains to the Clean Power Plan, I think 

there are two issues, or actually three issues at play. The first is 

the attribution of fossil fuel emissions, CO2 emissions, being attributed 100 percent to the energy-producing States. 

Senator CARPER. Right. 

Mr. PARFITT. The other issue that is at play here is the renewable energy that is generated in Wyoming, which most of it, 85 percent of that, is shipped out of State. 

116 

Now, applying an escalator to that, 100 percent of that to the 

producing State, is unfair and I think it is a disadvantage. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, I will say this. We have to figure out a good compromise here, and you all have to help us. 

Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Carper. Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. I would like to thank the panel, 

thank the Chairman and Ranking Member. 

Let me just say a few words about my home State of West Virginia and what we have had to say about the Clean Power Plan. 

Our own DEP has called it patently illegal, invading the province 

and it has been put forward with the finesses of a bull in a china 

shop. I would note in the comments that 32 States have submitted 

negative comments, or comments of great concern to this rule, 

while the numbers that have submitted comments in support are 

much, much smaller in terms of States. 

But I want to talk about the reliability issue. West Virginia has 

joined with other States, probably several of yours, to block this 

plan, and we will be hearing this suit in the next several months. 

And the DEP in West Virginia has said that these goals are unattainable. We have heard some testimony to that. 

With that in mind, I would like to talk to Mr. Easterly, because 

we have a lot in common in terms of your production of your electricity, predominantly with coal. We have 95 percent of our electricity is generated by coal, for obvious reasons. We have a lot of 

coal, although not as much as Wyoming. 

So EPA has indicated that it does not have any significant concerns about reliability with this rule. Yet last week, PJM Interconnection released a new analysis that found that the Clean 

Power Plan could trigger up to 49 gigawatts of generating capacity 

in jeopardy. Let me just quantify, 49 gigawatts is the equivalent 

of the electricity that is used to power 50 million homes. This is 

one of the studies that was recently released that I think calls into 

question the reliability issue. 

Are you concerned about reliability in Indiana? I would note that 

Ms. Nichols did mention the reliability issue as a very important 

one for the State of California. I would like to hear your comments 

on that. 

Mr. EASTERLY. Yes, we are. We have another group that deals 

with the reliability. But here is our fundamental problem. The 

plan, even in EPA’s best thought process, has significantly more 

fossil fuel-fired reductions by closure than it does new generation 

of renewable and wind and other things. So the plan necessarily 

will reduce the flexibility of our electric supply in the United 

States. You add this to the fact that we have had record PJM demand days, they are a little better handled this year than they 

were last year under the polar vortex. And we are in PJM and 

MISO. 

So we have increasing demand, we have decreasing supply. And 

the renewable supply is valuable, but it is not reliable. So sometimes the wind is blowing, sometimes it is not. Sometimes the solar 

panels don’t have clouds or snow on them and sometimes they do. 

So you can’t count on them for either thing, for their nameplate caVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:48 Jul 21, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\94981.TXT VERN
117 

pacity is much higher than their actual generation. And they are 

not always available when you need them. 

So I am very concerned, as are a lot of people in the industry, 

that we will see some catastrophic result some time during the implementation of this plan. We just don’t know where or when. 

Senator CAPITO. Ms. Nowak, do you have a comment on that, the 

reliability issue? 

Ms. NOWAK. Certainly. We have some significant concerns. From 

the perspective of system reliability, the modeling program used by 

the EPA to evaluate the building blocks and whether the goals are 

actually achievable uses less robust data than possessed and used 

by our own RTO, MISO. And so they are responsible for maintaining our grid. Unfortunately, the EPA never asked MISO to do any 

studies of the grid prior to releasing this proposal. 

Examples of the work that we think needs to get done includes 

gathering information about firmness of the interState pipeline deliverability for gas-fired units, plans for replacement of units, the 

impact on the increase of intermittent renewable resources on reliability, and considering the electric grid location and network deliverability of units to be expected to be retired. Again, the modeling 

used by the EPA doesn’t appear to consider any of these very fundamental and necessary factors. So we are concerned. 

Senator CAPITO. I would note in my State we are heavily reliant 

on coal for obvious reasons. But we also have a lot of natural gas. 

But to transition these older plants to natural gas is just not a realistic endeavor. It is exceedingly expensive. And to build new ones 

takes a lot of time and a lot of energy. You are going to expend 

energy to move forward on this as well. 

You have also just recently closed one of your nuclear plants in 

Wisconsin. And your plan that was put forward for you under this 

Clean Power Plan does not take into consideration your loss of nuclear power. That has to be a problem for you, too, in terms of 

meeting this challenge. Would you make a comment on that? 

