As a result, many states including West Virginia and oklahoma whose attorneys general we will be hearing from today, have raised grave concerns about the legality of the rule and implications for their citizens and ratepayers. In addition to constitutional and legal questions states have expressed concerns about the feasibility of the proposed requirements and the likely impacts on electricity cost and reliability. At risk is the belief that states have always had to make the decisions about their electricity generation. West virginia chose to rely on coal to provide affordable and reliable electricity for our consumers and businesses. Other states have made different choices that best serve their citizens. But under the Clean Power Plan each states electricity plan will have to meet epas criteria producing Carbon Dioxide emissions. Other regulations like the utility mact rule is computing to rising electricity rates and growing concerns about reliability. Weve had testimony and other hearings. With economy still far from fully recovered the last thing job creators to is another expensive regulation likely to drive apart energy prices. The last thing our families and Senior Citizens need is to see their electric bills continue to go. Next week i will be introducing Greenhouse Gas legislation that would preserve the proper balance of state and federal authority, help ensure reliable and affordable electricity protect jobs in our economy. I look forward to working with many colleagues on the committee to advance this bill. I would like to say anecdotally throughout the state of West Virginia we have such uncertainty and such disappointment i think that our voices have not been heard in our state with epa come into the state to listen and we dont feel that the calculation of the Economic Impact in our energies has been fully for even taking into consideration as we move forward with these rules are quick that i would like to yield to the Ranking Member for Opening Statements. Thanks very much for holding a hearing today. I want to welcome our witnesses. Nice to see all today that and thanks for joining us for this important conversation. Todays hearing will continue the discussion of the legal implications of epas proposed carbon regulations known as the Clean Power Plan. I was born in West Virginia, raleigh county. As a native of the county were coal mines was important remains important and now as a senator, recounting governor represent the lowest lying state in the nation, unique perspective on the balance that we must strike to make environmental regular should work not just for my stake, not just for your states but for all of our state. For those of us from states that are being impacted by Climate Change the epas Clean Power Plan to regulate our nations largest source of Carbon Pollution is not just important but essential. Many states have taken action to reduce local power plant emissions. However when you do all states do their fair share to protect the air we breathe. In order for these standards to be effective, epa must ensure that all 50 states are capable of comply with these standards. Today the epa has conducted an unprecedented level of state and local governments outreach, not just data local governments but utilities, businesses and or to craft comprehensive plan that works for each state. Under the Clean Power Plan states can create their own plan for targeting, for meeting their targets in a number of ways including by increasing Renewable Energy such as wind and solar and increasing the efficiency of their electrical grid. Unfortunately since the date epa proposed the Clean Power Plan its been criticized as being outside the agencys authority under the Clean Air Act and the u. S. Constitution. I believe these claims are without basis in fact. In 2006, 10 states actually sued epa to force it to regulate Carbon Pollution on power plants. Sense of them for your Supreme Court has ruled not once not twice but three times in support of epas Legal Authority to control Carbon Pollution under existing law. In 2007 the Supreme Court confirmed in massachusetts versus epa that has passed by congress Clean Air Act gave the epa the authority to regulate Carbon Pollution. The legal precedent for the Clean Power Plan is at least in my mind clear and attempts by congress under the parties to challenge its legality are sent to an attempt to delay implementation of the plan. As weve seen in the past, litigation over Carbon Pollution regulations has the potential to be stuck in the courts for several years. The longer we wait to reduce our carbon output, divorced her and perhaps irreversible effects of Climate Change will become and, frankly, the more severe the changes will have to be adopted to deal with this coming problem. Meanwhile, Public Health will continue be endangered by more frequent storms, intensive droughts and Sea Level Rise. Personally im committed to making sure congress does all it can do to support the implementation of the Clean Power Plan. I look forward to hearing from witnesses to date about our progress in doing so. Let me close with one thought. I was born in West Virginia family still in that area, all over the state actually and i remember going to an old church, Grace Gospel Church in the town called shady