00-rr) -.

~ S)CV)Je(-S 

TALKING POINTS 

EPA Public Hearing 

Proposed Carbon Pollution Standards 

July 29-30, 2014 

• Today we are facing a planetary crisis. The vast majority of 

climate scientists agree: our planet is warming, human activities — 

especially burning fossil fuels — are the primary cause, and climate 

change is already causing devastating damage across the world in 

the form of floods, droughts, wildfires, and extreme weather. 

• I welcome the EPA's efforts to begin reining in carbon pollution 

from our largest polluters. Power plants are the largest source of 

the nation's harmful carbon pollution, accounting for roughly onethird of all carbon released into the air. tlnlike other pollutants, 

today there are no limits to the amount of carbon pollution that a 

power plant can release. 

• The EPA's proposed carbon pollution standards will fifthis 

critical gap by setting state-by-state carbon pollution limits. By 

2030, the standards are expected to reduce U.S. power plant carbon 

pollution by 30% compared to 2005 levels. That's equal to the 

annual emissions from more than 150 million cars, or almost twothirds of the nation's passenger vehicles — or the annual emissions 

from powering 65 million homes, over half the homes in America. 

1 
• The EPA's proposal creates specific carbon pollution targets for 

each state, but every state has broad flexibility to design a plan that 

fits its own circumstances, using a mix of energy efficiency, 

renewable energy, improving the efficiency of existing plants, and 

other strategies. 

• Coal pollution in the United States results in more than $100 

billion annually in health costs and more 12,000 emergency room 

visits per year. The proposed reductions would reduce the health 

costs by up to $90 billion. 

• According to NRDC, achieving the proposed standards could save 

$37.4 billion for consumers on their electric bill over the next six 

years and create 274,000 new clean energy jobs. 

• The White House Council of Economic Advisers just yesterday 

published a report finding that delaying action on climate change 

could cost the United States $150 billion a year. 

• For all of these reasons I applaud the EPA for proposing these 

carbon pollution standards. We also need to do more. We must 

aggressively deploy solar and wind, help millions of Americans 

make their homes and businesses more energy efficient, tax carbon 

emissions, and eliminate the billions of dollars in subsidies the 

N 
fossil fuel industry enjoys each year. But these standards are a 

critical step in the right direction. 

According to the U.S. National Climate Assessment released in 

May, the average global temperature has increased by more than 

1.5 degrees Fahrenheit between 1880 and 2012, and temperatures 

in Vermont and New England have increased at least 2.5 degrees 

Fahrenheit just in the past 30 years. By the year 2100, New 

England could be as much as 10 degrees hotter. 

NOAA also reported that this past May was the hottest May on 

record, just as last November was the hottest November ever 

recorded. In fact, just last week NOAA reported that June of this 

year was the hottest June on record, as well. 

• NOAA reported that global average sea level has increased 8 

inches since 1880. Several locations along the East Coast and Gulf 

of Mexico have experienced more than 8 inches of local sea level 

rise in only the past 50 years. And the New York Times reported 

that sea levels in Norfolk, Virginia have risen one and a half feet 

since 1920, threatening America's $66 billion Norfolk naval 

facility. 

• As a result of rising sea levels and increasingly intense storms, 

catastrophic storm surges are also rising. As ClimateWire reported, 

3 
Superstorm Sandy produced a storm surge of 12 and a half feet at 

Kings Point, NY and a 9-foot surge at the Battery. In 2008, 

Hurricane Ike produced a surge of up to 20 feet along the Bolivar 

Peninsula of Texas. 

• Debating, doubting, or rejecting the basic scientific facts about 

climate change in the face of the overwhelming evidence and 

overwhelming scientific opinion will not change those facts. 

• In fact, this outright rejection of climate science highlights one of 

the more disconcerting questions of our age: do we, as the most 

powerful nation on earth, believe in science? 

• When we build weapons systems that cost billions of dollars, we 

take it for granted that the engineers know what they are talking 

about. When we conduct cancer research through the National 

Institutes of Health, we believe the doctors and scientists when 

they report on risks and treatments. Yet we now have nearly an 

entire political party rejecting one area of basic science even when 

that science is overwhelming, even when the dangers it describes 

are enormous, and even when we know how to solve the problem. 

• We have no coal-fired power plants in Vermont, so EPA's 

proposed carbon pollution standards won't apply directly to the 

state. However, Vermont will actively collaborate with our New 

m 
England neighbors in meeting the standards through our 

participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and we 

will continue to set an example for other states in aggressively 

transforming our energy system. I am proud to note that the EPA's 

proposed rule calls out Efficiency Vermont as a model energy 

efficiency utility that states can look to in developing their plans. 

• We are facing a pivotal moment in history. We must act quickly 

and boldly to dramatically cut carbon pollution, transform our 

energy system, and create good-paying jobs all over this country at 

the same time. 

5