U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

95–492 PDF 2015

THE FISCAL YEAR 2016 EPA BUDGET 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE 

ECONOMY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 25, 2015 

Serial No. 114–11 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

(II) 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Chairman 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

GREGG HARPER, Vice Chairman 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Chairman 

GREGG HARPER, Vice Chairman 

Vice Chairman 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

Ranking Member 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

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

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

Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 7 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

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

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 9 

WITNESS

Hon. Gina McCarthy, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency .......... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Answers to submitted questions 1 ................................................................... 79 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Chart, ‘‘EPA Proposed CO2 Rule,’’ submitted by Mr. Shimkus ........................... 5 

Slide, ‘‘Counties Where Measured Ozone is Above Proposed Range of Standards (65–70 parts per billion),’’ submitted by Mr. Olson .................................. 30 

Report, ‘‘Pending 2015 Ozone NAAQS: Implications for Texas,’’ Texas Department of Transportation, January 2015, 2 submitted by Mr. Olson .................. 31 

Slide, ‘‘Table 4–10. Summary of Known and Unknown Emission Reductions 

by Alternative Standard Levels in 2025, Except California (1,000 tons/ 

year),’’ submitted by Mr. Olson ........................................................................... 32 

Slide, ‘‘Ozone 67–99%,’’ submitted by Mr. Olson .................................................. 34 

Slide, ‘‘Ratio of U.S. Background to Total Seasonal Mean 03,’’ submitted 

by Mr. Olson ......................................................................................................... 35 

Letter of January 16, 2015, from Steve Hagle, Deputy Director, Office of 

Air, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, to Mr. Olson, submitted 

by Mr. Olson ......................................................................................................... 37 

Report of The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University, ‘‘The Economic 

Effects of the New EPA Rules on the United States,’’ January 2015, 3

submitted by Mr. Scalise ..................................................................................... 76 

1The information has been retained in committee files and also is available 

at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20150225/103014/HHRG-114- 

IF03-Wstate-McCarthyG-20150225-SD003.pdf. 2The information has been retained in committee files and also is available 

at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20150225/103014/HHRG-114- 

IF03-20150225-SD011.pdf. 3The information has been retained in committee files and also is available 

at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20150225/103014/HHRG-114- 

IF03-20150225-SD008.pdf. 

(1) 

THE FISCAL YEAR 2016 EPA BUDGET 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

JOINT WITH THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield 

(chairman of the subcommittee on Energy and Power) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Shimkus, Olson, 

Harper, Barton, Pitts, Murphy, Latta, McKinley, Pompeo, 

Kinzinger, Griffith, Johnson, Bucshon, Flores, Mullin, Hudson, 

Cramer, Upton (ex officio), Rush, Green, DeGette, Castor, Sarbanes, Welch, Yarmuth, Loebsack, Schrader, Ca ́ rdenas, and 

Pallone (ex officio). 

Also present: Representative Scalise. 

Staff present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Gary Andres, 

Staff Director; Charlotte Baker, Deputy Communications Director; 

Sean Bonyun, Communications Director; Leighton Brown, Press 

Assistant; Allison Busbee, Policy Coordinator, Energy and Power; 

Jerry Couri, Senior Environmental Policy Advisor; Patrick Currier, 

Counsel, Energy and Power; Tom Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, 

Energy and Power; Charles Ingebretson, Chief Counsel, Oversight 

and Investigations; Ben Lieberman, Counsel, Energy and Power; 

David McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment and the Economy; 

Brandon Mooney, Professional Staff Member, Energy and Power; 

Mary Neumayr, Senior Energy Counsel; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment and the Economy; Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member, Oversight; Michael Goo, Democratic Senior 

Counsel, Energy and Environment; Caitlin Haberman, Democratic 

Professional Staff Member; and Rick Kessler, Democratic Senior 

Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment. 

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

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

morning. Today the Energy and Power and the Environment and 

the Economy Subcommittee will be examining the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s fiscal year 2016 budget request. And before you 

start my time, I certainly want to welcome Administrator Gina 

McCarthy. Thank you very much for being with us today. You have 

2 

been before our committee many times, and we certainly enjoy 

working with you. You are an able Administrator. We have very 

significant differences of views on what you are doing up there, or 

down there, but we will all have an opportunity today to ask questions. And thank you, once again, for taking time to be with us. We 

appreciate it. And at this time I recognize myself for 3 minutes for 

an opening statement. 

I would say, first of all, we all are very much aware that President Obama has made it very clear that he considers climate 

change to be one of the major issues facing mankind today. I was 

reading an article just a few days ago how this administration has 

spent 14 times more on green energy per year than embassy security around the world. As a matter of fact, over the last 5 years the 

administration has spent roughly $39 billion a year financing 

grants, subsidizing tax credits, guaranteeing loans, bailing out 

solar energy boondoggles, and otherwise underwriting every renewable energy idea under the sun. 

Now, we all recognize that climate change is occurring. The fundamental difference is we don’t believe it is the number one issue 

facing mankind, and the President does. And because of his going 

around all over the world and entering into international agreements that the Congress has not agreed to, that he has not consulted with Congress about, he is committing the U.S. to meet certain requirements. And so many of the rules coming out of EPA 

which are so controversial are really being implemented to implement the President’s June 2013 speech, in which he outlined his 

Climate Action Plan. 

So I was reading a legal opinion recently, and it said a President’s speech is certainly not a matter of law. But the President, 

making these international agreements, has, through regulation, 

pursued his commitments that he is making. But other countries 

that are part of these agreements, they are not doing the same 

thing, so the U.S. is being penalized because of these extreme actions. 

So what you all are doing, and I am reading from a legal opinion 

that Mr. Tribe wrote, you are forcing a select set of victims, including coal relying consumers, communities, regions, businesses, and 

utilities to bear a substantial part of what is a global problem that 

even you, and your predecessor, indicated that these regulations 

would not solve. So you are asking for 425 million more dollars 

than last year. A lot of that money is going to go to hire additional 

lawyers to defend and litigate these extreme regulations. So we 

look forward to the opportunity today of exploring this situation 

with you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD

This morning, the Energy and Power and the Environment and the Economy Subcommittees will explore the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) FY 2016 

budget proposal, and I welcome Administrator McCarthy to this hearing. The proposed budget is $8.59 billion, a $452 million increase over last year’s appropriation. 

This amount is more than enough to allow the Agency to perform its required duties under the Clean Air Act and all the other statutes that it administers. The 

problem is that the Obama EPA has strayed well beyond its legitimate functions 

3 

and has embarked on an expansive and expensive global warming regulatory agenda that is on shaky legal ground and is bad policy for the country. 

Most problematic of all is the proposed Clean Power Plan and the Agency’s attempted Federal takeover of State electricity systems. In that plan, the Agency is 

seeking to dictate to States how electricity will be generated, transmitted, and used. 

The Agency is regulating far outside its authority, and reveals as much in its Congressional justification for the FY 2016 budget. In this document, EPA refers to the 

Clean Power Plan as ‘‘unprecedented, ‘‘groundbreaking,’’ and ‘‘unique,’’ and admits 

that it ‘‘requires the Agency to tap into technical and policy expertise not traditionally needed in EPA regulatory development.’’ EPA says these things in order to justify the considerable outlays needed to pursue this regulatory detour, but in my 

view it raises serious questions whether the Agency has the authority to do so in 

the first place. 

Perhaps the most disturbing admission of all is that the Agency anticipates the 

need to hire many new lawyers to implement this highly complicated rule and defend it against litigation from States and other opponents. To me, the fact that EPA 

thinks it has to lawyer-up to fight State governments is a sure sign that the Clean 

Power Plan is not in the best interests of the American people. I would much prefer 

that the Agency work cooperatively with the States and listen to their concerns 

rather than try to beat them in court. 

The Clean Power Plan for existing power plants is only part of the Agency’s rulemaking agenda targeting coal and increasing costs to ratepayers. There is also the 

proposed New Source Performance Standards that effectively outlaw new coal-fired 

generation. There is the very expensive ‘‘Utility MACT’’ rule that is already contributing to power plant shutdowns, as well as the Cross-State Air Pollution rule, the 

regional haze requirements, and others. We will also have a much more stringent 

ozone rule, which would adversely affect electricity generation as well as manufacturing. As a result, we are already seeing rising electric bills and reliability concerns 

due to this anti-coal agenda, and the worst is yet to come. 

While the Agency has embarked on its global warming agenda and other regulatory overreaches, it has dropped the ball badly on many of its non-discretionary 

duties. Most notably, EPA has repeatedly missed the statutorily imposed deadlines 

for implementing the Renewable Fuel Standard. The 2014 rule was supposed to 

have been finalized by November 30, 2013, so that regulated companies would know 

ahead of time what will be required of them. Instead, the Agency has still not finalized its rule, and 2014 is already over. Some biofuel companies have literally gone 

out of business while EPA has failed to act. The same is true for many other nondiscretionary duties that the Agency has delayed or ignored. 

The Agency’s atrocious record meeting its required deadlines stands in sharp contrast to the front-burner status given to its discretionary global warming agenda, 

and now the administration is requesting even larger sums to expand this agenda. 

I cannot help but think that the manpower and dollars going to global warming is 

partly responsible for the Agency’s neglect elsewhere. The Obama administration 

may consider global warming to be its number one priority, but I certainly don’t, 

and I am disturbed to see the extent the Agency is willing to shirk its actual responsibilities to focus on it. As it is, EPA’s agenda is badly out of line with the law and 

with the public interest, and unfortunately this budget is a reflection of that. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And, with that, we are doing 3 minutes today, 

Mr. Rush, so I recognize the gentleman for a 3-minute opening 

statement. 

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

Mr. RUSH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator 

McCarthy, it is always a pleasure to see you come before this subcommittee, and bring great news, and sharing with this subcommittee all the great work that you all are doing over at the 

EPA. And I just want to thank you so much, you and your Agency, 

for all of the great work that you do in protecting the air, and land, 

and water on behalf of the American people. If it was appropriate, 

I would get up and ask for a standing ovation, but I don’t think 

that that would be appropriate at this point in time. But you understand how we feel about you on this side. 

4 

While this is a budget hearing, we might as well address the elephant in the room, and discuss the topic that is on the minds of 

many of my colleagues, and that is the proposed Rule 111(d), the 

Clean Power Plan. Madam Administrator, on behalf of those of us, 

which includes most of the American people, who do not believe 

that the world’s scientists and climatologists have all conspired together to perpetrate a hoax by saying that climate change is real, 

and humans have contributed to it, I would like to commend the 

leadership of President Obama, yourself, for working to address 

this serious issue that impacts all of America, all of our citizenry, 

and indeed everyone else around the globe. 

The Clean Power Plan represents a significant opportunity to 

shift away from some of the dirtiest carbon emitting energy sources 

that have contributed greatly to polluting the atmosphere to cleaner, more sustainable forms of energy that will help pull us back 

from the brink of disaster, and set us on a more stable footing. 

Madam Administrator, I applaud EPA for striking a flexible, Statebased approach that provides States, utilities, and grid operators 

with time and options for finding ways to reduce their CO2 emissions, while also maintaining a form of reliable energy for consumers. 

I just want to thank you, Madam Chairman. I look forward to 

engaging with you during the question portion of today’s hearing. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Rush. At this time I would like 

to recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, the chairman of the Environment and Economy Subcommittee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, for recognizing 

me, and I do want to welcome Administrator McCarthy. I appreciate your willingness to work with us in the past on such things 

as electronic submission of hazardous waste manifests. That actually can be very helpful. As I spoke to you earlier, we look forward 

in collaborating with you on the coal ash legislation, and also on 

Toxic Substance Control Act. 

For me, today’s hearing is not just an administrative exercise 

where we do bean counting. While we don’t write the checks the 

Agency cashes, most of the major legal authority that underpins 

the work delegated to the Agency rests within this committee. Today’s hearing gives us a chance to compare the Agency’s individual 

budget request with EPA’s underlying statutory authority. 

As a legislator, I have many questions where I think more information is needed to evaluate how statutory mandates are being 

carried out. For example, I have questions about the statutory 

nexus with the following budget request and policies that are being 

implemented, like the Clean Power Plan, the Climate Ready Water 

Utilities Program, and regulations under the Clean Air Act implementing Executive Order 13–650, which I think is chemical safety. 

Legal authority aside, we know these regulations can become 

complicated to implement, with unclear guidance adding unnecessary costs to the regulated industries, and ultimately to the consumer. 

5 

[Chart follows:] 

6 

This chart, we think, shows how cumbersome your proposal on 

the Clean Power Plan could be just by itself. Maybe you have a better chart that makes it a little more simplistic. If this plan puts 

reliability at risk, and the base load energy from sources such as 

coal and nuclear power in danger, communities may pay higher 

costs, and potentially suffer brown-outs when most in need. We 

have to ask ourselves if this plan leads to the energy future Americans expect. I believe there is a better way, and that we can find 

solutions to these challenges without placing the burden on the 

backs of consumers, or by sacrificing power plants that provide 

good paying jobs to families across the country. 

I will also have questions about funding and pace of activity on 

chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act, specifically on 

the Agency’s transparency concerning prioritizing and setting policy choices. These areas will be particularly important as we look 

to work across the aisle on both sides of the cabal to update this 

law. 

Again, I thank the Administrator for being here. I look forward 

to today’s conversation, and the ones that will follow. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

I thank Chairman Whitfield for recognizing me, and I, too, want to welcome the 

Administrator once again to our hearing here today. 

I appreciate the Administrators willingness to work productively with us in the 

past on issues such as creating a legal framework for electronic submission of hazardous waste manifests. We again look forward to collaborating with you as we 

work to enact coal ash legislation and a bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control 

Act. 

For me, today’s hearing is not just an administrative exercise where we do bean 

counting. While we don’t write the checks the Agency cashes, most of the major 

legal authority that underpins the work delegated to the Agency rests within this 

committee. Today’s hearing gives us a chance to compare the Agency’s individual 

budget requests with EPA’s underlying statutory authorities. 

As a legislator, I have many questions where I think more information is needed 

to evaluate how statutory mandates are being carried out. 

For example, I have questions about the statutory nexus with the following budget requests and policies they are implementing: 

1. The Clean Power Plan, 

2. The Climate Ready Water Utilities program, and 

3. Regulations under the Clean Air Act implementing Executive Order 13650. 

Legal authority aside, we know these regulations can become complicated to implement with unclear guidance, adding unnecessary costs to the regulated industries 

and ultimately to the consumer. This chart shows just how cumbersome EPA’s proposed clean power plan is just by itself. If this plan puts reliable base load energy 

from sources such as coal and nuclear in danger, communities may face higher costs 

and potentially suffer brown outs when most in need. We have to ask ourselves if 

this path leads to the energy future Americans expect. I believe there is a better 

way, and that we can find solutions to these challenges without placing the burden 

on the backs of consumers or by sacrificing power plants that provide good paying 

jobs to families across the country. 

I also have questions about funding and pace of activity on chemicals under the 

Toxic Substances Control Act, specifically on the Agency’s transparency concerning 

prioritizing and setting policy choices. These areas will be particularly important as 

we look to work across the aisle on both side of the Capitol to update this law. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I would like to yield the remainder of my time to 

Chairman Emeritus Barton, I think. 

Mr. BARTON. I am here, all 27 seconds of me. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You are welcome. 

7 

Mr. BARTON. Madam Administrator, we are always glad to see 

you. You are very accessible, and you are very personable in public, 

and when we have private conversations. I am going to ask you 

about the China policy the President recently announced, and I am 

also going to talk to you about the renewable fuel standard, and 

the RINs situation, which, as you well know, under current law, is 

simply not workable. But we do appreciate your accessibility, and 

look forward to the interchange. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman’s time has expired. At this time I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, the ranking 

member of the Environment and Economy Subcommittee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, and good morning. Thanks to Chair 

Whitfield and Chair Shimkus for holding this hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget request. And welcome, Administrator McCarthy. We appreciate your keen intellect, and I respect your passion to provide sound stewardship for our environment, all while growing jobs. And I thank you for being here today 

to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2016 budget request for the 

Agency. 

The EPA plays a vital role in the lives of our citizens, and in 

maintaining the resource base that sustains our society, and indeed 

our economy. As you state in the opening of your testimony, Administrator McCarthy, public health and a clean environment are 

inextricably linked. I agree. And the record of environmental 

achievement and economic growth over the years demonstrates 

that environmental protection is consistent with a strong and vital 

economy. In fact, if we are willing to make investments in vital environmental infrastructure, such as our drinking water treatment 

and delivery, source water protection, sewage treatment, and waste 

to energy systems, we can create thousands of jobs, and improve 

the condition of our rivers, our lakes, and our coastlines. We are 

not saving by avoiding these investments. At best, we are transferring these costs to State and local governments, to businesses and 

to individual citizens. But even worse, by delaying needed maintenance and repairs, we are raising the costs of the very systems 

upon which we depend. 

When polluted land and water are not cleaned up, the resources 

become unavailable for productive use. A contaminated property is 

unoccupied, undeveloped, and generates no revenue for our economy and for our community. Pollution that is not attended to 

spreads, leading to additional problems. And it does not become 

less expensive to clean these up at a later time. The cost only rises. 

Our failure to repair vital infrastructure, and to the address the 

complex challenges of climate change, has already cost us a great 

deal. Infrastructure does not repair itself, and the pace and impact 

of climate change, both are increasing. We need to address these 

issues now, before the costs rise further. 

I know there are many members who believe that cutting the 

EPA budget is a good thing for the economy, because a lower budget will block the Agency from issuing regulations and enforcing enVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:15 Jul 20, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114_11EPABUDGETASKOK071715\114_11EPABUDGETPDFMADE
8 

vironmental laws. In fact, much of the EPA budget supports State 

and local governments, either through grants and loans, or with information and technical assistance that is so welcome. Cuts to the 

EPA budget translate into extra burden on our States, our local, 

and tribal governments. The administration and the Congress 

should be working together to ensure that we maintain and improve upon our record of environmental protection. EPA’s budget is 

an important part of that effort, and I indeed look forward to your 

testimony, Administrator McCarthy, and to working with you to 

continue our progress as a Nation in environmental protection. And 

thank you again for joining us. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman’s time has expired. At this time I 

would recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Upton, for 

3 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we do appreciate the 

Administrator of EPA for appearing before us today to discuss the 

budget requests and priorities. Yes, we have sharp areas of disagreement, but together, the two of us, we have never been disagreeable, and I look forward to the continued relationship. 