springs, which you know, madam chairman, at a very early age i was taught the golden rule. Treat other people the way we want to be treated. And i think it should apply here as well. I want to make sure that we treat West Virginia fairly. I want to make sure we treat delaware fairly. I want to make sure the states that seem Sea Level Rise the highest point of land in delaware is a bridge. Its not a mountain your its not a mountain. Its a bridge. We all receive effects of Sea Level Rise in my state and we are concerned about it frankly so are a lot of other states. I want to make sure with their to us and folks in the mountain states. With that in mind lets have a good hearing. I would like to tell the audience and the witnesses that were scheduled to have a boat somewhere between 10 and 15 and 1030 time it. My plan would try to get to the Opening Statements editor and quickly and let us go vote, make that one boat and come back to the question portion. I reserve the right to change my mind. I might just to we will rotate in and out. That might be a better way but at that point i want to put you on alert at this time for but like to recognize that chairman of the full committee mr. Inhofe from oklahoma for the purposes of making some comments. I thought that was just my wife that made that statement changing her mind. I appreciate it very much, and let me come we have some people here today from oklahoma that came up here comes the real electric cooperative concern. We get this question all the time, wait a minute if we are reliant upon fossil fuel for 50 of power to run this machine called america and they take that away, how do you run the machine called america . Three things quickly. Capandtrade started way back in 2002 at the time they first said the world come to an income of all and all that stuff. They tried to pass it a legislative we from 2002 up until the current time and theyre unable to do that. What we are looking at now is the federal government coming in under the Obama Administration tried to do regulation which they couldnt do through legislation. And then secondly if lisa jackson was the administrative come administered of the epa under obama i asked her the question in this room live on tv, i said if we were to pass either through regulation or through legislation with this had the effect of reducing co2 emissions worldwide but she said no, it wouldnt because this is what the problem is. If you are believe in those things it would work. The last thing, im not a lawyer i was on several radio shows this morning with scott pruitt ever learned a lot, scott from you but when the president s own law professor Laurence Tribe testified before the house, he said the epa was attempting an unconstitutional trifecta usurping the prerogatives of the state, congress and the federal courts all at once. This was Barack Obamas harvard law professor. Without i look forward to Opening Statements. Thank you because like to recognize, we would go from left to right first witness is available Patrick Morrisey was a the attorney general for the state of West Virginia. Welcome. Thank you very much chairman capito, Ranking Member carper, and all of the distinguished members of this subcommittee. I very much appreciate the opportunity to be here today to testify against the president socalled Clean Power Plan. Plan. I do what want to say at the outset i can put about this hearing because West Virginia seems to have some support both from the chair and Ranking Member site. Senator carper, you are always welcome to come back to the great state of your birth, thank you. On your today to talk about the legal problems in the Obama Administrations socalled Clean Power Plan. Commonly known as the one he left and the rule. This will seeks to acquire states to reduce submissions from existing coal power plants by an average staggering 30 over a 15 year period. Make no mistake about it. Finalizing this proposal would have a devastating impact on my state, other coal producing states and citizens from across the country who feel the negative impact of high electricity prices, loss of jobs at the potential lack of reliability and the power grid. West virginia is one of the poorest states in the country and yet where the second largest producer of coal, the very important resource for us. This proposal will result in even greater economic dislocation in appalachia at a time when we can least afford it. Its my duty as the chief legal officer of the state of West Virginia to fight against this unlawful power grab which is hurting our citizens. West virginia has already led a Bipartisan Coalition of 15 state before the u. S. Court of appeals in d. C. And if this is misdirection lx define what this rule West Virginia will challenge it in court and expect the coalition of 15 states that were going to working with will grow. Today at like to talk about just a few of the legal effects of this proposal. As you all know the epa basis claim for Legal Authority to adopt this rule in taiwan section 111 d. Of the Clean Air Act are however a nearby provision, section 112 of the Clean Air Act epa prohibits the agency from invoking section 111 they for any pollutant quote embedded from a source category which is regulate under section 112. We think that language is very