[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPACT OF EPA'S
CLEAN POWER PLAN ON STATES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
May 26, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-80
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-877 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., ZOE LOFGREN, California
Wisconsin DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
STEVE KNIGHT, California PAUL TONKO, New York
BRIAN BABIN, Texas MARK TAKANO, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
DARIN LaHOOD, Illinois
------
Subcommittee on Environment
HON. JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY WEBER, Texas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
JOHN MOOLENAAR, Michigan AMI BERA, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas MARK TAKANO, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas BILL FOSTER, Illinois
GARY PALMER, Alabama EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
C O N T E N T S
May 26, 2016
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 4
Written Statement............................................ 6
Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Enviorment, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 10
Written Statement............................................ 12
Witnesses:
The Honorable E. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General, State of
Oklahoma
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 17
Ms. Brianne Gorod, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability
Center
Oral Statement............................................... 23
Written Statement............................................ 26
The Honorable Charles McConnell, Executive Director, Energy and
Environment Initiative, Rice University
Oral Statement............................................... 41
Written Statement............................................ 43
Discussion....................................................... 58
Appendix I: Additional Material for the Record
Statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 68
Documents submitted by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 69
Documents submitted by Representative Mark Takano, Subcommittee
on Enviorment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 88
IMPACT OF EPA'S
CLEAN POWER PLAN ON STATES
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment and
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:36 a.m., in
Room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Bridenstine
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bridenstine. The Subcommittee on Environment will
come to order.
I want to make sure everybody here is aware we're going to
have votes probably around 10:00 or 10:15 is the word we're
getting. So we're going to get to as much of this as possible,
and then we'll have to break for votes and determine if coming
back is necessary and appropriate. But we'll make that call as
we get closer to that time. Sometimes these votes don't happen
right when they're DD we're expecting them to happen.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Subcommittee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``Impact of EPA's Clean
Power Plan on the States.'' I recognize myself for five minutes
for an opening statement.
Today's hearing focuses on the impact the Clean Power Plan
will have on States, and in particular, my home State of
Oklahoma. We will also examine and discuss the implementation
and associated economic and legal issues of this rule at the
national level.
The Clean Power Plan is not actually about environmental
protection. Administrator McCarthy stated before this committee
that the Clean Power Plan is not measured by temperature or
sea-level impacts. She said, ``It is measured in showing strong
domestic action, which can actually trigger global action.''
Additionally, if it was truly about protecting the environment,
the EPA would not cherry-pick the science that supports its
preconceived biases in all of its regulations.
This hearing comes at a very critical time. Last month,
President Obama and his Administration committed another
usurpation of constitutional power when the Secretary of State
John Kerry signed the U.N. Paris Climate Agreement in New York.
The Clean Power Plan comprises a large part of how the
Administration expects the United States to comply with this
agreement.
Despite all the facts about why this agreement is a bad
deal for America, President Obama has ignored Congress and the
will of the people by choosing to bypass the proper
constitutional mechanisms for us approving an international
agreement. Let us be clear. This was a treaty, and the
President did not submit it for ratification.
While the United States would be required to sacrifice
economic growth under this deal, China, India, and the rest of
the developing world will be building coal-fired power plants
and emitting carbon at an unprecedented rate. In order for the
United States to meet its promised reductions, future
administrations will have to damage more industries such as
manufacturing, agriculture, and transportation. This has
ramifications across the entirety of the American economy.
And the question is what for? For what? We have learned in
previous hearings that these regulations are all pain with no
gain. The Clean Power Plan does nothing to avert future
temperature rise or prevent further sea rise. However, the
economic costs to Americans will be approximately $29-$39
billion per year. Electricity prices for consumers in 40 states
could increase by at least ten percent or more. Prices in 17 of
those states could increase by at least 17 percent or more.
That includes my home state of Oklahoma. This is a war on the
poor and will increase economic inequality across the nation.
With these facts, I completely agree with a recent
characterization by one of our witnesses here today, Charles
McConnell, that the Clean Power Plan as ``ideological mumbo-
jumbo'' and as ``stupid regulations.''
The Clean Power Plan has serious legal deficiencies. Even
President Obama's Harvard Law professor, Laurence Tribe, has
called the plan unconstitutional. Twenty-six states have sued
the EPA over the rules, citing an overreach of authority under
the Clean Air Act. This past March in response to these
lawsuits, the Supreme Court issued a stay of the Clean Power
Plan, which prevents the EPA from enforcing any of the rule's
requirements until the lawsuits against it are fully resolved.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC. Circuit announced that it
would hear challenges to the Clean Power Plan with hearings
scheduled for later this September.
However, despite the Supreme Court's stay of the rule, and
despite the fact that this plan is in litigation, the EPA has
been moving forward with a regulatory structure to implement
the Clean Power Plan. This is outrageous, it is wrong, and I
find these actions by EPA unacceptable.
Earlier this month, several of my congressional colleagues
sent the EPA Administrator McCarthy a letter raising concerns
about these actions. In particular, the EPA sent a proposal to
the Office of Management and Budget to implement a Clean Energy
Incentive Program, a program based off of the Clean Power Plan.
Further, EPA officials have notified stakeholders that
compliance dates will not be adjusted in the event the rules
are upheld. In other words, there is a stay and the compliance
dates will not be adjusted in the event that the rules are
upheld. In other words, you have to keep moving forward on your
plan even though there is a stay, which friends, means that
there is not a stay even though the courts have said that there
is a stay. In other words, you better go ahead and begin
complying.
This is unacceptable. EPA regulations should always respect
the sovereignty of the States, especially since it is the
citizens in each State who bear the brunt of the EPA's rules. I
am particularly concerned with how this rule will affect the
hardworking residents of my district in the state of Oklahoma,
so I'm especially pleased to welcome Attorney General Scott
Pruitt from Oklahoma. And I want to thank each of our witnesses
for coming this afternoon, and I look forward to hearing from
our witnesses.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Bridenstine follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bridenstine. I now recognize the Ranking Member,
the gentlewoman from Oregon, for an opening statement.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to all the witnesses for being here today. I offer a
different perspective.