I am sad to say that the budget request, to me, looks like we can 

expect more of the same red tape and costly rules, and that concerns me, because I think some of these regs are going to cost 

American households and families big time. They are going to cost 

our businesses, particularly manufacturing. Manufacturing in 

Michigan, as you know, and across the country, finally does have 

an edge. For the first time in years, major global manufacturers 

are eyeing Michigan, and other States, to set up or relocate operations—is on the side of American workers, but EPA’s regulatory 

agenda does threaten to raise the costs, and shift the advantage 

back to foreign manufacturers. 

EPA seems intent on locking in a long list of new regs that will 

bind future administrations. Along with the Clean Power Plan, 

EPA has proposed new ozone standards that may prove to be the 

most expensive rule ever. I would like to see EPA focus on its current responsibilities before taking on new ones. The Agency is 

working on this new ozone rule even though it is well behind 

schedule implementing the existing standard. And the Agency routinely misses its deadlines under the RFS, making this problematic 

program even more difficult. And I remember your testimony last 

year, when we thought we would have an answer last spring. 

While we do have our clear differences, your testimony today also 

presents an opportunity to explore areas of common ground. For 

example, we can embrace much of the EPA rule on coal ash, but 

go a step further and place permitting authority in the States. This 

should work for EPA, making sure that the EPA’s control standards are effectively enforced. This should also work much better for 

the States, who will have explicit benchmarks to meet, and the authority to manage the implementation. It would also work for the 

people responsible for handling the combustion residuals every day, 

including plant operators, recyclers, and other job creators, who 

9 

will be given the opportunity and the regulatory certainty that they 

need. 

Likewise, it was clear last year that your goals, and ours, for 

TSCA reform overlap. So let us sit down and work together on good 

legislation that is bipartisan to improve safety for the public, and 

to ensure a robust interstate market for chemicals and products 

that contain them. Thanks for being with us today. Yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Welcome Administrator McCarthy. We appreciate you appearing before us today 

to discuss EPA’s budget request and priorities. We do have areas of sharp disagreement, but I am hopeful our time together will not be disagreeable. 

I am sad to say the budget request looks like we can expect more of the same 

red tape and costly rules. And that concerns me because I think these regulations 

are going to cost American households and families. They are going to cost our businesses, particularly manufacturing. Manufacturers in Michigan and across the country finally have an edge. For the first time in years, major global manufacturers are 

eyeing Michigan and other States to set up or relocate operations. Momentum is on 

the side of American workers. But EPA’s regulatory agenda threatens to raise costs 

and shift the advantage back to foreign manufacturers. 

EPA seems intent on locking-in a long list of new regulations that will bind future 

administrations. Along with the Clean Power Plan, EPA has a proposed new ozone 

standard that may prove to be the most expensive rule ever. It may also propose 

new measures targeting methane emissions from oil and natural gas production. 

The shale revolution has been one of the few bright spots in the economy in recent 

years. We should be focusing on ways to leverage and multiply the benefits—for example, by creating jobs building energy infrastructure. The last thing we should do 

is jeopardize these benefits with rules that may make drilling in America too expensive. 

I’d like to see EPA focus on its current responsibilities before taking on new ones. 

The Agency is working on a new ozone rule even though it is well behind schedule 

implementing the existing standard. And the Agency routinely misses its deadlines 

under the Renewable Fuel Standard, making this problematic program even more 

difficult. 

While we do have our clear differences, your testimony today also presents an opportunity to explore areas of common ground. For example, we can embrace much 

of the EPA rule on coal ash, but go a step further and place permitting authority 

in the States. This should work for EPA making sure that the EPA’s control standards are effectively enforced. It should also work much better for the States who 

will have explicit benchmarks to meet and the authority to manage the implementation. It will also work for the people responsible for handling the combustion residuals every day, including plant operators, recyclers, and other job creators who will 

be given the regulatory certainty they need. 

Likewise, it was clear last year that your goals and ours for TSCA reform overlap. 

Let’s sit down and work out good legislation to improve safety for the public and 

to ensure a robust interstate market for chemicals and products that contain them. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman yields back. At this time I recognize 

the ranking member, Mr. Pallone of New Jersey, for 3 minutes. 

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

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Chairmen Whitfield and Shimkus, and 

also our ranking members, Rush and Tonko. And thank you, Administrator McCarthy, for being here today. 

A clean environment is not a luxury. It is essential to public 

health, and to a strong economy, and the EPA is on the front lines 

of the effort to make our air safer to breathe, and our water safer 

10 

to drink. The President’s fiscal year 2016 budget funds the EPA at 

8.6 billion, an increase of more than 450 million over the fiscal year 

2014 enacted level, and that is the minimum amount, in my opinion, that EPA needs to begin to address the many environmental 

challenges we are facing today, which happen to include the greatest known environmental threat and challenge to our planet, and 

that is climate change. 

Meanwhile, funds requested for EPA represent a small portion of 

the overall Federal budget, less than 1⁄4 of 1 percent, yet over 40 

percent is shared with the States and tribes to help them implement Federal environmental laws and achieve national goals, and 

those funds support local economies and communities big and 

small. For example, the budget includes significant funding for 

Superfund and brownfields cleanup. In addition to protecting 

human health and the environment, these cleanup projects are also 

promoting substantial economic growth, and gains in community 

and property value. 

According to a recent analysis, on-site businesses and organizations on current and former Superfund sites in just one of EPA’s 

nine regions provides over 6,200 jobs, and contribute an estimated 

$334 million in annual employment income. Another study found 

that properties within three miles of Superfund sites experienced 

an 18.6 percent to 24 1⁄2 percent increase in value when the sites 

are cleaned up. The fiscal year 2016 budget would also invest in 

our Nation’s aging drinking water infrastructure by providing over 

a billion for State revolving funds under the Safe Drinking Water 

Act, and these funds will support needed infrastructure projects for 

public drinking water systems well beyond this fiscal year. 

Also important, I want to commend the President for prioritizing 

actions to reduce the impacts of climate change in this budget. The 

budget provides funding for EPA’s Clean Power Plan, including 

money to help States develop their own strategies, and request a 

new Clean Power State Incentive Fund for State efforts to go above 

and beyond their carbon pollution reduction goals in the power sector. Some say the Clean Power Plan is problematic for an economy, 

but the reality is that over the past 40 years, clean air regulations 

have produced tremendous public health benefits, while also supporting America’s economic growth. 

And close to home, I appreciate the efforts to help smaller communities build climate resiliency. My district has the dubious distinction of being one of the hardest hit by Super Storm Sandy, and 

the EPA’s plan can help communities integrate climate adaptation 

planning into their efforts to upgrade their infrastructure. This 

planning will be essential to protecting the economies of communities facing the devastating costs of climate change. 

This is a sound budget. I support it, and I look forward to learning from Administrator McCarthy. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Pallone. At this time 

that concludes the opening statements, so, at this time, Ms. McCarthy, you are recognized for your 5 minutes of testimony. Thank 

you. 

11 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GINA MCCARTHY, 

ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Chairmen Whitfield and Shimkus. 

Thank you, Ranking Members Rush and Tonko, and the members 

of the committee for giving me the opportunity today to appear before you to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed 

fiscal year 2016 budget. I am joined by the Agency’s Acting Chief 

Financial Officer, David Bloom. 

The EPA’s budget request of $8.592 billion in discretionary funding for the 2016 fiscal year provides the resources that are vital to 

protecting human health and the environment, while building a 

solid path forward for sustainable economic growth. Since 1970, 

when the EPA was founded, we have seen over and over again that 

a safe environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. 

This budget supports essential work to address climate change, 

improve air quality, protect our water, safeguard the public from 

toxic chemicals, support communities’ environmental health, maintain core enforcement strength, support needed research, and work 

towards a sustainable future for all Americans. Effective environmental protection is a joint effort of EPA, States, and our tribal 

partners. We are setting a high bar for continuing our partnership 

efforts, and looking for opportunities for closer collaboration and 

targeted joint planning and governance processes through efforts 

like e-Enterprise governance approach. That is why the largest 

part of our budget, $3.6 billion, or 42 percent, is provided directly 

to State and tribal partners. The fiscal year 2016 request includes an increase of $108 million for State and tribal categorical grants. This budget requests $1.1 

billion to address climate change and improve air quality. These resources will help protect those most vulnerable to climate impacts 

and the harmful health effects of air pollution through common 

sense standards, guidelines, and partnership programs. 

Climate change is not just an environmental challenge. It is a 

threat to public health, our domestic and global economy, and to 

national and international security. The request supports the 

President’s Climate Action Plan, and in particular the Clean Power 

Plan, which establishes carbon pollution standards for power 

plants. In addition, the President’s budget calls for a $4 billion 

Clean Power State Incentive Fund to support State efforts to accelerate carbon pollution reductions in the power sector. 

Protecting the Nation’s waters remains a top priority for EPA. In 

fiscal year 2016 we will finalize and support implementation of the 

Clean Water Rule, which will clarify the types of waters covered 

under the Clean Water Act, and foster more certain and efficient 

business decisions to protect the Nation’s waters. Recognizing the 

need for water infrastructure, the SRF and related efforts are funded at over $2.3 billion, and we will work with our partners to help 

communities by focusing on issues such as financial planning for 

future public infrastructure investments, and expanded efforts with 

States to identify financing opportunities for resilient drinking 

water, water, and storm water infrastructure. Last month the 

Agency launched the Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance 

Center. It is a key component of our expanded efforts moving forward. 

12 

We are proposing a multifaceted effort to help our communities, 

including low-income neighborhoods, rural communities, and communities of color. This includes targeted funding, and on the 

ground community assistance through EPA regional coordinators, 

and a network of circuit riders. An investment of $16.2 million will 

help local communities improve safety and security at chemical facilities to prevent and prepare for oil spills. These efforts represent 

a shared commitment among those with a stake in chemical facility 

safety and security, ranging from facility owners to first responders. The fiscal year 2016 budget request will let us continue to 

make a real and visible difference to communities every day. It will 

give us a foundation to improve infrastructure across the country, 

and it will sustain State, tribal, and Federal environmental efforts 

all across our programs. 

With this proposed budget, the President is not only sending a 

clear signal about the resources EPA needs to work effectively and 

efficiently with States and tribes to protect public health and the 

environment, it is also a part of an overall Federal budget proposal 

that does not accept the bad public policy embodied in sequestration, and does not hold back needed resources in non-defense 

spending in order to increase needed defense spending, or vice 

versa. Instead, the President’s proposed fiscal year 2016 budget 

finds a path forward to avoid sequestration, and properly support 

both domestic and national security interests. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I 

look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:] 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you very much for your testimony, 

Ms. McCarthy, and I will recognize myself 5 minutes for questions. 

First question I would just ask you is how confident are you that 

you can defend the use of 111(d) to implement the existing coal 

plant rule? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am sorry, could you repeat that question? 

Sorry. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. How confident are you that you can successfully 

defend the use of 111(d) to implement the existing coal plant—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD (continuing). Rule? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I feel very confident. One of the reasons I say 

that is because of the extensive outreach that the Agency has done 

to each and every State, to all the stakeholders, including the environmental and energy stakeholders. I feel confident that we are 

seeing plans develop now that will be very sound, and that we can 

move this forward in a way that will both be beneficial—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So you think the outreach would pre-empt what 

the explicit language says? That is your position—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think the outreach has helped inform the explicit language—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). So that it is reasonable and fair, 

and it is going to allow states to move forward. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, in your submission, your budget document, 

you talk about further efforts are required to put the country on 

an emission trajectory consistent with the President’s long term climate goals. Now, I assume that you are talking about the commitments that he made in Copenhagen and in China, in which he said 

that he wanted to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in America by 

17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and then 26 to 28 percent 

below those level by 2025. Is that correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think I am referring to the President’s understanding that climate change is a significant issue that the administration has the authority and responsibility to address, and I am 

trying to make sure that we deliver our portion of that plan effectively. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, how did they decide on 17 percent below 

2005 levels by 2020? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That was an international goal that the U.S. 

Government put forth in those—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So the U.S.—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD (continuing). Government presented that? That 

was what the goal was? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, as part of the—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And how was that determined by the U.S. Government? How did they reach that conclusion? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think you would have to speak with the Department of State to know the ins and outs of that discussion. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Have you had any discussions with them about 

that—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Certainly. We have talked about the rules that 

the Agency had underway—— 

20 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I mean—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). At that time, and—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I mean, I could make the argument it is pretty 

arbitrary. Could I make that argument or not? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think that what we are talking about now, and 

the plan that is before you, the budget plan, is very concrete. Authorities that the EPA has are responsibilities, and will be concrete 

steps moving forward that are measurable. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, but one thing that bothers us, when you 

testified on the Senate in July of 2014, you had mentioned that 

this is not about pollution control. You said it in your statement, 

this is not about pollution control. So this must be about honoring 

the President’s commitment. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. My statement was referring to the fact that, 

when you seek to address carbon pollution, there are many ways 

in which it is an investment opportunity, instead of an end of pipe 

pollution control technology. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So, in other words, this is about investment opportunities, from your perspective? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. What I am suggesting is that States can look at 

this as an opportunity—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But it is not—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). To invest in their—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But it is not about pollution control? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It is not about the installation of pollution control technology. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. All right. Would the President’s Clean Power 

Plan meet his international commitments without the adoption of 

these rules that you are proposing? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think that the President has established some 

aggressive goals for this Nation that are commensurate with our 

interests in addressing climate domestically, and also meeting our 

commitment internationally to address this issue. But EPA is not 

focusing our legal efforts—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Um-hum. 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). On any particular international or 

domestic goal. They are just implementing the authorities under 

the Clean Air Act that are given to us. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. See, the reason many of us in Congress are so 

upset about this is that the cap and trade system was rejected by 

the Congress, and yet the President goes out and makes international commitments, does not consult with Congress, comes back, 

announces, at his Georgetown speech, this is my plan, and then 

EPA follows up, and we are going to issue these regulations to 

meet the President’s plan so that he could meet his international 

agreements. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, the Clean Power Plan is a direct application of the authority that Congress gave us to look at how to establish a best system of emission reductions for the power sector to address carbon pollution, which is a regulated pollutant under the 

Clean Air Act. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I want to ask more questions, but my time is 

out, so—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, sir. 

21 

Mr. WHITFIELD (continuing). At this time I recognize Mr. Rush 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUSH. Again, I am going to thank you, Administrator McCarthy. Also, I want to express my gratitude for the meeting that I 

had with Acting Assistant Administrator Janet McKean last January, I believe it was, where we discussed my concerns regarding 

the nuclear provision in the proposed 111(d) rule. And as I stated 

in my opening statement, it is important that the finalized rule 

gives new credit to all zero emission sources of energy, which not 

only includes renewables such as solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal, all of which I fully support, but also nuclear power generation. 

As you know, my home State of Illinois is home to the highest 

number of nuclear reactors, 11, that provide up to 48 percent of the 

State’s electricity. These carbon-free nuclear generators run all 

above 90 percent capacity, which is extremely efficient in comparison to any other type of energy source. The goal of the Clean Power 

Plan is to reduce carbon emissions, while also ensuring that States 

can continue to provide reasonably priced safe, reliable electricity 

to its consumers, then nuclear power must play a central role in 

helping to achieve this objective. 

While I realize that there are other market-based considerations 

that are resultant in nuclear being somewhat less competitive, I 

feel as though the EPA must work to finalize a rule that 

incentivizes States to preserve nuclear power in their energy portfolios by valuing nuclear generation on par with other common free 

sources. It is critical that the final 111(d) rule helps promote the 

continued use of zero emission generation, such as both renewable 

and nuclear energy if we are actually going to achieve the carbon 

reductions that the regulation was intended to produce. 

My question to you, Madam Administrator, would you agree that 

nuclear power must play a vital role in the Clean Power Plan, in 

that it allows States to provide zero emissions-based loan power 

generation that is affordable, safe, and reliable? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think it is a part of every State’s strategy moving forward, yes. 

Mr. RUSH. Can you assure the subcommittee that EPA has taken 

into account the concerns of States like Illinois, who might be negatively impacted if nuclear power is not fully credited in a State’s 

plan to meet its charted carbon reductions? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I certainly agree that nuclear power is zero carbon, and it is an important part of the base load for many of the 

States, and it should be considered by those States carefully in the 

development of their plans. 

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank you. I also would like to continue to 

engage your office on this issue—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. RUSH (continuing). To make sure that nuclear power is appropriately valued, due to its carbon-neutral emissions, in any kind 

of rule that is proposed. 

Moving along, Madam Administrator, another keen priority for 

me is the issue of environmental justice, and making sure that 

States are provided adequate direction in order to achieve the interests of low-income and minority communities. In cases where 

22 

States may not be sure how to conduct environmental justice analysis, then I believe that it would be very helpful if the EPA provided States with guidance, technical assistance, and resources to 

help protect their most vulnerable communities which we all know 

have the least amount of affluence, and influence, to help themselves. 

Can you speak to this issue and assure me that, one, EPA is indeed listening, and working with the environmental justice groups 

as the Agency prepares to finalize the rule, and two, the Agency 

will provide States with tools and resources to help identify and 

protect these communities? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I can assure you of that, Ranking Member, and 

I will also point out that our environmental justice budget is given 

an increase of $7.3 million this year, which will go a long way to 

helping us provide those tools and technical assistance. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman’s time has expired. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again, 

Madam Administrator. I could really have some fun with you 

today, but you are too nice a person. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. For a short period of time, anyway. 

Mr. BARTON. Yes. You have always been responsive professionally, and at least accommodating to take my phone calls, and 

to visit with me. So I am not going to grandstand, but I do have 

a question that is—there are several, but the first one, the President made this big announcement about China, and ballyhooed it 

as a major breakthrough, and a major agreement, but I am told 

there is actually no written agreement, there is no signed document. Is that true? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am not aware that that is the case. I don’t 

know. I have not verified that. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. Well, I have it on good authority, from the professional staff to the majority of this committee, that, in reality, all 

it was was a press release. Now, if that is true, and I am going 

to say if, that we can’t find any copy, nor can we obtain a copy of 

any document that was officially signed, can you check that out, 

and let us know? It is one thing to have a disagreement about policy. It is another thing to have a disagreement over what are in 

these documents when our President signs things. 