Ms. NOWAK. Sure. The loss of that plant is huge for Wisconsin. 

We think that eventually that is going to have to be replaced with 

a carbon neutral source. That was not taken into account, and that 

will increase the cost of this proposal for Wisconsin to comply. 

Senator CAPITO. Ms. Nichols, let me ask you a quick question. 

We had a hearing last week on ozone and the new regulations that 

are going to be put into effect. Is every county in California compliant with the current ozone regulations that we have presently? 

Ms. NICHOLS. No, Senator, we are not. We have remaining challenges in both Southern California and in the Central Valley meeting the ozone standards. And the new ozone standard will add an 

extra challenge, as well as some extra time to that effort. 

Senator CAPITO. So you put that on top of what we are doing 

here with the Clean Power Act. 

Ms. NICHOLS. We care about the health of our citizens, Senator. 

Senator CAPITO. I care about that as well. 

Ms. NICHOLS. We rely on the science. 

Senator CAPITO. In terms of how we are going to meet this challenge, in terms of our timelines, extension of timelines, extension 

of measures? What is going to be the best, Mr. Parfitt, for Wyoming? What is going to be the easiest thing to knock down on this 

118 

Clean Power Plan that is going to make the biggest impact for you 

to be able to meet the challenges? Deadlines, timelines? Lower 

standards, less reductions? 

Mr. PARFITT. Certainly timelines are a big component of this 

when you consider developing a plan and the time involved with 

that and the complexities and the amount of agencies and States 

that would have to be involved in that discussion, let alone the legislation and rules that we have already mentioned here and the 

time that would take would seem to be very problematic. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Capito. Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

Underlying this entire discussion is the challenge we have with 

carbon pollution, methane pollution and the impact it is having 

across the world. But we don’t have to look across the world, we 

can look to my home State of Oregon. And indeed, we are seeing 

that the fire season has grown by 60 days over the last several decades, and the number of acres of forest that has been burned has 

increased dramatically. We have an oyster industry that is having 

great trouble because the baby oysters have trouble forming shells 

because the ocean is 30 percent more acidic than it was before the 

Industrial Revolution. 

We have a farming community that is suffering significant, repeated, worst ever droughts because the snow pack in the Cascades 

is steadily declining. And this year is one of the lowest ever. While 

rain earlier in the year can fill a reservoir, if you don’t have the 

snow pack, come August, you are in trouble. 

So as we see this impact on farming and fishing and forestry, 

right now, we are not talking 50 years in the future or 100 years 

in the future, we are seeing it right now, just like Delaware. Senator Carper was talking about land that is now underwater. Should 

the entities that are being damaged by carbon pollution be able to 

sue those who are generating the carbon proportional to their contribution? Mr. Easterly? 

Mr. EASTERLY. I am not a lawyer, so I can’t answer should somebody be able to sue. But remember that the environment of our 

earth has been changing for all of recorded history. Indiana used 

to be under a huge ice sheet. There are natural variations. And the 

things you talked about, some scientists would say, are due to the 

Pacific Decadal Oscillation. And they are likely to continue causing 

harm for the next 20 years. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Easterly. Mr. Parfitt, would 

you like to answer? 

Mr. PARFITT. I would echo those comments. This is a legal question and I am not an attorney that can address that. 

Senator MERKLEY. OK, a legal question. But the principle, you 

understand, of polluter pays, when you do some damage to your 

neighbor, shouldn’t you bear some respo9nsibility just as a basic 

fundamental principle? 

Mr. PARFITT. I think this is a complicated question. You have 

users who may have some responsibility as well. So from a legal 

standpoint — 

Senator MERKLEY. OK, you don’t want to answer the question. 

That’s fine. Ms. Nowak. 

119 

Ms. NOWAK. If the utilities and entities are following existing law 

and regulation, I would think it would be a very chilling effect to 

have them subjected to legal claims. 

Senator MERKLEY. OK, well, everyone in their first year of economics learns about externalities, things that are not reflected in 

the market, damage done by activities, certainly our libertarian 

friends would say, when you do damage to your neighbor, you 

should compensate for that damage. The fact is, carbon is produced 

and methane is produced in a million different ways. There is no 

State that doesn’t produce a lot of both. 

But we are seeing a differential in how States are taking this on. 

Oregon, now, about 70 percent of its electricity is produced in nonfossil format. And Ms. Nichols, you were referring to a 2020 goal 

of one-third. But that didn’t include your hydropower, I believe. 

What is it with hydropower included? 

Ms. NICHOLS. If we included the hydro that we receive, we would 

be already at above our 30 percent, 33 percent goal. So we chose 

not to add it, or the legislature chose not to add it or nuclear, because they were trying to really push for new solar, wind, geothermal and biomass energy. 