The goal of the Clean Power Plan is important and simple:
cut carbon emissions from the power sector, the largest source
of greenhouse gas emissions, so we can lessen the effects of
climate change in every State and on our planet.
In a Science Committee hearing last fall, Jason Eisdorfer,
the Utility Program Director of the Oregon Public Utility
Commission, thoughtfully explained Oregon's efforts to
implement the Clean Power Plan. Oregon Governor Kate Brown has
stated that the EPA's Clean Power Plan rule is in the best
interests of Oregon on many fronts. A healthy environment is
essential to ensuring the health of Oregonians and protects our
quality of life for many generations to come.
Oregon has been proactive in its efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. As a former member of the Oregon
State Legislature, I helped establish some of the State's
carbon emission reduction goals. For example, in 2007 Oregon
set a target of reducing statewide emissions by 75 percent by
2050. We also set a goal of having up to 25 percent of our
energy generated through renewable sources by 2025. This year,
Oregon took further action to require 50 percent renewables by
2040 and a total phase-out of coal-fired electricity by 2035.
These efforts and others have put Oregon in a position to not
only meet but surpass its Clean Power Plan carbon reduction
goal.
Now, some contend that environmental regulations might harm
the economy. This certainly has not been the case in Oregon.
According to the Energy Trust of Oregon, the State has produced
about 3,200 full-time jobs, added $3.9 billion to the State's
economy, saved customers $1.9 billion on their energy bills,
and avoided 14.6 million tons of carbon dioxide, which is
equivalent to removing 2.5 million cars from the roads for a
year.
The Clean Power Plan builds on efforts of States like
Oregon by creating a unified national approach to our biggest
environmental challenge but leaving States flexibility. The
Clean Power Plan represents an opportunity for American
ingenuity that will allow us to benefit from the much-needed
transition to a low-carbon economy.
More than 150 companies now have signed the American
Business Act on Climate Pledge to demonstrate their support for
action and a low-carbon sustainable future. We ought to listen.
Thank you very much again, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing,
and thank you to all of our witnesses for being here this
morning. I look forward to your testimony, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bridenstine. I'd like to thank the gentlewoman
from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici.
I now recognize the Chairman of the full committee, my
friend from Texas, Mr. Smith.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
comments a while ago.
President Obama submitted costly new power plant
regulations as the cornerstone of the recently signed Paris
climate agreement last month at the United Nations. These
measures will adversely affect our economy and have no
significant impact on global temperatures by the EPA's own
admission, so the regulations perpetrate a fraud on the
American people.
In Paris, the President pledged that the United States will
cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 28 percent over the next
decade and by 80 percent or more by 2050. Again, even if fully
implemented, it will have no significant impact on global
warming.
The U.S. pledge to the U.N. is estimated to prevent only 1/
50 of one degree Celsius temperature rise over the next 85
years. EPA's own data shows that this regulation would reduce
sea level rise by only 1/100th of an inch, the thickness of
three sheets of paper.
The President's pledge attempts to create an international
agreement that binds the United States for decades to come, but
lacks constitutional legitimacy since it has not been ratified
by the Senate. The agreement not only requires the United
States to reduce carbon emissions but also compels our country
to pay billions of dollars to developing nations to reduce
their carbon emissions. Even if all 196 countries fulfill their
promised reductions for each year after 2031, it will only
reduce temperatures by one sixth of a degree Celsius.
The so-called Clean Power Plan will cost billions of
dollars, cause financial hardship for American families, and
diminish the competitiveness of American employers, all with no
significant benefit.
This past month, the Energy Information Agency calculated
that the Clean Power Plan will hit consumers with higher
electricity rates. The rate increases being forecast by EIA
will have real economic consequences and place a needless
burden, especially on low-income families.
The President's Power Plan is nothing more than a power
grab. A majority of Congress disapproved of the Clean Power
Plan through the Congressional Review Act. And the Governors of
most states are challenging it in court.
Meanwhile, the President attempts to justify his actions
with scare tactics, worst-case scenarios and biased data.
Statements by President Obama and others that attempt to link
extreme weather events to climate change are simply unfounded.
The lack of evidence is clear: no increased numbers of
tornadoes, no increased hurricanes, no increased droughts or
floods.
The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change found that there is ``low confidence'' that drought has
increased in intensity or duration. The same lack of evidence
can be found in the IPCC reports for almost every type of
extreme weather. The Administration's alarmism is not good
science and intentionally misleads the American people.
The President's signed Paris pledge will increase
electricity costs, ration energy, and slow economic growth. It
ignores good science and only seeks to advance a partisan
political agenda.
As we will hear today, the President's so-called Clean
Power Plan is a bad deal for the American economy, and would
produce no substantive environmental benefits.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bridenstine. I'd like to thank the Chairman of the
full committee from Texas, Mr. Smith, for his comments.
Let me introduce our witnesses. Our first witness today is
The Hon. E. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General from my home state,
the great state of Oklahoma. Thank you for being here. Attorney
General Pruitt received his bachelor's degrees in political
science and communications from Georgetown University and his
law degree from the University of Tulsa.
Our next witness today is Ms. Brianne Gorod, Chief Counsel
of the Constitutional Accountability Center. Ms. Gorod received
her bachelor's and master's degrees from Emory University and
her law degree from Yale.
Our final witness today is The Hon. Charles McConnell,
Executive Director for the Energy and Environment Initiative at
Rice University, my alma mater, and former Assistant Secretary
of Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy. Mr. McConnell
received his bachelor's degree in chemical engineering from
Carnegie Mellon and his MBA in finance from Cleveland State
University.
