[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE ADMINISTRATION'S CLIMATE PLAN:
FAILURE BY DESIGN
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
September 17, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-94
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
92-327 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia DAN MAFFEI, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SCOTT PETERS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DEREK KILMER, Washington
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming MARC VEASEY, Texas
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona JULIA BROWNLEY, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota KATHERINE CLARK, Massachusetts
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
RANDY WEBER, Texas
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
C O N T E N T S
September 17, 2014
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 11
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Witnesses:
The Honorable John Holdren, Director, Office of Science and
Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 18
Ms. Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air
and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Oral Statement............................................... 42
Written Statement............................................ 44
Discussion....................................................... 51
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
The Honorable John Holdren, Director, Office of Science and
Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President........... 88
Ms. Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air
and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency............ 98
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Article submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 106
Article submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 113
Articles submitted by Representative Eric Swalwell, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 118
Letters submitted by Representative Donna F. Edwards, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 121
THE ADMINISTRATION'S CLIMATE PLAN:
FAILURE BY DESIGN
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2014
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order. Welcome to today's hearing
titled ``The Administration's Climate Plan: Failure by
Design.'' I am going to recognize myself for an opening
statement and then the Ranking Member.
Today we look at one of the most aggressive new government
programs in our country's history. The Obama Administration
calls it the Climate Action Plan. It empowers the Departments
of Interior, Energy, Agriculture, Defense, Transportation,
Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services,
National Institute of Standards and Technologies, NOAA, FEMA,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the EPA to implement
broad climate policies and programs with great cost and little
benefit to the American people.
The cornerstone of the White House sweeping Climate Action
Plan is EPA's power plant regulation. Extending well beyond the
power plants themselves, this rule will increase the cost of
electricity and the cost of doing business. It will make it
harder for the American people to make ends meet. In fact,
EPA's own data shows us that its power plant regulation would
eliminate less than one percent of global carbon emissions.
Analysis shows this would reduce sea-level rise by the
thickness of a mere three sheets of paper, at best. EPA's
mandates will be difficult for states to meet even under ideal
circumstances. If energy prices or energy demands escalate, the
costs of meeting those mandates will soar and American families
will be forced to pay the bill.
Charles McConnell, a former Assistant Secretary for Energy
appointed by President Obama, has taken the Administration to
task for creating a plan doomed to fail. In a recent op-ed, Mr.
McConnell asks, ``Have we lost our minds? Has this
administration convinced itself that it can mandate something
that is fundamentally useless? Does the EPA think the American
public and global community are not capable of seeing the
illusion for what it is?''
What is clear is that by eliminating affordable, reliable
power options, the regulation will increase the energy prices
for the majority of Americans. That means everything will cost
more, from electricity to gasoline to food. Higher costs will
drive companies out of business, kill good jobs, and leave even
more Americans unemployed.
Until this Administration can propose a detailed strategy,
tell us the total cost, and show us exactly what we will get
for the sacrifice, we are just asking the American people to
waste their money. America cannot afford to drive its economy
over a cliff with the hopes that the rest of the world will
make the same mistake. The only economy the EPA's plan will
help is that of our competitors.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Lamar S. Smith
Today we look at one of the most aggressive new government programs
in our country's history. The Obama Administration calls it the Climate
Action Plan.
It empowers the Departments of Interior, Energy, Agriculture,
Defense, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Health and
Human Services, National Institute of Standards and Technologies, NOAA,
FEMA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the EPA to implement broad
climate policies and programs with great cost and little benefit to the
American people.
The cornerstone of the White House sweeping Climate Action Plan is
EPA's power plant regulation. Extending well beyond the power plants
themselves, this rule will increase the cost of electricity and the
cost of doing business. It will make it harder for the American people
to make ends meet. In fact, EPA's own data show us that its power plant
regulation would eliminate less than one percent of global carbon
emissions. Analysis shows this would reduce sea level rise by the
thickness of a mere three sheets of paper.
EPA's mandates will be difficult for states to meet even under
ideal circumstances. If energy prices or energy demand escalate, the
costs of meeting those mandates will soar and American families will be
forced to pay the bill.
Charles McConnell, a former Assistant Secretary for Energy
appointed by President Obama, has taken the Administration to task for
creating a plan doomed to fail. In a recent op-ed, Mr. McConnell asks,
``Have we lost our minds? Has this administration convinced itself that
it can . mandate something that is fundamentally useless? Does the EPA
think the American public and global community are not capable of
seeing the illusion for what it is?''
What's clear is that by eliminating affordable, reliable power
options, the regulation will increase the energy prices for the
majority of Americans. That means everything will cost more--from
electricity to gasoline to food. Higher costs will drive companies out
of business, kill good jobs, and leave even more Americans unemployed.
Until this Administration can propose a detailed strategy, tell us
the total cost, and show us exactly what we will get for the
sacrifice--we are just asking the American people to waste their money.
America cannot afford to drive its economy over a cliff with the hopes
that the rest of the world will make the same mistake. The only economy
the EPA's plan will help is that of our competitors.
Chairman Smith. And that concludes my opening statement.
The Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is
recognized for hers.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good
morning to all.
I would like to extend a warm welcome to our witnesses, Dr.
Holdren and Ms. McCabe, and thank both of you for being here
this morning. It is nice to see you again, and I appreciate you
taking time to appear before us today.
This morning we are going to discuss the President's
Climate Action Plan and a part of that plan, a proposal by the
Environmental Protection Agency to cut carbon emissions from
the largest source of those emissions: power plants.
I would like to begin by noting the title given to this
morning's hearing by my Republican colleagues, ``The
Administration's Climate Plan: Failure by Design.'' ``Failure
by design'' is an ironic choice of words considering my
colleagues' preferred alternative appears to be doing nothing
and hiding our collective heads in the sand. We all know that
such inaction will not solve anything, and it doesn't--it
certainly won't stop the Earth from warming, and in my opinion,
the Majority's ``do nothing'' plan is a real example of failure
by design.
I also know that some still question whether climate change
is real, but surely we are now beyond debating that question.
Reports based on the work of the world's top scientists such as
the U.S. National Climate Assessment and those from the U.N.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have sent a stark
message to our nation's leaders and the international
community, namely, the adverse effects of climate change are
evident today and require immediate action or these adverse
effects will grow dramatically worse.
To be fair, in trying to understand a phenomenon of this
magnitude, the job of science will never be done. It will
continue to evolve. We must always keep looking for new
answers, replacing opinions with data, and projections with
observations. We must continue to innovate in how we predict,
measure, prevent, and adapt to climate change. That is the
nature of science and of our stewardship to this planet.
However, we in Congress have to acknowledge that we are not
the experts and that allowing partisan politics to distort
scientific understanding of climate change is cynical and
shortsighted. We may not agree on where the uncertainties
within climate science lie but we should all be able to
understand that vast and avoidable uncertainties will remain if
we stop the progress of climate research.
Experts from industry, academia, and every level of
government are calling on us to help prepare our communities
for the threats they face due to climate change. We must answer
their call and act.
Cutting carbon emissions from the power sector is critical
to any effort to address climate change, and that is why I am
supportive of the EPA's Clean Power Plan. EPA's proposal, like
the rest of the President's Climate Action Plan, is a bold step
forward our Nation needs. It gives states the flexibility to
develop innovative policies that cater to regional differences.
It is based on strategies already in use such as improving
energy efficiency and encouraging the development of
renewables.
Let us be clear: EPA is not imposing a specific set of
measures. States will choose what goes into their plans and
they can work alone or as part of a multi-state effort to
achieve meaningful reductions. These are commonsense steps that
will lead to a healthier environment, because acting on climate
change is not only an environmental imperative, but a public
health and economic one as well.
Among the many health concerns, greater risk of asthma
attacks, heat stroke, and respiratory disease are all
consequences of a warming climate. Likewise, energy demand,
agricultural production, labor productivity, and the risks to
coastal properties are just a few of the economic areas where
climate change has already taken, and will continue to take,
its toll.
We as a Nation must act today to address climate change if
we are to preserve our quality of life for our children and
grandchildren. The negative consequences of climate change are
not abstract scientific predictions for the far-off future. We
are facing some of these consequences now and they are
affecting every American.
I look forward to working with this Administration as it
puts forward policies like the Clean Power Plan and the Climate
Action Plan, which will ensure a vibrant future economy and a
safe and healthy environment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and before and I yield back, I
want to share that there is an article from ThinkProgress.org
that I would like to submit to the record. While some in
Congress still refuse to admit that climate change is even
happening, there is evidence here where this article describes
how eight major food companies have accepted the reality of
climate change and are prepared to address the threats posed to
their products and financial interests: Chipotle, Green
Mountain, Michael Foods, Big Hard Pit brands, Omega Protein,
Marine Harvest ASA, and most notably, Heinz and Coca-Cola. To
quote the beverage titan: ``Changing weather patterns along
with the increase frequency or duration of extreme weather
conditions could impact the availability or increase the cost
of key raw materials that the company uses to produce its
products. In addition, the sales of these products can be
impacted by weather conditions.''
I ask unanimous consent that this article be included in
the record.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to extend a warm welcome to our
witnesses, Dr. Holdren and Ms. McCabe. Thank you both for being here
this morning. It is nice to see you again and I appreciate you taking
the time to appear before us today. This morning we are going to
discuss the President's Climate Action Plan and a part of that plan, a
proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency to cut carbon emissions
from the largest source of those emissions--power plants.
I'd like to begin by noting the title given to this morning's
hearing by my Republican colleagues, ``The Administration's Climate
Plan: Failure by Design.'' ``Failure by design,'' is an ironic choice
of words considering my colleagues' preferred alternative appears to be
doing nothing and hiding our collective heads in the sand. We all know
that such inaction will not solve anything, and it certainly won't stop
the Earth from warming. In my opinion, the Majority's ``do nothing''
plan is the real example of ``failure by design.''
I also know that some still question whether climate change is
real, but surely we are now beyond debating that question. Reports
based on the work of the world's top scientists such as the U.S.
National Climate Assessment and those from the U.N. Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change have sent a stark message to our nation's
leaders and the international community, namely: the adverse effects of
climate change are evident today and require immediate action or these
adverse effects will grow dramatically worse.
To be fair, in trying to understand a phenomenon of this magnitude,
the job of science will never be done. It will continue to evolve. We
must always keep looking for new answers, replacing opinions with data,
and projections with observations. We must continue to innovate in how
we predict, measure, prevent, and adapt to climate change. That is the
nature of science and of our stewardship of the planet.
However, we in Congress have to acknowledge that we are not the
experts, and that allowing partisan politics to distort the scientific
understanding of climate change is cynical and shortsighted. We may not
agree on where the uncertainties within climate science lie, but we
should all be able to understand that vast and avoidable uncertainties
will remain if we stop the progress of climate research.
Experts from industry, academia, and every level of government are
calling on us to help prepare our communities for the threats they face
due to climate change. We must answer their call and act.
Cutting carbon emissions from the power sector is critical to any
effort to address climate change, and that is why I am supportive of
the EPA's Clean Power Plan. EPA's proposal, like the rest of the
President's Climate Action Plan, is the bold step forward our nation
needs. It gives states the flexibility to develop innovative policies
that cater to regional differences. It is based on strategies already
in use such as improving energy efficiency and encouraging
thedevelopment of renewables.
Let us be clear: EPA is not imposing a specific set of measures.
States will choose what goes into their plans and they can work alone
or as part of a multi-state effort to achieve meaningful reductions.
These are common-sense steps that will lead to a healthier environment,
because acting on climate change is not only an environmental
imperative, but a public health and economic one as well.
Among the many health concerns, greater risk of asthma attacks,
heat stroke, and respiratory disease are all consequences of a warming
climate. Likewise, energy demand, agricultural production, labor
productivity, and the risks to coastal properties are just a few of the
economic areas where climate change has already taken, and will
continue to take, its toll.
We as a nation must act today to address climate change if we are
to preserve our quality of life for our children and grandchildren. The
negative consequences of climate change are not abstract scientific
predictions for the far-off future. We are facing some of these
consequences now and they are affecting every American. I look forward
to working with this Administration as it puts forward policies like
the Clean Power Plan and the Climate Action Plan, which will ensure a
vibrant future economy and a safe and healthy environment. Thank you,
and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson, and without
objection, those materials will be a part of the record, though
I think you have just succeeding in reading almost all of it
into the record already.
Ms. Johnson. That is okay.
Chairman Smith. We will get a double dip on that.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Chairman Smith. I will now proceed to introduce our
witnesses, and we do appreciate their being here today.
Our first witness is the Honorable John Holdren. Dr.
Holdren serves as the Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy at the White House, where he is both the
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Co-
Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology called PCAST. Prior to his current appointment by
President Obama, Dr. Holdren was a Professor in both the
Kennedy School of Government and the Department of Earth
Science at Harvard. Before that, he was a member of the faculty
at the University of California Berkeley, where he found and
led a graduate degree program in energy and resources. Dr.