clear. As epa has repeatedly claimed time after time is takes literally means that the epa is overrated at source category under section 112, epa may not then come in and of our states to regulate any pollutant emitted from the same source category under 111d. This is where the epa runs into trouble because as we know it 2012 they already finalized a major role affecting coalfired our plants under section 112. The epas legal argument for avoiding the section 112 exclusion is not credible edifies altercation roles of Administrative Law and statutory construction of let me explain. When congress enacted the present version of section 112 exclusion in 1990 actually made a mistake. It accidentally included two provisions in the statute at large. Two amendments the same exact test. One was a substitute a minute to replace the cross reference and change the exclusion to its present form. The second was a conforming amendment, a technical amendment a few of those make 107 pages later. But once you actually up on the substantive amendment to the text it make a conforming change wholly unnecessary and that is why the technical error was not included in the u. S. Code. Now what happened there is actually consistent with the way congress has always operated. You expect there are clerical errors in the text. When Congress Goes back through the revisers to be somewhat is in the code they analyze that and they apply traditional rules of statutory construction. In fact, weve never seen a situation before where a federal agency has literally tried to push such a sweeping proposal on the basis of a typo. Its unprecedented. But perhaps the most radical future of section 111 d is its sheer breadth. Rather than follow the traditional pathway of opposing a nationwide particular source category, to make a source category more environmentally friendly, the section 111d role requires the states to replace coalfired energy with other sources of energy and even reduce consumer demand for energy. That means that the section 111d role six that went to regulate powerplant emissions, its for state superintendent of reporter electricity sectors and pick winners and losers between those sectors. This rule would regulate from power to plug. As allison would a wellrespected attorney result indicated before the house energy and commerce committee, epas claim is analogous to the agency asserting its authority to regulate automobile emissions provides it with the power to order citizens to take a bus to work or by electric cars on the theory that the measures would reduce car emissions. Section 111d simply does not grant epa such broad sweeping power. Thank you very much. Thank you. Ive just been informed that vote has been called to hold on. Let me see what you prefer to do. We are going to go vote so well stand in recess and we should be here shortly. Thank you for your patience. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] so that was pretty quick i think. And we will resume the hearing and i would like to welcome the honorable scott produces the attorney general from the state of oklahoma. Welcome. Good morning chairwoman capital, Ranking Member carper chairman inhofe and members of the subcommittee. Its a joy to be with you this morning, good to be with my dear colleagues and friends from West Virginia. Appreciate the invitation to discuss the ramifications of epas proposed Clean Power Plan. This is an issue of major importance. Quite simply, madam chairwoman, the epa does not possess the authority to do what it is seeking to accomplish in the socalled Clean Power Plan. The epa under this administration treats states like a vessel of federal will. The epa believes states existed on the policies the administration sees fit regardless of what laws like the Clean Air Act permits such action. In their Wisdom Congress give states the primary role in missions regulation. Air pollution control at its source as a primer irresponsibility of states and local governments. That statement respect the constitutional limit on federal regulation of air quality. States are best suited to develop and implement such policies. States are able to engage in a costbenefit analysis despite the Necessary Balance between protecting and preserving the environment while still grieving the regular framework that does not stifle job growth and economic activity. Shr partners. With the federal government regulating such matters that therefore the Clean Air Act changes on cooperative federalism by giving states the primary responsibility while providing the federal backstop extension failed to act. The cooperative relationship works well. When the epa exceeds the constraints placed upon agency by congress the relationship is thrown out the balance of the rule of law and state sovereignty is affected adversely. The Clean Power Plan proposal does the relationship between the state and federal government off balance. The epa claims the proposal gives states flexible to develop their own plans to meet National Goals of reducing Carbon Dioxide emissions. In reality it is nothing more expand federal agency power at the expense of state energy Power Generation. The plan requires each state to submit a plan to cut Carbon Dioxide by a nationwide average by 30 by the year 2030. In oklahoma 40. 5 of our