In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your
testimony to five minutes. Your entire written statement will
be made a part of the record.
I now recognize Attorney General Scott Pruitt for five
minutes to present his testimony. You are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. E. SCOTT PRUITT,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Mr. Pruitt. Well, good morning, Chairman Bridenstine,
Ranking Member Bonamici, and Members of the Subcommittee. I
thank you for the invitation to discuss the legality of the
Clean Power Plan with you today.
And the Clean Power Plan represents an extraordinary moment
in our constitutional history. It's extraordinary in scope,
extraordinary in cost, and extraordinary in its intrusion into
the sovereign power of the States, and all done not by this
body but rather by regulatory fiat.
I want to say at the outset, however, that I believe the
EPA has an important role to play in our Republican form of
government. There are clearly air and water quality issues that
cross state lines, and sometimes that can require federal
intervention. At the same time, the EPA was never intended to
be our nation's foremost environmental regulator. The States
were to have regulatory primacy. That construct, a construct
put in place by this body, has been turned upside down by the
current Administration, and that's why I'm here today.
I'd like to start by explaining to you why I so jealously
guard Oklahoma's sovereign prerogative to regulate in a both
sensible and sensitive way the regulation of the energy
industry. We produce more wind energy than all but three States
in the country with 17 percent of our electricity generated by
wind while 7.4 percent of all the natural gas burned in this
country and produced comes from Oklahoma.
Indeed, we are a leading innovator in natural gas
production through hydraulic fracturing and horizontal
drilling, a technological innovation that has done more to
reduce carbon emissions in this country than any other
technological advancement in our time. In fact, just this
month, the federal EIA announced that as of 2015 the power
generation industry has reduced carbon dioxide emissions to
1993 levels. And because coal still accounts for 34 percent of
power generation, we will continue to see market-driven
emissions reductions for years to come.
I tell you all this to help you understand Oklahoma's
objection to the Clean Power Plan. In all candor, of course we
think the policy justifications for the plan are unpersuasive.
We don't think that government regulators ought to be in the
business of picking winners and losers in the energy sector.
But whether unpersuasive or not, ultimately, you are the
arbiter of this decision.
And therein lies our objection to this plan. This body did
not decide the plan. So the members of this committee who
strongly support the Clean Power Plan, as a matter of policy I
say to you this: Pass a bill. Let democracy decide whether a
Clean Power Plan is right for America. But we didn't get
democracy. We got a regulatory cram-down through the actions of
the EPA.
And to those who claim that the Clean Air Act unambiguously
authorizes the EPA to enact through rule the Clean Power Plan I
say to you this: If that were so, how do you explain the
unprecedented step that the Chairman mentioned that the United
States Supreme Court took recently to issue a stay in this
proceeding? That stay was entered because five members of the
Court thought that this plan, this Clean Power Plan rule was
unlawful. And those five members were correct.
Although this body has debated a number of bills through
the years designed to achieve de-carbonization, it has never
adopted any such legislation. Frustrated with Congress, the EPA
now purports to have discovered sweeping authority in section
111(d), an obscure provision in the Clean Air Act that has been
used only five times in 45 years. According to the EPA, section
111(d) authorizes it to use the States to impose on power
plants emission reduction requirements that are premised not on
pollution control measures at the regulated plants but on
reducing or eliminating operations at those plans and shifting
their electricity generation to competitors, something the EPA
euphemistically calls ``generation shifting.''
None of this can be reconciled with the words this body
enacted in section 111. Section 111(d) authorizes the EPA to
establish procedures under which the States set standards of
performance for an existing source. Those standards must
reflect the applicant--application of the best system of
emission reduction to that source to a building structure,
facility, or installation. In other words, the EPA may seek to
reduce emissions only through measures that can be implemented
by individuals--individual facilities, something called
``inside the fence.'' Indeed, for 45 years this is the way the
EPA has interpreted the provision.
Finally, the rule violates the Constitution. Cooperative
federalism programs must provide States with the meaningful
opportunity to decline implementation, but the rule does not do
so. States that decline to take legislative or regulatory
action to ensure increased generation by the EPA's action face
the threat of insufficient electricity to meet their demand.
The rule is thus an act of commandeering that leaves the States
no choice but to alter laws and programs governing electricity
generation and delivery to accord with federal policy.
If the EPA gets its way, section 111(d) will be transformed
from a limited provision into the most powerful part of the
Clean Air Act, making the EPA a central planner for every
single industry that emits carbon dioxide. Congress did not
intend, could not have imagined such a result when it passed
the provision more than 45 years ago.
Finally, there are some who wish to create a false
dichotomy between those who are ``for'' clean power and those
who are ``against'' clean power. I urge this committee to
resist such rhetoric. We are all for clean power, and no one,
no bureaucrat in D.C., no environmentalist in California has a
stronger interest in clean air and clean water in Oklahoma than
we do. That is our air that our children breathe and the water
that our grandchildren will swim in, and that is why I
jealously guard my State's prerogative to craft regulations
that make sense for Oklahoma. And more importantly, that is why
I vigorously advocate for the rule of law, for the democratic
process, and for the respect that the Constitution's separation
of powers between the Federal Government and the States.
Mr. Chairman, I again appreciate the opportunity to discuss
these issues with you, and I look forward to the questions at
the end of our testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pruitt follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bridenstine. I'd like to thank the Attorney
General for his testimony.
Ms. Gorod, you are now recognized for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MS. BRIANNE GOROD,
CHIEF COUNSEL,
CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER
Ms. Gorod. Thank you------
Chairman Bridenstine. Could you turn on your mike?
Ms. Gorod. I would like to thank the subcommittee for
inviting me to assist its members and their colleagues in
considering the legality and benefits of the Clean Power Plan.
I am Chief Counsel of the Constitutional Accountability
Center, a public interest law firm, think tank, and action
center dedicated to the progressive promise of our
Constitution, and I serve as counsel in the current legal
challenge to the Clean Power Plan to over 200 current and
former Members of Congress.