Holdren graduated from MIT with degrees in aerospace
engineering and theoretical plasma physics.
Our second witness is Ms. Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation at the
Environmental Protection Agency. Previously, she was the Office
of Air and Radiation's Principal Deputy to the Assistant
Administrator. Prior to joining the EPA, Ms. McCabe was the
Executive Director of Improving Kids' Environment Inc., a
children's environmental health advocacy organization. She also
previously served in several leadership positions in the
Indiana Department of Environmental Management's Office of Air
Quality. Ms. McCabe received both her undergraduate degree and
law degree from Harvard.
Again, we thank you for being here today, and Dr. Holdren,
we will begin with you.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN HOLDREN,
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY,
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Dr. Holdren. Thank you very much, Chairman Smith, Ranking
Member Johnson, Members of the Committee. I am genuinely
pleased to be here today to discuss the ways that the Federal
Government has incorporated and continues to incorporate
scientific information from the most authoritative sources into
the formulation and implementation of all three components of
President Obama's Climate Action Plan, cutting carbon pollution
in America, preparing the United States for the impacts of
climate change and leading international efforts to address the
global climate change challenge.
Given the thrust of my testimony and noting Ranking Member
Johnson's comments on the title of the hearing, I would like to
propose respectfully an alternative one: The Administration's
Climate Plan: Success through Science.
That plan rests primarily on scientific and technological
understandings in three categories: first, the natural science
of anthropogenic climate change and its impacts on human well-
being; second, technological analysis of the options for
climate change mitigation and for increasing preparedness for
and resilience against the changes in climate that mitigation
fails to avoid; and third, the economics associated with
estimating both the costs of action and the costs of inaction
on the climate change challenge.
There is an immense amount of peer-reviewed research in all
three categories. An assessment summarizing the state of
knowledge in all three have been carried out by a wide variety
of respected national and international bodies. Examples
include the reviews by the U.S. National Academies and the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the second and third
U.S. National Climate Assessments, the annual State of the
Climate reports of NOAA, the periodic assessment reports of the
U.S. Global Change Research Program, and the first Quadrennial
Energy Technology Review of the U.S. Department of Energy.
These assessments and many more were drawn up in the
interagency effort led by the Executive Office of the
President, which developed the elements of the Climate Action
Plan for the President's consideration.
A particularly accessible digest of the relevant state of
knowledge as of early 2013 and a set of recommendations based
on that knowledge was provided to the President and the
interagency group in March of that year by the President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. That report's
influence on the Climate Action Plan was considerable.
My written statement discusses in some detail those
conclusions from the indicated scientific assessments that were
and are most germane to the formulation of the Climate Action
Plan and to its implementation. Given President Obama's
Commitment from the beginning of his Administration to the
rigorous use of the best available scientific and technical
information in formulating policy, it should not be surprising
that the scientific conclusions summarized in my written
statement are reflected across all elements of the Climate
Action Plan and continue to underpin its implementation.
Specifically, an up-to-date understanding of the natural
science of anthropogenic climate change and its impacts on
human well-being provides first, the motivation for seeking to
develop a cost-effective plan to reduce those impacts; second,
the sense of urgency for doing so at once rather than waiting;
third, the understanding that such a plan must include not only
measures to reduce the emissions that are driving global
climate change but also measures to increase preparedness for
and resilience against the climate changes that can no longer
be avoided; fourth, the detailed knowledge of the sources of
the offending emission and the character of society's
vulnerabilities that allows appropriate specificity in
designing a plan; and fifth, the recognition that any U.S. plan
must include a component designed to bring other countries
along. These are the most basic underpinnings of the Climate
Action Plan.
Further, an up-to-date understanding of technological
possibilities for both mitigation and preparedness and
resilience reveals that there indeed exists a wide range of
options for cutting the carbon pollution that is driving
climate change and for better preparing society to deal with
the changes that materialize. The available technical insights
about these options have enabled the Climate Action Plan to
focus specifically on enabling and incentivizing progress on
the implementation and, where necessary, the further
development of the most promising options.
Finally, an up-to-date understanding of the results of
economic assessments of the cost of taking actions of these
kinds versus the cost of inaction provides the confidence that
moving ahead now is the right thing to do, and more
specifically, has provided the basis for the Climate Action
Plan's focus on those options that are most clearly cost-
effective and that bring significant co-benefits.
Because the Climate Action Plan focuses only on the low-
hanging fruit that is within reach without action by Congress,
the costs of implementing it will be relatively low and indeed
might well be completely repaid by the co-benefits.
Of course, there is still more that could and should be
done beyond the Climate Action Plan that would require the
support of the Congress. I hope that that support will be
forthcoming.
I thank the Committee for its interest in this critically
important issue, and I will be pleased to take any questions
the Members may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Holdren follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Holdren.
Ms. McCabe.
TESTIMONY OF MS. JANET MCCABE,
ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION,
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. McCabe. Thank you, Chairman Smith, good morning, and
Ranking Member Johnson and Members of the Committee. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify today. I am very pleased to be
here with Dr. Holdren.
The science is clear, the risks are clear, and the high
costs of climate inaction are clear. We must act. That is why
President Obama laid out a Climate Action Plan and why on June
2nd of this year, Administrator McCarthy signed the proposed
Clean Power Plan to cut carbon pollution, build a more
resilient Nation, and lead the world in our global climate
fight.
Power plants are the largest source of carbon dioxide
emission in the United States. While the United States has
limits in place for the level of arsenic, mercury, sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particle pollution that power
plants can emit, there are currently----
Chairman Smith. There we go. Well, we are getting there.
There we go.
Ms. McCabe, if you will proceed? I hope that this is fixed
permanently. Thank you.
Ms. McCabe. American know-how at work.
As I was saying, while the United States currently has
standards in place for a range of harmful pollutants that are
emitted by power plants, there are currently no national limits
on carbon pollution from these sources.
The Power Plan aims to cut energy waste and leverage
cleaner energy sources by doing two things. First, it uses a
national framework to set achievable state-specific goals to
cut carbon pollution per megawatt-hour of electricity
generated. Second, it empowers the states to chart their own
customized path to meeting their goals.
We know that coal and natural gas play a significant role
in a diverse national energy mix. This plan does not change
that. It builds on actions already underway to modernize aging
plants, increase efficiency and lower pollution, and it paves a
more certain path for conventional fuels in a clean energy
economy.
The EPA stakeholder outreach and public engagement in
preparation for this rulemaking was and continues to be
unprecedented. Starting last summer, we held 11 public
listening sessions around the country. We participated in
hundreds of meetings with a broad range of stakeholders across
the country and talked with every state. Now the second phase
of our public engagement is underway. We have already held four
public hearings in Atlanta, Denver, Pittsburgh and Washington,
D.C., at which over 1,300 people testified. We have had
hundreds of calls and meetings with states and other
stakeholders, and we have already received more than three-
quarters of a million comments. Through meetings, phone calls
and other outreach, we are proactively seeking input, and many
states, utilities and other stakeholders are bringing us
suggestions that reflect the significant and thoughtful work
they are putting into responding to this proposal. Because of
this strong interest, in fact, we announced yesterday that we
are extending the comment period for an additional 45 days to
December 1st.
These are just the sort of discussions we need to have, and
these are not mere words: this is a proposal we want and need
input from the public.
To craft the proposed state goals, we looked at where
states are today, and we followed where they are going. Each
state is different, so each goal, and each path, can be
different. The goals spring from smart and sensible
opportunities that states and businesses are taking advantage
of right now.
Under the proposal, the states have a flexible compliance
path that allows them to design plans sensitive to their needs,
including considering jobs and communities in a transitioning
energy world. It allows them enough time--15 years from when
the rule is final until compliance with the final target--to
consider and make the right investments, ensure reliability,
and avoid stranded assets.
All told, in 2030 when states meet their goals, our
proposal will result in about 30 percent less carbon pollution
from the power sector across the United States when compared
with 2005 levels. In addition, we will cut pollution that
causes smog and soot by more than 25 percent. Together, these
reductions will provide important health benefits to our most
vulnerable citizens including our children.
In 2030, the Clean Power Plan will deliver climate and
health benefits of up to $90 billion, and because energy
efficiency is a cost-effective strategy, we predict that in
2030, average electricity bills for American families will be
eight percent cheaper.
This proposal has started an active conversation about the
steps that states, cities, utilities and others are already
taking to reduce carbon pollution and how about the EPA can set
targets and a reasonable schedule that can be achieved by every
state, using measures they choose themselves to suit their own
needs.
The EPA looks forward to discussion of the proposal over
the next several months, and I look forward to your questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McCabe follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. McCabe.
The gentleman from Indiana, the chairman of the Research
and Technology Subcommittee, has a markup in another Committee
and has to leave immediately, so I am going to recognize
himself for questions and then I will take his place when it is
time for him to ask questions.
Mr. Bucshon.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Over the last few years we have gone from global warming to
now climate change since the temperature of the Earth hasn't
changed in many, many years. The temperature of the Earth has
been changing for centuries. I fully believe that the
temperature of the Earth is changing. But of course, now
supporters of this new regulation are saying well, it is
changing now at an unusual pace compared to the past because
now the American public is getting it that the temperature of
the Earth has been changing for centuries.
Ms. McCabe, first of all, welcome from Indiana. This plan
places a heavy burden on the states. Many state legislatures
will need to approve enabling statutes to implement the rule.
For example, we have heard from previous witnesses that have
come before this Committee that states will need to devise
institutional arrangements between state public utility
commissions and state environmental regulators to implement
carbon-driven resource planning. Further, states will need to
consider legislation to implement energy efficiency measures to
meet the goals under the plan and to grant additional
authorities to state public utility commissions on such matters
as stranded investment and cost allocation.
It is quite possible that certain states, for whatever
reason, will be unable to make these steps in which case the
state plans will be inadequate under the proposal, thus
mandating the EPA-issued Federal Implementation Plan, or FIP.
Can you describe for me what an FIP would look like where a
state has failed to enact the necessary laws to carryout EPA's
plan for them? For example, what would an EPA-imposed energy
efficiency mandate look like and how would EPA allocate costs
under such a mandate?
Ms. McCabe. Congressman, thank you for your question. Let
me first emphasize that in the plan, the proposal, we certainly
recognize that there are steps that states will need to take in
order to put authorities in place and design their plans, and
we provided several years for that work to take place, assuming
that states will be going forward with that. Many states
already have programs in place that they will be able to use or
build upon, and we are confident that working with the states,
as EPA always has in implementing Clean Air Act programs, that
we will be/able to find time and work with each other to make
sure that states have the time they need to put authorities in
place, and that is what we are focused on at the moment is
making sure that we understand one another, that we hear from
the states about the timing challenges that they expect to have
and the things that they need to do, and we are confident that
we will be able to move forward with states in a productive way
so that they can be successful in developing and implementing
their own plans.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you. Is it true that this rule has no
effect on the global temperature change?
Ms. McCabe. This rule is about cutting carbon pollution,
and cutting carbon pollution will help address the
contributions to the effects that we are seeing----
Mr. Bucshon. Because we have heard previous Administrators
from the EPA say that it won't. It is not about affecting the
global temperature and climate change.
Ms. McCabe. Well, I can----
Dr. Holdren. Can I take that?
Ms. McCabe. Sure.
Dr. Holdren. Yeah, I would like to respond to that if I
may.
Mr. Bucshon. Yeah. I mean, there are public comments out
there that that question has been asked and answered saying no.
Dr. Holdren. You should look at the scientific literature
rather than the public comments. The fact is----
Mr. Bucshon. Of all the climatologists whose career depends
on the climate changing to keep themselves publishing articles,
yes, I could read that but I don't believe it.
Dr. Holdren. If you would allow me to finish, the point is
that the limitation on carbon emissions in the United States is
a very important first step for us to take on a longer
trajectory to meet the President's goals of a 17 percent
reduction from 2005 by 2020, and ultimately an 80-plus percent
reduction by 2050. If the United States does not take that sort
of action, it is unlikely that other major emitters in the
world--China, India, Russia, Europe, Japan--will do so either,
and the fact is, all of us need to reduce our carbon emissions
if we are to avoid unmanageable degrees of climate change.
Mr. Bucshon. Okay. Fair enough.
Ms. McCabe, there are some comments out there saying asthma
attacks decrease, heart attacks decrease. Where do you get that
information? Because I was a medical doctor before, and it says
in the first year the plan will avoid 100,000 asthma attacks
and 2,100 heart attacks. I can tell you, as a medical doctor,
you cannot say that.
Ms. McCabe. Well----
Mr. Bucshon. That is just scare tactics. That is not
factual.
Ms. McCabe. Well, all of our information is based on
factual information that is developed and in the record and
available for people to comment on.
Mr. Bucshon. And let me say I reviewed that from the
American Lung Association. In fact, their medical director came
down last year from New York and spoke to me about this. And is
it true or not that it is based on actually modeling and not
actually factual patient data?