Senator MERKLEY. Right. Say what that percentage would be 

again if those things were included, the other non-fossil. If you include the other non-fossil. 

Ms. NICHOLS. It would be about 40 percent. 

Senator MERKLEY. Forty percent. 

Ms. NICHOLS. Yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, you have to aim for Oregon, where it is 

70 percent. We are shipping a lot of wind power out. 

Ms. NICHOLS. We envy Oregon. 

Senator MERKLEY. And we often respect greatly the examples 

that you are setting, particularly here is, you have set up a marketplace. Now, if we turn back in time, there was a proposal that 

came really from right wing think tanks about using markets to 

regulate sulfur dioxide to take on acid rain. And the concept was 

not to regulate every smokestack, but to proceed to set up the marketplace and therefore the most cost effective solutions would be 

adopted. How did that work out? Do you have a memory of that? 

Ms. NICHOLS. Senator, I was the assistant administrator at EPA 

when we implemented the acid rain trading program. I am very 

proud of the success of that program. It did reach its goals in terms 

of the amount of sulfur dioxide that was reduced, and it did so less 

expensively. We relied on that plan in designing our cap and trade 

program in California. 

Senator MERKLEY. So the marketplace for sulfur dioxide worked 

extraordinarily well, actually, lower costs and faster results than 

anyone anticipated. It was really an off the chart success, and congratulations. Why wouldn’t that same strategy work well in carbon 

dioxide? 

Ms. NICHOLS. Well, we believe it would. It was, as you know, defeated here, but within California it was actually put on the ballot 

and the voters chose to keep that system in effect. Because I think 

they became convinced that it would lead us to a cleaner future. 

120 

Senator MERKLEY. It was, you see carbon dioxide reduced in the 

most effective manner, to achieve similar off the chart positive results. 

Ms. NICHOLS. Yes, sir. 

Senator MERKLEY. And isn’t the Clean Power Plan really based 

around that same core principle of States developing their own 

plan through a range of different choices of how to address carbon? 

Not quite a cap and trade, but that is a possibility that the State 

could employ. 

Ms. NICHOLS. It is clearly allowable. It is not required. I know 

that EPA was very familiar with our program when they designed 

the rule. But I also understand that they tried really hard, it 

doesn’t seem like they have quite succeeded just yet, anyway, to indicate to States that they would have the ability to design a plan 

that fit their own unique situation. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Merkley. 

Senator Barrasso would be next, but he has graciously conceded 

to let Senator Boozman go ahead. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you very much. Again, just for a second, but I appreciate it. 

Ms. Nichols, following up on Senator Merkley’s question, you are 

out of compliance for ozone. And the EPA’s regulatory impact analysis says the annual cost to California alone would be $800 million 

to $2.2 billion per year. Do you feel like individuals should be able 

to sue you for non-compliance? 

Ms. NICHOLS. Under the Clean Air Act, citizens have the ability 

to sue EPA, or indirectly, the State, for non-compliance with any 

element of a SIP. California has submitted a State Implementation 

Plan and we are in compliance with our plan. We are moving forward steadily every year, bringing down our levels of ozone. And 

we have actually come into compliance in many counties. 

Senator BOOZMAN. So your argument, then, is the same as Ms. 

Nowak’s in the sense that if you are doing things as required by 

law, then you shouldn’t be sued? 

Ms. NICHOLS. One of the reasons why we are here to defend the 

carbon plan, the EPA plan, is that it helps us with our ozone 

standard as well. We need all the help we can get. 

Senator BOOZMAN. But in regard to the question, you agree with 

Ms. Nowak in the sense that if you are in compliance with what 

the regulation requires, you shouldn’t be sued? 

Ms. NICHOLS. Mr. Boozman, I went to law school, too, and we 

were taught that anybody can file a lawsuit. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I didn’t go to law school. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. NICHOLS. Anybody can file a lawsuit and sometimes they 

win. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I guess what I am saying, what she is saying 

is, that really would wreak havoc in the sense, there is no way that 

you are going to be—when do you feel like you are going to be 

ozone-compliant? 

Ms. NICHOLS. At this point, we are projecting off into the future, 

we are working as hard as we can, but it will probably be as challenging, it not more challenging, to meet the ozone standard as it 

121 

is to meet the greenhouse gas standard. That is exactly why we are 

supporting the EPA rule, because it will help us with both. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Do you agree it will cost you $800 million to 

$2.2 billion a year? 

Ms. NICHOLS. I can’t verify that number. I would say, though, 

that the economic analysis that EPA did in advance was using all 

the tools that we would have used in the same way. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman, and thanks very 

much to the panel for being here. 