I'm really pleased to be here today to discuss the Clean
Power Plan because its implementation is of critical importance
to the public health and welfare of our citizenry. The Clean
Power Plan, once implemented, will produce critically important
reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from what are by far the
largest emitters in the United States: fossil fuel-fired power
plants. These reductions are necessary because the emissions of
carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases are
driving long-lasting changes to our climate that pose a
tremendous threat to Americans' health and welfare.
The benefits of the Clean Power Plan rule will be
significant. EPA projects that the Clean Power Plan will help
cut carbon pollution from the power sector by 30 percent from
2005 levels and will also cut pollution at least to soot and to
smog by over 25 percent in 2030. The Clean Power Plan will also
lead to climate and health benefits worth an estimated $55-93
billion in 2030, including avoiding 2,700 to 6,600 premature
deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in children.
And the Clean Power Plan will achieve these environmental
and public health benefits while also producing economic
benefits, including new jobs and savings for U.S. households on
their electricity bills.
Despite these tremendous benefits of the Clean Power Plan,
opponents of the rule have challenged the rule's legality
arguing, among other things, that the EPA acted without lawful
authority in promulgating the rule and that it
unconstitutionally intrudes on State authority. These arguments
are both wrong.
First, the EPA clearly acted with lawful authority when it
promulgated the rule. Opponents of the rule like to say that
the Clean Power Plan is an example of executive overreach,
President Obama acting through executive action because he
couldn't get legislation passed through Congress. We of course
heard this a moment ago from Attorney General Pruitt urging
members of this subcommittee to pass a bill.
Well, Congress did pass a bill. Congress passed the Clean
Air Act, and in the Clean Air Act, Congress addressed the
serious threat it recognized was posed by air pollution. And in
the Clean Air Act, Congress did what it often does when it
passes legislation. It set out broad goals and provided
guidance about how to achieve those goals. Congress then gave
an expert agency, in this case the EPA, the authority to fill
in some of the details about how best to achieve those goals.
Congress recognized that this approach was particularly
necessary in the context of environmental issues where the
issues are complicated and technical, and understanding of the
precise nature of the problem is often evolving. Indeed,
Congress specifically used broad language in certain provisions
because it wanted the EPA to have the flexibility to address a
wide variety of pollutants both known and unknown. Congress
wanted the law to be comprehensive, and it wanted the law to be
forward-looking.
Significantly, the United States Supreme Court has
previously recognized that Congress drafted the Clean Air Act
to provide the flexibility to address new and evolving problems
and that EPA is at the frontline of determining when and how--
of course consistent with the statutory guidance provided by
Congress to address those problems.
The Clean Power Plan is a lawful exercise of the authority
Congress conferred on the EPA in the Clean Air Act because the
Clean Power Plan is consistent with the text, with the
structure, and with the history of the Clean Air Act. Most
significantly, Congress enacted the 1970 amendments to the
Clean Air Act to put in place a comprehensive regulatory regime
that would govern all air pollutants that EPA determined were
harmful to the public health and welfare.
The provision on which EPA relied in promulgating the Clean
Power Plan rule was a critical component of that comprehensive
program because it directed EPA to regulate pollutants that are
or may be harmful to the public health or welfare but that
cannot be regulated under other specific programs established
in the statute.
If the courts were to conclude that the Clean Power Plan is
unlawful, EPA would not be able to do what Congress directed it
to do in the Clean Air Act, that is, comprehensively regulate
harmful air pollutants. By promulgating the Clean Power Plan,
EPA helps effectuate the robust clean air and public health
policy that Congress established in the Clean Air Act.
Second, the rule does not unlawfully intruded on State
authority. In fact, the Clean Power Plan respects State
authority by giving the States the opportunity to design an
emissions reduction plan that makes sense for their citizens.
If the States choose not to avail themselves of that
opportunity, the EPA will directly regulate sources within
those States. But the States themselves face no sanctions and
the States themselves are not compelled to take any action to
implement the resulting Federal standards. Tellingly, 18 States
and the District of Columbia have intervened in the legal
challenge to the Clean Power Plan to support the rule and its
legality.
In short, the Clean Power Plan is entirely lawful. If the
courts were to conclude otherwise, it would critically
undermine not only the Nation's fight against air pollution but
the statutory scheme that Congress put in place when it enacted
the Clean Air Act.
So thank you again for giving me the opportunity to testify
this morning, and I look forward to answering questions from
the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gorod follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you, Ms. Gorod.
I just want to give everybody a quick update. We're being
told that votes are going to be called between 10:00 and 10:15.
If votes are called, we want to give people an opportunity to
ask questions of the witnesses, so we will come back after
votes, and if it votes are called while Mr. McConnell is giving
his testimony, we'll let him finish before we take a recess.
So with that, Mr. McConnell, you are recognized for five
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. CHARLES MCCONNELL,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT INITIATIVE,
RICE UNIVERSITY
Mr. McConnell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee, for the opportunity to testify today. I will discuss
how this plan does not impact the environment and then discuss
the large and disturbing impact on what we at your alma mater
of Rice University, Mr. Chairman, call energy sustainability.
The Clean Power Plan has been falsely sold as impactful
environmental regulation when it's really an attempt by our
primary federal environmental regulator to take over federal
and state regulation of energy.
Let me be very clear. I believe science and technology
confirms that the climate is changing. I'm not in denial. I
also believe science and technology confirms that CO2
is a contributor or a forcing function for climate change. It's
certainly not the exclusive forcing function, but it is a major
contributor. These two facts, I believe, are scientifically and
technically documented, and we have an obligation as a society
to address those concerns.