Ms. McCabe. There is a large body of evidence that----
Mr. Bucshon. Is it based on computer modeling or is it
based on factual medical data? That is the question. Yes or no.
Ms. McCabe. EPA uses both modeling and----
Mr. Bucshon. And is it true that the model that was created
to do this, the EPA paid tens of thousands of dollars to the
person to create the model to, in my view, after I have looked
at all the science including people who funded the research--
the funders of this research that was done are all pretty far
left global warming foundations and others that want this data
to come out? I mean, I am just saying, it all depends. If you
are a medical person and you look at who funds a study and the
result of the study, I mean, I look at the first, who funded
it, and if people that believe the result funded it, do you see
where I am getting at?
Ms. McCabe. Yes, Congressman----
Mr. Bucshon. And it is all based on modeling, not on
factual information, so I would--I just----
Dr. Holdren. Can I take a piece of this as well?
Mr. Bucshon. No, I am over my time so I will just say this
and I yield back to the chairman, that scare tactics like that
is really appalling to me to use medical information to scare
parents that their children about asthma attacks and scare
people saying they are going to have heart attacks and you are
going to prevent that with this rule in the first year. That is
just not factual. And I would argue that we should all on both
sides of this discussion avoid scare tactics.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Bucshon. The gentlewoman
from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is recognized.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
to both of our witnesses for appearing before us again to
discuss this very important topic, and I am glad that my
colleague, Mr. Bucshon, mentioned scare tactics because, Mr.
Chairman, I have an article that I would like to submit for the
record because we are likely to hear some arguments that the
coal industry has used over the years to sway people against
regulation designed to protect the environment, and so I would
like to introduce this article, which chronicles the coal
industry's overreactions and some exaggerated claims over the
last 40 years.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the article will be a
part of the record.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I hope the Committee Members read
this article as well.
Thank you again. I am going to begin my question in this
hearing much the same way as I began when we held a similar
hearing just over a month ago by briefly discussing the
economic costs of failing to act to combat climate change for
communities. For example, in my district in Oregon, the threat
of climate change brings serious economic consequences to
coastal communities with the fishing and seafood industries,
for example, rely on a healthy ocean to support their
livelihood. The agriculture sectors need freedom from concerns
about drought. Changes in our climate brought on by record-high
carbon emission causes economic concern. Many Fortune 500
companies are now building the economic realities of climate
change into their long-term business plans. Insurance companies
are starting to account for the increased frequency of severe
weather events. These things are happening, and it is up to us
as policymakers to act now to mitigate the damage.
So Dr. Holdren, first of all, thank you for your very
thorough testimony. I do encourage Members of the Committee to
read your entire written testimony, which is very thorough and
detailed. We are here today to ostensibly discuss the science
behind the EPA regulations, and because some people question
whether the EPA is considering the economic impact of its
regulations, can you please expand on the potential economic
benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions through rules
like the recently proposed rule limiting emissions from
existing power plants?
Dr. Holdren. Thank you. I am happy to do that. There is
some considerable discussion of that in my rather lengthy
written statement, but the fact is that we are facing under
unabated continuation of global climate change large increases
in damages from a wide variety of extreme weather events
including, in some regions, floods, in other regions, droughts,
in many regions, more extreme heat waves, in many regions, more
wildfires, pest outbreaks, pathogen spread in terms of
geographic range. We are looking at impacts on many sectors of
the economy on the energy sector, the forestry sector, the
agriculture sector, the fishery sector. We are looking at
increases in ocean acidification that have the potential to
dramatically change ocean food chains and fisheries
possibilities, and we are looking, as already mentioned, at
human health effects, and I would mention, although Dr. Bucshon
has now left, that the models that are used in this domain are
all based on data. They are based on patient data. They are
based on epidemiological studies, and there is a wide range of
models, not a single model. They have been funded by a wide
range of sources, and the findings in the National Climate
Assessment, which came out in May, on the impacts of climate
change on health were thoroughly vetted by experts at the
National Institutes of Health----
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Doctor. I do want to have time for
one quick question.
Dr. Holdren. Sorry.
Ms. Bonamici. But thank you for that clarification.
On a related note, I want to follow up on something that
was discussed in our July hearing. Dr. Cash from the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection stated
that EPA's latest action will ``help the Nation develop an
advanced energy infrastructure.'' So can you please both
comment briefly on the importance of having the United States
lead the way in the development and implementation of the next
generation of energy policies and talk about whether the
existence of rules will foster innovation by creating demand
for new technologies.
Ms. McCabe. I will take a start at it. This is another
example of how regulations will spur innovation and development
of new technologies. In particular, what we found when we
looked at what the power sector and states were already doing
to address carbon is that they were investing in renewable
energy and moving that forward. They were investing in energy
efficiency and moving that forward, and there is huge
opportunities in addition to other sorts of technologies for
this plan to spur even greater investment in those sorts of
technologies and move them into all across the country and into
the mainstream.
Ms. Bonamici. And I trust you would both agree with me that
we would prefer that the United States be the leader in
developing these technologies.
Ms. Bonamici. Absolutely.
Dr. Holdren. I would just add and emphasize that countries
all around the world are buying renewable-energy technologies,
they are buying energy-efficiency technologies, they are buying
cleaner fossil-fuel technologies. They are going to be buying a
lot more of them because it is recognized all around the world
that climate change is real and we need to do something about
it, and we will be far better off if the United States is the
principal provider of those technologies in the decades ahead
than if we allow other countries to take the lead in that
domain.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. My time is expired. I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is
recognized for his questions.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, and thank you for
being with us today.
I--let me just note about the last point, yeah, we do have
countries like Spain investing in other types of technology for
producing energy and it is breaking their bank. It is putting
them into bankruptcy.
There is just a list of things that just--note that this is
a matter of contention that I would think the public should
look at, whether or not there actually has been 17 years where
there has been no warming, although that was what was
predicted. I keep seeing reports saying that there are no more
hurricanes than there always have been or they are not more
extreme than they ever were.
We have climate models obviously that have been presented
us that we were going to have a huge jump in our temperature
that were clearly wrong. The Arctic ice volume now is
increasing rather than decreasing, as is the population of the
polar bears increasing rather than decreasing, and we have seen
an increase in plant growth and crop yields. Let me--so those
are just matters.
Back-and-forth with those people who believe that humankind
and our activities are changing the climate and those of us who
don't, we need to know whether those specific issues--what the
facts show on those things because I keep hearing disagreement
from those who would like to pass regulations like the ones we
are talking about today.
Ms. McCabe, at what point--you keep using the word carbon
pollution----
Ms. McCabe. Um-hum.
Mr. Rohrabacher. --at what point--level of CO2
does CO2 become damaging to human health?
Ms. McCabe. Well, carbon----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right now, we have CO2 at about
400 parts per million.
Ms. McCabe. Um-hum.
Mr. Rohrabacher. At what point does that actually become
harmful to human beings?
Ms. McCabe. I will let Dr. Holdren amplify my answer, but
it is clear that the amount of carbon that is being emitted----
Mr. Rohrabacher. No, no, I am asking for a specific number.
You guys are the experts. You are here telling us to pass what
we consider to be a draconian regulation. You should know at
what point it becomes harmful to human health. If it is now at
400 parts per million--Dr. Holdren, maybe you have the answer
to that--at what level does it become harmful to human beings?
Dr. Holdren. Vice Chairman Rohrabacher, I always enjoy my
interactions with you. I have to say, with respect, that is a
red herring. We are not interested in carbon dioxide
concentrations because of their direct effect on human health.
We are interested in them because their effect--of their
affect----
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
Dr. Holdren. --on the world's climate, and climate change
has effects----
Mr. Rohrabacher. So it is a red herring----
Dr. Holdren. --on human health.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So it is a red herring to say that
when people are talking about human health that there is no
direct impact on human health, that this is something----
Dr. Holdren. Not of CO2 concentration. There is
a direct----
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. All right.
Dr. Holdren. --there are very strong and direct impacts----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Dr. Holdren. --and there is a strong direct effect----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Strong indirect, okay.
Dr. Holdren. --and there is a strong direct effect----
Mr. Rohrabacher. So let's go----
Dr. Holdren. --on the co-emitted pollutants----
Mr. Rohrabacher. So let's go for the record----
Dr. Holdren. --like oxides or sulfur and black carbon----
Mr. Rohrabacher. So let's go for the record that you have
now agreed there is no direct impact on human health by
CO2 concentration----
Dr. Holdren. And a huge indirect impact.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And at what time--I guess we will say you
are not even going to go--because the next level higher is
going to go to us--how long will it take us to get to the point
where it does actually impact human health?
And I will just put in for the record that it seems--it is
at 400 parts per million now and between 1,000 to 2,000 parts
is what we pump into greenhouses and it is commonly accepted
that it takes about 20,000 parts per million as differentiated
from the 400 parts per million now that we have before it
becomes harmful to human health, unless of course you want to
say that those things that we just--that I just outlined are
real, that there has actually been warming, that the models
have been successful, that the Arctic ice now is not growing,
and the population of the polar bears is continuing to
diminish, and et cetera, et cetera. So, yeah----
Dr. Holdren. May I respond?
Mr. Rohrabacher. You certainly may.
Dr. Holdren. First of all, there is a long section in my
testimony explaining that the so-called hiatus in global
warming is not what you have portrayed it to be. It is a
slowdown in the rate of increase of the atmospheric surface
temperature from what occurred in previous decades. The fact
is, even by that index, the Earth is still warming. The 2000s
were warmer than the '90s, the 2010s so far have been warmer
than the 2000s, 13 of the 14 hottest years in the instrumental
record going back 150 years----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Dr. Holdren. --have occurred since 2000.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. And let's----
Dr. Holdren. And it is also true----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Dr. Holdren. --that in terms of the Arctic ice in volume
and in area at any given time of year it continues to be on a
shrinking trajectory, although of course there is natural
variability that bounces it up and down a bit----
Mr. Rohrabacher. But you----
Dr. Holdren. --but the trend is unmistakable.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But you will acknowledge that there are
many scientists--and by the way, I want to congratulate both of
you because last time you were both here independently when we
tried to pin down this fraud of 97 percent of all the
scientists agree that manmade global warming is now upon us,
you both refused to back up that fraudulent claim and I applaud
you for that.
Let me just note that when we are talking about these
issues--the very issues that we brought up, there are
legitimate scientists--this isn't just a claim here at the
hearing--there are legitimate scientists on both of these
issues, on both sides of the various issues that you and I just
brought up, and I think that it behooves us not to just suggest
that, well, this is what the fact is.
I think that what we should all do is compare the various
scientific facts that are coming in and not just dismiss all of
the scientists who are claiming that no, the polar bears are
not disappearing and no, there are not more hurricanes, there
are not more tornadoes, there are not more, say, critical
weather situations going on. I think those issues need to be
looked at with an open mind and that both sides can look at it
scientifically.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
The gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms. Kelly, is recognized for
her questions.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. McCabe, as you likely are aware, critics of this and
virtually any other EPA proposed rule often claim that the
economy and the American consumer will suffer as a result of
efforts to make our environment cleaner and safer. More ``the
sky is falling'' attitude toward actions that will protect the
health of Americans is contradicted by the fact that the U.S.
economy has tripled in size since the adoption of the Clean Air
Act in 1970, which you know. One of the concerns often raised
is that the Clean Power Plan will cause residential electricity
prices to increase dramatically. Can you comment on that? Is
that the case? And can you please describe the estimated impact
that the proposed rule will have on Americans' electricity
bills?
Ms. McCabe. Absolutely. Thank you for the question.
Ms. Kelly. Coming from Illinois, it is very important.
Ms. McCabe. Yes, yes, for me, too. Yes, this is an issue
that we look at in our regulatory impact assessment, which was
put out with the proposed rule. We did take a look at the
anticipated impacts on electricity bills, and because of the
strong emphasis that we expect from states in looking at energy
efficiency as a very clear and obvious and cost-effective
approach, our analysis predicts that electricity bills for
American families will go down by 2030 by about eight percent,
and that is a good thing for all of us because you get the
improved environment, you get the pollution reduction of other
pollutants that come along with the carbon that will have
immediate impacts on people in their neighborhoods and improve
their health, and you also, through the increased use of energy
efficiency, will get lower electric bills.
Ms. Kelly. Where do you feel that your doubters or critics
are getting their information from?
Ms. McCabe. I don't know that I can speak to that,
Congresswoman. People do the analyses that they choose to do.
What we appreciate is the transparent and public process that
we have during this proposal so that people can bring whatever
analyses they have to us and everybody can take a look at that
and we can work through it.
Ms. Kelly. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Kelly.
I now recognize myself for questions next.
And, Dr. Holdren, let me direct my first question to you.