Let me ask first, Commissioner Nowak, in 2013, Commissioner 

Nowak, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published an editorial in 

your home State that said, ‘‘Climate change is happening. Human 

activity plays a huge role in that. The consequences of doing nothing could be dire and expensive.’’ Do you agree with the Milwaukee 

Journal Sentinel on that? 

Ms. NOWAK. Thank you for the question. My role as a regulator 

or an economic regulator, we ensure also the reliability of the grid, 

I did not or do not endeavor to take on the policy behind what is 

before us. My role here has been analyzing it and rules that come 

before us. I look for three things. An environmental rule is coming; 

does it compromise the affordable, the safety and reliability of our 

grid. That is the lens that I look through this rule. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. No amount of environmental cost would 

figure under your analysis, then? 

Ms. NOWAK. No, that is not what I said. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. That is exactly what you said. I am just 

trying to make sure that you put it properly and want you to explain further. 

Ms. NOWAK. No. The environmental rules cannot unduly compromise the reliability of the— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. No matter how great the environmental 

cost? 

Ms. NOWAK. There is a balance that needs to be struck. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. How do you strike that balance if you 

don’t know whether climate change is happening and whether 

human activity plays a huge role in that and whether the consequences of doing nothing could be dire and expensive, which I assume dire and expensive are words that would fit into that calculus? 

Ms. NICHOLS. We look at what the impact on our ratepayers 

would be and the benefits to the environment under the proposed 

rule. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But the impact on your ratepayers could 

be felt through climate change as well as through just the rates 

that they pay, could they not? 

Ms. NICHOLS. Those are — 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. That is not a part of what you looked at? 

That is not part of your analysis? 

Ms. NICHOLS. The benefits have been put forth by the EPA in 

their plan. And we are weighing the costs against the benefits that 

the EPA has proposed. 

122 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. For what it is worth, the Executive Director of the Wisconsin Business Alliance has called renewable energy 

an economic opportunity for Wisconsin that will ‘‘result in business 

growth, job creation, cleaner air and a quicker path to energy independence.’’ She recently said, ‘‘We should look for opportunities to 

promote jobs and the environment and the Clean Power Plan is a 

great way to do that.’’ So there appear to be other voices from Wisconsin. 

Mr. Parfitt, Rocky Mountain Power’s owner, the spokesperson for 

Rocky Mountain Power’s owner, has said that multi-State approaches are likely to be a less costly way to meet the Clean Power 

Plan’s targets. Wyoming’s Casper Star-Tribune has said that, the 

Montana officials have held earlier discussions with other States 

about the prospect of cooperating to meet the EPA’s targets consistent with the multi-State approach that Rocky Mountain Power’s 

owner referred to. 

Their Wyoming counterparts, the Wyoming Casper-Star Tribune 

continued, have thus far rejected regional advances. Now, Montana, which is also a rural State that generates a significant portion of its electricity from coal, has come up with five draft options 

for complying with the proposed standards, including options that 

would not require Montana to shutter its coal plants. 

So if Montana can do this, why can’t Wyoming? And if Montana 

will work with other States, why won’t Wyoming? 

Mr. PARFITT. First I will address Montana’s five different alternatives. In their alternatives, they assume that they will get credit 

for 100 percent of the wind energy. And that is not what has been 

conveyed by EPA. We have been told that we will get no credit for 

wind energy that is consumed outside the State. So that is one difference. 

As far as the multi-State discussions, I will say that we have 

been involved with the same group, the Center for New Energy Environment, and participating in those conversations along with 

Montana and 13 other States. Now, there are challenges with a 

multi-State plan, particularly when we don’t know what the end 

goal is going to be. All we have right now is what has been proposed. We don’t know how EPA is going to change that proposal 

based on the comments that have been received. 

So we don’t know what the targets are going to be. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Do you agree that climate change is happening, that human activity plays a huge role in it and that the 

consequences of doing nothing could be dire and expensive? 

Mr. PARFITT. I am here to talk about the Clean Power Plan and 

whether or not we are going to do something to address CO2 emissions, whether or not this is a good plan and is it workable for Wyoming. And the answer is, it is not workable for Wyoming. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Irrespective of the amount of damage that 

CO2 2 might do? There is no number from CO2 harm that could 

cause you to change your point of view on that? 

Mr. PARFITT. Not on the proposed plan and what that does to 

plants. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Very well. And finally, Mr. Easterly, how 

have you built the costs of climate change for Indiana into your 

analysis of the value of the Clean Power Plan? 

123 

Mr. EASTERLY. I don’t think you can quantify any cost of future 

climate change on the State of Indiana. Let’s go back to your other 

question. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Why do you not think you can quantify it? 