The Kyoto Accord, as you well remember, was signed by the VicePresident on behalf of President Clinton, but it never was ratified 

by the Senate. In this case, we don’t even have something that we 

can debate the pros and cons of. And, given the fact that this is 

a fairly visible issue, I think it is a fair question. If there is a 

signed agreement, let us see it. Do you agree with that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, my understanding is that it was a commitment at the highest levels in both countries, and that the decision 

was made to ensure that the actions that are commensurate with 

those obligations—captured in already existing agreements that we 

have with the country, and that we will have an action plan moving forward developed through our formal negotiation process. 

Mr. BARTON. Is that a long answer to say there is no signed 

agreement? 

23 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, there is very much a commitment, and that 

was what was—— 

Mr. BARTON. A commitment? 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Announced, and we have agreements to work towards that commitment to—— 

Mr. BARTON. OK. 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Actually put the actions in. And the 

work we are already—— 

Mr. BARTON. Well, whatever—I mean, when the President of the 

United States, or the Secretary of State, or you, as the Administrator of the EPA, represent the United States in international exchanges, if agreements are made, something is signed. Something 

is signed. You don’t just stand up and say, you know, we have this 

agreement, and hug, and everybody just loves each other. You actually have a document, and if it needs to be ratified by the Senate 

or the House, is a commitment. 

And what you have here, I am told, is a press release, a photo 

op, which is not unusual for this President, I will grant you. But 

in this case, a 30-year agreement should actually be documented. 

That is all. So if there is something that is signed, you will get it 

to the committee? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I am sure that there was an agreement 

that was announced, and I have seen those documents. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think—— 

Mr. BARTON. You have seen—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). At the highest level—— 

Mr. BARTON. You have seen documents that—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). By those agents. 

Mr. BARTON (continuing). Obama, and whoever the Chinese official is, you have actually seen a signed—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I—— 

Mr. BARTON (continuing). Document? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I have seen the documents expressing both of 

their commitments to this goal, and I am well aware that we have 

ongoing—— 

Mr. BARTON. All right. But you haven’t seen the signed—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Action items can be documented—— 

Mr. BARTON. OK. 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). And tracked. 

Mr. BARTON. I can take you over to the National Archives and 

show you the signed Declaration of Independence. I can show you 

lots of documents that have signatures on them. You and I can 

agree that I am not going to go out and rob a bank. And you can 

agree that you are not going to rob a bank, and we can both hold 

a press conference, we have agreed we are not going to rob a bank. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t think that this has been discussed as 

that type of a binding agreement. I think it has been discussed as 

a path forward that is very—— 

Mr. BARTON. I have got 30 seconds left, so I am going—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. OK. 

Mr. BARTON (continuing). To switch gears. Renewable fuel standards, we have a situational mandate that simply can’t be met. You 

24 

have said publicly and privately that you want to fix it, and you 

have promised the chairman of the committee, and I think even in 

a hearing, that you would have a program to fix it. We have yet 

to see that. When can we expect to see something that gives some 

real relief to this RFS mandate that simply can’t be met? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I think, Congressman, you know that I 

have a real commitment to moving this issue forward. I wished it 

could have happened last year. The approach that EPA took received considerable comment, and so you will see something very 

soon, in the spring, that will address that issue and hopefully move 

us forward on a—— 

Mr. BARTON. Can you give us a date very soon this spring? I 

mean, by the end of March? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t have a particular timeline, Senator—I 

mean Congressman. I—— 

Mr. BARTON. Yes, don’t profane me now. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I was giving you a little boost. I just want to 

make sure that we cross our T’s and dot our I’s. I know we were 

not successful last year as I would like us to be, and I really want 

to get this out in a strong way, and make sure that it looks forward. 

Mr. BARTON. You are—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We both have real interest in this. 

Mr. BARTON. All right. Well, keep us informed. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Senator’s time has expired. At this time I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Chair. And, Administrator McCarthy, 

again, welcome, and thank you for your leadership, and for joining 

us this morning. I want to focus on drinking water programs. 

I am pleased to this year’s budget includes a modest increase 

over the current year’s funding level for the Drinking Water State 

Revolving Loan Fund. It seems every week I hear about significant 

water main breaks across our country. A few weeks ago, or over 

the last few weeks, several have hit my district, including my 

hometown of Amsterdam. 

While I am pleased the administration is asking for more funding for the primary account dedicated to supporting drinking water 

infrastructure, I am concerned that we are continuing to fall further and further behind on the maintenance and upkeep of these 

systems. It costs far more to deal with a pipe once it has burst than 

it is to have a systematic program of repair and replacement of infrastructure that takes care of our systems. Also, we have many 

communities that are not able to take on more debt, so a loan program isn’t going to do it for them. They do need grants. 

So in this Agency’s budget, there is mention of new technologies, 

and new financing mechanisms that the Agency will be exploring. 

For example, the new Water Infrastructure and Resilience Finance 

Center won’t provide funding, but will provide assistance to communities seeking outside funding for their projects. Is that correct? 

Is my interpretation of that budget correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. For this year we are standing up the program 

itself, yes, but we are also looking at what other States and localities are doing so that we can share that information effectively, 

25 

and see if we can’t duplicate some of those public/private partnerships that are happening already. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. Well, that is leading us in the right direction. 

I have seen estimates of water leakage from drinking water systems that range anywhere from 30 to 50 percent. This is treated 

water that is leaking, so it represents both lost revenues, because 

that water is never delivered to a customer, and it is lost investment, because the utility paid to purify that water. So water and 

dollars are flowing out of these pipes. 

Programs like Water Sense, that encourage water conservation 

by customers are good, but if the biggest water loss is from the delivery system, we need to address this. Does the Agency have some 

options for helping utilities to identify these leaks and address 

them? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we are—actually a fairly comprehensive 

program. It begins with our Office of Research and Development, 

that conducts research on what types of technologies are available 

to identify where those leaks are happening. And then we try to 

provide technical assistance out of our programs to help identify 

opportunities for reducing those leaks, so we will be looking at this. 

And you are absolutely right, that as the climate changes, our 

water challenges get considerable. And if you look at what is happening in the western part of the U.S., there is a desperate need 

for water conservation, and the last thing any of us would want to 

do is to see water that is suitable for drinking being leaked out of 

the system. 

Mr. TONKO. Right. It is indeed a precious commodity, and we 

need to have a good collaborative effort to address those issues. The 

best way to address the high cost of treating drinking water, in my 

opinion, is to ensure the source water is as clean as possible to 

begin with. I support the Waters of the U.S. rule because I believe 

it is critical to efforts at source water protection. What other initiatives is the Agency putting considering to assist communities with 

preventing water pollution and protecting source waters? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. In a number of different directions. One of 

our biggest concerns is that we see a lot of spills near source waters and in source waters that are challenging us, from a drinking 

water perspective. We also see new pollutants coming in. So we are 

looking with States to ensure that they get the guidance they need, 

and that we do our job, in terms of setting national standards, so 

that the States who have the primacy, in terms of establishing 

their own water quality standards, and identifying and categorizing 

their own waters, have the information they need to protect themselves. 

We know we have had some recent spills that indicate that it is 

not enough, so we are trying to identify what other assistance we 

can give to States, and we are also trying to get them to think a 

little bit more creatively about how they plan their water infrastructure needs so that drinking water sources are protected. Plus 

we also get an opportunity to move forward with some of the challenging storm water issues that are contributing to some of the pollution that is entering into our drinking water supplies. 

Mr. TONKO. Well, again, we appreciate the partnership that the 

Agency has with the States. When you ask for those dollars in the 

26 

budget, the budget increases somewhat. We know that a lot of 

those efforts go toward our States, so we appreciate that. And, 

again, thank you for your input here this morning. With that, I 

yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman yields back. At this time recognize 

the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator, again, 

welcome. Do you agree that—there are 84,000 chemicals listed, approximately, in the TSCA inventories—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS (continuing). Is that the number? How many do you 

think are currently in commerce? Of the 84 listed, how many are 

actually used in commerce? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am sorry, I don’t have the exact—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, and, I mean, that is part of the problem. That 

is why we are trying to move in a bicameral, bipartisan nature on 

TSCA, to try to get a handle on this. If we work with the industry 

on chemical data reporting, that should help us get a better idea 

of what that number is, do you agree? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So, in your budget plan, you have—originally—83 

work plan chemical risk assessments that you want done by 2018. 

If you—I look at the budget report of—we have got, like—five are 

completed, five to 10 in ’15, maybe 10 in ’16, which gives us 25. 

Take that from 83, that is still 58 that, budget-wise, we don’t seem 

to be able to get in in a timely manner. 

I just raise this because I appreciate the effort, but, again, I just 

want to use this opportunity, as I think we can get there, and this 

is a perfect example of how we can work with you, and work with 

my colleagues on the other side, to move this forward. And so—as 

I mentioned a couple times. 

I want to move to 111(d) debate just a little bit. And this is 

where we appreciate some of FERC’s responsibility, because there 

is concern that, under 111(d), coal fired generation, there is going 

to be some decommissioning. And, as you know, they are major 

generators. They are a base load production. Across the country nuclear power is also stressed, and you can look at my own State, the 

State of Illinois, where the State is trying to go through some gyrations to make sure that nuclear power is still online. Has the EPA 

taken into consideration the base load loss of not just 111(d), but 

what could happen if we lose nuclear power, and what do you think 

could be used to supplant that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. We actually have looked at that issue, and 

we have received a lot of comment on this as well, because the way 

in which the 111(d) analysis looks at this issue is it indicates that 

there is likely to continue to be over 30 percent generation through 

coal, even in 2030, at the end of the target timeline under 111(d). 

But base load coal, there is no question that there are being investments made in that base load in order to make it cleaner from 

traditional pollutants, and we expect that base load to continue. 

And one of the biggest challenges is to make sure we don’t do this 

in a way that sends different signals to the communities we all 

care about, the energy world that is bringing reliable and cost-effective energy. I want them, if they are investing in these facilities, 

27 

to know that they can continue, and that investment will not be 

stranded. 

And I think we are looking very closely at that issue because 

there are many ways in which we can achieve these goals that 

don’t result in lower energy generation in base load from coal, 

other than what has been projected, which is still going to be very 

strong in 2030. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And we have talked about the mid-term standards 

before, and I know you have had a lot of input from the industry, 

and I would just hope that you would really look at those, because 

that could be a tipping point of moving things too fast, where if the 

end goals can be reached without really upsetting the apple cart in 

the mid-term, and, you know, we have talked about it—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS (continuing). And I know you have had—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. We have put out some ideas for this, and 

we have some great comments in that will allow us to address this 

issue pretty effectively. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And the last thing I want to do is—I also want to 

just kind of weigh in on the RFS positively, hoping that we do get 

a standard. And I have already talked to the folks in my district 

who are concerned, and say ’14, ’15, and ’16 will have something. 

I am sure that will be highly fought and angered on both sides, no 

matter what that is. 

But it brings me to this debate on biodiesel, and the EPA’s authorization of importation of Argentine biodiesel without really 

having the CARBIOs established. Is this a point of one hand not 

knowing what the other hand is doing, and then how do we put 

that supply in as part of the calculation for when you do ’14, ’15, 

and ’16? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, RFS is going to be looking at the range of 

availability of fuel supplies of the biodiesel fuel supplies that are 

available both domestically and internationally, which is what the 

rule requires. 

In terms of CARBIO itself, you know, that decision, I think, was 

a little bit misunderstood, and we can certainly talk about this, but 

there was already biodiesel coming in from Argentina. What we approved was actually a more stringent way of tracking that to ensure that it was a renewable fuel consistent with the underlying 

RFS principles. 

And so it was not intended to open up a new market. It was intended to reflect the way in which the companies were assuring 

their compliance in a way that was more stringent than others had 

already been doing. And we think it is a model moving forward to 

make sure that everybody is bringing into this country the kind of 

fuel that we are trying to support domestically for production purposes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman’s time has expired. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member for 

holding the hearing. Administrator McCarthy, thank you for being 

here today, and it is always good to see you before our subcommittee. To say that EPA has a lot on its plate is an understatement. The rules and regulations promulgated by the Agency seem 

28 

to affect every sector of our Nation, and I am happy to ask some 

questions about the balance we are trying to strike between protecting the environment, but helping our business and industrial 

sector capitalize on what is required to be done. 

On April the 12th the EPA released the new source performance 

standards for volatile organic chemicals from the oil and gas industry. The 2012 NSPS targeted hydraulic fractured natural gas wells. 

The rule targeted VOC emissions reductions through green completion, and expected a yield of 95 percent reduction, including an estimated 1.7 million tons of methane. My first question is, the VOC 

in NSPS was supposed to be implemented in a two-step process. Is 

this accurate, that the NSPS won’t be implemented until the end 

of 2015? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. My understanding is—and I am sorry, Congressman, I may be counting wrong, but I think that is right for the full 

implementation we did recognize in that rule that there was equipment that needed to be manufactured and installed, and we 

worked with the industry to make sure we weren’t being overly aggressive about the ability to have the technologies available for full 

implementation. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Has the EPA actually quantified how much of 

the VOC reduction the NSPS has actually yielded to this point? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We do have a good signal from our greenhouse 

gas reporting program that it has already been tremendously effective at reducing carbon pollution, because carbon pollution is reduced as you are capturing those volatile organic compounds. So we 

do have a very good sense that this is being effective already. 

Mr. GREEN. I understand it is already about 190 to 290,000 

tons—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is right. 

Mr. GREEN (continuing). Is the estimate. Has the EPA quantified 

methane reductions as a co-benefit? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have, and I can provide those numbers. I 

don’t have them at the tip of—— 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Well, I—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). My tongue—— 

Mr. GREEN (continuing). Think I have them. It is about 73 percent decrease—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Excellent. 

Mr. GREEN (continuing). Of that, so—in January of this year, the 

White House and EPA released a strategy for reducing methane 

and ozone pollution from the oil and gas industries. The release 

stated potential sources that would be regulated are hydraulic fractured oil wells, pneumatic pumps, leaks as well from well sites and 

compression stations. Anyone who has been on a rig knows you put 

a hole in the ground and find oil, you are also most likely to find 

natural gas—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN (continuing). And the Energy Information Agency 

states that more than half of all completed wells produce both oil 

and gas. Does the EPA believe that there is an overlap between 

these two rules? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We believe that there are synergies between the 

two rules, and we are going to make sure that we do not duplicate 

29 

efforts, but we actually provide a good signal for those that are 

both producing oil and natural gas as to what their regulatory obligations are. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. In 2014 the EPA estimates indicated almost 

$200 million in additional gas could be captured and sold—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN (continuing). From the natural gas sector. Recently, 

producers in West Texas have started using modular equipment to 

capture the methane, separate the gas into the various components, and either sell as a product, or power back to the producer. 

This approach has effected an economically efficient way to encourage change. Methane is a product that we need to use. Aside from 

using it on-site, additional capture is going to require additional 

pipelines. 

In the budget, DOE has set aside some, but not enough, money 

to encourage additional investment in modular applications in pipeline infrastructure. Has the EPA done anything similar? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. EPA is working with DOE on the Quadrennial 

Energy Review to take a look at what pipelines need to be constructed in order to make sure that we can still continue to enjoy 

the inexpensive natural gas and the oil that is making us solid domestically. 

Mr. GREEN. Recently the White House Council on Environmental 

Quality released a revised draft guide, covering how Federal departments and agents should consider the effects of the greenhouse 

gas emissions and climate change in their NEPA studies. What are 

your views on how this guideline will affect what EPA is already 

doing to measure climate impacts from major Federal actions 

under NEPA? Specifically, how will EPA measure climate impacts 

under NEPA stemming from the construction of new natural gas 

pipelines? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think that it provides us an opportunity to be 

clear that NEPA is a flexible tool, and that greenhouse gases 

should be looked at which it is appropriate to do so, and when the 

impacts are significant enough to warrant it, and it provides us 

good guidance moving forward so everybody will know the data 

that is necessary to move these projects forward. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have one more question. 

I will submit it, on the Superfund budgets for this year. We have 

some Superfund sites in my area, and the budget cuts may impact 

us being able to clean those up. But I thank you for your time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. At this time recognize the gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the Chair and welcome Administrator 

McCarthy. Pardon me, a little frog in my throat. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It is good to see you, Congressman. 

Mr. OLSON. You as well. Ma’am, as you know, your EPA is taking comments on mass new standards for ozone—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. OLSON (continuing). Otherwise known as smog. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Um-hum. 

Mr. OLSON. In Houston, we have been fighting this issue for decades. We have made huge strides in cleaning up our air. But the 

proposal the EPA has released will land like a ton of bricks, ton 

30 

of foreign smog, on most of the country. Could I have a slide, 

please, first slide? If you don’t have any of these slides, I can give 

you a copy, hard copy, if you can’t read the slides when they come 

up here. 

[Slide follows:] 

31 

1The information has been retained in committee files and also is available at http:// 

docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20150225/103014/HHRG-114-IF03-20150225-SD011.pdf.. 

Mr. OLSON This first slide is your estimate of counties that will 

violate the proposals you have out there. Any shade of blue is bad. 

Blue counties would have a hard time getting permits for new factories or energy exploration, even highway construction. I ask 

unanimous consent to enter into the record a report from the Texas 

Department of Transportation, predicting an infrastructure mess in 

your proposal. Without objection, sir, I would like to enter that for 

the record. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection. 1

Mr. OLSON. Thank you. I would like to tackle this ozone issue 

with some Chairman Dingell-inspired questions that require yes or 

no answers. Next slide, please. 

[Slide follows:] 

32 

33 

Mr. OLSON This slide is from page 209 of your regulatory impact 

analysis. If you can’t see that, ma’am, I have something for you 

right here, if you would like to—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am having a little bit of a hard time reading 

it. And I can’t say I recognize it specifically on that exact page. 

Mr. OLSON. 209. Yes or no, does this slide show that half the 

technology our communities need to meet the 65 parts per billion 

standard doesn’t yet exist in the eastern part of America? Yes or 

no? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am sorry, I don’t understand the question. 

Mr. OLSON. The question, ma’am, is if we go to 65 parts per billion, you can’t achieve that with current technology? Doesn’t that 

slide show this? I mean, look at that slide. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, the slide—it doesn’t indicate that—the 

numbers that we look at on ozone are based on 2014 to 2016. That 

is how this rule would work. And, in fact, it shows that—— 

Mr. OLSON. I am sorry, ma’am, the question is yes or no. If you 

disagree, say no. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I can’t answer it the way you phrased it, sir. But 

I do know that with the national rules we are doing, and the reductions we are achieving in Nox and VOCs, that almost all counties 

will achieve an ozone standard at 70, with the exception of about 

nine in the State of California will continue to be challenged, 

but—— 

Mr. OLSON. OK. I am sorry, ma’am, I have to move on here. 