But with that said, what's also clear scientifically and
technically is that EPA's plan will not significantly impact
global emissions. If the definition of clean was simply the
reduction of atmospheric CO2 levels, and that's a
naively narrow and incorrect perspective, by the way, but even
if it were, then this Clean Power Plan is not the pursuit of
clean.
If you refer to the chart being projected and as has been
referenced earlier and discussion today, I've previously
testified that the Clean Power Plan reduces the amount of
anthropogenic CO2 globally by .2 percent, less than
1 ppm. The global temperature rise would decrease by .01 degree
Fahrenheit, and the resulting sea level rise reduction would be
1/100 of an inch, which is about the equivalent of two human
hairs. These are scientific and technical facts, and facts are
stubborn things.
For context, consider that all of the U.S. annual emissions
in 2025 will be offset by 3 weeks of Chinese emissions, 3
weeks. So it's dramatically uneventful. Is this impactful
climate regulation? I think not. A committee dedicated to
science and technology surely cannot and should not recognize
this as effective climate legislation. I certainly won't sit
here and recognize it as such.
The other stubborn fact is that the U.S. energy landscape
is made up of the makers and the takers. The makers such as
your home State of Oklahoma, my home States of Ohio and
Pennsylvania, and my adopted home of Texas, supply the vast
majority of all forms of energy, electricity as well as
petrochemicals and fuels, to the heartland of America, and it's
the foundation of our U.S. competitiveness in manufacturing
jobs. These makers also bear the disproportionate CPP
implementation burden as seven States bear 40 percent of the
actual CO2 reduction.
The takers, well, they have the good fortune to receive
reliable, low-cost energy from those that make but bear little
burden in terms of responsibility for this so-called societal
plan. What I'll recognize is is that the Clean Power Plan will
cause double-digit electricity price increases in over half of
our States from not just the operating costs of generation but
the hidden costs of this regulation in transmission investment
and necessary reliability redundancy.
Energy sustainability means energy that's accessible,
secure, and affordable, affordable for our citizens and for
global manufacturing, and it's environmentally responsible. And
I submit to you that through transformative technology that
focuses on the emissions of electricity production and not the
fuel that every major source of energy we have today can be
used in an environmentally responsible manner. That's a real
all-of-the-above strategy. The Clean Power Plan is not. It's a
waste of citizens' money with redundant capital charges and
charges for electricity for no environmental benefit.
You know, when the EPA was hatching the Clean Power Plan, I
was witness to EPA asking my office at the Department of Energy
in fossil energy to comment on an EPA-defined concept of
resource adequacy, not reliability. And you might ask why.
Well, it's inconvenient truth. For those wondering what
resources adequacy means, it means there's sufficient
theoretical capacity to generate power above predicted demand,
but this is simply theoretical linguistic mumbo-jumbo offered
by that agency in order to sound like a thoughtful analysis.
It's theoretical, but it's not thoughtful. Reliability means
reliability, and available power means available power, not
theoretically available.
As to the legality of the rule, I'm no lawyer but I am a
citizen, and I believe the comments that have been made today
about the legality are certainly worth thinking about and
considering strongly. Science and technology requires real
understanding and real facts. The CPP is not worthy of that as
it doesn't meet those tests. I wish this discussion could be
about relevant and impactful technology development for all
electricity generation and not misguided regulatory policy,
that's if we all really care about energy sustainability. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McConnell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bridenstine. I'd like to thank Mr. McConnell for
his testimony.
Members are reminded that committee rules limit questioning
to five minutes. As we proceed here, just so everybody knows,
we're working on passing an energy and water development
appropriations bill. We had a Republican conference meeting
this morning, and now we're going to have votes very shortly.
So if we need to recess, we will. We want to give everybody an
opportunity to ask questions, and it's possible--although it is
a fly-out day, it's possible that we'd have more members of
this subcommittee here after we have votes.
So with that, I'll recognize myself for five minutes.
Attorney General Pruitt, I wanted to ask a question
regarding the Clean Power Plan. When you think about its
implementation, we often hear about the immediate impact that
the Clean Power Plan will have on ratepayers. We hear about
those impacts. Can you share with us what are some of the
secondary and tertiary impacts from the Clean Power Plan on the
state of Oklahoma or other states and how that might affect us?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, if I might, Mr. Chairman, I do think that
the impact on consumers is significant. We have had experience
in Oklahoma just with one rule, the regional haze portions of
the Clean Air Act, that deal with aesthetics and not safety and
health, that that one rule that was adopted in 2011 has
generated over $1 billion of added cost to ratepayers in the
State of Oklahoma, which equates to almost 15 to 20 percent
increases in utility rates.
I mean, what people don't talk about often with respect to
this type of action by the EPA, it is the most regressive steps
that can be taken. It's effectively a tax on those that can
least afford it. And when you look at State look Oklahoma when
we're already generating 17 percent of our electricity through
wind, the Ranking Member indicated that for Oregon there's a
goal, I think, if I heard correctly of 25 percent where--
electricity generation by the year 2025. We're already at 17
percent in Oklahoma.
And so when the EPA takes this step to force upon Oklahoma
a 30 plus reduction in its carbon footprint, the question has
to be asked: Where do we go and how do we impose or take the
steps that are necessary to address that and how does it impact
consumers?
I mean, as far as the secondary impact, I think it's clear
that it will affect manufacturing, I think it's clear that
it'll affect economic developments, and that's something that's
talked about quite a bit. But as far as real, objective,
measurable cost, we have seen it impact consumers, the
ratepayers in a very significant way, and that will continue.
Chairman Bridenstine. As you're aware, Attorney General,
there are a lot of businesses that are looking for places to
locate, and when they believe that the state of Oklahoma is
going to have their electricity prices increased by 20 percent,
manufacturers start looking elsewhere. And this is going to be
a tough challenge for us, for our state as we go forward, and I
thank you for your leadership on these very important issues.