Isn’t that part of your job? 

Mr. EASTERLY. There is nothing concrete to quantify. There is 

speculation. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Have you read the report that says that 

8 to 23 percent likely increase in energy costs could come to Indiana? 

Mr. EASTERLY. The energy costs refer to the Clean Power Plan, 

yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. No, this is not from the Clean Power Plan. 

This is from increased heat levels in Indiana requiring increased 

cooling load during the—you are not familiar with that report, obviously? 

Mr. EASTERLY. Not that one. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. When you are talking about the cost 

of electricity, are you talking about on a per kilowatt hour basis? 

Mr. EASTERLY. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Let me just say, I am sorry to go over, can 

I just make a Rhode Island point? 

Senator INHOFE. How long is the Rhode Island point? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Less than a minute. 

Average monthly bills of residential customers in Wisconsin are 

$95.21, in Indiana they are $110.44, and in Wyoming they are 

$90.85. In Rhode Island they are $91.48, lower than two of these 

States, even though our kilowatt hour costs are higher. Because we 

have invested intelligently in energy efficiency and is that figure 

that really matters at the pocketbook. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Senator 

Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First 

to Ms. Nowak, it is affordability, reliability and safety, are those 

what you consider? 

Ms. NOWAK. Correct. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. Mr. Parfitt, just to kind of review, 

when it comes to how the EPA credits renewable energy, Wyoming, 

which produces a significant amount of renewable energy, still 

stands to be severely disadvantaged. You talked about how much 

Wyoming produced in terms of wind energy. I think you said that 

85 percent of Wyoming’s wind energy is exported to a number of 

other State. I heard Chairman Nichols say that California wants 

to buy even more Wyoming wind energy. 

But the EPA has said no, that renewable energy is going to only 

be credited to the State where it is consumed, not where the energy 

is created, the hosting State, which means that Wyoming gets absolutely no credit for most of the wind energy that it develops. So 

I appreciate Senator Carper saying that needs to be addressed. 

My question is, how is this going to impact Wyoming’s ability to 

attain our emission target? And how much additional renewable 

generation would we have to develop just to meet the EPA’s proposed target? 

124 

Mr. PARFITT. This makes it very difficult for Wyoming to achieve 

its target. The estimate of renewable would be somewhere around 

9 million megawatts of wind energy that would have to be developed in order for us to meet our target. Right now Wyoming consumes about 600,000 megawatts of wind energy. So that equates 

to about a 1,400 or 1,500 percent increase of renewable that Wyoming uses right now. 

Senator BARRASSO. And you mentioned a lack of flexibility from 

the EPA in giving Wyoming what we would need in order to continue to produce a lot of the renewable sources. You mentioned that 

more than half of the land in Wyoming is federally owned, that this 

has a significant on meeting the mandates coming out of the EPA. 

Your reference to permits, to the NEPA process, to the ESA requirements for which Wyoming has absolutely no control, and it 

doesn’t seem the EPA is proposing any sort of relief in the plans 

to address these. You specifically cited that only one-sixth of the 

total area that the EPA has identified for wind energy development 

is actually available for wind energy development, due to sage 

grouse considerations, permitting requirements. 

It seems the EPA is telling people in Wyoming to move faster in 

renewable energy while refusing to acknowledge that Washington’s 

foot is still on the regulatory brakes. So can you go into a little 

more detail about how Federal land ownership in Wyoming and the 

red tape that goes with developing energy resources on that land 

is a Washington roadblock that the EPA ought to address, if they 

want Wyoming to develop cleaner energy faster? 

Mr. PARFITT. Yes. What we have seen for wind energy projects, 

when you have to go through the NEPA process, or those projects 

go through the NEPA process, that they have taken anywhere from 

four to 8 years to get approved through the NEPA process. Then 

there is an additional Fish and Wildlife Service process for eagle 

take permits. Those will add to the time involved. 

The other piece of it is transmission. You have to have transmission to move the energy out of the State. Those right now, we 

have two projects that have taken up to 8 years to get through the 

permitting process. And they are still in that process now. 

Senator BARRASSO. And we had previous discussion and debate 

and votes, actually, in the Energy Committee, about transmission 

lines under the Democrat-controlled Senate in the past. And Democrats specifically voted to block transmission lines on the public 

lands, which half of the Wyoming land is public land. So that I 

think actually has played into exactly what you are talking about 

as well. 

Mr. PARFITT. That is correct. 

Senator BARRASSO. You also talked about the potential closure of 

four coal-fired power plants in Wyoming, over $1.4 billion, according to the Wyoming Public Service Commission. That is lost investment. And who knows how much it will cost to replace the lost 

power. 