The EPA says that its regulations will reduce carbon dioxide
emissions by about 555 million tons per year in 2030. That same
year, Department of Energy is projecting that China alone will
emit about 14 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year. That
means that after this costly and in my view burdensome rule is
implemented, it will offset only 13 days of Chinese carbon
dioxide emissions and of course much less of the total world's
emissions. And I want to focus on the impact of the rule. We
will get to the impact on other countries in a second. But
would you agree that the impact of the rule when and if
implemented would have a negligible impact on climate change?
Dr. Holdren. As I have already said, this rule is a start.
The Climate Action Plan is a start. If we do not make a start,
we will never get to the kinds of reductions----
Chairman Smith. Right.
Dr. Holdren. --that we need. But by the way, we will never
get there without the Congress' help.
Chairman Smith. Right.
Dr. Holdren. It is one of the reasons I feel happy to be
here.
Chairman Smith. What impact would this rule have on global
temperatures, for example?
Dr. Holdren. A small impact if we neglect the leadership
role that the United States plays in the world.
Chairman Smith. And----
Dr. Holdren. I have just been traveling around the world
talking to leaders----
Chairman Smith. I am going to get to the----
Dr. Holdren. --of other countries----
Chairman Smith. I am going to get to the leadership
question----
Dr. Holdren. --and they are appreciative----
Chairman Smith. --in just----
Dr. Holdren. --of what we are doing.
Chairman Smith. Dr. Holdren, let me finish. I am going to
get the leadership question in a minute but I want to get to
the impact of this rule on climate change. You said it would
have a very small impact on global temperatures. What about its
impact on the rise in sea levels?
Dr. Holdren. That impact will also be small. And again, it
is necessary to start or we will be cooked and flooded.
Chairman Smith. I understand. I just want to make sure that
everybody understands the impact of the rule on climate change
is going to be small, I would say negligible given what I have
said.
And as far as our leadership role goes, to me that is
totally hypothetical and speculative. You have got China today
building on the average I think of one new coal-fed power plant
every week and I don't think these other countries are going to
have much of an incentive to follow anybody's lead if it is
going to cost them more money and damage their economy. But I
am glad to have your answers on the small impact on climate
change.
Dr. Holdren. Can I answer the other point about our
leadership----
Chairman Smith. Well----
Dr. Holdren. --and about China----
Chairman Smith. I think----
Dr. Holdren. --and about India?
Chairman Smith. I think you already have today a couple of
times, but I would like to go to Ms. McCabe, and then if we
have time come back to that. The question--as I say, to me the
impact on other countries is hypothetical.
Ms. McCabe, let me ask you some of these same questions,
but on the way there you said a minute ago that the rule is
about cutting out carbon pollution. The EPA Administrator, your
boss, said when she testified before the Senate that this is
not about pollution control. Why the contradiction in your
statement and the Administrator's statement?
Ms. McCabe. Well, I am not familiar with exactly what
statement you are referring to. She may have been talking about
the fact that there are technologies that would not be
considered the traditional pollution control----
Chairman Smith. Right.
Ms. McCabe. --types of technologies that----
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Ms. McCabe. --are available to reduce----
Chairman Smith. If----
Ms. McCabe. --carbon----
Chairman Smith. On the surface it looks like they are
contradictory statements but we will look for another
explanation.
Let me go back and ask you some of the same questions I
just asked Dr. Holdren. What impact will this rule have on
global temperatures? Is it going to be small, is it going to be
great, is it going to be--what?
Ms. McCabe. Well, I certainly would defer to Dr. Holdren on
the science questions. I would agree with him that the impacts
of any single action will be small, but it takes many small
actions to make a difference on this global problem.
Chairman Smith. Right. And the impact would be small on
global temperatures and the impact would be small on any sea
level rise as well, would it not?
Ms. McCabe. Again, it takes many, many actions----
Chairman Smith. I know but the answer----
Ms. McCabe. --to make the difference.
Chairman Smith. --to my question is that it would be a
small impact and you would agree with Dr. Holdren?
Ms. McCabe. I would agree.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you both very much. You have
answered my questions.
And we will now go to the gentleman from California, Mr.
Swalwell, for his questions.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And first, I just want to start with Dr. Holdren. Dr.
Holdren, we heard a little bit about scare tactics earlier, but
I wasn't around in 1970 when the Clean Air Act was passed. I
came on the scene about ten years later. But when the Clean Air
Act was passed, everything I have read was that there were a
number of scare tactics from industry around what it would do
to our economy. Do you remember that?
Dr. Holdren. I do.
Mr. Swalwell. And----
Dr. Holdren. I do.
Mr. Swalwell. And one of the scare tactics was that we
would see our economy, rather than move forward, that the
economy would move backwards. Do you remember that?
Dr. Holdren. I do.
Mr. Swalwell. And isn't it true that in fact our economy
has tripled in size since the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970?
Dr. Holdren. I think that is roughly right. I would have to
double-check the figure.
Mr. Swalwell. And isn't it true that pollutants have been
reduced by 70 percent since the Clean Air Act was passed in
1970?
Dr. Holdren. At least many of the important ones have.
Mr. Swalwell. Okay. Did you read the New York Times story
over the weekend on Germany's solar and wind investments?
Dr. Holdren. I did.
Mr. Swalwell. Do you believe that the United States is any
less capable than Germany in making investments in solar and
wind? And what would it mean for reducing carbon emissions if
we made investments that would have us have 30 percent of our
energy supplied by renewables, as Germany is on track to do by
the end of the year?
Dr. Holdren. We are not technically less capable. We may be
politically less capable of taking the necessary decisions.
Mr. Swalwell. And what would it do for our Climate Action
Plan if, over the next 15 years, we achieved what Germany is
going to achieve by the end of this year, which is having 30
percent of its energy provided by renewables?
Dr. Holdren. It would obviously be a great help.
Mr. Swalwell. Okay. And, Ms. McCabe, do you have any
thoughts on that?
Ms. McCabe. No, I would just confirm that we think
increased use of renewable energy is going to be a key portion
of states' plans that they can choose to develop. So I would
agree.
Mr. Swalwell. Also, Dr. Holdren, many have mentioned that
even if we do something, that other countries--some of the
bigger countries, China and India, if they do nothing, that our
efforts could be negligible. However, don't we have some
recourse to enforce or require other countries to take action?
For example, can't nations that are being responsible--that are
not being responsible in addressing this global threat be
slapped with a WTO complaint tariff?
Dr. Holdren. Let me say that at this point I don't----
Mr. Swalwell. Sorry, WTO compliant tariff.
Dr. Holdren. I think at this point we don't need to talk
about recourse because the fact is that both China and India,
the second and third biggest emitters in the world, are both
taking far more action than most Americans realize. The Chinese
in their 12th five-year plan put a target for reducing the
percentage--a target for increasing the percentage of non-
fossil fuel in primary energy consumption. We, by the way, have
not done that. We don't have any non-carbon or low carbon
energy standard. China has set specific national targets for
the expansion of nuclear, wind, solar, and natural gas. They
have a carbon intensity target, which they are on track to
meet. They have minimum energy efficiency standards across a
wide range of appliances and vehicles.
Mr. Swalwell. And, Dr. Holdren----
Dr. Holdren. And they have been shutting down their old
coal-burning power plants----
Mr. Swalwell. I appreciate you bringing that up because----
Dr. Holdren. --and replacing them with more efficient ones.
Mr. Swalwell. --I want to put into the record if it is okay
with the Chair two stories that backup what Dr. Holdren is
saying, one, a September 12, 2014, story, ``China Aims High for
Carbon Market by 2020,'' and also a May 7, 2014, story, ``India
Goes Green, Drafts Policy to Lower Carbon Emissions.''
Chairman Smith. Without objection, those two articles will
be made part of the record.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So I think the question that we are tasked with today is do
something or do nothing, and as far as I am concerned, plan
always beats no plan, especially when the stakes are so high.
And so I guess I would challenge my colleagues on the other
side if they want to do nothing, why don't we go ahead and
build a do-nothing climate wall. We can put it somewhere out on
the Washington Mall and we can put all the names of the people
who think that we should do nothing, and then in 100 years we
can let our children and grandchildren go to that wall and see
who wanted to do nothing and who wanted to do something. And I
hope we did something and we will let history be the judge of
what happens next.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. Swalwell. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. Swalwell. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman has yielded back.
Thank you, Mr. Swalwell, and we will now go to the
gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for his questions.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, folks, for
joining us today.
Ms. McCabe, I would like to start out, you acknowledged in
agreement with Dr. Holdren that the rule would have a small
impact in the climate spectrum. Do you also view the thousands
of jobs and the economic impacts of these rules on the American
people as small impacts?
Ms. McCabe. We--Congressman, we take very seriously any
expected impacts on the economy when we consider our rules----
Mr. Johnson. Well, you know, the experts are saying, Ms.
McCabe--you know, I represent a district in Ohio that has six
coal-fired power plants; I have got roughly 15,000 or so coal
industry-related jobs. If these rules go forward, those jobs
are going to be forfeited. So my question to you is do you view
those as small impacts?
Ms. McCabe. I think that any job concerns to a community
are significant and need to be paid attention to. This rule
is----
Mr. Johnson. Are they acceptable to you?
Ms. McCabe. This rule is being written in the context of a
transitioning energy system, and----
Mr. Johnson. Let's talk about that for a second.
Transitioning energy position, you know, during this past
winter the polar vortex, the cold snap, many coal-fired power
plants that are slated to retire were running at over 90
percent capacity. In Ohio I have heard the experts say that we
were one coal-fired power plant away from rolling brownouts and
blackouts. And I am already getting manufacturers today that
are being asked to idle their manufacturing plants because
there is not enough energy on the grid.
So how would the grid have performed this past winter and
how high would have wholesale prices risen if the coal-base-
load of power plants scheduled to close over the next two
years, if they were not available this past winter? What does
your analysis reveal about that? You take all that power off
the grid, how would that have affected the price for energy
this past winter?
Ms. McCabe. The Clean Power Plan envisions that in 2030, 30
percent of----
Mr. Johnson. I am not talking about 2030; I am talking
about last winter. How would it have affected the wholesale
prices if that energy had not--that you are planning to take
off the grid, if it had not been available? How would it have
affected wholesale prices?
Ms. McCabe. EPA is not planning to take any power off the
grid. This plan would allow states to develop plans and we see
that energy reliability would not be compromised under the plan
as we have devised it.
Mr. Johnson. Okay. Well, the states have a different view
of that I think. Let me ask you this, then, talking about the
states. You know, explain it to me then how you intend to
approve or disapprove of a state plan if the state submits a
plan that has a different baseline than those that are set out
in the proposed rule because the EPA's generation mix for 2012
doesn't include all the utilities that usually operate, for
example, they were shut down that year or they did not operate?
Ms. McCabe. Um-hum.
Mr. Johnson. Will the EPA disapprove a state plan that sets
a different reduction target than what the Agency requires in
the proposed rule because it failed to include a utility that
did not operate in 2012?
Ms. McCabe. This is why our rulemaking has a public process
with opportunities for people to give us information. We want
to make sure that the targets that we ultimately finalize are
accurate and correct and based on correct information, and we
are in those discussions with states every day now to make sure
that we have that right information.
Mr. Johnson. Okay. Dr. Holdren, and--during--you talked
about success through science in your opening statement this
morning. Last July, Steve McConnell, the former Assistant
Secretary for Energy until last year, now at Rice University,
testified before this committee that the relationship between
the DOE and the EPA was really disingenuous interagency
collaboration and simply a box-checking exercise. Further, it
was an awkward--he said it was an awkward dance because very
often the inconvenient truths of technical evaluations didn't
fit the political agenda and that made it very difficult to
actually have any collaboration, and in fact, as time went, on
the communication became almost zero.
Mr. McConnell gave an insightful example of where EPA's
idea of checking the box on a 650-page technical document to
the Department of Energy at 3:00 p.m. on a Friday afternoon
that EPA told him they had to respond back by 10:00 a.m. on
Monday.
So you are in charge of scientific and technical
cooperation between departments and agencies. Is this how the
Obama Administration makes technical decisions that will cost
the American taxpayers billions of dollars? Is this what you
call success through science? Or is it simply a political
agenda to shut down coal-fired power plants across the country?
Dr. Holdren. It is certainly not a political agenda to shut
down coal-fired power plants, and as you know--as I believe you
know, under the Climate Action Plan, coal would still be
providing 30 percent of U.S. electricity at the end of--at the
period in 2030.
But in terms of interagency cooperation, of course we want
and we encourage interagency cooperation. I am responsible for
the oversight of activities and initiatives that involve the
cooperation of multiple agencies. We work hard at getting that
to happen. I think it is happening. I think both EPA and DOE
currently have not only very capable but very collaborative
leaders in Secretary Moniz and Administrator McCarthy. I have
seen them working closely together. I have seen the process of
collaboration. I am not sure what happened when----
Mr. Johnson. All right. Well, let me--my time is almost
expired so let me ask Ms. McCabe then.
Mr. Rohrabacher. [Presiding] There is----
Mr. Johnson. Will you----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Your time has expired--more than expired.