Next—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. OK. 

Mr. OLSON (continuing). Slide, please. 

[Slide follows:] 

34 

35 

Mr. OLSON Another big issue is background ozone. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. OLSON. Smog occurrences can be natural, like forest fires, 

but they can be foreign, too, like from Mexican crop burning annually. The last time I showed you the slide of Chinese smog pouring 

into our country. I want to focus on another slide. Next slide, 

please. 

[Slide follows:] 

36 

Mr. OLSON This is your map. It shows how much ozone in our 

country comes from ‘‘background sources’’, compared to American 

sources. Anywhere from over 50 to 80 percent of ozone is outside 

of our control. You are asking us to do the impossible, control what 

we can’t control. Look at that map. Again, yes or no, am I correct 

that there are almost no parts of the country where Americans are 

contributing to more than half the ozone? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t know the answer to that question, sir. 

Mr. OLSON. OK. Yes or no, am I correct that Chinese emissions 

have increased in recent years, gone up? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is true. 

Mr. OLSON. That is yes? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That I am aware of. 

Mr. OLSON. I would like to submit for the record whether EPA’s 

budget allows more staff to handle petitions on foreign pollution, 

like from China. Someone can do that for me? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, no States are being asked to reduce 

emissions that are background levels coming from another country, 

so we will be working—— 

Mr. OLSON. You don’t know how your budget addresses foreign 

sources of ozone? Can I get that from you sometime in the near future—14 seconds left here, I want to talk about the exceptional impacts rule. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. OLSON. It allows the EPA to remove some natural resources 

of ozone from its calculations. And, yes or no, you rely on the exception rule to make these rules achievable? Is that a weapon you 

have to make your new standards viable? Exception of resources? 

Can that make these new standards viable? Because—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think you are—— 

Mr. OLSON (continuing). Right now, they are not viable. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think you are referring to exceptional 

events—— 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Which has been part of our program 

since day one, and we are trying to make sure that States can easily access our ability to have exceptional events documented so that 

they can make sure that they don’t interfere with the State plans 

for implementing the rule. 

Mr. OLSON. And one question I will submit for the record, one 

final thing, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to introduce 

a document from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

that goes into great detail about the exceptional events process in 

my home State, the fact that we are 0 for 10 the past 5 years. Only 

three have been answered. Seven have not been answered. So, 

again, that is not viable to control ozone. In our—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Congressman, I am—— 

Mr. OLSON (continuing). Real experience in—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Happy to work on—— 

Mr. OLSON (continuing). Texas we are 0 for 10. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. OK. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

37 

38 

39 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from New 

Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Administrator, 

with just a small fraction of the Federal budget, the EPA tackles 

the enormous task of protecting communities across the country, 

ensuring clean air to breathe and safe water to drink, and they do 

all this by partnering with States and localities, providing essential 

funds for environmental protection at all levels. I just wanted to 

highlight a few of these important activities. 

First, I would like to discuss the work EPA does to clean up land 

and protect vulnerable communities. This budget includes more 

funding for Superfund cleanups than last year. What might that 

funding mean for minority communities and low-income communities living around Superfund sites? Are there other resources included in the budget for vulnerable and overburdened communities 

also, beyond the Superfund? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. I think there are significant resources in 

this budget to help communities that have been underserved, or 

have been left behind in some of our national efforts to reduce pollution. This will help us get at potentially another 25 sites, moving 

forward to cleanups that are going to be ready for the cleanup 

stage in the coming year. So it is an increase in our Superfund 

budget that is going to be significant. 

And we all know that many of the communities surrounding 

Superfund sites actually are low-income areas. They are communities of color that deserve to have the same protections as everybody in this country enjoys. And that is what this is all about. 

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate that. I think this funding is so important for health safety and the economies of these communities. And 

I would suggest to the Chairman that the committee, at some 

point, hold a hearing on environmental justice to learn more about 

the risks that these communities face. 

Another source of risk for people in these communities, and all 

communities, are unsafe and untested chemicals in our products 

and our environment, and that is why I believe that TSCA should 

be a priority, or strengthening TSCA should be a priority. This 

budget includes significant funding for chemical risk assessment 

and management, and for computational toxicology. Can you briefly 

describe how funding for computation toxicology and chemical risk 

assessment will protect human health and the environment? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Nice job. Yes, I can. In fiscal year 2016, EPA is 

requesting an increase of 12.4 million for computational toxicology 

research. I think, you know, that this is an important step forward 

because it really strengthens our ability to get more chemicals assessed in a quick way. It has potential to significantly eliminate 

animal testing, which takes a very long to actually reap the benefits we need to ensure that we can do these chemical assessments 

quickly. 

It is a significant step forward, and it is cutting-edge science 

being done at EPA, and it is a wonderful opportunity for us to address the toxicity in chemicals and make sure that our public 

health is being protected. 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, thank you. And, again, I would suggest to 

the chairman and the committee that there be a hearing on comVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:15 Jul 20, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114_11EPABUDGETASKOK071715\114_11EPABUDGETPDFMADE
40 

putational toxicology to better understand these techniques, and 

their potential to change the debate on TSCA reform. 

Last, I just wanted to touch on one of the greatest, if not the 

greatest, environmental challenge of our time. The EPA has provided tremendous leadership to understand, address, and mitigate 

the effects of climate change, and Congress has not been a partner 

in those efforts. Instead, Congressional Republicans have taken 

every opportunity to undermine them. 

So, Administrator McCarthy, we are hearing lots of negative 

claims about the Clean Power Plan, and the new ozone standards, 

but both of these rules are just in the proposal stage. And at every 

turn I hear about how you have an open door policy, and are a 

great listener. I also know that industry claims about costs and 

economic effects are frequently overstated, and the benefits of acting are usually understated. I think we need to act on climate 

change, and the Clean Power Plan is a key part of that, but some 

just want to criticize. 

I just want to put you on the spot here and ask you if you are 

fully committed to developing a workable plan with States and industry that ensures reliability of the grid, and will you work with 

Members on that, and would you be willing to testify before the 

committee about your plan? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right, I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman yields back. At this time recognize 

the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Administrator, when the EPA wrote the rules for RFS 2 

in 2010, it acknowledged that the reasons for placing the compliance obligation on refiners who don’t blend renewable fuel, instead 

of on blenders who do, was an outdated holdover from the 2007 

RFS 1 rules. Changing the definition of obligated party could help 

to advance the goals of the program, and correct some of the problems we are seeing with the current program. EPA did a significant 

amount of work on this issue in 2009 and 2010. 

My question is, do you agree it would be timely and useful to include and accept public comment on a proposal to shift the compliance obligation as part of the current 2014, 2015, 2016 

rulemakings? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I do know that that is a comment that we 

received on the 2014 proposal we put out last year. It is my interest to make sure that we move forward with the 2014 rule as 

quickly as we can. I think it is important for the stability of the 

renewable fuel industry. But I am sure we will be looking at those 

comments closely as we move forward. 

Mr. PITTS. One of the problems with this program is that it requires the EPA to make predictions each year on two highly uncertain things, first, how much transportation and fuel will be consumed in the following year, and second, how much renewable fuel 

will be used. When EPA gets these predictions wrong, as it did in 

2013, the result is exorbitant prices for—economic hardships for 

merchant refiners, and windfall profits for blenders. CBO has told 

41 

us escalating RFS mandates will lead to higher gas prices at the 

pump. 

EPA’s decision to delay the 2014 rule until 2015 created unnecessary uncertainty for all stakeholders, but there may be a silver lining. For 2014, EPA won’t have to guess how much transportation 

or renewable fuel was used. The year will be over, and EPA can 

set the standard based on what actually happened. So my questions are will EPA set the 2014 mandates based on the actual consumption of transportation and renewable fuels? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, sir, I am not able to answer that question because we are not yet through an interAgency review, and 

able to release it finally. But we will be addressing that question 

clearly. 

Let me just say that the courts have been very clear to us that 

we need to follow the direction of the EIA in terms of our projections, and we have been true to doing that, and we will make sure 

that we continue to do that. And we will also move forward with 

2014, recognizing that it wasn’t completed as a final rule in time 

to generate the incentive to go beyond what was already generated, 

and I recognize that. 

Mr. PITTS. Will EPA combine the 2014, 2015, 2016 mandate? If 

so, do you believe EPA has the statutory authority to do so? If you 

do, I would like to have you cite the authority. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, we do know that the statute requires us to 

put out annual levels, but there is a great interest in making sure 

that we send signals to the market in a way that allows all of the 

participants to be prepared for the numbers that might come forward. 

Mr. PITTS. Earlier this year EPA tied the 2013 compliance deadline to the issuance of the final 2014 rule, and this allowed obligated parties to make informed decisions about using 2013—for 

2013—or 2014 compliance. And the rationale for delaying the 2013 

compliance deadline is equally applicable to 2014, and each year 

following. Will EPA tie the 2014 compliance deadline to the 

issuance of a final 2015 rule? And what about subsequent compliance deadlines? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. As you indicate, Congressman, we know that 

this is an issue that is important. We have addressed it before. We 

are going to continue to address that issue moving forward in our 

proposed rules. 

Mr. PITTS. Well, how will the compliance deadline be impacted 

if EPA combines the 2014, 2015 rules? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Those are issues that we would need to resolve 

if we intend to do that. I did not indicate that. But certainly we 

know that, in a market as large as this, and for research and investment purposes, it is difficult to always wait for an annual rule 

to come out and be finalized, and we want to make sure that we 

are providing as much signal as we can moving forward. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time we will recognize the gentlelady 

from California, Ms. Capps, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you for recognizing me. And before I begin, 

it is always a pleasure to have former colleagues join us. Pleased 

to have you in the audience today. Administrator McCarthy, thank 

42 

you for your testimony, and for being here today, and I want to address several topics, mostly around climate change, the effects of 

which are far reaching, interconnected impacts on our environment, human health, and the economy, and I am pleased that you 

have made this at EPA such an important priority. I want to address the fact that there are both large scale and smaller scale efforts in the community level, which are important in addressing climate change. 

In your fiscal year 2016 budget for EPA, budget request, you propose implementing a locally targeted effort, with regional coordinators, and the so-called circuit riders, to ensure that communities 

have the resources. In other words, being there on the site to see. 

Will you please briefly describe this proposal, and how will it help 

our local communities? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I will. This is an effort to try to work with communities and States, frankly, at the community level to look at climate resilience. We are learning a lot as we go across the country 

and talk about these issues, and we have identified having circuit 

riders, which are trained individuals in this particular field, and 

have them more nimble and available to go out to communities 

moving forward who are considering issues that would have the 

wealth of tools at their fingertips that EPA and others have provided. 

We think it is a real opportunity to stretch our resources, and 

make them accessible to local communities in a way that will be 

much more productive than we have before, and we are requesting 

resources to support that. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. EPA’s Clean Power Plan is a very commendable effort to address both air quality and climate change. 

And, you know, there are numerous studies through EPA, but in 

other sources too, showing that the Clean Power Plan will be able 

to significantly address public health through reducing carbon pollution, and from the co-benefits of improved air quality. Can you 

elaborate? Give us a comparison here. What are the expected 

human health benefits from such a Clean Power Plan? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. The human health benefits relate to a number of things. One is that we know that vectors of disease are 

changing, in terms of their territories. We know that allergy seasons are getting larger. We know that ozone is going to be a more 

difficult issue moving forward as the weather gets warmer, and 

there is more ozone being produced. And all of these things directly 

relate to people’s health. 

So climate change is a significant public health problem. It 

should not be looked at as simply a natural resource issue—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. Um-hum. 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). And it also is clearly an economic 

challenge—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. Um-hum. 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Particularly for those families that 

are struggling with their kids that have asthma. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Right. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have significant responsibility to protect 

those children, and give them a future that we can be proud of. 

43 

Mrs. CAPPS. Agreed. And now to address the concerns that many 

of my colleagues have raised regarding the costs of implementation, 

and the costs of energy that they believe will affect lower and—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mrs. CAPPS (continuing). Middle-class families—income families. 

We, of course, want to keep energy affordable, so could you give us 

a comparison of the costs and benefits of the Clean Power Plan? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. In 2030, the benefits of the Clean Power Plan 

will range anywhere from $55 to $93 billion in benefits, compared 

to costs of $7.3 to $8.3 billion. It is a significant benefit. And the 

one thing I want to make clear of, again, is that I consider these 

to be investments in the future. I consider these to be investments 

in clean economy and job growth. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Once the investments are made, they keep giving—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. They certainly—— 

Mrs. CAPPS (continuing). And they keep benefitting. Just one 

final question. These are important priorities, but also important 

is clean drinking water. And, in a way, it relates, but there are so 

many challenges today to the availability of safe drinking water. 

And I think of the lack of it in California, where—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mrs. CAPPS (continuing). Drought is such a problem. How does 

this budget provide for the enhanced resiliency that our water infrastructure needs in—for various needs across this Nation, again, 

highlighting the local communities? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. Again, we are working with local communities to help coordinate their response to climate change, and we 

are also significantly boosting our contribution to drinking water 

SRF funds. Because we know that it is not just about thinking of 

these things, it is about actually supporting it, bringing dollars to 

the table. 

And we are really excited about the new finance center as well, 

and our ability to bring private dollars to the table. This is an economic challenge that isn’t just the responsibility of the Federal, or 

local, or State governments. This is the responsibility of the business community as well. 

Mrs. CAPPS. So you—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentlelady’s time—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. Yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD (continuing). Has expired. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Sorry. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. It is all right. I also want to welcome our former 

colleague, Kenny Holchoff. I might say that, since he has left, I 

don’t think the Republicans have won one baseball game, but we 

are delighted he is back today. 

At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome here, ma’am. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. MURPHY. When the EPA came out with their rule on new 

source performance standards, you cited a number of examples to 

show the EPA’s standards are feasible. I want to run over some of 

these examples, and let you just respond with a yes or no if you 

44 

are aware of them. For example, yes or no, are you aware that the 

partially funded Kemper Project is $3 billion over budget? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am aware that it is over budget, yes. 

Mr. MURPHY. OK. And you are aware that the Future Gen 

project in Illinois was discontinued? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am aware of that. 

Mr. MURPHY. OK. And you are aware that the Texas Clean Energy Project hasn’t broken ground yet? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am not exactly up to speed on that one, sorry. 

Mr. MURPHY. OK. But something that was cited in the report. 

You are aware that the Hydrogen Energy California Project doesn’t 

use coal, but actually uses petroleum coke? Are you aware of that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, sir. 

Mr. MURPHY. OK. Are you aware that the final project the EPA 

cited for providing techno-feasibility for new coal fired power plants 

was a 110 megawatt Boundary Dam facility in Saskatchewan, Canada? It is not actually a new plant at all, but is, in fact, a retrofit. 

Are you aware of that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am aware that it is a good example of one that 

is up and operating pretty effectively, and better than they 

thought. 

Mr. MURPHY. But it is a retrofit, and it is not the United States. 

And the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives, which supports 

the CCS mandates, issued a report this month stating that the 

Boundary Dam project was twice as expensive as alternate generating methods, which will make it significant more expensive for 

families, and may jeopardize the owner’s financial viability to even 

complete it. Are you aware of that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I haven’t seen that, sir. 

Mr. MURPHY. OK. So, in this 2005 Energy Policy Act behind me, 

which talks about—it has to be adequately demonstrated. And references have been made before in the Federal Register—it said you 

have to use the best system of emission reduction adequately demonstrated available to limit pollution. But it appears in all the 

projects that I just went over, that are cited by the EPA, they 

haven’t been completed, some haven’t been started, one has been 

discontinued, one isn’t even in this country, and none of them are 

large scale. As to one of them, for example, only captures 13 percent of the EPA—excuse me, of the carbon. 

So my concern is—and you have said you want to stay true to 

the rule, and the courts, et cetera—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. MURPHY (continuing). But I am not sure that the EPA is actually following the law on this. So I want to know, are you reviewing anything to withdraw the rule and start over, so you can really 

adhere to projects which are viable, and can work us towards this 

goal? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think the projects you identified are a number 

of projects that have been moving forward, and we can talk about 

each one that I am familiar with, which are most. But the record 

that EPA produced in our proposed rule went well beyond data 

from those facilities. We feel very confident that this technology is 

available. We feel very confident that the use of CCS technology, 

at the levels that we are proposing it, will be a viable option for 

45 

coal to continue to be part of the future of this and other countries, 

and that we are supporting investment in CCS through our Department of Energy—— 

Mr. MURPHY. Well, and then this is where you go back—and, Mr. 

Griffith, could you slide a little bit? This is where you refer to this 

investment opportunity issue. I am not sure, what does investment 

opportunity translate to? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It means that—— 

Mr. MURPHY. States putting money in—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Generally pollutants are captured by end-of-pipe 

pollution controls, which are often direct costs for facilities. We 

have designed our Clean Power Plan in a way that allows you to 

invest in renewable energy, invest in energy efficiency, make decisions at the State level that are consistent with—— 

Mr. MURPHY. Well, the key—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Your energy economy—— 

Mr. MURPHY (continuing). Operative word here is you invest, but 

we want to make sure that things are—these viable, that people 

can actually do them. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is—— 

Mr. MURPHY. And what you are citing here are projects that people are saying are either going to bankrupt the company, or 

stopped, haven’t been going on. So I am not sure, when you say investment opportunity, with someone else’s money, it is a problem. 

But let me bring something up, because one of those agencies 

that—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). In new coal, other than investing in 

this—— 

Mr. MURPHY. But you have to make investments—things that 

can really work. We can make up Alice in Wonderland here, but 

I want to make sure it works. 

Are you aware that in September 2013 the National Energy 

Technology Labs alerted the EPA in writing that your estimates 

are outdated? NETL comments, ‘‘We believe current cost of CCS is 

not accurately represented.’’ They even included update data for inclusion in the rule. They found that CCS would cost an average of 

$170 per megawatt, and at the high end, $213 per megawatt. That 

is about 30 to 60 percent higher than the cost estimate EPA put 

out there. So I am wondering why you are ignoring what this other 

Federal Agency is saying. It would be facts out there that you 

should be paying attention to. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, you are citing a document that was prior to 

our putting out the proposal. We worked very closely with NETL 

back and forth on how we would best represent the costs associated 

with these technologies, and I believe we included our best judgment. And our technology folks are very good, and we align very 

well with the DOE and put the best proposal forward. 