Of course, that is going to be passed on, I would assume, to citizens within the six-State territory of Pacific Corps. And Senator 

Whitehouse asked a specific question about Pacific Corps. So would 

that mean that folks in not just Wyoming, but California, Washington State, Oregon, Idaho and Utah are all going to get a big new 

125 

energy tax increase because of what the EPA is trying to do in closing those four power plants in Wyoming and having to build new 

plants? Am I correct in characterizing what you are saying? 

Mr. PARFITT. That is correct. Those costs would be distributed 

amongst all the States involved with that system. 

Senator BARRASSO. So California would have higher electric bills 

as a result of the EPA mandates here through that Pacific Corps. 

Mr. PARFITT. There is a portion of Northern California that is 

part of that system. 

Senator BARRASSO. A growing number of States are raising concerns that any type of implementation plan worked out with EPA 

is immediately going to become federally enforceable, making a 

State vulnerable to sue and settle lawsuits between environmental 

groups and the EPA. But unlike most sue and settle arrangements, 

which deal with a single plan or single facility under EPA’s Power 

Plant rule, a States entire electricity system could become subject 

to environmental lawsuits. EPA actually agrees with this concern. 

During question and answer in an event in February, the EPA’s 

Acting Air Administrator, Janet McCabe, says she sees potential 

for States being subject to third party lawsuits if they submit State 

implementation plans. We have heard it from the Texas public utilities commissioner as well. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to, if there is time to ask a couple 

of folks here, maybe the first three in the panel, if so, do you believe EPA can promise some sort of protection against these lawsuits? What are you seeing, Ms. Nowak? 

Ms. NOWAK. We think the very foundation of this proposal already intrudes upon States’ rights. And to have any State plans 

subjected to Federal authority is a great concern of ours. I think 

State energy policy should be left up to the States and in conjunction with the Department of Energy, not set by the Environmental 

Protection Agency. So we have great concerns about losing any 

State authority over any of our existing laws. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Easterly. 

Mr. EASTERLY. We do not believe EPA can protect us from lawsuits under the Clean Air Act. They can happen and they do. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Parfitt. 

Mr. PARFITT. We don’t believe that we can be protected from the 

lawsuits from third parties with a State plan, as the proposal has 

been written. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Chairman, I am out of time. Thank you 

very much. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all 

for being here today. 

Commissioner Easterly, when we had the Acting Air Administrator Ms. McCabe here earlier in the year, I asked her some questions about the heat rate efficiency assumption for building block 

one. And we know that EPA relied on the Sargent and Lundy analysis for that 6 percent heat rate. And in their own terms, they said 

that the EPA misapplied the data in a cumulative manner inconsistent with how the study was conducted. 

Do you have any other concerns with how the EPA developed 

that 6 percent heat rate assumption that is out there? 

126 

Mr. EASTERLY. Yes. Part of EPA’s thought process for building 

block one assumed that you would operate the plants in a way that 

gained efficiency, which really means you have to operate them at 

a steady State output. But then we have building two, which says, 

but oh, your coal plants are the last resort. You must operate your 

combined cycle natural gas plants first and use the coal plants to 

make up for swings in renewable and gas, and that will just make 

it much worse. 

There is also emission controls that you have to add on to the 

coal plants, which have good reasons to be there. But they all decrease the efficiency of the plant because this rule is based on 

megawatt outputs and there is a huge parasitic load for controlling 

those emissions. So there is a bunch of reasons that the plants are 

going to be less efficient on a per megawatt hour basis than more 

efficient. 

Senator FISCHER. So do you think that improvement is achievable in your State? 

Mr. EASTERLY. We are hoping, and hoping is a strong word, that 

we might be able to get 2 percent if everything was done that could 

be done. But it is a serious challenge, because anything that is 

cost-effective, you have a reason to do it anyway if you are the utility, because you make more money. So the things that are left will 

only be cost-effective because the cost of not doing them under this 

plan is more expensive than the little incremental thing you will 

get. 

Senator FISCHER. That is exactly right. Would compliance with 

other environmental regulations, would that have any impact on 

your State’s ability to meet that 6 percent? 

Mr. EASTERLY. It will, because we still have some utilities that 

are going to have to add more energy for NOx and SO2 reductions 

that aren’t there now. So that will decrease their efficiency as it is 

calculated under this rule. 

Senator FISCHER. I support an all of the above energy policy, and 

I know that many of my colleagues on this panel also support that 

all of the above, that we need to have a balance in our energy portfolios. I think that is extremely important for a number of reasons, 

security reasons, cost reasons. It is the wise thing to do. 

Do you think that this Clean Power Plan encourages diversity 

within our energy sector? 