I wanted to also ask, from a legal perspective the idea
that the Supreme Court provided a stay and then the EPA turns
around and says depending on what the outcome is, the date of
implementation will not change. Have you ever seen this kind of
activity before where a stay is issued and yet all the plans
and processes move forward?
Mr. Pruitt. No. Look, I mean, I think it's important, Mr.
Chairman, to recognize the unprecedented step that took place
here. I mean, the U.S. Supreme Court intervened to issue a stay
against this rule. It's never occurred in history. They largely
did it in my estimation because of what happened in the
Michigan v. EPA case. The States brought a lawsuit against the
EPA dealing with the Mercury rule because the EPA disregarded
the cost-benefit analysis under that rule, and we won, but it
took three years as a collection of States to the EPA
accountable.
Postscript the U.S. Supreme Court's decision, there were
some braggadocious comments made by the EPA, and as such, I
think the U.S. Supreme Court took a very aggressive and a right
step to issue a stay in this proceeding.
To your question, no, it's something we have not seen
before. The case law, we think, clearly supports that there
should be a suspension of the dates while the stay is in place,
and that's something that will be argued at the appropriate
time.
Chairman Bridenstine. Excellent. Mr. McConnell, I read your
testimony, and you talked in your testimony about the
interagency process that happens within the Administration. Can
you share with us your thoughts on how that interagency process
went and the questions you were asked as the person in charge
of fuels?
Mr. McConnell. Well, the interagency collaboration is a--
kind of a convenient term, but in fact it doesn't happen in its
honest form. Very often, the information that's being asked of
it--by agencies such as fossil energy by the EPA will look at
600-page documents and we get a weekend to look at it. The
technology and the details in those documents often required a
tremendous amount of scrutiny, and the time provided was
ridiculously short.
I guess my biggest concern is it's a disingenuous
conversation that occurs when we talk about interagency
collaboration. I surely didn't see it, and that wasn't just for
this but it was for the MATS ruling and several other
technologies. I often heard comments back from EPA at the very
highest levels of we don't really let the technology issues
bother us as we forward our policy activities. And that was
very disturbing.
Chairman Bridenstine. So I am out of time.
I recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Bonamici, for five
minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Gorod, in February the Supreme Court granted a stay of
implementation, as we've heard, pending the--a decision by the
DC. Court of Appeals. They did not grant an injunction. So what
does that mean? Does that stop work on this issue?
Ms. Gorod. It doesn't at all. And I think that is exactly
the right distinction to highlight. The Supreme Court issued a
stay and not an injunction. Now, that may seem like technical
legal jargon, but it's actually quite important from a legal
perspective.
Chief Justice John Roberts actually explained the
distinction in a Supreme Court opinion a few years ago. He
explained that a stay temporarily divests an order of
enforceability, whereas an injunction directs the conduct of a
party. So in other words what that means is an injunction is a
binding restriction on the conduct of an agency. A stay is much
less powerful focusing only on the enforceability of the rule.
And what that means in this context is that the EPA can't
enforce the regulatory requirements on the States while the
stay is in effect, and the EPA has made very clear that it is
not doing that. It's making------
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And I'm going to try--I don't mean
to interrupt, but I have several other questions. Thank you.
That was a good clarification.
Now, you've heard opponents of the Administration's efforts
to address climate change suggest that even if the United
States were to meet the goals of the Clean Power Plan it would
have a minimal impact on power--on climate change. You've also
heard that the Clean--and testified that the Clean Power Plan
will reduce carbon emissions, and some have said there's no
benefit from that. Do you agree? Can you talk about why it's
important to have the Clean Power Plan?
Ms. Gorod. It's absolutely important to have the Clean
Power Plan because these carbon dioxide emissions the emissions
of other heat-trapping greenhouse gases are producing real and
meaningful effects on our climate that are having serious
effects on weather events the health of our citizenry.
It's worth noting that a number of States have filed in the
lawsuit because they realize how important it is that we have
these reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, and they've also
made clear that contrary to what Attorney General Pruitt just
said, making these reductions will benefit not only the public
health of their citizens, it will benefit not only the
environment of their citizens, but that states can make these
reductions while also achieving real meaningful economic
benefits.
They said, for example, that in their first three years
participating in a regional greenhouse gas initiative they
realized $1.6 billion in net economic benefits. And it's also
worth recognizing that the Clean Power Plan is one important
respect in which the United States is showing its commitment to
reducing global carbon dioxide emissions, and it's that sort of
commitment, the setting of these ambitious goals, that
encouraged 195 nations to sign onto the Paris agreement. An
important part of making sure that these other countries follow
through will be the United States following through on its own
commitments.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And you heard the claims that EPA
is overstepping its authority by developing the Clean Power
Plan, so why are these claims inaccurate? And I wanted to know
if you would please explain a little bit more of what you said
in your written testimony as a textbook example of cooperative
federalism. Can you please elaborate on that point and maybe
give us some other examples of cooperative federalism we should
consider when we're thinking about this issue.
Ms. Gorod. Sure. So cooperative federalism is quite simple.
The basic idea is the Federal Government and the States work
together. The Federal Government will set goals or guidelines
and the States have the option if they want of regulating in
whatever way works best for their citizens consistent with
local conditions in their states. If the States choose not to
regulate, then the federal government will regulate directly
without requiring the states to do anything.
There is an environmental statute that dealt with surface
mining and, the federal government gave the States the option
of regulating and said if you don't want to regulate, the
Federal Government will do it in your stead. There was a case
involving a radioactive waste act that again gave a state the
option of regulating the waste themselves or letting the
Federal Government do it.
And I think what's so important about those examples is
that there was litigation, it went up to the Supreme Court, and
the Supreme Court approved of those programs. It said there is
no constitutional problem with the federal government giving
the states the option to regulate in this way and then
regulating if the States choose not to.