And we are looking at all those comments. You are citing a proposal, not a final, and we will certainly take consideration of all 

those issues as we—— 

Mr. MURPHY. And I hope you will pay attention to law, which 

says it has to be adequately demonstrated. And I am not sure we 

are there yet, so I look forward to talking with you more. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I understand. 

46 

Mr. MURPHY. I will submit more questions for the record. 

Mr. MURPHY. Gentleman’s time—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. MURPHY (continuing). Has expired. At this time we will recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator McCarthy, thank you for joining us today, and thank you for your important work in protecting America’s public health, and our natural 

environment. 

American families and businesses continue to save money at the 

gas pump in part because of the improvement in the fuel economy 

in the vehicles that we drive. I found this good infographic from energy.gov that provides a historic look at the standards, because 

they are set periodically to ensure that vehicles are keeping up 

with the times, and this is a nice little snapshot. It says 1978 the 

standard was 18 miles per gallon. Boy, that seems outdated now. 

1985, 27.5 miles per gallon. Then 2011, up to 30.2 miles per gallon. 

And 2016, 35.5 miles per gallon. 

Now, I really appreciate that the administration has continued 

to push here, because what we have seen is revolutionary in the 

types of vehicles that are available to consumers right now. So you 

have the benefits that, when you get better gas mileage, you are 

reducing carbon pollution. The transportation sector is almost 50 

percent of carbon pollution. You are putting money right back into 

the pockets of American families because they are getting more 

miles per gallon, and then it is reducing fuel costs for businesses. 

Do you have any recent hard data on the savings for American 

families and businesses? And then I want to talk about what the 

future goals are. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we certainly can talk about what the projections are, relative to the rules that we have done in the first 

term of this administration. But I think the proof in the pudding, 

if you will, is that you can’t see a car commercial where they don’t 

talk about energy efficiency, because the car companies now know 

that everyone wants fuel efficient vehicles, and that we have designed our rules that allow even SUVs to become more fuel efficient and remain part of the fleet, if people need the sort of characteristics that those vehicles provide. 

So we know that people are already going further on a dollar 

driving their vehicles, and we know that by the end of 2025 we will 

have doubled the ability to actually make that dollar go far, to provide essential services to our families, so—— 

Ms. CASTOR. Because the goal for 2025 is 54.5—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is right. 

Ms. CASTOR (continuing). And I know the administration has set 

the first ever fuel economy standards for medium and heavy 

trucks. Just last week—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Ms. CASTOR (continuing). The President called on EPA to develop 

and finalize the next phase of these standards, building on the success of the initial fuel economy standards for heavy duty vehicles. 

What are the expected benefits of the new standards? What cost 

savings will consumers see? 

47 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. Well, on the heavy duty vehicles, we put 

forth a first phase, if you will, recognizing there was a lot of ongoing work to make our heavy duty vehicles more efficient. I think 

it might surprise people to know that the long term truckers get 

about six miles per gallon, so they are dying for more efficiency in 

the system as well. 

I do not have those exact figures yet, but we know we can make 

a significant leap forward. But we are working with the industry 

now to put together a proposal that recognizes that the challenge 

in this industry is to try to take advantage of the new technologies 

that are available that can increase fuel efficiency, but we also recognize that they are commercial businesses that need to remain 

viable and affordable. And we are trying to make sure that we recognize that balance as we work with DOT to put these rules forward. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you very much. I have another quick question on your new proposed incentive fund under the Clean Power 

Plan. You know, coming from the State of Florida, the costs of the 

changing climate are kind of scary as we look out in future decades. 

And I wanted to ask you particularly about water infrastructure 

and waste water infrastructure, because—think of all the coastal 

areas and local governments in Florida. They are looking at having 

to do very significant retrofits. I am not sure that your new incentive fund would allow us to go to that pot of money for those kind 

of water infrastructure, waste water infrastructure, updates and 

retrofits. Are we—is that a possibility, or do we need to look at the 

more traditional revolving loan program? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No. There are actually climate resiliency funds 

set aside in other parts of the budget, and why don’t I make sure 

that I provide you the information? The incentive fund that I was 

referring to was to try to make it attractive and encourage States 

to go further or faster than the rules require, because we still want 

to make sure that they are reasonable for everybody, but some 

States are prepared and ready to move forward faster. And we 

want to make sure that those States are rewarded for that. 

Ms. CASTOR. Would that include things like smart meters? Like, 

my State has been very slow going in trying to empower the consumers to control their thermostat, and things like that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We haven’t yet defined fully because we want to 

make sure we work with States about what the best way to do it 

is. But what you have to articulate is that that is an opportunity 

to reduce demand—— 

Ms. CASTOR. Um-hum. 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). For electricity, or, in other words, 

get more efficient, which that clearly would. Or else you—but there 

is lots of flexibility to use it for direct infrastructure improvements 

as well. So it all just has to be tied back to that carbon pollution 

standard. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentlelady’s time has expired. At this time recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, really appreciate it. 

And, Madam Administrator, thanks for being with us today. I am 

going to kind of go back to Chairman Emeritus Dingell, if I could 

48 

ask you a series of questions real quick. And I think you have been 

here when he has asked you the—a yes and no question. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I have tried. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. But under the proposed Clean Power Plan, if a 

State does not file a SIP, does EPA claim authority to regulate the 

following under a FIP? And the first question is, does the EPA 

claim authority to mandate that coal fired generators run less, and 

that existing gas fired generators run more? And that is assumed 

under the Building Block 2. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am sorry, I certainly can answer those after I 

give them some thought, but it is hard to do a yes or no answer 

to that question. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. Number two, does the EPA claim authority to 

mandate that fossil fuel generators run less, and that renewable 

generators run more? And that is assumed under Building Block 

3. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. EPA certainly has the authority, in a Federal 

Implementation Plan, to establish standards for carbon pollution 

for those individual sources. How they choose to address those reductions of—— 

Mr. LATTA. Would that be—would you be saying that would be 

a yes, then, to the question? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have the authority to set a standard. The facility itself decides how to meet that standard. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. Let me ask this finally, then. Does the EPA 

claim authority to make the general public use less electricity? And 

that is assumed under Building Block #4. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We certainly do not regulate the behavior of the 

public sector in this rule. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, I think, as you have mentioned, especially going 

back to the first one, Mr. Chairman, if we could get those in writing for more of an explanation—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am happy to—— 

Mr. LATTA (continuing). I would appreciate it. In 2013 coal fueled 

approximately 70 percent of electricity generation in my home 

State of Ohio. Under the Clean Power Plan, will EPA grant a waiver of exception if there is a grid reliability risk or a high cost to 

the rate payer issue that would happen? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. EPA does not see the rule, as it has currently been proposed, to have an impact on reliability. But as we 

have done in the past, we will ensure that the tools are available 

to us, should anything arise. 

Mr. LATTA. So that would be a yes, that there would be waivers 

or exceptions granted? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We would be able to work through the issues. 

Whether it is a waiver or another process, the tools are available 

to us, and we would—— 

Mr. LATTA. And, again, if we could—if—especially with those 

tools, because it is really important, especially in my State, because 

of the high usage of coal, that there would be the waivers necessary. So if you would get back to us on that? 

The existing ozone standards were issued in 2008, but are just 

now being implemented by States, as guidance was just released 

last week. I have major concerns that you are going to forward proVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:15 Jul 20, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114_11EPABUDGETASKOK071715\114_11EPABUDGETPDFMADE
49 

posing stricter standards before the current rule is even implemented. And then, again, am I correct that States have not fully 

complied with those standards from the 2008? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. There are—there is quite a long 

horizon for States to be able to work on these issues. 

Mr. LATTA. And what percentage, or how many States would 

have complied by now with the 2008—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am sorry, sir, I don’t have that at my fingertips, but—— 

Mr. LATTA. OK. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. You know, States go through a designation process, which we have done. There is an implementation rule that has 

been put out as well, so we will be working on that. And it does 

not conflict to continue to keep looking, as the statute requires, at 

the standard itself and whether it is sufficiently protective. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. Well, if you could also get back to the committee, 

especially what States have not complied, and which ones have, 

that would be very useful to the committee. 

EPA has also stated that they do not know the cost to reach the 

current standards, and will not know until the State Clean Air 

Plans are submitted in 2016. And the question is how can we have 

any confidence in the Agency in—estimates of the cost to implement the new proposed standards? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we actually do estimate the costs associated with strategies where we can’t particularly identify it, but we 

do work very closely with our economists to make a good faith effort. But, again, what we are doing here is illustrating what States 

might do, but the rule itself, the rule that we are doing to set a 

standard, is only about what we believe is necessary to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. And finally I would like to just ask this—back 

to the Clean Power Plan, Assistant Administrator McCabe has 

stated that transmission and distribution efficiency, or other opportunities to reduce CO2 emissions beyond the building blocks. Does 

the EPA claim authority to require owners of transmission and distribution facilities to increase their operating efficiency, and if so, 

by what authority? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No. I think that Assistant Administrator 

McCabe was mentioning the fact that we have provided flexibility 

in that Clean Power Plan so that even if it is not the building 

blocks that are achieving the reductions in—and which—those are 

setting the standard, there are many ways in which States can 

achieve those standards outside the boundaries of those building 

blocks, and we are encouraging that flexibility to be considered. 

We are not encouraging any State to do anything that they don’t 

consider that is right, and cost effective, and reasonable for them 

to do. There are just lots of choices, and it is maximum flexibility 

on what States want to do. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, 

and I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman’s time has expired. At this time recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Yarmuth, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, 

Administrator—— 

50 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. YARMUTH (continuing). McCarthy. I want to start by asking 

you about mountaintop removal mining, which is a process that 

poses very serious risk to the health and welfare of Appalachian 

communities. I was pleased to note that in your EPA budget justification you mentioned two recent court victories concerning 

mountaintop removal mining, but there is still a lot to be done. 

What resources will be available under this budget to help communities endangered by mountaintop removal mining? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am sorry, I don’t have it broken down that 

way, but I am happy to take a look at this for you, and to work 

with your staff on getting you more specific numbers. But it is an 

issue that is of concern, and we have been working through these 

issues. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Yes, I appreciate that very much. Earlier today 

the—Chairman Whitfield mentioned the cap and trade bill, Waxman-Markey, which he characterized as having been rejected by 

the Congress, which is one way to characterize it. In fact, it did receive a majority of votes in both the House and the Senate. It was 

only killed because of Republicans in the Senate who filibustered 

that bill. Is it fair to say that if Waxman-Markey had been enacted 

into law, and not been stopped by Senate Republicans, that we 

would not be involved with clean power rules right now? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. In some ways that might be the case, but I don’t 

know that for sure, sir, because the Clean Air Act really is our responsibility to implement. It might have impacted the choice considerably and the requirements to move forward. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Well, I want to talk a little bit more about the 

Clean Power Plan, and Kentucky, my home State, and the home 

State of the chairman. I was really pleased to see yesterday Len 

Peters, who is the Secretary of Energy and the Environment in 

Kentucky, praising your work, the Agency’s work, in reaching out 

with—to the States on the Clean Power Plan. He said, I am from 

Kentucky, and I am not a climate science denier, but what EPA 

has done with outreach in leading up the proposed regulation, the 

outreach they have done, I think is incredible. He talked about 

your open door policy. He said, you could call them, talk to them, 

meet with them, and we did take advantage. 

He went on to say, well, we have already started the process of 

determining what a compliance plan would look like. I truly appreciate the outreach that the EPA has made to Kentucky and other 

States, and, obviously, States face very different challenges in cutting carbon pollution. We in Kentucky are increasing our use of 

cleaner and less expensive fuels, such as natural gas, but we still 

generate most of our power from coal. I know that EPA recognizes 

that this is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Can you discuss how the 

funding in your 2016 budget request will be used to assist States 

with implementing the Clean Power Plan? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sure. We have, actually, a $25 million request 

in our budget to work directly with the States on the implementation of this rule, and we have an overall request to ensure that we 

have the staff available to be able to work with the States, and to 

take a look quickly at the plans to make sure there is no delay in 

sending all the right signals about how to move this forward. 

51 

Can I just say that Len Peters is a very honorable man? His advantage in Kentucky is he looks at both energy and environmental 

issues together, and I think it provides an advantage for the State 

to see that these plans can be done, and actually will provide benefits to the State, in terms of the utilization of energy supplies that 

are both effective for a reliable and cost-effective supply, but also 

can be designed to be effective in reducing pollution that impacts 

their health. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Um-hum. So you obviously think that States like 

Kentucky, which are coal dominated, can benefit from the funds 

that would be appropriated—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. They—— 

Mr. YARMUTH (continuing). Under this budget? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. They absolutely can, as well as the incentive 

fund that the President has proposed in this budget, which is $4 

billion. And I think that we have designed this in a way to recognize that Kentucky doesn’t, and shouldn’t, have the same standard 

that other States that aren’t so heavily reliant on coal have. So we 

have designed it in a way that we think is achievable from the getgo, but also is flexible enough to allow folks like Len Peters to get 

his arms around it and make it work. 

Mr. YARMUTH. OK. Well, I appreciate the flexibility that EPA has 

shown, and, again, the cooperation that you have exhibited with 

Kentucky and other States. I appreciate that very much. I yield 

back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman yields back. At this time recognize 

the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again, 

Administrator, for appearing before us. Let me start with a question, perhaps, directly at—has the EPA ever made a mistake? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am quite sure. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Do you think any of those mistakes have led to 

a job loss? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I can’t answer that question. We certainly do our 

best not to make mistakes in the first place, and the data—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK, but—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). That we see—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY (continuing). It is just that—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Shows that job loss is not a consequence of environmental rules. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I want to make sure that you understand, and 

the public—I don’t think there is a will in Congress to do away 

with the EPA. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is good—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. You hear that a lot. I, you know, some of the—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I don’t think there is the will to do that. I think 

that many of us here recognize that the EPA has helped lead the 

way for clean air and clean water. But there is reaching a point 

someplace in this balance that we want the EPA to be more responsible, and to be more receptive to the impact your decisions are 

having on families. And I think you are missing the point. Just two 

examples with that is—that I could is that—the timing of your adVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:15 Jul 20, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114_11EPABUDGETASKOK071715\114_11EPABUDGETPDFMADE
52 

ditional regulations, and the second, the use improper or flawed 

models that you are using. 

Let me just touch on the timing issue. There is an adage that 

we use often, and all of us have used in raising families, is just because you can doesn’t mean you should. And we know the EPA has 

the ultimate power to issue any regulation, and you well know that 

Congress doesn’t quite have the—we don’t have the votes here to 

be able to overturn that. So whatever you are issuing, it is becoming the law the land with your regulation. So there is a time and 

place for everything, and I am just concerned that maybe the EPA 

has gotten a little bit more aggressive than they should be with it. 

I come from West Virginia, and that is part of rural America. 

That is the main street. Wall Street may be having great success, 

but rural America, Main Street, is still struggling, and yet I keep 

seeing the EPA putting another regulation on top of another regulation. And the ozone rule, they barely have achieved the first— 

they increased that standard again. I think what it has led, by 

these over-regulation—in rural America it has led to people—their 

well-being, their mental health, is all being affected by it. I think 

we are having some depression in areas around the country because of the threats of regulations, what it is doing to jobs. I think 

we are seeing more and more people working part time. They are 

underemployed. It could go on, and on, and on, and I really believe 

it is directly attributed to the regulatory body with it. 

I think all of us know a Mildred Schmidt. She probably lives 

right next door to you. She lives next door to me in Wheeling, and 

someplace—Mildred Schmidt sits at her kitchen table, she wants 

clean air and clean water, but her first and foremost request, I 

want a job for my son. I can’t find a job because either the coal 

mines are pulled back, or the steel companies, the chemical—something is shut down as a result of over-regulation. And I am struggling with that. I have struggled with the second issue, about your 

poor modeling that I have heard you—the talk about. 

The poor modeling is with the heavy trucks. Back in 2010 you 

said there was going to be about $3,400, but we are seeing three 

times that cost, is what it is going to affect with it. We see the mercury and air toxic standard, that your prediction said that there 

will only be 10 gigawatts of power shut down, but the Department 

of Energy and others say it could be six or 10 times that amount 

is going to be shut down. But yet you continue to issue more regulations, even though the model is saying it doesn’t work with it. 

You have had a model that talked about how CO2 impacts the temperatures around the globe. We know from the standard, that 

doesn’t work. 

So let me just close in the time I have with this that—there is 

a George Mason University report, the Mercatus Group, and they 

say regulations can affect job creation, wage growth, and the workforce skill mismatches can result in lower labor workforce participation, and higher unemployment rate in the long run. Madam Administrator, I am torn over the disconnect about how you continue 

to say at the EPA that it is helping the economy, when others are 

saying absolutely the opposite. 

We didn’t come here to Congress to be bullied by radical environmentalist policies. You know, we came here, I think, to serve our 

53 

Nation, but we want to preserve our economy, and the regulatory 

environment that we are facing here is very destructive. I hope you 

will take that into consideration. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman’s time has expired. At this time recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Loebsack, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Great to see you, as always, Madam Administrator. I do want to take this opportunity to 

invite you back to the Iowa State Fair this summer, if you can 

make it. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Terrific. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. It would be wonderful for you to be there. I know 

there are a lot of folks, not just in the ag sector, but others who 

would love to see you there. I have been going back and forth between this and another subcommittee, and so the RFS, I know, 

probably did come up already, and I hope I am not repeating what 

was already asked, and asking you to repeat what you have already said. But, as you know, that is a really big issue in my State. 

We have talked about this in meetings until both of us were blue 

in our face, probably, especially just trying to figure out, you know, 

what we are going to be doing going forward. 

As you know, EPA is required by law to set mandated levels for 

2008 through 2022 for the different types of renewable fuels blended into gasoline and diesel, and we had a big issue over 2014. And 

now I am kind of—there are a lot of folks, you know, who are concerned about this. We are reading different things in the media. 

There was some article just yesterday, or the day before, and I 

don’t know where they got their information, said that the 2014 

levels are going to be set retroactively based on what actually happened in 2014, and then ’15 and ’16 are yet to be determined. 