Mr. EASTERLY. Not in the long run. In the long run, it basically 

is the plan to continue to shut down coal-fired power plants and 

have natural gas and renewables. And those are fine sources of energy, but if you have ever been in business, once you get close to 

a monopoly, you have pricing power. And that gas suddenly won’t 

look like it does now in price. When I worked in the utility industry 

for a short period of time, we had a natural gas price spike. It was 

very disruptive to all of our customers. 

So I am worried those are going to happen in the future. 

Senator FISCHER. Let me go to another panelist, then I will ask 

another question. Mr. Parfitt, do you think that we are encouraging 

States to look at a balanced portfolio when it comes to their energy 

needs with this plan that is before us now? 

Mr. PARFITT. From our view, the answer would be no. It seems 

like the purpose is to go to redispatch of other types of energy 

127 

sources to replace coal. So it is not looking at a mix, it is really 

aimed at reducing coal. 

Senator FISCHER. I am from the only public power State in the 

Country. In Nebraska, we rely on our public power. It is a strength 

for our State. It is a definite strength for our ratepayers. We are 

very concerned about the impact it is going to have on families 

across our State, when and if this plan is implemented. Because we 

rely on our coal-fired electric plants. We have diversified portfolios, 

we continue to develop those. But to have a requirement, a mandate to have those implemented, I think in an unreasonably short 

period of time, will affect families and it will affect our most needy 

families. 

Mr. Parfitt, how do you view that in Wyoming? You are our 

neighbors to the west. How do you view that? How are your families going to see what is coming to them? 

Mr. PARFITT. We share the same concerns in terms of what the 

proposal will do to utility rates. Particularly with our compliance 

pathway as we see it, we would see an increase in rates due to the 

premature closure of coal plants and the stranded assets associated 

with that. 

Senator FISCHER. And Ms. Nowak, in Wisconsin, I don’t know 

what your energy portfolio looks like in your State, but I would assume that some of your ratepayers won’t be pleased when they get 

their bills? 

Ms. NOWAK. Not at all. You are correct, Senator. Our ratepayers have already invested over $11 billion since 2000 to clean up our 

air. That is continuing to be paid for. We have reduced emissions 

by 20 percent if you look at 2005 as a baseline. So they have done 

that. We are not getting credit for it. We are a predominantly coal 

State. Like Indiana, we are a heavy manufacturing State. This will 

have a very large impact, our modelers have estimated between $3 

billion and $13 billion just for generation alone. That doesn’t include any natural gas infrastructure or transmission infrastructure 

that needs to be done. 

So that is going to hit every ratepayer from the low income to 

our large manufacturers. 

Senator FISCHER. It will hit every family in Wisconsin and across 

this Country. 

Ms. NOWAK. Right. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Fischer. Senator Sessions, 

you were the first one here and the last to speak, it looks like. 

Senator SESSIONS. Had a little Budget Committee hearing. That 

makes us all nervous. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, Mr. Easterly, I came here, I remember 

thinking that I don’t like this idea that there needs to be a mix of 

sources of power. We just should add more nuclear power, that was 

my simple idea. But as I have been here, and seen the arguments, 

I am of the belief that if you become too dependent on one source 

of power, you are not able to have the competition that keeps costs 

down. Do you believe that is still a valid concern? 

Mr. EASTERLY. Yes, Senator. Ironically, we don’t have any nuclear, and I would love to have some. But it is so hard to build it, 

as you know. It is not likely to come in my lifetime. 

128 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, that is disappointing, I have to tell you. 

Natural gas rates have fallen and the costs of plants are up, NRC 

is more regulatory than ever. We are almost killing it off, which 

would be a disaster. 

I think the unifying issue that we can all agree on, Republicans 

and Democrats, is a more healthy environment, less particulates, 

less NOx, less mercury, less SOx , things that make people sick ad 

kill trees and that kind of thing. I think we can do better about 

that. In the course of that, I think it will have a benefit on CO2

emissions probably at the same time. 

But I am going to press down on the brow of my constituents billions and billions of dollars in costs over the CO2 issue, frankly. We 

just need to balance this out and be reasonable about it, in my 

opinion. 

So I believe you said, Ms. Nowak, that you believe that if these 

regulations pass, the cost of electricity will go up. Mr. Parfitt, in 

your State, do you think it would go up also? 

Mr. PARFITT. Yes, that is correct. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Easterly. 

Mr. EASTERLY. Oh, yes. We just aren’t sure how much, but more 

than double digits. 

Senator SESSIONS. And Ms. Nichols, do you believe that if these 

pass, you indicated, I am not sure what you said, so do you believe 

it will go up or not? 