The Clean Power Plan is not meaningfully different in any
way from these prior examples of cooperative federalism, and I
feel confident that the courts will recognize that when we
actually have a merits resolution of the case.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And you mentioned the regional
efforts. I assume that's RGGI that you're speaking about?
Ms. Gorod. Yes.
Ms. Bonamici. Could you explain a little bit about whether
under the Clean Power Plan does that--is a regional approach
permissible? And what are the States in RGGI and what benefits
have they seen?
Ms. Gorod. Yes, the states in RGGI are nine Northeast and
mid-Atlantic States. They've seen real benefits both in terms
of carbon dioxide reductions and also environmental and
economic benefits. They've seen new jobs, they've seen reduced
energy bills for their consumers.
And I think a really important point to understand about
the Clean Power Plan is it does give states considerable
latitude to determine how best to regulate for their states.
This is not the federal government imposing one particular
approach on the states. Each State can look at its own
conditions, look at what has been working in their state, what
industry is already doing in that state, and then adopt the
approach that will work best consistent with local conditions.
And again, if the states choose not to regulate, the Federal
Government will step in without imposing any requirement on the
States themselves.
Ms. Bonamici. And just to clarify, if the Federal
Government steps in, they will be regulating the industries,
not the States, correct?
Ms. Gorod. They'll be regulating the industries, not the
States, and the States can of course continue to regulate
themselves. And it's worth noting that the federal government
will not dictate to the States how they regulate, and so it'll
be up to the industries to make sure that they can comply with
both the federal and the state regulations.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much. My time is expired. I
yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bridenstine. I'd like to thank the gentlelady from
Oregon, Ms. Bonamici.
I would remind everybody that it was before this committee
that Ms. McCarthy, the EPA Administrator, contradicted the
testimony of Ms. Gorod when she was asked ``Do you consider 1/
100 of a degree to be enormously beneficial?'' This was from
Chairman Lamar Smith who was outlining the costs of the Clean
Power Plan and the benefits. Of course, the EPA has their own
models. And he asked her, do you consider 1/100 of a degree to
be enormously beneficial considering the cost? And her response
was ``The value of this rule is not measured that way. It's
measured in showing strong domestic action, which can actually
trigger global action.''
I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Thank
you witnesses for being here this morning.
I have several questions for Mr. McConnell, and by the way,
welcome to Texas. I know you're at Rice University.
Mr. McConnell. Twenty-five years, sir------
Mr. Babin. That's right.
Mr. McConnell. --so it's home now.
Mr. Babin. Well, I went to school at the University of
Texas dental branch right across the street over in the medical
center.
And you also spent 31 years at Praxair, I see?
Mr. McConnell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Babin. It has a strong presence in my district down in
southeast Houston.
You're a frequent defender of the need for carbon capture
utilization and storage or CCUS technology. There are a lot of
folks on the left who aren't interested in investments in
research and development for Fossil Energy since that they'd
rather ``leave it in the ground.'' At the same time, we hear
from folks on our side of the aisle who are concerned that CCUS
technology is being promoted to reinforce this Administration's
climate change agenda.
I would like to ask if you could talk about why you believe
fossil energy research and development, specifically the CCUS
technology, is a necessary investment to maintain affordable
electricity for all Americans.
Mr. McConnell. Thank you.
Mr. Babin. Yes, sir.
Mr. McConnell. That's--I love the question because I've
spent the last ten years of my life talking about CCUS every
time I get a chance. I will tell you that I don't believe it's
political at all. I believe it's incredibly important to the
future in terms of advancing the ball in climate change issues
because I believe in that strongly. And the IPC has recently
come out with a study in Paris that specifically said the
greatest challenge for the next 50 years in the world is the
worldwide deployment of CCUS technology. Forget about
everything else. If we don't do that, we'll never meet our
climate targets.
Well, that's one side of the conversation. That's the
climate side. There's a much more important in many ways issue
around energy security. If you capture that CO2 and
utilize it for enhanced oil recovery, we can produce energy in
this country from resources that we have access to, we can
produce our own resources here, using an environmentally
responsible technology, and reduce the amount of imported oil
that we'd have to have as a country, strengthen jobs,
manufacturing, create opportunities for us to continue to use
not only coal but natural gas, which also generates
CO2, and all other fossil fuels. It's the perfect
storm for a technology that does both, improve the climate as
well as make our economy stronger.
Mr. Babin. Good answer. Thank you very much, Mr. McConnell.
One more question. The Energy Subcommittee here held a hearing
earlier this month on Department of Energy fossil energy
programs, and I wanted to ask if you think that the Department
of Energy is appropriately prioritizing the kind of early-stage
technology R&D that is necessary to allow the private sector to
scale up CCUS technology?
Mr. McConnell. The Department of Energy in fossils
specifically is dealing with table scraps in comparison to
everything else that the Department of Energy is working on.
The money that goes to renewables, to solar, to wind, to all
the other forms of energy, which are nowhere near as impactful
in our country as fossil energy, is enormously greater. And so
the amount of money that fossil has to work with is frankly
table scraps. And the opportunity for us to take this forward
not just for our country but, sir, I would argue that for the
global impact of us as a technology leader in the world, it's
our obligation to advance this technology so countries like
China and India where the real climate story will be written
over the next 50 years, they need our technology. They don't
need our ideology.
Mr. Babin. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Chairman Bridenstine. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Takano,
for five minutes.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, I was very surprised to learn that the majority
decided to send letters to 17 State Attorneys General,
including my Attorney General in California, alleging that the
office of the highest law enforcement officer in each of these
States were colluding with environmental organizations. I
would've hoped that the majority would want to conduct
investigations based on facts and not simply engage in
political theater.
And as it turns out, they only needed to look at their own
backyard to find facts that may support such an investigation.
In 2014, the New York Times published a story with supporting
documentation revealing the working relationship between
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt and the Oklahoma-based
oil-and-gas company Devon Energy.