So can you give us some clarity as to where we are with respect 

to the RFS? I know there are others up here who want to know 

about this, and who may not agree with me, necessarily. I am not 

going to point out anyone in particular, but we have our differences 

up on this panel about this as well. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we are doing our best to take a look at how 

we can move forward with 2015. And you are right, we also are 

looking at how we can best send a longer term market signal. Because the biggest problem we had with not putting out the rule in 

2014 was that we didn’t have an opportunity to send that research 

signal. And I think that investments, continued investments in the 

sector are going to be essential. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. All right. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. So we will get this rule done. We are also looking at what we can do in the following years. We are already late 

in proposing 2015. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Right. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have to play some catch-up here, and do it 

in a way that sends a signal that we recognize the statutory levels 

that Congress has set, and we need a trajectory to move forward 

here. And I think we had problems in 2014 that we have all 

learned from, and we will not repeat those problems again. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Um-hum. 

54 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And we will work with you. And I know how important it is to your State. I sat down with Governor Branstad on 

Friday, who reminded me—— 

Mr. LOEBSACK. All right. 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Again, and so—— 

Mr. LOEBSACK. I am sure he did. 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). We will work through these issues, 

because I know that there are challenges there that are difficult for 

all of us. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Yes, and it is just—really, as you know, it is the 

uncertainty attached to all this. And we are not just talking about 

ethanol, obviously. That is the big one that—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. LOEBSACK (continuing). You know, folks talk about all the 

time, and it is not just that. It is biodiesel, it is second-generation 

ethanol, cellulostics. It is a lot of different things that we are talking about here. And it does get complicated, there are no question, 

but it is just so important, you know, for folks to have some kind 

of certainty down the road so they know what it is going to be, so 

they can plan, you know, for their investments. And we have got 

a lot of folks, a lot of great people in Iowa and beyond who are involved in this industry who are planning in spite of the uncertainty, and they are doing the best they can—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. They are. 

Mr. LOEBSACK (continuing). Biodiesel folks. That is a tough issue 

for them, as you might imagine too. And there we get into the credit, as well as the RFS. But those are just really tough issues, and 

I am just here to advocate, obviously, and push you as hard as I 

can to get this rule done, and make sure that we have some kind 

of certainty for those folks. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank—— 

Mr. LOEBSACK. The second issue—and thank you for your response. Second issue has to do with the Clean Power Plan, and— 

as you know, requires power plants to reduce emissions by 25 percent by 2030, and Iowa has already made some great strides, taking advantage of alternative energy. One of my colleagues the other 

day asked me, well, Iowa, you get about 25 percent of your electricity from wind. I said, 27.3, as a matter of fact. And I have a 

lot of wind generating industries in my Congressional district. And 

so Iowa has gone pretty far, in fact. I think not only are we showing others how it has to be done, but we have cut emissions, and 

I think we need to achieve 16 percent to meet the power plan’s 

goal. 

The question is, is EPA willing to work with individual States? 

Are you willing to take into account, as we go forward, what individual States have done? And how is that going to play out, if that 

is the case? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. We will work with both individual States, 

in terms of the analysis we have done, on a State-by-State basis. 

We have also been challenged to look at the framework, and whether or not we got it quite right. And we are looking at both of those 

issues, as you can—you probably know we received a lot of comments on this—— 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Right. 

55 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). But we are going to take our responsibilities seriously, both to look at the individual State numbers and the framework itself. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. I mean, there are a lot of folks out there doing 

good things. Best practices, you know, there is no question about 

that. I am very proud of what we have done in Iowa, as you might 

imagine. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am amazed at the wind generation in Iowa. It 

is quite a success story. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Madam Administrator. Thank you, 

Mr. Chair, and I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

saying my last name correctly. Hey, everybody. Thank you for 

being out here. Thanks for your service. Thanks for taking the time 

with us today. 

You know, nuclear power plants throughout the country provide 

safe, zero carbon emission. The power is—amazingly reliable source 

of power, capacity factors running well into 90th percentile worldwide. Unfortunately, we have seen over 4,000 megawatts of nuclear 

generation retired, with an additional 10,000 megawatts nationwide being targeted. I understand there are a number of factors influencing this portion of the energy industry, but what I don’t understand is the initial emissions rate and goal set out by your administration through the Clean Power Plan. For some reason, only 

six percent of the State’s existing nuclear fleet is able to be utilized, and that leaves States with no reason to look towards clean 

nuclear generation in order to comply with your order. 

I know this was touched on a little earlier by my colleague from 

Illinois, but is the EPA going to review and modify the treatment 

of nuclear in the final rule? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we certainly have received a lot of comments, and we did tee up a proposal. I would characterize it a little 

differently than you may have, but it was an attempt to recognize 

that we realize nuclear base load that is operating today is a significant source of electricity that is zero carbon. We wanted to point 

that out to States. We have received a lot of comment on that. We 

will be taking a very close look at this issue. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And I do know how important it is for your 

State. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK. So do you have any idea why only six percent was included initially? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, the six percent was an attempt to recognize that there are a number of vulnerable base loads—— 

Mr. KINZINGER. Right. 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). That have not yet committed to permit renewal. That will ensure that they remain a significant part 

of the base load capacity. And that was an attempt to try to capture that, to indicate that we are building those into the standard 

setting process because we believe that they may be at risk, but 

they should be staying in, all things being equal, because we are 

providing an incentive for a low carbon future with this rule. 

56 

People did not appreciate the way we handled it, many of them, 

so we are re-looking at it on the basis of the comments that came 

in. But it really was an attempt to recognize the value of nuclear 

in the current base load, and the danger of not recognizing that 

right now they are competitively challenged. But there is a need to 

look at that if you really want to make sure that we are providing 

an opportunity for a transition to a low carbon future that is—— 

Mr. KINZINGER. Yes, that is right—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Reliable and affordable. 

Mr. KINZINGER. And especially, you know, if you want to see the 

price of energy skyrocket, start watching some nuclear power 

plants shut down, so—I appreciate that. And then also just a couple of quick ones. EPA’s budget documents state that the Clean 

Power Plan will be implemented throughout State compliance 

plans that are submitted to the EPA for review and approval, with 

initial submittals beginning in 2016. Does the EPA plan to require 

initial State plans in 2016? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. For many. We have also provided opportunities 

for longer periods of time if States are looking at doing things that 

require legislative approval, like interstate agreements. So we are 

trying to be flexible, but we certainly need a signal in 2016 that 

the States are making a commitment to a path moving forward, 

and we have tried to define what that would look like in the plan 

itself. 

Mr. KINZINGER. So under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 

you are required to estimate the burden on States to develop that 

plan? Do you have an estimate of how much it will cost States to 

develop these plans? Can you supply those estimates? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We actually have asked in this budget proposal 

for $25 million to support that activity to States, which is hopefully 

going to send a signal that if we want to get this done, we need 

to work together, and we also need to support the efforts of the 

States in moving this forward. But States are pretty familiar with 

this type of a planning process, and I am just hoping that Congress 

will support that extra 25 million. But we certainly give support to 

the States for these types of air efforts—— 

Mr. KINZINGER. So the—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). And we are hoping to expand that. 

Mr. KINZINGER. So the 25 million, will that go directly to 

States—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, it would—— 

Mr. KINZINGER (continuing). Help them with these plans? 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). In our State grants—— 

Mr. KINZINGER. And so is your estimate, then, that it is $25 million to develop State plans, or is that just a piece of what you hopefully will determine is the overall cost of—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we think that will provide them an opportunity to do this without weakening their ability to continue to do 

work in other air challenges. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK. And if you get estimates—you may be highlighting some there, but if you get estimates, if you could just communicate that with our office, that would be great. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. I would also point out that the budget includes $10 million for us to support tools that the States would 

57 

readily be able to use in their plan development. So we are doing 

the best we can to make sure they have both the flexibility and the 

resources to get this done. 

Mr. KINZINGER. And you will—with all the comments you are 

getting on this, you know, put that in—especially if you made 

changes, put that into updating the estimates and whatnot, I 

would—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. KINZINGER (continuing). Assume? OK. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. At this time recognize the gentleman 

from Oregon, Mr. Schrader, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being 

here, Madam Administrator. Appreciate—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Great to be here. 

Mr. SCHRADER (continuing). It very much. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Like to talk a little bit about Superfund site administration and funding. As you may or may not know, Portland 

Harbor is designated a Superfund site as of 2000. It is a little bit 

unusual, in that both the business community people that may 

have contributed to some of the problems there, as well as others 

in the community have stepped up—collaborative effort to try and 

deal with this. 

It has been, you know, almost 16 years now. We have gone 

through 10 different administrators. The goalposts have changed, 

depending on which administrator in our region comes in. The 

staff, there has been a tremendous turnover in staff, and it has 

been difficult to deal with these moving goalposts. We now have 

somewhat unrealistic standards regarding fish consumption, which 

seems to be the indicator species, that, you know, we are trying to 

grapple with, trying to work with the Agency on, but it is difficult. 

You know, as a scientist, veterinarian, I look at these things 

through a scientific prism, and want to have these standards based 

on good science. 

But even beyond that, it would appear that the current regional 

administration has, you know, their own mindset about what is 

going to be done regardless of what is being talked about by the 

collaborative partners in our region. And we are having trouble getting this decision in—I think it was middle of 2013 there was a 

promise of additional help from the folks here in DC to maybe 

move things along at an accelerated pace. And again in January 

there was a discussion with our own Department of Environmental 

quality, working with folks in DC to help augment Region 10’s ability to get the job done. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. SCHRADER. So I guess, basic questions here. You know, the 

decision was supposed to be coming here in 2016. We have heard 

it is going to be put off to 2017. We have been hearing this for a 

lot of years, Madam Administrator, and the uncertainty creates a 

big problem for economic development in our region. If we are trying to get people back to work, for trying to do the right thing for 

58 

the environment, the sooner we get this decision done, the sooner 

we can decide whether or not it is economically feasible to work 

along the Portland Harbor. 

I would like to think that both of them are not mutually exclusive, but, again, what we are hearing from Region 10 would seem 

to indicate it is mutually exclusive, going to the highest cost alternative, in terms of remediation, rather than some of the other remedial efforts that are actually out there. So basically, want to 

know, is 2017 the best case scenario, and can we hold, with all due 

respect, the Agency’s feet to the fire, and get a record decision 

by—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. SCHRADER (continuing). 2016? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I know that Portland Harbor was an issue that 

came up during my confirmation process, and the interest in this. 

And Dennis McDonough, who is our regional administrator, is actively involved in this issue in a way that tries to make sure that 

it is moving forward. And so I know that we are putting the resources to this, and we will continue with this discussion. I think 

we have turned a better corner. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Good. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I know that we are not only looking at making 

sure that we get the cleanup correct—did I say McDonough? Sorry. 

Dennis McDonough—— 

Mr. SCHRADER. That is—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Is the Chief of Staff of the—— 

Mr. SCHRADER (continuing). Chief of Staff—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). President. 

Mr. SCHRADER (continuing). For the President of the United 

States. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. He didn’t take on added responsibility during— 

since my—Dennis McLerran, I apologize. We are looking at ways 

that, while we may need more time to explore the final cleanup, 

the record of decision on this, that we will have sites ready and 

moving forward regardless of when that decision gets made. So we 

will get that decision made as quickly as possible, but we are also 

getting all the preliminary steps ready so that we can continue to 

move forward, and not sequentially think about these issues. And 

I think we are working really hard with Oregon to make sure that 

that is the case so that we don’t lose any time in this process. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Well, with all due respect, we have lost a lot—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Right. 

Mr. SCHRADER (continuing). Of time, and I am not convinced the 

current Region 10 administrator shares your enthusiasm for getting this thing done in a timely manner. And the biggest concern 

I have, here you have got a collaborative partnership willing to 

step up, and yet they are getting, what I would perceive, beaten 

up on a regular basis, with unrealistic requirements and expectation. Here is a group that could be a shining example of how the 

process could actually work, then. Your continued attention I appreciate. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. You will have it. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Another issue in my State, of course, is wood 

products. 

59 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. SCHRADER. We are a big—well, we would like to be a big 

wood producing State. That doesn’t seem to be possible anymore. 

That is another topic for discussion. But for the wood that does 

come out, there is a wood composite industry that is pretty viable. 

I would like it to be more viable, and they have been waiting for 

the formaldehyde standards for composite—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. SCHRADER (continuing). Wood products. The rule was supposed to be done in 2013. It is now 2 years later. Again, economic 

uncertainty is the enemy of business. Most businesses can adapt, 

as long as they know what the rules of engagement are. Can you 

tell me what the status of the regulation is, when it is going to be 

finished, and is the President aware of the final sign-off yet? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I certainly am aware of the challenge that we 

have been facing in getting this rule finalized, particularly as it has 

to do with laminates—— 

Mr. SCHRADER. Yes. 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). And our ability to be able to address what is potentially a significant source of emissions, but do 

it in a way that is viable and effective for the industry moving forward. We are looking very hard at how we resolve that issue so 

this rule can come out, and I do know that we need the certainty 

that you are discussing. And I will go back and see if we can continue to address this issue, and get it out across the finish line. 

Mr. SCHRADER. All right. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It has been since 2013, but this has not been 

without its challenges. And we keep trying to develop a testing 

method that will work and be cost-effective, but it remains a challenge for us. But we will see if we can’t get it moving. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Well, thank you very—I work with the industry. 

I think they are on your team, in terms of wanting to get this done, 

so—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. They sure are. 

Mr. SCHRADER (continuing). Thank you very much, and I yield 

back. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thanks. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman yields back. At this time recognize 

the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for five—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. 

McCarthy, for being here today. Today is February 25, 2015, and 

earlier you told Chairman Whitfield that you were confident of 

going forward with the Clean Power Plan under 111(d). And I am 

just wondering—your document—your budget document also states 

the Clean Power Plan is President Obama’s top priority for the 

EPA, and the central element of the U.S. domestic climate mitigation agenda. Yes or no, has there ever been a time since it was announced by the President in June of 2014 that the EPA has considered not finalizing this rule? Yes or no? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And has there ever been a time since it was announced by the President in June of 2014 that you, as the Administrator of the EPA, have considered not finalizing this rule? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, sir. 

60 

Mr. GRIFFITH. So then, in the case of Murray Energy vs. EPA 

and Regina McCarthy, when your lawyers said that the EPA may 

not adopt the proposal related to final action—propose Section 

111(d) related to the Clean Power Plan, your lawyers did not tell 

the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the court, 

isn’t that accurate, yes or no? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, the proposal as proposed may not be what 

we move forward with, but there has never been an indication to 

me, in comments that were—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK. 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Received—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. But they said they may not—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). That would indicate we can’t do 

that. 

Mr. GRIFFITH (continuing). That they may not move forward, 

that wouldn’t be a complete statement of accuracy, since June 2014 

and today you are very confident you are moving forward? You are 

moving forward. That was the whole argument in the case. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, many—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Let me move on. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Many things can happen. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Let me move on. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. You asked about my confidence level, and I 

am—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Confident that we can get this done. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. Well, let me move on then, because it 

is interesting that your lawyers have taken several positions on 

this. In the case of New Jersey vs. EPA, excuse me, 517 F.3d 574 

(2008), in regard to 111(d), the EPA promulgated CAMR regulations for existing electric generation units under Section 111(d), 

but, and I am quoting now from the opinion, ‘‘But under EPA’s own 

interpretation of the section, it cannot be used to regulate sources 

listed under 112. EPA thus concedes that if the electric generation 

units remain listed under Section 112, as we hold, then the CAMR 

regulations for existing sources must fall.’’ I would submit to you 

that the same is going—there your lawyers have already conceded 

you don’t have the authority to regulate under both 112 and 111(d), 

and yet you say you are confident in moving forward. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t agree—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And let me read you—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). With that—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH (continuing). The language—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Interpretation, sir. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And let me read you the language of the actual 

code. 111(d)(1), ‘‘The Administrator shall prescribe regulations 

which shall establish a procedure similar to that provided by Sections 110, under which each State shall submit to the Administrator a plan which (A) establishes standards of performance for an 

existing source for any air pollutant (1) for which air quality criteria have not been issued, or which is not included on a list published under Section 108(a), or’’—relevant section—‘‘emitted from a 

source category which is regulated under Section 112.’’ 

61 

So it would seem, from the language, from prior court cases 

where the EPA conceded the point, that there is not legal authority 

to move forward. And I know that you are not an attorney by training, but I would have to submit to you, as an attorney by training, 

that if you are confident of going forward under 111(d) and being 

upheld in the courts, your confidence is misplaced, and your lawyers are not telling you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth. Let me switch to another subject. 

Your budget requests tens of millions of dollars to implement the 

Clean Power Plan because you all have indicated you need some 

expertise. I assume, however, that you do work well with the Secretary of the Department of Energy. Is that—yes or no? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, I do. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I thought you did. And so then I have to ask, why 

are we going to spend tens of millions of the taxpayers to give you 

all new employees for ‘‘evaluating and capturing these compliance 

strategies requires the Agency to tap into technical and policy expertise not traditionally needed in the EPA, for example, nuclear, 

wind, solar, hydroelectric, et cetera,’’ when the DOE already possess this expertise? Why not just work with them? And I would 

submit that that is what you ought to do, and that would save the 

taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. 

Do you agree with me that, if we can use the DOE as experts, 

instead of having the EPA open up a whole new branch, that that 

would be better for the taxpayers of the United States of America, 

yes or no? And I only have a couple seconds. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do not agree that there isn’t a need for—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK. 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Expertise at EPA at all. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. I think you all can share, but we disagree on that. And, lastly, you agree that health in the—and—of 

people and unemployment are connected with each other, that people who are employed generally have a better health standard that 

the unemployed sometimes don’t enjoy? You would agree with that, 

I would think. And I would have to say to you that one of the concerns I have with—you have heard about the wave after wave of 

regulation from Mr.—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Um-hum. 

Mr. GRIFFITH (continuing). McKinley, and how that is hurting 

employment. I picked up the unemployment statistics in some of 

my coal counties, and going in alphabetical order, and just hitting 

the first two, Buchanan County, at the height of the recession, had 

an 8.9 annual unemployment rate in ’09, 8.9. In ’13, at the end of 

’13, it is 9.8, because of regulations that are putting hundreds of 

thousands of coal miners and related industries, their jobs are 

gone. This is not even counting the folks who have just gone ahead 

and decided to retire, or shut down their businesses, and are no 

longer looking for employment. 