Thank you.
And----
Mr. Johnson. I yield back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. --now, Ms. Edwards.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And, Dr. Holdren, and to both of our witnesses, thank you
very much for being here.
I think that we could not be dealing with any more
important issue than this discussion right here and we need to
get off the dime on the politics because we are losing ground
every single day.
And I would like to ask the Chairman, I have an article
from the Washington Post that just appeared a couple of days
ago that highlights the impact--the potential impact to
flooding from storm surge that would threaten D.C.--the
District of Columbia infrastructure. And I would note it is a
shame that Mr. Swalwell is no longer here and he has left
because I would tell him that if he were going to build that
wall on the Mall, he should choose a different place because it
will be underwater.
And so with that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter this
article from the Washington Post appearing September 16 into
the record.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Ms. Edwards. Thank you.
Dr. Holdren, as we have just indicated, you know that our
coastal communities are a major contributor to the U.S. economy
that supports maritime commerce and shipping ports, fishing,
tourism. I know Maryland has a great benefit to our economy
because of our coast and our Chesapeake Bay. And all of these
areas are highly vulnerable to the threat of sea level rise.
In addition, in the Maryland Chesapeake Bay, the five
states that comprise the watershed, that there is a lot of
farmland there, too, and so in addition to the economy that
takes place on the water, there is the economy just bordering
the water that really threatens us. The third National Climate
Assessment asserts that more than a trillion dollars of coastal
property and infrastructure is at risk of inundation from a sea
level rise of 2 feet above the current level. Can you outline
the potential impact a 2 foot rise in sea level would have on
the American economy?
Dr. Holdren. Well, let me say a couple of things about
that. One is that is quite extensively analyzed in the National
Climate Assessment that came out in May. The second point is
that the first phase of the Climate Data Initiative, which is
part of the President's Climate Action Plan, and the first
phase of the Climate Resilient Toolkit, which will be rolled
out shortly, are both focused on providing more detailed data
on the consequences of sea level rise of various levels on
infrastructure and on the economy.
And so while we already have rough accounts of how
devastating sea level rise in that magnitude would be, we will
soon have better ones and we will have tools that will enable
people on the coast all around the country to understand,
anticipate, prepare for, and plan for the amounts of sea level
rise that are likely to occur in their areas.
Ms. Edwards. Dr. Holdren, just to follow that up, I recall
that just a couple of months ago there was another article--I
think it was either in the New York Times or Washington Post--
that talked about particular impacts in the Virginia Beach and
Norfolk area to our military facilities. And in fact, as part
of our military readiness and planning, they have tried to
accommodate for that kind of rise. We put billions of dollars
into structuring and restructuring, rebuilding our ports to
accommodate our military bases and facilities because our
Department of Defense actually does believe that there is a
tremendous impact of climate change contributing to sea level
rise.
Has there been an assessment of the threat to our defense--
our national defense and military readiness?
Dr. Holdren. There have been a number of reports by the
Pentagon and by consultants to the Pentagon on the impacts of
climate change on national security, and I would refer you to
those. You are absolutely right, Congresswoman Edwards, that
the Pentagon recognizes very clearly that climate change is a
big challenge for our military and for our national security.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you very much. And just to be clear,
though, when we are thinking about the impact to the economy on
our coastal communities, do we have a rough estimate--is there
a rough estimate of how much of the population just on the two
coasts, the Atlantic and the Pacific, that is attributed to--
that would be impacted by sea level rises?
Dr. Holdren. I am just in the process of looking up a
number--excuse me. I am just in the process of looking up the
number in the National Climate Assessment. There is an estimate
in there of what fraction of the U.S. population lives at
various heights above current sea level. I don't recall it off
the top of my head.
Ms. Edwards. Let's just say it is a boatload of people,
right?
Dr. Holdren. I would be happy to get back to you with a
quantitative answer on that.
Ms. Edwards. Great. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bridenstine.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When the President was campaigning in 2008 he was
interviewing with the San Francisco Chronicle and they asked
him--quite infamously they asked him, you know, are you going
to shut down coal-fired power plants? And his response was,
well, no, I am not going to shut them down; we will increase
regulations to the point where it is so expensive, they won't
be able to stay in business. I would like to ask each of you,
do you agree with the President's philosophy on that?
Dr. Holdren. Well, first of all, I am sure the Resident no
longer agrees with it. Whatever he said in 2008, he----
Mr. Bridenstine. So that is not the President's philosophy?
Dr. Holdren. It is not the President's philosophy.
Mr. Bridenstine. Okay. That is good.
Dr. Holdren. The President is not trying to----
Mr. Bridenstine. So you don't agree with it? Yes or no, you
don't agree with it?
Dr. Holdren. I don't agree with the statement as you just
presented it----
Mr. Bridenstine. Okay.
Dr. Holdren. --that the President----
Mr. Bridenstine. Ms. McCabe?
Dr. Holdren. --apparently said in 2008, and he doesn't
either.
Ms. McCabe. Absolutely, we don't agree.
Mr. Bridenstine. Okay. So has he recanted that or retracted
it or apologized for suggesting that?
Dr. Holdren. The National Climate Plan makes very clear--
Climate Action Plan makes very clear that we do not intend to
shut down coal-fired power plants, and it is the President's
plan. So I say he is absolutely clear on the record on that and
he has said it in a number of recent speeches as well.
Mr. Bridenstine. Okay. Chuck McConnell is the Executive
Director of the Energy and Environment Initiative at my alma
mater, Rice University. He is a former Assistant Secretary of
Energy and this Administration, and he testified before this
committee about the environmental impacts of the
Administration's carbon plan that you have just mentioned, or
rather the lack of the impact of the environmental plan. He
says that the reductions in emissions resulting from these
rules will account for less than 1/100th of 1 degree Celsius
drop in temperatures. Do you guys agree with that?
Dr. Holdren. I don't agree with it for the reasons I have
already stated, namely, we are beginning a process that is
going to lead to further reductions.
Mr. Bridenstine. No, no, no, no, this rule--no, no----
Dr. Holdren. This rule alone----
Mr. Bridenstine. Do you agree with that statement, 1/100th
of 1 degree Celsius?
Dr. Holdren. I would have to look--have to review the
number before I----
Mr. Bridenstine. These are your models.
Dr. Holdren. --before I subscribe to a particular----
Mr. Bridenstine. These aren't my models; these are your
models and--now, he also suggested----
Dr. Holdren. I will be happy to review the number and get
back to you----
Mr. Bridenstine. Sir, this is my time----
Dr. Holdren. --but the point is this is a start.
Mr. Bridenstine. Sir, I am asking the questions here. He
also suggested that it would increase sea levels by 1/3 of the
width of a dime over 30 years. Do you agree with that
assessment?
Dr. Holdren. Again, I will get back to on the specific
numbers but the assessment is irrelevant. We are starting a
process which is going to require larger emissions reductions
going forward----
Mr. Bridenstine. By China? We need larger----
Dr. Holdren. Oh, absolutely we do and China is already on
that pathway as well.
Mr. Bridenstine. Oh, I----
Dr. Holdren. And in some respects they are ahead of us.
Mr. Bridenstine. I am glad to hear that China is on board
with our plan because they weren't on board with our plan when
we wanted to protect international waters in the South China
Sea, were they?
Dr. Holdren. We are not talking about the South China Sea;
we are----
Mr. Bridenstine. No, we are because the South----
Dr. Holdren. --talking about climate change.
Mr. Bridenstine. --China Sea is their next move and they
are doing it for energy purposes. And guess what? They didn't
consult the Philippines, they didn't consult Vietnam, they
didn't consult Malaysia or Indonesia, they didn't consult
Taiwan. They just went ahead and said we now control the South
China Sea. Now was that in the plan?
Dr. Holdren. I am not defending what China has done in the
South China Sea.
Mr. Bridenstine. Well, let me ask you----
Dr. Holdren. What I am saying is China finds it----
Mr. Bridenstine. --I am going to ask you a very important
question----
Dr. Holdren. --in its own interest----
Mr. Bridenstine. Does China----
Dr. Holdren. --to reduce greenhouse gas emissions----
Mr. Bridenstine. Does China do what is in our interest or
do they do what is in their interest? Because what we have seen
is they do what is in their interest and encourage us to do
what is against our own interest. Do you agree with that?
Dr. Holdren. No, I do not. In the case of climate change it
is in both our countries' interest to reduce both of our
greenhouse gas----
Mr. Bridenstine. Then why are they continuing to----
Dr. Holdren. --and that is why we are cooperating----
Mr. Bridenstine. --increase their emissions?
Dr. Holdren. --in that domain.
Mr. Bridenstine. You recognize that they are continuing to
increase their emissions, and the more we reduce ours, we
hinder our economy while their economy is growing more rapidly,
is that correct?
Dr. Holdren. They are continuing to increase their
emissions but at a declining rates, and they are aiming to peak
and then decline at--currently, we expect that China will be
announcing an intention to peak by 2030 and we----
Mr. Bridenstine. Well, I am glad they are going to----
Dr. Holdren. --hope----
Mr. Bridenstine. --peak in 2030.
Dr. Holdren. And we hope that they will move that forward
as the technological capabilities to do it become available.
Mr. Bridenstine. I have got 30 seconds left. The Mayor of
Tulsa was here today, Dewey Bartlett. He is a good friend of
mine. He would like me to ask you guys if you are aware that 50
percent of the total electricity output for Oklahoma comes from
coal. Are either of you aware of that, 57 percent of our
electricity output comes from coal in the State of Oklahoma?
Ms. McCabe. There are a number of states where a
significant portion comes from coal and we expect that to
continue.
Mr. Bridenstine. In Oklahoma we have a 20 percent lower
cost of electricity than the national average. Are you aware of
that?
Ms. McCabe. Not specifically but I--it doesn't surprise me.
Mr. Bridenstine. So when these rules go into effect, do you
know what happens? Manufacturing jobs that have a high cost of
energy, manufacturing jobs leave Oklahoma. And guess what? It
is a lot more difficult to attract jobs to Oklahoma. Are you
guys aware of that? So even though you suggest that this may
grow the economy, right now, that is not how it is working in
my State of Oklahoma.
I am out of time but this is something you need to think
about. Thank you so much.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you.
Mr. Posey from Florida.
Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Dr. Holdren and Ms. McCabe for coming here
today. I know sometimes it is really not fun here and I hope it
is not intended as a bunch of grouches. I mean I hope everybody
is really trying to find common denominators and trying to make
common sense meets science and get a good handle on this and I
think that if there is enough debate, someday it will probably
level out and most people will share the same opinion, but
there is just a lot of digging to get there.
And, for the hundredth time, I believe in climate change,
never said I didn't believe in climate change. Some people have
claimed that I said I did--I never--I defy anybody to say I
don't believe in climate change. I think the last time Dr.
Holdren was here we discussed climate change. I talked about
the temperature of the Earth 65 million years ago being
significantly hotter than it is now and some lame-brained
blogger willfully and wantonly distorted the fact to say I said
it didn't bother the dinosaurs, why should it bother us? So
there is a lot of venom flowing on both sides of this issue,
which I am afraid hinders more direct discussion of the fact,
and that is real unfortunate.
You know, I think from my perspective the overarching
interest in the issue and the common ground that I think
everybody has is it is important that we have clean air and
clean water for everybody. I mean every generation--everybody
is healthier if we have clean air and clean water, and I think
that is kind of where you are trying to go and I think that is
where the so-called other side is trying to go, too, but there
are just some things they want to quantify. And, you know,
science should be questioned. Everybody's opinions should be
questioned. Mine should be questioned, yours should be--
everybody's should be--and that is what we do here.
Sadly, like I say, sometimes it gets a little more
acrimonious than it needs to be. Sometimes the people that come
in here and say politics shouldn't be involved in this are the
most political people and politicize it the most, but that is
unfortunate.
But my interests, getting to the crux of it, is still
trying to have some kind of quantification rather than just
platitudes. They say, well, we do a bunch of little things and
add up to a big thing. You know, I understand that and I think
everybody understands how that might work, but it is still just
trying to quantify it. And somebody talks about a dime-thin
worth of coastal rise but what I am still kind of searching for
is to quantify what man's contribution in the United States of
America is to climate change. I mean I know we are having it,
you know, and everybody knows. I mean you learned as a young
child the longer you stand in front of the fireplace, the
warmer you get generally speaking unless there is extenuating
circumstances.
But I just--and you don't want--you don't have to do it
now. I am not trying to do a gotcha, but that is really what I
am looking for, and if you can drop me a note on that, that is
okay. I mean, you know, it doesn't have to be a big arena
question, just trying to quantify if we go--if we take these
steps at the end of the day, you know, what really difference
is it going to make? And I am not saying it is worth it or
shouldn't be worth it or whatever we do for clean air and clean
water isn't important. I think everything that we do is. But
just to kind of start working on the equation, it would be good
to know what we attribute to the natural heating of our planet
and do we expect that to continually increase, and then to what
extent mankind directly affects it, and then more particularly
to what extent the United States of America directly affects
it. And I think that will put a lot of questions of a lot of
other people in perspective, too, if we ever reach that--if we
ever get that point. And either one of you can respond. You
know, I am not trying to be argumentative but----
Dr. Holdren. Well, Congressman Posey, first of all, I
appreciate your opening comment about the need for continuing
discussion and the hope for ultimate convergence. That is an
appropriate sentiment.
