### 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 ofthe 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 theannual 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

Nfossil 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,

3Superstorm 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

mEngland 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