That was Buchanan County. Dickinson County, height of the recession, 2009 annual number, 9.0. Today—or 2013, 10.0. Our economy is getting worse because of policies coming from your Agency. 

And I apologize, I can’t let you answer that because I have to yield 

back. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

62 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman yields back. At this time recognize 

the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Administrator McCarthy, for being here. Just on the last exchange, I fear 

that the legal justification for the Department’s regulations was 

impugned. I have high confidence, I want you to know, that there 

is a strong legal basis for the regulations and the position that you 

are taking. And I want to thank you generally. I want to thank the 

EPA, and I want to thank the Obama administration for picking 

up the slack on the issue of climate change, and addressing the 

ravages of climate change. 

Unfortunately, despite the efforts of many of us here to try to 

move forward with a statutory response to this issue, it hasn’t happened. Congress has not done the job that it should do. The EPA, 

again, I think, with sound legal authority, has really taken a leadership role. And I also want to salute your Agency, and the administration generally, for the Climate Action Plan, which addresses 

climate change, for the Clean Power Plan, for these historic international agreements which are being undertaken, which finally 

gets us in a position of momentum, in terms of addressing the issue 

of climate change. 

In doing that, you are reflecting where the public is increasingly. 

There is polling that indicates 70 percent of Americans favor 

stronger limits on the amount of carbon that is emitted by power 

plants because they understand the health consequences of that, 

and they understand the impact on climate change. Over 80 percent of Americans think that the United States should take action 

to address climate disruption, based on a poll in 2013. This is becoming an emerging consensus on the part of public. I think they 

are appreciative of the efforts that you, and your Agency, and the 

administration are taking to address this important concern. Now, 

I understand the solutions are not simple. Carbon emission reductions have to be rooted in science. Aggressive goals must be set to 

avoid the harshest impacts of climate change, and reasonable, intelligent folks can differ on how to deliver those results. We will 

continue to have the discussion in this committee. 

But I think there is a false dichotomy that often gets put forward, that somehow, in addressing climate change, we are going to 

have to undermine our economy, and I don’t think that that is a 

fair narrative. I think we need to look at the fact that investing in 

clean energy infrastructure can actually produce terrific advances 

for our economy, and we need to get on the cutting edge of that, 

because our peer nations around the world are beginning to make 

those investments. We can be in the position of being the leader, 

which will actually help our economy, but not if we are asleep at 

the switch. So when we say, why are we doing these things? There 

are a lot of good answers. To protect the planet, to protect our 

health, public health, to protect our national security, and to protect our economy, by getting on the front end of these emerging 

technologies. 

Can you speak to what the Clean Power Act plan, the Clean 

Power Plan that you have put forward, and the Agency has put forward, what you see in terms of the potential positive economic imVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:15 Jul 20, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114_11EPABUDGETASKOK071715\114_11EPABUDGETPDFMADE
63 

pact and job creation effect that that can have? Because it is an 

important part of the dialogue. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you for raising that. I know that we feel 

very strongly that the way in which we have proposed this rule, to 

provide flexibility to use energy efficiency and renewable energy as 

part of not just our standard setting process, but our compliance 

process, allows tremendous flexibilities for States to take a look at 

where their energy universe is heading. Where is the market? 

What is the transition we are seeing towards a clean energy future, 

regardless of this Clean Power Plan, and how can we follow that? 

How can we allow every State to identify what is best for them in 

terms of job growth opportunities, ways to invest in their economy 

and grow jobs? 

And we believe that, because of the flexibility we provided, and 

because we know that the economy, and the energy system, is 

transitioning towards a low carbon strategy, businesses are 

transitioning already. Government has to follow, and recognize 

there are ways of addressing our climate challenge that can actually bring great economic benefit to this country, and provide the 

spark and innovation that we need to retain international leadership. We see this as being a path to the future, instead of continued investment in very old technologies that are not producing 

more jobs, that are not being invested in. The investment is in 

clean technologies. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you very much. Thanks for your outstanding testimony, and your work. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. SARBANES. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time recognize the gentleman from Ohio, 

Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Administrator 

McCarthy. Thank you for being here today. I represent much of Appalachia, Ohio. That is home to several coal mines, and coal fired 

power plants, and home to the hard working, tax paying men and 

women who work in those facilities to provide for their families. 

These proud men and women produce the energy resources that 

are keeping the lights on and heating the homes of the majority of 

Ohio homes during this very cold winter. 

So can you tell us why energy rich Ohio was excluded from the 

public hearings on EPA’s climate rules? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, as far as I know, sir, those hearings were 

strategically placed around the country to ensure that people could 

have access to attend those. They were very heavily—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, it is interesting that they were strategically 

placed in places where coal mining and coal operations don’t exist. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is not correct, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I have the list—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Pittsburgh—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. I have the list—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Pennsylvania’s fifth—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. How many coal mines are in Pittsburgh? I can tell 

you how many coal mines are in eastern and southeastern Ohio, 

and there are a number of them. But, you know, we can fix this. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, all I—— 

64 

Mr. JOHNSON. I heard my colleague from Iowa say that he invites 

you back to the Iowa State Fair. I would like to invite you to come 

to Ohio—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well—— 

Mr. JOHNSON (continuing). Sit down and talk directly to the 

Ohioans who work in those coal mines, and in those power plants, 

who are likely to lose their jobs as a result of EPA’s actions, your 

actions, Administrator McCarthy. You know, they pay your salary, 

they pay my salary. So let me ask you, will you meet with them? 

I will arrange my schedule so that I can be there to be there with 

you, and we can have a dialogue with the people whose lives are 

being affected by the regulations coming out of your Agency. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have been reaching out all across the country—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, I am asking you, will you come with me? Because I will help set it up. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Every State is asking me to go to their State. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am asking you today. That is a simple question. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I really—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes or no? Can I get with your—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I will not make—— 

Mr. JOHNSON (continuing). Team? 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). A commitment to go to your State 

on specific—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. I am going to have my team—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Unless you believe—— 

Mr. JOHNSON (continuing). Reach out to your office to try to set 

up that meeting, then, because I am going to take that as a yes. 

Is that what you just said? That you are willing to meet? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, I am always willing to talk to you, sir, 

but—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, I am asking you will you come to Ohio and 

meet with the men and women—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). From—— 

Mr. JOHNSON (continuing). Reclaiming my time, Administrator 

McCarthy, it is a simple question. Will you arrange your schedule 

to come and meet with the people that are being affected in Ohio 

by the actions of your administration? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am happy to continue to talk to you, sir. If 

there is a stakeholder that we have excluded from the process, I 

will—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Will you come? 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). In. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You are not going to answer the question, so I 

will—on. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. OK. 

Mr. JOHNSON. It is clear why you left those folks out, but I will 

set up the meeting, and we will reach out to your team, and see 

if we can work that out. 

You know, nuclear power is our only high capacity base load generation source that emits no carbon dioxide. We have talked about 

that a little bit, but we are in danger of losing some units in our 

existing fleet for multiple of reasons. If any of them close, overall 

carbon dioxide emissions increase. That is a fact, because even if 

65 

intermittent renewable energy, wind and solar, were to displace the 

power, it must be backed up by natural gas generation. So, therefore, I am concerned about how the rules treats our existing nuclear fleet. For example, plants that choose to go through the rigorous re-licensing process will not be considered the same as new 

nuclear units for compliance, and it seems to me that they should 

be. 

So here are my questions. Do you believe that the NRC will approve each and every nuclear re-licensing application it receives 

throughout the compliance period, and do you believe that every, 

or even most, operators will want to make the significant investment to pursue re-licensing? And before you answer that question, 

your new rule basically assumes a yes answer to both of those. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do not know the success of the NRC process, 

in terms of re-licensing. I do know that we attempted to address 

nuclear energy, and point out its value in current base load, and 

its value in a low carbon strategy in this rulemaking, and we received a lot of comments on—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. But you have assumed that every nuclear re-licensing application is going to be approved, and you have assumed 

that those nuclear facilities are going to actually go through that 

rigorous process, and investment to get there. And I am going to 

tell you, I think that is a flaw in your rulemaking. And it is something that you folks ought to look very, very closely at. And I apologize, Mr. Chairman, but I have exhausted my time as well, and I 

yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman yields back. At this time recognize 

the gentleman from Indiana, Dr. Buchson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BUCHSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Excuse me. Thank you 

for being here, we appreciate it. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. BUCHSON. Climate is changing. It has always been changing, 

for centuries. We know that. I think reasonable people can continue 

to have a debate about the human impact on that. That said, I 

think we all can agree that we should always be working towards 

improving our emissions as we generate power. But my position is 

that we should be doing this through innovation and technology development, and not through overreaching Federal regulation. 

Would you agree that, in general, a rule that is proposed, on any 

subject, really, should be based on the availability of the technology 

to comply with the rule? Or, if the technology isn’t available, would 

you agree that maybe that rule needs to be revisited? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we certainly know that, when we rely on 

a technology as part of our standard setting process, that we have 

to do our due diligence on that technology. 

Mr. BUCHSON. Well, that said, and I am not going to repeat what 

one of my colleagues talked about on carbon capture, the administration has taken a position that no new coal plants should be built 

in the United States unless they are equipped with CCS technologies, which were earlier pointed out, but right now there is 

nothing that has been demonstrable to be successful to accomplish 

that. And the one that you are quoting is not in the United States, 

and actually may very well not be financially successful. 

66 

But right now you are aware that Germany is building new coal 

plants without CCS, as is other countries in Europe, and in Japan? 

Does the EPA object to that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, the EPA certainly is looking to be able, not 

just EPA but across the administration, to provide opportunities for 

continued advancement of the technology, and to ensure that coal 

gets cleaner over time so it is part of a clean energy future. 

Mr. BUCHSON. And because these countries are building state-ofthe-art new power plants without CCS, shouldn’t we allow them to 

be built in the United States? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. They have different energy strategies, sir. I 

know they are heavily investing in a variety of things, so I am 

not—— 

Mr. BUCHSON. Actually, they are investing in coal, and getting 

out of other energy sources because the other energy sources, they 

can’t afford them anymore. They are so subsidized by the Government, the citizens can’t afford to pay for the power, so they are 

going back to lower cost energy. That is the truth. 

I want to switch gears, though. I want to talk about another subject. I was a medical doctor before I was in Congress, and—about 

medical incinerators. And this has to do not with just Ebola, but 

other things, and—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Um-hum. 

Mr. BUCHSON (continuing). One of the methods recommended by 

the CDC for treating infectious medical waste, such as Ebola, is— 

and over the past 2 decades, really, the EPA has regulated hundreds of medical waste incinerators out of existence, thereby limiting options for hospitals to properly dispose of extremely dangerous material. 

So my question is what are our options? I mean, the EPA has 

limited the option. In the name of public health, what technologies 

are available for hospitals and first responders to deal with the 

threat of medical waste? Ebola waste, for example, but others? And 

what resources has the EPA dedicated to determine such technologies comply with its standards before we have other problems, 

potentially other outbreaks? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, I think EPA standards have ensured that 

our medical waste facilities can actually properly manage waste. I 

think, if you have been in the industry a long time, you will know 

that there are a lot of facilities out there that weren’t properly 

managing normal medical waste, never mind the challenge of Ebola 

contaminated—— 

Mr. BUCHSON. Fair enough. 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Waste. And we are working very 

closely across the administration, and with the CDC and others, to 

ensure that there is a pathway forward to handle Ebola waste. And 

waste incinerators today are capable of handling that waste very 

effectively. 

Mr. BUCHSON. And, you know, how many are there in the U.S., 

you know, that can handle that? Do you have any ballpark idea? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t—— 

Mr. BUCHSON. I don’t off the top of my head, either. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I certainly will follow up, if you—— 

67 

Mr. BUCHSON. Well, this is something, I think, that, you know, 

from the medical community standpoint, when you, you know, that 

is an issue, and it sounds like the EPA’s, you know, takes that seriously, and wants to—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And we have brought them—— 

Mr. BUCHSON (continuing). Make sure that we—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). All together to talk about this—— 

Mr. BUCHSON (continuing). Can deal with it. 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Issue during the crisis, and we will 

continue to work with—— 

Mr. BUCHSON. Yes. 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Them on it. 

Mr. BUCHSON. And I would argue that, you know, potentially, 

with the threat of ISIS and other organizations that, you know, 

dealing with this potential type of outbreak is a national security 

issue, and we shouldn’t just deal with it on the front end, but on 

the back end, you know, if we have to start dealing with that. And 

so I would implore you to look into that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We will do that. 

Mr. BUCHSON. So, again, you stated earlier, but I want you to 

say again, does the EPA plan to revise its proposed rule for new 

coal fired power plants to eliminate the CCS mandate, based on the 

discussion we had previously about what other countries are doing, 

and about the fact that there doesn’t appear to be technology available currently to comply with that mandate? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. There has been no final decision made, sir. We 

will look really closely at the comments that have come in. I understand that many have come in on this very issue, and we will look 

closely at them. 

Mr. BUCHSON. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman yields back. At this time recognize 

the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Mullin, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ma’am, can you just 

quickly sum up what the EPA’s mission statement is for me? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. It is to protect public health and the environment. 

Mr. MULLIN. But not to raise revenue, or to write fines, or anything like that? It is just to—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Not to raise revenue? 

Mr. MULLIN (continuing). Protect the public health, right? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. MULLIN. OK. Can you tell me the total amount of fines that 

the EPA assessed—now, this is off your Web site, I got this directly 

from you guys—in FY ’14? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do not have that—— 

Mr. MULLIN. Let me go through this. Administrative penalty assessed, this is according to your Web site. Fiscal year 2014, $44 

million. Judicial penalties assessed, $56 million. State and local judicial penalties assessed from joint Federal, State, local enforcement actions, $7 million. Supplemented penalties, $11 million. Fiscal year 2012, according to your Web site, administrative penalties 

assessed, 52,022,612. Judicial penalties assessed, $155,539,269. 

68 

State and local judicial penalties assessed, $49,000,231. Supplemented penalties, $4,658,000. 

I say all that because it seems like, to me, every time we are cutting—now, I may make an assumption here, so stay with me. Your 

total budget for fiscal year 2014 was $8.2 billion. Is that not 

enough to operate the EPA with? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, it might help to know that those funds actually go to the Treasury, not to EPA. 

Mr. MULLIN. Well, then, if that is the case, they why was Webco Industry fined $387,369 for not filing a TRA report—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. A TRA—— 

Mr. MULLIN (continuing). Which is a one-page paper? Now, they 

had never been in problems, or had any issues with the Administrator. They have had this facility for many, many years, but they 

failed to file it one time. Yet on their other facilities, they had filed 

it, but this one was an oversight, and you guys came in and fined 

them $387,000, which is astounding to me for a piece of paper, but 

yet you said if they paid it in 10 days, you would knock it down 

to $193,679. And when they asked if that could be paid—if they— 

that money could be used for an environmental project, which is 

historically what you guys allow to do when it is a reporting issue, 

they were told by your agent, the EPA’s agent, no, you all needed 

the funding. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t know how that could be accurate, sir, 

when we don’t get the funding. 

Mr. MULLIN. But there is an exception to that rule. If you look 

at the bill that you are referring to, that the money is supposed to 

be going to the Treasury, there is exceptions to that. Do you know 

what those exceptions are? If you look at it, if you look at the statute that you are talking to, there are areas in there that allows 

that money, depending on how it is written, or what it is assessed 

for, for you guys to keep. So can you tell me that all this money 

was surrendered back to the Treasury? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is my understanding, and I know of no—— 

Mr. MULLIN. Do you know that for a fact? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I—— 

Mr. MULLIN. Because we are going through it too, ma’am. And 

I say this because we are going through this process of trying to 

determine how these fines are even being assessed, how you come 

up with the dollars that you are fining individuals. All this money 

that I had stated was coming right out of the back pockets of business owners, coming straight out of the economy, going where? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It is going—— 

Mr. MULLIN. And what did it do—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Treasury, sir. 

Mr. MULLIN (continuing). When we are talking about—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The only thing—— 

Mr. MULLIN (continuing). Protecting the health—ma’am, hold on. 

What are we doing when we are talking about protecting the 

health of individuals? How does a $387,000 fine protect the health 

of somebody when it was a piece of paper? There was nothing else. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We are talking about enforcement that allows us 

to level the playing field for businesses that are doing what they 

are supposed to do, not—— 

69 

Mr. MULLIN. Level the playing field? 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). And that—actually make sure that 

we are providing the health benefits that our rules are anticipating. 

Mr. MULLIN. How is this leveling the playing field? Who is it leveling it for, other than punishing a company? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The only thing I can think of, sir, to go back to 

your original question about the law, is that there may be an exception that you are citing that is for Superfund money from responsible parties that EPA gets to collect, and then disperse to pay 

for the cleanup. That is the only instance in which I know of that 

a fine would ever directly benefit our—— 

Mr. MULLIN. And why would you guys give them—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Other than—— 

Mr. MULLIN (continuing). 10 days and drop it by $200,000 if they 

paid it in 10 days? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. You know, this is—— 

Mr. MULLIN. And that—and, ma’am, this has happened to me 

personally too—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, I am—— 

Mr. MULLIN (continuing). In my company. 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Happy to sit down and—so you 

have a company that has been fined? 

Mr. MULLIN. Yes. Yes, we have. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, then I am happy to sit down with you in 

your current position, or as the person who runs that company, to 

walk through that issue. 

Mr. MULLIN. No, what we are going at is trying to figure out why 

we can’t even get a sane—and even understanding why the fines 

are being assessed the way they are, and yet you guys are willing 

to immediately knock it down by $200,000. Now, our fine wasn’t 

nowhere near this—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, I will not apologize for this Agency strongly 

enforcing the rules that the American public—— 

Mr. MULLIN. No, you are making your own rules up as you go. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, sir. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman’s time has expired. At this time I 

would recognize the gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Cramer, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam 

Administrator. Nice to see you again. It is always nice—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. You too. 

Mr. CRAMER (continuing). To see you. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. You too. 

Mr. CRAMER. I am having a hard time knowing where to begin, 

because I have so many issues, but I think I will start with the 

Waters of the U.S. rule—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. OK. 

Mr. CRAMER (continuing). Because I think it is especially relevant to the budgets, considering the appropriations. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sure. 