I would note, first of all, that in my long statement there
is a lot of quantitative information and there is reference to
much more, and the facts as we understand them are that natural
climate change, if it was the only thing that was happening,
the world would be in a long-term cooling trend. So the fact
that is embraced by the vast majority of the scientific
community who study these matters is that virtually all of the
warming trend we have seen in the last several decades has been
caused by human activities and most specifically by emissions
from fossil fuel combustion, secondarily from deforestation and
land-use change.
The second point I would make is although you are
absolutely right that climate has been changing for the whole
history of the Earth for a whole variety of reasons, it is
changing many times faster now than it changed before. And the
problem that poses is that the ability of society to adapt and
ecosystems to adapt is stressed and potentially ultimately
swamped.
Sixty-five million years ago when it was 13 or 14 degrees
centigrade above the current temperature, the sea level was
probably about 70 meters above the current sea level. We
believe that the polar caps were free of ice at that time. All
that ice was in the ocean and that makes sea level 70 meters
higher. Also, 65 million years ago we didn't have 7 plus
billion people to feed, house, and try to make prosperous.
So while you are absolutely right the temperature has
varied enormously over the millions of years, that should be no
consolation in the current situation where we are driving the
temperature up at an unprecedented pace.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Your time is up and the Chair will now be
switching to Mr. Schweikert from Arizona.
Let me just add as I leave for my next assignment that I
personally thank the witnesses and where we have some
fundamental differences or disagreements, we certainly should
keep our minds open and try to be--try to get to what really is
the science. And let me say in other areas we agree.
And, Mr. Holdren, I want to congratulate the White House on
your recent decision to assign commercial contracts for space
transportation and resupply of the space station, Debian, and
Space Acts.
Dr. Holdren. Let me just say that was NASA's decision, but
thank you for your approval.
Mr. Rohrabacher. You might have had something to do with
it. If you did, thanks.
Dr. Holdren. Okay.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And with that, Mr. Schweikert.
And Mr. Stockman will be taking Mr. Schweikert's position
in line. Thank you.
Mr. Stockman. Thank you. I have some of the statements that
were passed around today was the investments in Europe and--in
climate change, and I think what was left out of the record was
that Spain sold climate change bonds to its populace and
guaranteed by the government and the government now has
rescinded that guarantee and they lost a tremendous amount of
money.
And so for the argument only point to Germany without
pointing to Spain's failure, we would be remiss in the record
to leave that out. Many Spaniards lost their entire savings
investing in climate change technology.
Also, too, I hear repeatedly, you know, well, Obama is not
going to close plants. I don't think anybody suggested that
Obama is going to close plants. I think what we are suggesting
is the policies will close plants, and that seems to bear out
with the predictions are coming true across the country and
what plants have to be closed.
In reference to China, I was just there. The embassy said
that their level of measuring of pollution was so high that
their equipment could not measure it and there is now a key
factor in moving to Beijing that you are given compensation
because you can't even breathe the air there, and many people
working there, including some of the embassy staff, are not
willing to work in Beijing it is so bad. And I actually asked
some of the Chinese officials if they thought they could meet
their climate projections and they laughed. They don't believe
it and I don't think we should either.
And my colleague over here who said we are in a do-nothing
caucus, may I remind the colleague by his own testimony that
the EPA was created by a Republican and he, by his own
admission, says that the pollution has gotten 70 percent
better. So I would argue that that is not do-nothing; that is
actually has done something.
And I went to Maryland and asked repeatedly two things
which I have never been able to get answers on. One was I said
what ended the Ice Age? And the lead scientist at NASA said
this: He said that what ended the Ice Age was global wobbling.
That is what I was told. This is a lead scientist down in
Maryland. You are welcome to go down there and ask him the same
thing.
So on my second question, which I thought was an intuitive
question that should be followed up, is the wobbling of the
Earth included in any of your modeling? And the answer was no.
So how can you have wobbling of the Earth cooling the Earth and
not be included in any projections? That is one for the books
that I am a little bit confused about. How can you take an
element which you give to the credit for the collapse of global
freezing and then to global warming but leave it out of your
models? I am a little bit puzzled because we still don't have
any metrics I understand of how to determine global wobbling,
which I didn't know was part of the reason for the end of the
Ice Age.
The last thing I asked him which I can't get answers to how
long will it take for the sea level to rise 2 feet? I mean
think about it, if your ice cube melts in your glass, it
doesn't overflow. It is displacement. I mean this is the thing,
some of the things that they are talking about that
mathematically and scientifically don't make sense.
But I just--I am wondering overall when you have a model
and you say we are going to leave out the most important impact
of that model out of our theory and not talk about global
wobbling, how can you make projections?
So I am concerned that while again you are saying Obama is
not closing plants, you are correct on that note, which we here
in Congress and other places take these words very seriously,
but the policies will do exactly that. It will close plants and
it has in Texas and it will around the country. And
unfortunately, China I know firsthand is laughing at their own
predictions. And with that, I will let you respond, but if you
have a model with global wobbling, please let me know and let
me know how long it takes the seas to rise 2 feet.
Dr. Holdren. Congressman Stockman, I am not going to talk
about the economy of Spain; that is not my expertise, but I am
going to talk about the science and help you a little bit with
global wobbling to start with. Global wobbling, which refers to
changes in the Earth's tilt and orbit, takes place on
characteristic timescales of 22,000 years, 44,000 years, and
100,000 years. It is very slow. It brought us into ice ages; it
brought us out of ice ages. When you take global wobbling into
account, as I have already suggested, we would be in a cooling
period now, but the warming inflicted by human activities has
overwhelmed the effect of global wobbling.
Mr. Stockman. But I was told----
Dr. Holdren. You don't have----
Mr. Stockman. Wait a minute. None of the models have global
wobbling in them. Is that true?
Dr. Holdren. And I am about to explain why. The reason why
is that global wobbling is a tiny effect on the timescale of
100 years in which we try to run these models to understand
what is going on now and going on soon. It is so small----
Mr. Stockman. No, with all due respect----
Dr. Holdren. --and it is so small that you don't----
Mr. Stockman. No.
Dr. Holdren. --need to put it in.
Mr. Stockman. No, you can't say it had a global impact and
then is small both. Those are the kind of statements----
Dr. Holdren. It had a global impact over periods of tens of
thousands and hundreds of thousands----
Mr. Stockman. So you are saying the Ice Age----
Dr. Holdren. --of years. We are talking about decades----
Mr. Stockman. --took hundreds of thousands of years to end?
Dr. Holdren. Ice ages----
Mr. Stockman. How long did the Ice Age take to end?
Dr. Holdren. Ice ages went on for hundreds of thousands of
years----
Mr. Stockman. That is not what I am asking you----
Dr. Holdren. --in some cases for millions----
Mr. Schweikert. [Presiding] Mr. Stockman----
Dr. Holdren. --and they ended over long periods of time as
well as a general matter.
Mr. Stockman. Doctor, I would just ask you if you could
give me your model----
Mr. Schweikert. And sorry, I don't mean to step on anyone.
It is just as the chaos of today, everyone is going to be
running on to other hearings.
Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber. Thank you. Appreciate you all being here. Mr.
Holdren, you just, in your exchange with Congressman Stockman,
said that the economy of Spain is not your expertise, and I
would probably venture to add that the economy of the United
States is probably not your expertise either. Is that fair to
say?
Dr. Holdren. That is correct. In respect to the economy of
the United States, I rely on folks like the Council of Economic
Advisors and the National Economic Council----
Mr. Weber. The reason I bring that up is because the last
thing we want is an unintended consequence, which Congress
seems to be good at I might add, whereby the policies coming
out of the Administration, the EPA, or any of the other
agencies have that unintended consequence of actually harming
our economy. And so I try to be keenly in tune with that. I
just want to make that point.
Very quickly, in January of this year, a very cold January
I might add, you filmed a short video for the White House
website entitled ``The Polar Vortex.'' In that video you said,
``a growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme
cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak
is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing
frequency as global warming continues.'' And scientists on both
sides of that issue quickly took issue with that. A complaint
was filed with the agency seeking to correct it under the
Federal Information Quality Act, yet your office claimed this
was an expression of your personal opinion. Is that accurate?
Dr. Holdren. It is accurate, and as the President's Science
Advisor, I express my personal opinion on the balance of
science all the time.
Mr. Weber. Okay. And if that was nothing more than a
personal opinion, were White House resources spent on producing
that video?
Dr. Holdren. I stated in the video that it was my judgment
that we would see more of this. I believe that to be true.
Mr. Weber. But my question was about the money. Who paid
for the video?
Dr. Holdren. I assume that the----
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Dr. Holdren. --White House Digital Services paid for the
video.
Mr. Weber. You are contributing to the economy then, so
maybe the economy is part of your forte because some production
company made out on that deal.
Let me go to the regulation that you are proposing here and
let me--I want to jump over the ozone rule for just a minute
and the EPA has a track record. I am from Texas. Texas has
about 1,200 people a day moving there. We have dropped our
carbon emission four percent in the last almost ten years while
we have gained 4 million people to a population of 25 million,
so that is a pretty hefty sum, a little over 20 percent I guess
or about--not quite 1/5.
So the ozone proposal that you all put forward would cost
$90 billion, with a B, lowering the ozone standard, and yet
earlier you said to Jim Bridenstine that the assessment was
irrelevant that he was trying to make the connection on. So if
$90 billion annually it is going to cost to business, are you
still prepared to say here today that won't cost any more for
electricity, that the cost of energy that is going to go up
because of these kind of regulations really--I realize we are
not economy experts here, but do you really sit there and think
that industry pays $90 billion a year or more to effect just
that one ozone rule and nothing is going to go up?
Ms. McCabe. Well, Congressman, if your question is about
the Clean Power Plan, the economic analysis does show that
electricity bills will go down in 2030 because of the effects
of energy efficiency.
Mr. Weber. Well, listen, I applaud you for believing that.
I have got some oceanfront property in Oklahoma I would like to
sell, too, so I just--I can't buy that. I mean I do--I own a
business so I know how the economy works.
Let me go to carbon for just a second. Texas, as I said,
has done a great job, people moving there every day by the
thousands, 1,200 a day. And your carbon rule that you are
proposing, with Texas cleaning up its air--and I will--and I
believe that the EPA will admit that most of the ozone
emissions, all right, noxious gas emissions, from non-
stationary point sources, i.e., vehicles. Is that true?
Ms. McCabe. Point sources is a term that refers to
stationary sources----
Mr. Weber. Got that.
Ms. McCabe. --the emissions that contribute to ozone----
Mr. Weber. They are coming--let me just short-circuit you.
They are coming from cars.
Ms. McCabe. No--not--no, not predominately. Cars----
Mr. Weber. Non-stationary point sources, how would you
describe that?
Ms. McCabe. Cars make up about 1/3 of the emissions--
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Ms. McCabe. --and utilities, power plants, make up another
1/3.
Mr. Weber. Those plants seem to be pretty stationary to me
but that is just me thinking.
Ms. McCabe. Right, but they are a significant----
Mr. Weber. The----
Ms. McCabe. --contributor to pollution----
Mr. Weber. I am almost out of time. The point is that Texas
has been really increasing their--I want clean air and clean
water for my kids and grandkids and for me and for you. Texas
has been improving their air and water quality without the
EPA's oversight. We have got states that are doing a good job,
and unfortunately, the rules that the EPA is proposing are
going to put a lot of the country in non-attainment on ozone,
going to cost a lot of jobs, so even though we are not economy
experts, before we have that unintended consequence, we are
going to have to really think long and hard about the data and
the scientists--the science used behind this.
And I am way out of time. I apologize but I just want to
make that point.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Schweikert. Sorry about that. We were working on some
of our calendar.
Mr. Bucshon--or, excuse me, Mr. Cramer.
Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Ms. McCabe and Dr. Holdren, for being here. Good
to see both of you again.
I am a little conflicted because I want to focus on the one
hand on the reliability issues that Mr. Johnson brought up
earlier but I think I am going to start with the flexibility
issues because both the Agency and the Administration--you are
quite adamant about the flexibility that the rule provides
states, and I am wondering how much flexibility was considered
for states with regard to the rate of emissions themselves? I
mean did states have much flexibility in determining the
emission rates?
Ms. McCabe. Well, under the Clean Air Act, it is EPA's
responsibility to determine the level of reductions to be
achieved or the ultimate performance level, but then equally
under the Clean Air Act the states have a responsibility but
the opportunity to design a plan that achieves those goals
using the best system that makes sense for them.