Ms. NICHOLS. You know, there has been a trend, I would say, 

over decades, for the cost per unit of electricity to go up. But what 

we think is important is the bill, what the customer actually sees. 

And in that event, we are holding steady. We are able to hold that 

steady. 

Senator SESSIONS. Even if these new rules are passed? 

Ms. NICHOLS. I believe so, yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Myers, what is your view about that? 

Mr. MYERS. Yes, Senator, I would concur with Ms. Nichols that 

it has been our experience that you can reduce carbon emissions 

and also keep electricity prices down. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, Ms. Nowak, you indicated, and we have 

spent a lot of money, you have spent a lot of money to make coal 

cleaner than it has ever been before. If those plants are closed, are 

you saying those are the stranded costs, lost investments that are 

damaging to the ratepayers in your State? 

Ms. NOWAK. Correct. The costs that our modeling estimated it 

would cost is for new generation only. It doesn’t take into account 

paying for units that have been recently built. Power plants are 

paid for over many, many years. So ratepayers will be paying for 

plants that are run much less while at the same time paying for 

new electricity. So yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Easterly, I would ask you to see if you can 

say yes or no on that, too. But let me ask a simple question. It 

seems to me that mandates, regulations drive up costs, and in an 

economic sense the same as raising taxes and having the government do it. The government could raise taxes on everybody and 

then pay for cleaning up power plants or whatever they want to do 

to achieve a certain goal. 

129 

So I just want to translate this into reality for the people who 

are buying electricity, businesses and homeowners and people like 

that. So these mandates that require greater expenditures to 

produce electricity are the equivalent of a tax on their lifestyle. 

Isn’t that correct? 

Mr. EASTERLY. Yes, it is. But different people benefit and don’t 

benefit. So if you are in a regulated utility that makes a profit, if 

the price goes up and your percent of profits is the same, that goes 

up. If you are an REMC, a co-op, your customers are your owners 

and they really see it. There is no net benefit there. 

Senator SESSIONS. I think that is the question, is the tax on the 

economy worth the benefit that is achieved. And Dr. Lundborg 

here, from the Copenhagen Institute, said that the increase in CO2

over the next 60 years, is not going to be a detriment to the world. 

In fact, it will be a net benefit. He will agree that if this continues 

out into the next 150 years, you begin to have a cost. 

So he questions all the expenditures we are talking about today. 

I just believe that is a fundamental thing. He talked about how 

many lives could be saved for just a fraction of these costs, helping 

poor people in a lot of different ways. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this hearing and the 

good witnesses we have had. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Sessions. Senator Boxer 

wanted to have just a moment for a unanimous consent request to 

enter something into the record. So we will recognize you for 30 

seconds to do that and me for 30 seconds, and then it is over. 

Senator BOXER. It is never over. 

OK. So, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to place into 

the record a very important chart that shows that Californians are 

paying $20 less per month for electricity than the national average 

as we reduce carbon pollution in such a great way. I am so grateful 

to Mary Nichols for playing a role in this. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

130 


94981.092
131 


94981.093
132 

Senator INHOFE. And my 30 seconds, two documents, one from 

the Census Bureau that says California has the highest U.S. poverty rate when comparing income and cost of living across the 

State. And second from the Manhattan Institute, the migration 

from California to Oklahoma increased by 274 percent in the 

2000’s. And we are adjourned. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

133 


94981.109
134 


94981.110
135 


94981.111
136 


94981.112
137 


94981.113
138 


94981.114
139 


94981.115
140 


94981.116
141 


94981.117
142 


94981.118
143 


94981.119
144 


94981.120
145 


94981.121
146 


94981.122
147 


94981.123
148 


94981.124
149 


94981.125
150 


94981.126
151 


94981.127
152 


94981.128
153 


94981.129
154 


94981.130
155 


94981.131
156 


94981.132
157 


94981.133
158 


94981.134
159 


94981.136
160 


94981.137
161 


94981.138
162 


94981.139
163 


94981.140
164 


94981.141
165 


94981.142
166 


94981.143
167 


94981.144
168 


94981.145
169 


94981.146
170 


94981.147
171 


94981.148
172 


94981.149
173 


94981.150
174 


94981.151
175 


94981.152
176 


94981.153
177 


94981.154
178 


94981.155
179 


94981.156
180 


94981.157
181 


94981.158
182 


94981.159
183 


94981.160
184 


94981.161
185 


94981.162
186 


94981.163
187 


94981.164
188 


94981.165
189 


94981.166
190 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 

191 


94981.094
192 


94981.095
193 


94981.096
194 


94981.097
195 


94981.098
196 


94981.099
197 


94981.100
198 


94981.101
199 


94981.102
200 


94981.103
201 


94981.104
202 

Æ 


94981.105