Mr. CRAMER. We have provided some guidance, I think, in the 

most recent one. Do you regret not utilizing a small business advoVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:15 Jul 20, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114_11EPABUDGETASKOK071715\114_11EPABUDGETPDFMADE
70 

cacy review panel? And realizing you share this with the Corps of 

Engineers, but—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. CRAMER (continuing). Was that a mistake, to not do a RFA? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, I don’t think so, because we actually have 

done a tremendous amount of outreach to small businesses looking 

at this rule, and I think we have the comments we need to have 

a successful final rule. 

Mr. CRAMER. But the law requires an RFA, does it not? Which 

you did not—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Say that again? 

Mr. CRAMER. But the law requires you to have done an RFA, 

which you—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually—— 

Mr. CRAMER (continuing). Did not do. 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). We went through the process of 

looking at whether or not we needed to stand up what we call a 

SBREFA panel. We consulted with OMB. That is the final decisionmaker on this, and they both agreed that we had done the necessary outreach. 

Mr. CRAMER. So have you responded, then, to the SBA’s Office 

of Advocacy when they, of course, disagreed with your certification 

that it had an insignificant enough impact on small entities—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I have not directly spoken to them, but certainly 

we have had interagency discussions on this. It is important to remember that the Clean Water Rule is a jurisdictional rule. It 

doesn’t result in automatic permit decisions. It says that there are 

certain waters that need to be protected for drinking water, and 

that the permit decisions themselves are what actually will be the 

result of the impact and the further discussion. 

Mr. CRAMER. But I think that the rule, as I understand it, presumes to narrow the jurisdiction, but the SBA Office of Advocacy 

concludes that it does, in fact, broaden it. In fact, the economic 

analysis doesn’t sync with, I guess, your analysis, or the EPA and 

the Corps’ analysis. 

And I have to admit, when it gets to the issue of the lack of clarity, which the courts have stated, in the definition of what navigable waters is, I understand that that should be clarified, but it 

seems to me, as I look at the seven categories in the rule, the definition gets cloudier, not more specific, in my view. And, in fact, you 

know, if we end somewhere after, like, three out of the seven, that 

would be clear too, wouldn’t it? Wouldn’t it be just as clear to say 

navigable waters are waters that are navigable for interstate commerce, and leave it at that? Why wouldn’t that be clear? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. Actually, the area that lacks clarity right 

now is not the issue of navigable waters. The Supreme Court actually spoke very definitively that navigable waters need to be looked 

at in a way that isn’t the traditional definition. We haven’t been 

looking at navigable waters the same way. It is a recognition that 

navigable waters, and their ability to provide the functions that we 

look for, are really severely impacted by the waters that flow into 

them. 

So the challenge we tried to face in the Clean Water Rule was 

to take a look at how do we identify those rivers, streams, tribuVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:15 Jul 20, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114_11EPABUDGETASKOK071715\114_11EPABUDGETPDFMADE
71 

taries, wetlands that feed into those navigable waters that we need 

to understand and protect so that they won’t degrade those waters 

that are so—— 

Mr. CRAMER. Well, you have just used some new terms, new, at 

least, in this rule that—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. CRAMER (continuing). Weren’t part of the previous one, and 

I would add neighboring—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

Mr. CRAMER (continuing). Flood plain—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. CRAMER (continuing). In addition to—that is adding, not restricting, jurisdiction, in my view. It looks to me like you are reaching for more power, as opposed to further defining. And I just—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. CRAMER (continuing). Am concerned that that is not the role 

of the EPA but, rather, the role of Congress. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I appreciate your asking that. I think we are actually looking at that as a way to be clearer, and to narrow this, 

because there is so much uncertainty that there are more case by 

case decisions being made than need to be made. 

Mr. CRAMER. Um-hum. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. So we are trying to provide more clarity, but we 

also know there are a lot of questions, in terms of how people are 

reading the rule, whether we were clear in our intent—— 

Mr. CRAMER. Sure. 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). And clear in the language. And we 

will work through those issues moving forward so the final rule addresses some of those uncertainties. 

Mr. CRAMER. Well, given the little time I have left, I am just 

going to make a couple of comments. One about—I hope that the 

FERC technical conferences are going well, and that you are paying close attention those as—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, we are. Actually, Janet McCabe, my Assistant Administrator in the air program, has attended those, and we 

think they are excellent opportunities for us to understand what 

the energy world is—— 

Mr. CRAMER. I think that type of consultation earlier in the process would have been better, but I am glad to see it is happening 

now. 

With regard to Mr. Sarbanes’ comments about the EPA being 

more in synch with the growing population, if you will, or something to that effect, I would just want to state that the absence of 

Congress acting on, say, cap and trade, or choosing to not pass cap 

and trade, should not be viewed as neutrality by the people’s 

House, or by the people’s representatives, and somehow a license, 

therefore, to go ahead and catch up to the public, if you will. 

Because if public support is increasing for, whether it is the Climate Action Plan, or Clean Power Rule, I would also submit to you 

that the public is well ahead of the EPA, and more in line with the 

Congress with regard to, for example, the Keystone XL pipeline, 

which, so far, the only Agency that has even said anything remotely negative has been the EPA, and, by the way, it wasn’t all 

that negative—— 

72 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. CRAMER (continuing). Referring to the—that we have to now 

consider the lower price of oil. But I would just want to remind 

people that the price of oil was roughly what it is today when 

TransCanada applied for the Keystone XL pipeline. And I am over 

time. Thank you again. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time recognize the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Harper, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms. 

McCarthy, for being here. And I think we are near the end, so that 

is a good thing, so—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is a thank you too. 

Mr. HARPER. Yes. If I could talk to you specifically, you know, we 

have a number of industries, a number of groups in my home State 

of Mississippi that, you know, are greatly impacted by rules that 

are promulgated and enforced. And one that I would like to just 

touch on for a minute would be our wood and pellet heating unit 

manufacturers, and their problems with the new source performance standards for wood heaters that the EPA just finalized. You 

know, it is something that really impacts us. These are usually 

small businesses that don’t have a lot of room in their budgets for 

R and D costs, in addition to testing lab fees, and those things. 

You know, I think with the first stage of this rule that most companies are going to be OK. They can probably get there, but the 

second stage, which I believe is scheduled to be implemented in 

2020, that is going to be extremely costly. It sets very low emissions targets that I think are going to be almost impossible to 

achieve with the current technology that we have, and the resources. So my question is what budgetary support does the Agency 

plan to provide to manufacturers as part of your goal to deal with 

the air quality issues that brought forth this? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Congressman, I want to first say that I believe your businesses were engaged in this, but we worked really 

hard with the small business constituencies on this, and the Small 

Business Administrator’s Office for Advocacy. And we did make 

substantial changes in the final rule that actually sought to accommodate their interests, and making sure that there was fewer impacts, in terms of existing stoves that are generated and out there 

for sale, so that they could have additional time to get those sales 

out—— 

Mr. HARPER. Um-hum. 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). But also to extend the timeline for 

compliance on these phases. So I apologize, I don’t know the specific—— 

Mr. HARPER. Sure. 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Dates, so I can’t confirm, but we did 

make a lot of changes. And I would be interested in hearing from 

you and working with you to see if they actually addressed the 

issues of concern. 

Mr. HARPER. Well, we will make sure that we communicate further on that, because I believe it is something that would necesVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:15 Jul 20, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114_11EPABUDGETASKOK071715\114_11EPABUDGETPDFMADE
73 

sitate some additional discussion and movement and fairness. But 

what do I go back and tell those companies that are now looking 

at a large—either lab testing fees, or R and D costs that they don’t 

really have in their budget to be profitable? What do I go back and 

tell them? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, yes, I think we did a good job trying to 

make sure that the testing components of these were moderate 

enough that they didn’t impose a significant cost to the manufacturers. But the other thing to recognize, and this is something 

maybe we can work on together, is in the past EPA and States and 

regions have had funds that actually support the distribution of 

these cleaner stoves. And I know that there are States that will be 

looking at these stoves as being opportunities for them to meet 

some of the air quality standards that they are facing, particularly 

in the particulate matter. If I can provide any opportunity for that 

dialogue to happen on how we could work together, it would be a 

pleasure for me to do that. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. All right. Thank you for that offer, and I believe we will follow up on that—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. OK. That would be great. 

Mr. HARPER (continuing). With you. If I could take just—I believe 

the clock hit. I thought I had a little bit of time left. Maybe a 

minute and a half? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Go ahead. 

Mr. HARPER. We are—feel like the shot clock ran out, so—but 

what I would like to do to follow up is—on the issue of how much 

implementing the proposed Clean Power Plan will cost taxpayers. 

And this is—again, is specific to my home State of Mississippi. And 

I checked with our Mississippi Development Authority, and they 

indicated that the minimum incremental capital cost to Mississippi 

to comply with the proposed rule will be $14.2 billion—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Wow. 

Mr. HARPER (continuing). Which will primarily consist of constructing generating facilities not likely to be built, unless compelled by Federal mandate, and the rule will almost certainly cause 

the premature closure of existing coal plants in Mississippi, which 

would, of course, place upward pressure on electricity prices. If the 

cost to Mississippi to implement the Clean Power Plan would be 

$14.2 billion, would you agree that this is too much to ask of Mississippi consumers? Would the EPA revise the State’s targets? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we certainly—our economic analysis certainly didn’t indicate that that was an amount that would be necessary for Mississippi to spend. In fact, I think it may even be 

lower than what we estimated at our lower range for the entire 

United States. So we should be sitting down and talking through 

what the options are that we think provided tremendous flexibility 

for every State to design a very cost effective strategy. 

Mr. HARPER. Do you have a figure for Mississippi? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do not. I do not believe we broke it down by 

individual State, but we certainly could have those conversations 

with the State—— 

Mr. HARPER. OK. 

74 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). About what their underpinnings 

were that came up with that number. Because clearly it seems like 

it is order of magnitudes larger than one would expect. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, and I think my time expired twice. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time we welcome back Mr. Scalise, our 

Majority Whip, and recognize him for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate. And, Administrator McCarthy, it is great to see you back here. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. You too. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thanks for coming to—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. You too. 

Mr. SCALISE (continuing). Testify about your budget. And, of 

course, this is part of our oversight role, to go through and, obviously, look at some of the proposals that are going to be—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. SCALISE (continuing). Made by the Department throughout 

the year. I want to talk to you about some of the proposals that 

not only are being proposed, and some of the impacts that we are 

seeing, and how they might have some devastating impacts in our 

local economies, but also ask about some of the others in the past. 

Because, as you make proposals, you also attach to them what 

types of impacts it might have in certain ways. And I want to take, 

for example, the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule. 

Some other Federal agencies, like FERC, when they were looking 

at this, said that plant closures would be much higher than the 

EPA estimates were going to be. It seemed to me, when EPA got 

this information, you all kind of scoffed at it. But, in retrospect, 

now that we can look back and see, the administration’s own data 

concedes that the MATS rule will actually shutter 10 times more 

the amount of electricity generation than you all originally anticipated. How do you respond to something like that, when even other 

agencies within the Obama administration were saying what you 

were proposing was going to be devastating to electricity—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we—— 

Mr. SCALISE (continuing). Generation, and even more than what 

you all were anticipating, and it turned out you were way off? I 

mean, 10 times off on your estimates. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, sir, I am not necessarily agreeing that 

the mercury and air toxic standard was the precipitator for all of 

the closures that we are seeing—— 

Mr. SCALISE. But FERC made that warning too. I mean, are you 

disputing what FERC—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. There were—— 

Mr. SCALISE (continuing). Claimed? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No. There were concerns raised about closures. 

There were concerns raised about reliability and cost, which is why 

we worked with DOE and FERC to address those issues together. 

And, frankly, none of those concerns have proven to be a reality. 

Mr. SCALISE. So you are—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. April—— 

Mr. SCALISE (continuing). Disputing that they—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. April is when—— 

75 

Mr. SCALISE (continuing). Had those shutterings of electricity 

generation, the 10 times increase in the shuttering of electricity 

generation that has occurred since the MATS rule? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, I did not—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Are you disputing that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Say that. I said that there were a 

number of closures. Whether they were attributable to the MATS 

rule, or the simple fact that the energy world is transitioning, is 

the question that I am—— 

Mr. SCALISE. People need more electricity, and then you come out 

with a rule that other agencies said were going to have devastating 

impacts, much worse than you anticipated, and those things happen, and then you say, well, yes, it happened, but maybe it wasn’t 

our fault. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We factored those issues in when—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Why would they shutter—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). We did our modeling. 

Mr. SCALISE (continuing). Those plants? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The shuttering of those plants was a market decision that the market made—— 

Mr. SCALISE. A market decision based on unachievable standards 

that are coming out of the—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, actually—— 

Mr. SCALISE. We are seeing this time and time again. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The compliance timeline is this April, and we 

have not received any request, legitimate request, to extend that 

timeline beyond what is already affordable and factored in. 

Mr. SCALISE. Well, then maybe you are not factoring enough 

things, because you factored in that the MATS rule would only 

have a minor impact on electricity bills, and yet Midwest future 

electricity capacity prices have already skyrocketed over 340 percent, largely due to MATS. So that—you said it is not going to have 

an increase in rates, and they have had a 340 percent increase in 

rates in the Midwest. You need to go back and look at some of the 

stuff, because—I know the President loves talking about global 

warming, and, you know, they are canceling flights all across the 

country due to snow blizzards, and people are trying to heat their 

homes, and these rules are having dramatic impacts. 

I want you to answer some questions about a study that just 

came out by the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston. I am not sure if you are familiar—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am. 

Mr. SCALISE (continuing). With the study that just came out. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, I am not—— 

Mr. SCALISE. You—definitely with—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Familiar with—— 

Mr. SCALISE (continuing). Suffolk University. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. SCALISE. They just came out with an economic impact study 

on the effects of the new EPA rules on the United States. I would 

ask unanimous consent if we can submit this report into the—— 

76 

1The information has been retained in committee files and also is available at http:// 

docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20150225/103014/HHRG-114-IF03-20150225-SD008.pdf. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection. 1

Mr. SCALISE. In this report, they go through and they break 

down not only national impacts, which are devastating, but they go 

State by State. So in my State of Louisiana, the Pelican Institute 

for Public Policy, which looks at a lot of this information, and looks 

at economic data, they went and broke this down, and looked at the 

report, and, according to what they have seen, you would have an 

impact, in my State of Louisiana alone, of an increase in utility 

rates by 22 percent. Electricity prices would go up 22 percent by 

2030. The State of Louisiana alone would lose over 16,000 jobs, 

based on these rules. 

And you just have to ask—I will read a quote from Kevin Kane, 

who is the President of the Pelican Institute, ‘‘Along with these significant costs, it is worth noting that the increases in electricity 

prices would disproportionately affect lower income Louisianans, 

who spend approximately 70 percent’’—7–0—‘‘70 percent of their 

after-tax income on energy. These costs need to be taken into consideration by State and Federal policymakers.’’ Are you all taking 

into consideration devastating impacts like this on rules that you 

are proposing, where you would increase people’s electricity rates? 

Lower income people that would be harmed heavily by this, by 22 

percent, and over 16,000 jobs lost in one State alone. And, of 

course, this is national in the impact this would have. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t know what study you are talking about, 

what rules they are looking at—— 

Mr. SCALISE. I will—yes, this is—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). But I do know that—— 

Mr. SCALISE. This is the Suffolk University study that looks at 

the impact of—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am happy to take—— 

Mr. SCALISE (continuing). The new EPA rules. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am happy to take a look at it, but I know that 

Congress has actually charged us to do exactly that, to take a look 

at the costs and benefits, and all the economic—— 

Mr. SCALISE. So I would urge you to look at this study—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And when we have done that—— 

Mr. SCALISE (continuing). And taking them, and if you would 

have heard—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. When we have done that, we have not seen the 

damage that you are indicating. We have seen that we are actually—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Well, we have seen that. I just—340—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Part and parcel of a growing—— 

Mr. SCALISE (continuing). Percent increase—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY (continuing). Economy. 

Mr. SCALISE (continuing). In electricity prices in the Midwest 

alone. It has happened. This isn’t a study. That happened in the 

Midwest. Anyway, if you can look at this study—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I would be more than—— 

Mr. SCALISE (continuing). In relation to these proposed—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

77 

Mr. SCALISE (continuing). Rules, please—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Let me do that. 

Mr. SCALISE (continuing). These jobs. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. OK. That would be great. 

Mr. SCALISE. Yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman’s time has expired, and that concludes the—— 

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes? 

Mr. TONKO. If I might, I would just like to thank the Administrator for her presentation today and her dialogue with the committee. But I think there were a number of instances where members had asked the witness questions, and then didn’t give her the 

opportunity to respond to that, so I think we should extend the opportunity, if she so chooses, to respond to any of those situations 

today, and would also make the plea to the committee that we 

interact with these witnesses in a much more courteous and substantive style so that we can achieve what we are all hoping to 

achieve. And I would yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, I think most people were pretty courteous 

today, and I do know that there are questions that were submitted 

that you said you would be getting back to the committee with answers. And if there is some response that you feel like you were 

not given an opportunity to make, I will be happy to give you that 

opportunity now to respond. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, you are always 

a gentleman, and I appreciate that very much, and the only issue 

that I didn’t get a chance to talk about a little bit more specifically 

that I wish I would have is the issue that Mr. Griffith pointed out, 

on this 111, 112 issue. 

And the only thing I would have pointed out is that he was 

quoting from our defense of the Clean Air Mercury Rule. And the 

reason why we were defending that way is because the conflict occurred in CAMR that does not occur in 111(d) in our Clean Power 

Plan because that was about the same source category, the same 

pollutant, being regulated under two different sections. We do not 

have that conflict here, so we do not believe that that issue is really going to impact the legal viability of the Clean Power Plan. But 

I thank you very much for raising this, and for allowing me the 

honor to testify before you today. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, I think one thing that is certain is that 

courts are unpredictable, and we never know precisely how they 

are going to decide, so—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is for sure. We can all agree on that. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But we do thank you for being with us today, 

and taking the time to discuss the fiscal year 2016 budget, and look 

forward to working with you as we move forward. That will conclude today’s hearing. The record will remain open for 10 days, and 

we do look forward to getting the responses that you committed to 

giving back—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. WHITFIELD (continuing). To the committee. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. Meeting is adjourned. 

78 

[Whereupon, at 12:52 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

79 

[Ms. McCarthy’s answers to submitted questions have been retained in committee files and also are available at http:// 

docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20150225/103014/HHRG-114- 

IF03-Wstate-McCarthyG-20150225-SD003.pdf. 

Æ