Mr. Cramer. Okay. So going to another area of flexibility,
and this was a question that was raised by a constituent of
mine who is in the room, Perry Schafer, who has a small
business--a couple of small businesses in North Dakota called
Environmental Services. He provides service and sells products
to power plants largely. And how much analysis under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act was put into this rule? First of
all, I guess are you familiar with the Regulatory Flexibility
Act and what it does?
Ms. McCabe. I am.
Mr. Cramer. Okay. So how much--well, how much analysis was
put in to consideration of that act and can you perhaps
elaborate a bit on what the findings were and how it is applied
in the proposed rule?
Ms. McCabe. So the industrial sector that is addressed by
the rule is the power plant sector and those are primarily
large businesses. And so the economic analysis that we do look
at the impact that we expect from the types of choices that
people will be making in order to comply with the rule given
what we see happening in the economy right now.
Mr. Cramer. So when you are applying the analysis for the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, you are considering the flexibility
of the power plant but not all these small businesses that are
affected by the rule as they impact the power plant. Is that
what I just heard you say?
Ms. McCabe. Well, we look at the approaches that we see
being used by states and companies around the country and the
types of things that they are doing and look at the expected
impacts of those on costs and--on the economy.
Mr. Cramer. So besides the precedent-setting piece of this,
which we haven't even begun to address what the impact will be
if this rule goes forward, if it is accepted and becomes the
tradition and culture of the land, what impact it is going to
have on manufacturing and the rest of the industrial sector, is
it not true that the industrial sector depends tremendously on
electricity and that it fact whether small business, medium-
sized business, or large business, there is a very direct--not
just an indirect--but a very direct economic impact and did
the--is the flexibility there to address small business?
Ms. McCabe. Well, the analysis that we have done shows that
the effect actually will be positive by reducing electric bills
in 2030 as a result of the energy efficiency, and the rule will
lead to significant investment in the kinds of activities that
support small businesses across our community and energy
efficiency and renewable energy and other technologies.
Mr. Cramer. Since you brought up this lowering of rates or
the lowering of the bills in 2030 due to efficiency, being a
former regulator--economic regulator, utility regulator, I know
full well that efficiency is not free. It is not even cheap. It
may not even be the cheapest alternative, although I know that
is commonly thought. But in a state where our retail rates
today average about between eight and nine cents a kilowatt
hour, the cost of compliance with efficiency standards is
oftentimes greater than the cost of the electricity itself.
And the other thing I would raise is the plants have to be
paid for and they have to be paid for over the lifespan of the
plant, and if you impose efficiency which costs people--and
frankly I think is a greater burden on the poor than it is on
the people that can afford the efficiency methods, doesn't the
cost of that plant--the stranded cost still have to be covered
one way or another, and whether it is at 8 cents or 9 cents or
10 cents or 30 cents a kilowatt hour, I mean is that all
factored in or is this a very static analysis, which I am
afraid it is?
Ms. McCabe. Well, there is a lot in your question,
Congressman.
Mr. Cramer. Yes.
Ms. McCabe. But on the question of stranded assets, one of
the advantages to the long trajectory that the proposal has in
it, which is compliance by 2030----
Mr. Cramer. Um-hum.
Ms. McCabe. --was exactly to address those sorts of issues.
We recognize that that is a reality and we wanted have a plan
that would allow states to make choices that would avoid
stranded assets.
Mr. Cramer. And I think the other advantage is that when
you go that far out, nobody is going to remember that we have
promised that rates were going to come down in 2030.
My time is expired.
Mr. Schweikert. Thank you.
Mr. Cramer. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Schweikert. Thank you, Mr. Cramer.
Mr. Neugebauer.
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing.
This is a question to both of you. The EPA I think
calculates that this rule will cost between $7.3 and $8.8
billion, but the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently published a
study that said they think it will cost the economy $50 billion
per year through 2030. The question we have heard a lot about
how high energy costs can impact businesses and that causes
unemployment, but the thing that I think sometimes goes unsaid
is what does it do to American families? So does the
Administration acknowledge that if, for example, you increase
the cost to a family for energy of $500 a year, that what that
does to low-income and senior citizens and how they are going
to be able to cope with that?
Ms. McCabe. We recognize these are real impacts. That is
why the rulemaking process requires the agencies to put forward
an economic analysis so everybody can take a look at those
things. I will note that we need to be careful when we compare
different studies to make sure that people are looking at the
same thing, and so the analysis that we have in our--that is in
our proposed rule now is out for public comment and people can
give us their views on what the EPA is actually proposing as
opposed to perhaps other ideas that people might have.
Mr. Neugebauer. But you are making some assumptions here
and you have a study, they have a study, there are a lot of
numbers out there. Some of those numbers that I hear are even
bigger numbers than that. But the real issue is is you say by
2030 that this will be cost neutral because of energy
efficiency. Well, number one, we don't know whether that
efficiency will occur, but in the meantime, that senior citizen
or that low-income family is going to be paying more for their
utilities.
Ms. McCabe. If I may, Congressman, then I will defer to
you--yes, certainly. One of the things that we did in
developing this proposal was to look at the programs that are
already out there and many states are very far along with very
good and aggressive energy efficiency programs in which they
are finding that it is good for their local economies.
Utilities and utility regulatory systems are very aware of the
impacts on low-income ratepayers and there are lots of programs
that make sure that those impacts are mitigated or adjusted so
that the benefits can be achieved without opposing those sorts
of costs on people.
In this rule, which puts states in the driver's seat for
deciding how they are going to implement these plans, allows
them all the flexibility to make sure that they are making
those kinds of sensible decisions that are sensitive to the
needs of their citizens.
Dr. Holdren. I would like to just add two very quick
points. First of all, the Chamber of Commerce study was of what
they thought the EPA plan was going to be. It was developed
before the EPA plan came out and the EPA came out with a
different plan than the Chamber of Commerce analyzed, so no
wonder the numbers are different.
Secondly, the biggest factor in reducing coal use for
electricity generation in this country has been the expansion
of natural gas, and the reason that has happened, although
natural gas does bring a greenhouse gas benefit, the reason it
happened is that natural gas has been cheaper, not more
expensive than coal.
Mr. Neugebauer. Yeah. Well, again, I am not sure exactly
what the Chamber's study would be adjusted based on the new
rule, but what I have--know that we have had a number of
witnesses, and sit where you are, and nobody has said that they
think that this rule will make the cost of electricity go down.
I mean we--and it is not just one or two people; we have had a
number of people. And so I think the question that I have is
that you have basically created a tax and this tax is going to
be--you know, for upper income people this may not be an issue
but it is going to cost jobs. But more importantly, you know,
it is going to put a real strain on our families.
Speaking of jobs, what--how many--if you did an analysis
and you talked about putting this rule into effect, how many
jobs do you think would be decreased by the fact that you would
put this in place? Or do you think it is going to increase jobs
or decrease jobs? What is your study?
Ms. McCabe. Yeah, all of that is laid out in our Regulatory
Impact Analysis and looks at the impacts in various parts of
the economy on job increases and decreases. And our information
shows that there will be increases in some areas and decreases
in other areas. There are already those sorts of shifts going
on in the energy sector, and so our analysis reflects that. So
I would commend folks to take a look at that and give us their
thoughts on how we have looked at those numbers.
Mr. Neugebauer. What was the net?
Ms. McCabe. If you give me a minute, I will find that for
you, Congressman.
Mr. Schweikert. Ms. McCabe, can I beg of you to look that
up----
Ms. McCabe. We can get it----
Mr. Schweikert. --when it comes up, we will----
Ms. McCabe. We will get it back to you.
Mr. Schweikert. All right.
Ms. McCabe. We can get it back to you.
Mr. Schweikert. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer.
Mr. Broun.
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
President Obama, in a nationally televised address, said
his energy policies would ``necessarily skyrocket the cost of
energy.'' And I think your proposed rule--and he is utilizing
the EPA to do that. And I just want to make a public comment. I
think this is blatantly unfair to poor people and senior
citizens on limited income. That is what you guys at the OSTP
in the EPA have been doing is driving up the cost of energy and
it is absolutely unfair to poor people and to senior citizens
on limited income, as well as the middle class. Only the rich
people can afford to pay for the energy that you all's rules
that you have already put in place and that you are proposing
will go forward.
But why does the proposed rule that will penalize states
whose utilities have decided to invest in new nuclear
generation by factoring those facilities into the state
targets? Shouldn't those utilities that made the decision to
invest in non-emitting baseload generation get full credit for
their investments? Administrator?
Ms. McCabe. Yes. So this is an issue that we are getting a
lot of input on and a lot of good discussion, and as you
acknowledge, there are states and utilities that have been more
forward-looking in the types of investments that they have made
and we believe that the rule actually recognizes those advances
and----
Mr. Broun. Well, I don't think so and the states should get
full credit for those and the utilities that are doing so.
Also, can you discuss the treatment of the Nation's nuclear
energy fleet? In your analysis you simply assume that states
can keep on the nuclear power generation that they now have.
How might the expected accelerated retirement of nuclear plants
affect the cost of the rule?
Ms. McCabe. Yeah, we recognize that states' choices about
nuclear energy are important considerations for them. The rule
itself focuses on the fossil generating fleet. That is our
obligation under the Clean Air Act. We--in--we built into the
rule some elements that we hope will provide some incentive to
keep clean nuclear generation in operation, to help the states
with their carbon intensity, and we will--we have been talking
with states with significant nuclear resources to make sure
that we fully understand what they see as the possible
implications.
Mr. Broun. Well, Georgia is trying to put in the first two
nuclear power plants that have been authorized in several
decades----
Ms. McCabe. Right.
Mr. Broun. --and it has run into problem after problem,
Georgia Power Company has and Southern Company has because of
this Administration particularly. We need to make nuclear power
easier to put in place. We need to have some policy to--NRC as
well as EPA and other entities that affect these, to make it so
that utilities can put in power plants and not so expensive
because that is going to make electricity much cheaper and it
is non-emitting.
Dr. Holdren, emails have emerged in the Richard Windsor
lawsuit where former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson violated
the law by using false email identity that also revealed that
you used a private email account for work-related emails, all
this while you were at the White House. According to records
from that lawsuit, you were sending such work-related emails to
your duties at the White House even after you sent a memo
admonishing other OSTP employees to stop using private email
account. And in fact you even pledged that you were going to
cut ties with previous groups and you used private emails, I
understand, with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in
spite of your pledge and against the law. Have you decided to
heed your own advice and stop using your private email account
when you are clearly discussing your work-related duties of the
White House?
Dr. Holdren. I am not sure what that has to do with the
topic of this hearing but I will answer. The----
Mr. Broun. You were here before me and last time I saw you
we were in the office talking about another issue and hopefully
we can settle that in the future.
Dr. Holdren. So----
Mr. Broun. But----
Dr. Holdren. --the answer is I copied----
Mr. Broun. --I think it is very important----
Dr. Holdren. --as the regulations require in the White
House, I copied all work-related emails that originated on my
home computer to the White House so that there would be a
record so there would be no violation of the Federal Records
Act. The reason I did some of those emails initially at home
was that I didn't have the technological capability to get at
my White House computer from home. We now have that capability
and I am no longer using my home computer when I am not at the
White House. But then I complied----
Mr. Broun. So you utilized----
Dr. Holdren. I complied with regulations by copying those
emails to my White House computer so that there would be no
violation of the Federal Records Act.
Mr. Broun. And so all of your private emails were put into
public records so that the----
Dr. Holdren. As far as I know, all those related to work--
--
Mr. Broun. --Federal Records Act and Freedom of Information
Act, there is no violation?
Dr. Holdren. As far as I know, there is no violation. As
far as I know, I succeeded in my intention to copy all of my
work-related emails to the White House computer.
Mr. Broun. Well, I certainly hope so. Lisa Jackson broke
the law----
Mr. Schweikert. Okay.
Mr. Broun. --and I think that you are doing the same thing
when you do that.
Mr. Schweikert. Thank you, Mr. Broun.
Mr. Broun. My time is expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Schweikert. Mr. Hultgren.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you both for being here. We as
policymakers certainly need to know how science is being used
by the Administration to justify new rules. Too many of my
constituents are just struggling to keep the lights on, just as
we were struggling earlier in this hearing, on home or work, so
they really do need to know the effects the rules will actually
have. To many of my constituents, many of this Administration's
new regulations seem to benefit lawyers in Washington, D.C.,
more than the environment back in McHenry County, Illinois.
Administrator McCabe, we have had former Administration
witnesses testify to EPA's interagency collaboration as being
merely a box-checking exercise rather than a true
collaboration. This echoed back to your response to me in a
previous hearing where you would not say that EPA actually
utilized DOE's Technology Readiness Assessment for the
technologies you needed to justify your own rules.