Several email chains between Mr. Pruitt's office and Devon
Energy demonstrate that on at least two occasions letters were
provided to his office by the oil and gas company and with very
minimal edits. They were sent out on Oklahoma Attorney General
letterhead with his signature.
These are not allegations. These are facts. The
documentation is clear, and the ethical issues this presents
are disturbing.
Without objection, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that this
article and relevant email chain be entered into the record.
Chairman Bridenstine. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Takano. Thank you. Now, while I see Mr. Pruitt sitting
at the witness table, I highly doubt my colleagues invited him
here today to provide answers regarding these actions. I think
it is unfortunate that the majority continues to chase
headlines instead of chasing the truth. And that is why earlier
this month I sent a letter to Mr. Pruitt's office requesting
documents pursuant to the Oklahoma Open Records Act to shed
some light on this relationship.
As I said in my letter, ``The Members of this Committee,
the citizens of Oklahoma, and the American people have a right
to know to what extent your office has been passing off the
work product of Devon Energy or potentially other organizations
as the views of the Office of the Attorney General of
Oklahoma.''
Now, I don't intend to ask you for a response today, Mr.
Pruitt, but I would like a commitment from you that your office
will cooperate and honor my Open Records request. Can I have a
simple yes or no from you before I proceed with my questions?
Mr. Pruitt. Congressman, your request is being processed
and will be responded to appropriately.
Mr. Takano. So that's a yes, you do pledge to cooperate
with our requests?
Mr. Pruitt. We are in fact processing the request.
Mr. Takano. All right. Thank you very much.
Without objection, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my letter
to Mr. Pruitt be entered into the record.
Chairman Bridenstine. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Takano. And where is that thing I had in here? I wanted
to--oh, here it is.
Now, Ms. Gorod--I don't believe Ms. Gorod did contradict
Administrator McCarthy. In fact, her response to the Chairman
was perfectly accurate. U.S. actions alone and Clean--and the
Clean Power Plan alone are not enough. However, it is
important--it is an important first step, and both these
actions will inspire global action. Indeed, it already has, as
Ms. Gorod alluded to.
Now, Ms. Gorod, I know you've gone over this a little bit
before, but I want to ask you the question again. Recent
Supreme Court rulings say--the recent Supreme Court ruling to
stay the implementation of the Clean Power Plan appears on its
face to give merit to the claims made by Mr. Pruitt and others.
As I said before, I'm not a lawyer so I was hoping you could
provide some clarity as to the impact of this stay. What are
the implications of this stay, and how is it different than an
injunction?
Ms. Gorod. Sure. So, first I should say that I don't think
it is right to conclude anything about the merits, and what
will ultimately be decided on the merits from the fact that the
Supreme Court issued the stay. And let me be clear, I think the
Supreme Court was wrong to do it, but it was a procedural
ruling and it was not the result of having reviewed a lower
court decision. It was not the result of full briefing on the
merits. And I think once courts review all of the arguments
made by all sides, they will uphold the Clean Power Plan and
recognize its legality.
In the meantime, there is--because this was just a stay and
not an injunction--ample precedent for the EPA to be doing
exactly what it is doing now, which is continuing to work on
matters related to the rule without imposing any regulatory
requirements on the State. Indeed, in recent years EPA has
taken similar actions under both Democratic and Republican
Presidents.
Significantly, it's worth noting that 14 States sent the
EPA a letter after the stay went into effect asking the EPA to
continue to provide the States guidance.
It's also worth noting that nothing in the court's order
requires a delay of the plan's full implementation timeline. Of
course, many of the dates set out in the Clean Power Plan occur
well after the litigation will presumably be resolved, and it's
entirely possible that those dates will remain the same. That's
a decision that'll be made once there's a ruling on the merits.
Given that there's uncertainty about the timeline going
forward, it makes all the more sense for the EPA to continue to
work on the plan in the meantime, and that's exactly what it's
doing.
Mr. Takano. Mr. Chairman, my time is expired.
Chairman Bridenstine. I'd like to thank the gentleman.
We are going to be calling votes very shortly. Everybody
has had an opportunity to ask questions, so with that, we're
going to close this hearing.
I just want to say one thing before we close, and that is
that the majority, my side of the aisle is interested in the
legal issues surrounding the actions of the ``Green 2O'' such
as protecting the First Amendment rights of all citizens to
engage in robust debate about the science. The free exchange of
scientific thought should be something that members on both
sides of the aisle support. I am troubled that the minority has
chosen to mischaracterize the Committee's investigation, which
is to determine how outside groups convinced States to stifle
scientific discourse.
With that, I want to thank the witnesses for being here. I
know all of you have been busy and------
Mr. Takano. Would the gentleman yield?
Chairman Bridenstine. I would yield.
Mr. Takano. I think it's important to understand outside
groups ``colluding'' with Attorneys General or any elected
official, that there's a false equivalency being presented here
that elected officials dealing with environmental groups who
generally work on behalf of consumers and champions of the
environment versus these elected officials dealing with big
corporations. I think there's a false equivalency here, and I
think the American people understand that.
And to be going after the communication between
environmentalists--environmental groups and elected officials
is one thing, but, you know, revealing that cooperation and
collusion between Attorneys General and big corporations, oil
companies, is another.
Chairman Bridenstine. And I don't disagree with your
assessment that we need open and free dialogue and we need
certainly transparency, but I would also argue that in my state
of Oklahoma we have a lot of really great folks that work in
the energy industry, and they should be commended for what they
have done for this country.
With that--and I'll--we need to adjourn because we're going
to have votes here very shortly--I would like to thank the
witnesses for their very valuable testimony and the members for
their questions. The record will remain open for two weeks for
additional comments and written questions from members.
This hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 10:31 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Statement submitted by Committee Ranking Member
Eddie Bernice Johnson
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Documents submitted by Subcommittee Chairmain Jim Bridenstine
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Documents submitted by Representative Mark Takano
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]