This seems to be an ongoing problem throughout your agency
and with environmental regulations in general, so I want to ask
a more specific question about how EPA plans to react during
the potential grid reliability emergencies that I am afraid
these rules might bring about. It is my understanding that
there have been two instances where plants were shut down due
to EPA regulations but DOE required them under Section 202(c)
of the Federal Power Act to resume operations in order to avoid
a reliability emergency. If these plants did not resume
operation, they would face unlimited liability from lawsuits
under the Clean Air Act. One of the plants did resume operation
and was slapped with National Ambient Air Quality Standard
violation. The other was forced to settle significant lawsuits
out of court.
This should be a yes or a no. If you are receiving two
conflicting orders from a regulatory agency, is it proper use
of regulatory authority to just make a citizen choose which
fines they pay and which mandates they ignore? This certainly
seems to be a case where the EPA rules say that the lights
being off is a greater benefit to society than people working.
When or could the Administration's new plan be used in this
way?
Ms. McCabe. EPA works closely with DOE and with FERC and we
have been for a number of years to make sure that we are
keeping on top of any potential reliability issues. The--our
system of laws in this country has provisions for emergency
situations that, as you note, have been activated not very
often, and so we work within those system of laws.
There are a number of things about the Clean Power Plan
that we think will make those sorts of situations very unlikely
to happen. One of them, for example, is the fact that the
compliance period, the averaging times for utilities under
these rules are lengthy, and so they are--they will accommodate
emergency situations of short duration because they will be
able to average their operations over a long period of----
Mr. Hultgren. But the point of my question was, you know,
really of forcing citizens and private entities to choose
between which fines they will pay, which mandates they ignore.
Again, I feel like this is an unfair situation to put them in.
Let me address a second question to both of you. Factoring
out supposedly co-benefits from other emissions, how do carbon
reductions equate to reductions in heart attacks and asthma?
Dr. Holdren. That all has to do with the effects of climate
change itself as carbon dioxide does not cause asthma by
itself; it does not cause heart attacks. If, however, you
change the climate so that there are more extreme instances of
heat stress, you contribute to heart attacks. If you change the
climate in a manner that increases pollens or increases
conventional air pollutants of a number of kinds, then you
affect asthma.
Mr. Hultgren. Administrator McCabe, is EPA considering any
additional requirements for reductions in ozone?
Ms. McCabe. They are--we have a process underway now as the
Clean Air Act requires----
Mr. Hultgren. So yes?
Ms. McCabe. --to review the 2008 ozone standard.
Mr. Hultgren. And what is that lowering amount that is
being considered?
Ms. McCabe. EPA has not proposed a rule yet. We will
propose one later this year. There has been a science inquiry
going on for the last couple of years, as is required by the
Clean Air Act.
Mr. Hultgren. Was it an agency decision to create new rules
or was this a result of a lawsuit?
Ms. McCabe. We are required under the Clean Air Act to
review the National ambient air quality standards on a regular
basis, every 5 years.
Mr. Hultgren. Do you believe the EPA should have their
hands tied on this if they know a rule cannot be complied with?
Ms. McCabe. There is a premise of that sentence that I
don't agree with. The EPA, ever since the beginning of the
Clean Air Act, has successfully promulgated health standards
for air quality that have led to tremendous improvements in
public health across the country.
Mr. Hultgren. My time is expired. I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. Schweikert. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you.
Mr. Schweikert. Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Chairman.
To Ms. McCabe--thank you both, first of all. It is great to
see you again. Thank you both for coming to testify today.
Thank you for your service to your country.
Ms. McCabe, at a hearing on the Clean Power Plan back in
July, Dr. Cash, who is the Commissioner of Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection, highlighted the
successes of RGGI, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in
New England. For example, he indicated that through RGGI, the
participating states have been able to reduce carbon emissions
by 40 percent while simultaneously expanding the regional
economy by seven percent. It is my understanding that EPA
recognizes the effectiveness of the state partnerships like
RGGI and has explicitly drafted a proposed rule to allow
partnerships like these to continue. I was hoping, Ms. McCabe,
that you might be able to discuss some of the advantages of
using a regional approach like this to reduce carbon emissions
and its impact on innovation.
Ms. McCabe. Yeah, that is a very, very good question, and
Dr. Cash is very eloquent on the benefits of the program to
Massachusetts. I have had that conversation with him.
There are a number of benefits and I will just emphasize
that in our proposal we are agnostic about whether states might
want to join with other states but there are definitely are
some advantages. One advantage is that, as you make the pool of
participants larger, you increase the opportunities and that
will generally lead to more opportunity for more cost-effective
reductions; the bigger the pool, the more opportunity. So that
is one.
There are advantages that some states may perceive because
of the way the energy production system works. That is some
companies operate--many companies operate in more than one
state and so it can reduce complexity for there to be a
regional plan that states can work within, and so that is
another definite benefit.
It can simplify--the RGGI system has some very
straightforward compliance mechanisms in place that simplify
the operation of the program, and again, that brings cost down,
brings more certainty to the process.
Mr. Kennedy. Great, thank you. And now a question for you
both, and, Dr. Holdren, maybe you can start. It has often been
said or at least reported in the press--some aspects of the
press that the Administration is waging a ``war on coal.''
However, I think it is important to note that thus far the
Administration has invested about $6 billion in support of
developing carbon capture and other technologies to try to make
coal more efficient and to reduce its environmental impacts. I
believe in December of last year DOE issued a solicitation
making up to $1 billion in loan guarantees available to fossil
fuel projects.
Dr. Holdren, I was wondering if you could just respond to
the assertion about war on coal and discuss some of the
Administration's efforts?
Dr. Holdren. Thank you, Congressman Kennedy.
We have actually addressed that a number of times. I know
you had to be out of the room but the----
Mr. Kennedy. Apologies.
Dr. Holdren. --President and the Administration are
certainly not waging a war on coal, far from it as you point
out. We are investing billions and billions of dollars in
improving coal technologies with the understanding and the
expectation that coal will continue for many decades to come to
play a significant role in our electricity generating system.
One of the things we noted was that under the proposed
rules coal would still be generating 30 percent of U.S.
electricity in 2030. That is a lot of electricity, it is a lot
of coal, but we hope to do it much more cleanly.
Mr. Kennedy. Ms. McCabe, anything to add?
Ms. McCabe. No, I second it.
Mr. Kennedy. Okay. I apologize for making you repeat
yourself but I appreciate the fact that you did. Thanks very
much and I yield back.
Mr. Schweikert. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.
And I am going to recognize myself.
And I would actually like to hand a couple minutes over to
the good doctor, Dr. Bucshon.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you. I had another committee markup. We
just reauthorized Amtrak over in Transportation, so my
apologies for not being at the entire hearing.
But I want a couple follow-ups. First of all, Ms. McCabe, I
would like to invite you to my district for a public hearing on
the new--or in fact any coal-producing state, if EPA could come
into a--and listen to what the people in my district or other
coal-producing states have to say, I am inviting you to my
district to do that.
Dr. Holdren, I am going to request from you that the White
House and the EPA release all of the scientific information,
including all of the data justifying the premise that is being
promoted--that this regulation, the new power plant regulations
will decrease the incidence of asthma and heart attacks,
including all the medical background information. I have
requested this before from Health and Human Services and others
and they have hidden behind HIPAA regulations, but I would
request that we get all that information to back up these
claims.
And also, as you admitted, there is a difference between
particulate emission and CO2 emission, and this
hearing is primarily about CO2 emission, and I will
give you that there is a significant difference. And the
comments I made earlier are primarily based on particulate
information but also then you can't use that and say it is
justifying CO2 emission requirements.
My final comment will be carbon capture and sequestration
is not economically feasible and not commercially available for
my state. Therefore, putting in place a regulation that
requires it to comply also isn't economically feasible for my
state. I understand the science behind it. I agree that
industry and all of us should always be looking for better ways
to burn coal, but the time frame and the assumptions that are
made for this rule are off base for my state and 85 percent
of--80 to 85 percent of our power is from coal. We are a huge
manufacturing state. We are going to lose jobs. My district has
every coalmine in the state. We have already--we are closing to
power plants, we have closed one coal--two coalmines now, and I
would implore you to look at that economic information.
I yield back to the Chairman.
Mr. Schweikert. Thank you, Doctor.
And forgive also the comings and goings today. This is just
a chaotic moment as we are trying to finish off this week and
so all the running back and forth.
I had two minutes left in my--and I will ask you to put
that on the clock so we are studious in splitting the time.
It is a conversation I would like to do in much greater
depth and my point of reference is actually sort of the
discussion of allocation of resources, so in some ways it is
less about ACO2, the PM10, some of the NOX, some of
the other--it is the allocation of resources and where we
maximize benefits.
Sitting in the same chairs about two months ago we had four
researchers, all absolutely believed in the difficulties with
ACO2 and the environment, but when asked the
question of what you would do for the next five, ten years, the
allocation question was--and I was surprised at the responses.
I would deal with invasive species. I would deal with the fish
population and some others.
So there was a real interesting allocation question, and I
have great fear that much of sort of the discussion we are
having around today may be driven by those who have invested in
certain technologies and, as my father used to say, it is
always about the money. Am I being--let me ask, at a high-level
policy level, how much sort of moves into the discussion of are
we driving the allocation of resources where we maximize
benefit to our society and the environment?
And that is actually I think more of a Ms. McCabe type
question.
Dr. Holdren. Actually, I am going to start and then I
will----
Mr. Schweikert. Should I flip it because----
Dr. Holdren. --turn it over to Ms. McCabe. Yeah. I will
flip it very quickly but allocation of course is always a big
challenge. In the climate change domain the problem is that if
we focus constantly on shorter-term priorities and push off the
climate change steps that we need to take, it is going to be
impossible to meet the 2 degree C target or even the----
Mr. Schweikert. Doctor----
Dr. Holdren. --3 degree C target----
Mr. Schweikert. --there is actually a problem in that. If
you and I go back to literature that I think even you were a
participant in a decade ago, none of us expected the revolution
that has happened in natural gas. Who would have ever thought
we would have that and exceeded the Kyoto accords because of
the long-term futures prices of natural gas? So sometimes that
arrogance of knowing what tomorrow is were wrong. And I am--
this is rude to do; I would love to carry this conversation on
in the future----
Dr. Holdren. We should.
Mr. Schweikert. I am now beyond----
Dr. Holdren. We should.
Mr. Schweikert. --my time and I have to run to another
committee, so thank you. And I am going to actually hand over
Chair so our Ranking Member can do her 5 minutes. Madam Ranking
Member.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. And I have to apologize.
I was one of those that had to go to another committee for a
markup.
But, Dr. Holden, as you are aware, the Administration's
Council of Economic Advisors released a report in July which
makes the economic case for addressing climate change. The main
conclusion is that delaying action is costly. In fact, the
report indicates that if the lack of action results in warming
of 3 degrees Celsius above the preindustrial levels rather than
2 degrees Celsius, then the increased economic damages to the
United States could be as high as $150 billion annually.
Now, I am a nurse and we have talked all about how much it
costs and how many jobs, but I am not sure how much we have
talked about how many lives that are affected if we don't clean
this environment. In your testimony you mentioned a growing
consensus among economists and others that there is a
compelling case for making substantial investments to address
climate change. Can you please describe the current state of
the economic literature--excuse me--comparing the cost of
action and inaction on climate change? Thank you.
Dr. Holdren. Yes, thank you very much. I do expand on that
at some length in my testimony. What has been happening in the
economic literature of the past two decades is an increasing
trend toward a strong consensus that we need to take action and
we need to take action sooner rather than later precisely
because of the kinds of finding that you cited. And by the way,
there are other findings out there that point to even more
alarming possibilities if we allow the temperature--the global
average surface temperature of the atmosphere to go to three
degrees Celsius or higher. The likelihood of tipping points
leading to truly unmanageable change, that goes up as one goes
into those domains and nobody really has a handle on what the
upper limit of damages might be.
Just from the standpoint of investment in prudent
insurance, it makes sense to take steps now to reduce the
likelihood of getting anywhere near those temperature regimes,
and economists as well as natural scientists have really
largely come to agreement about that.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Lete me thank both of you
for coming and simply say that while we might sit here with our
heads in the dust or whatever, the damage goes on, and it is
time for us to address the issue. And I appreciate you coming,
I appreciate your steadfastness, and I certainly appreciate the
work of EPA. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Bridenstine. [Presiding] The gentlelady yields back.
I am evidence that if you stay here long enough, they
eventually give you the gavel.
And I would like to thank the witnesses for being here and
for your testimony and for all the Members who are left, which
is one, for your questions. The Members of the Committee may
have additional questions for you and we will ask you to
respond to those questions in writing. The record will remain
open for two weeks for additional comments and written
questions from the Members.
The witnesses are excused and the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by the Honorable John Holdren
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Responses by Ms. Janet McCabe
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Article submitted by Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Article submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamici
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Articles submitted by Representative Eric Swalwell
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Article submitted by Representative Donna F. Edwards
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[all]