June 19 of 2014 does nothing to save us from Global Warming. Thats a quote that i will use when it is my turn for questions so that people wont question the accuracy of that. No one should be surprised. We have been here before. Nasa dr. James hanson said the protocol will have little effect on temperatures in the 21st century and will take 30 to reduce warming. Even when secretary contradicted lisa jackson in july of 09 of course she was the chairman of the director of the epa at that time, she honestly testified that u. S. Action would not impact world co 2 levels. You dont have to go back to that time because that question i asked at one time sitting right here i said if we were to pass any of these bills at that time would this have the effect of reducing co 2 emissions world wide . She said no it would not. This is not where the problem is. The problem is china and india and so forth. We all know that. I am going to go through here to try to get these points across and then we will hear from senator boxer. By mid december your office plans to complete the Small Business advocacy review issue, a model federal Implementation Plan and evaluate literally five million Public Comments to your proposed rules. The agency missed the deadline to finalize the proposal by january 8 of this year. I am interested in learning how the epa expects to comply with an ex pedited timeline. It should not be a surprise that 31 states have now opposed the Clean Power Plan. Today ms. Mccabe we are inviting the stakeholders, the ones that have to comply will be having a hearing with them. We have a problem with a number of the proposals. I understand the most expensive regulation in history and failed to achieve your own goals according to the Economic Consulting and Analysis Firm the Clean Power Plant alone would cost on existing power plants 73 billion a year and upwards of 469 billion over the next 15 years. It is hard to say on the new source because no one is going to be building a new coal plant, those are the words of the president. He said so if someone wants to build a power plant they can but it will bankrupt it. That is clearly the intent of this. The thing that we are trying to do right now with regulation is what they tried to do since 2002 through legislation. The first one we remember was the rule that was 1997. They came back and vote on the senate floor was 950 not to adopt a kyoto type plan. Then we had the Mccain Lieberman bill in 2002. The Mccain Lieberman bill in 2005 and another bill with lieberman in 2008 and everyone of them went down in defeat in the senate. These were all senate bills. They went down in defeat by a greater margin. So i just think that you are looking at something now that we want to hear how epa is steam rolling ahead requesting billions of dollars and proposals which states reject and ignores the will of congress and relies on unreasonable assumption, costs billions of dollars and will increase our energy bill and not Impact Global warming. Senator boxer . Mr. Chairman, before we start the clock i want to respond to this idea that nobody can make Opening Statements except you or me. I think it is wrong. For 15 years we all listened to each other. I want a large official opposition of democratic minority to limiting Opening Statements. And we can good will let me respond to that before we start the clock rolling. We talked about that in our conference. We are a majority now. I recall you saying elections do have consequences. So some of these things are subject to change. My problem has always been many of the committees such as Senate Armed Services committee only have Ranking Member and chairman making Opening Statements. These are large committees. I can remember sitting as long as two hours listening to each of us talk when we have people coming in from california, from long distances away. And i think with eight minute rounds which is what we are going to have i think each member can take half of that and use that if that member wants to. That is going to be the policy. I know that you dont like it. I dont. You voiced yourself. We dont like it and i dont like gagging members of this committee. Were not gagging, but okay. Its just im sad about it. We have done it for 15 years. And also part of it is you and i get to question first. So now you speak five minutes. I speak five minutes. The witness speaks. By the time we get to members its noon. First of all i will probably not speak first but go ahead. Good. Well lets start the clock can i ask consent that my statement be included in the record . Sure all omitting Opening Statements can be in the record. Mr. Chairman, todays oversight hearing will examine the critically important steps that the Obama Administration is taking to address Climate Change by reducing dangerous Carbon Pollution from the biggest source, power plants. They account for 40 of all Carbon Pollution released into the air and we are seeing the consequences. Lets look at the trends across the country. Its official, 2014 was the hottest year in recorded history. 2014 was earths warmest year on record. How hot was it . 2014 was earths warmest year on record, data shows. Everyone can say whatever they want and say it is cold and snowing. We all know the facts are the facts. And for goodness sakes how out of step can people be with the scientists and people of this country who are so far ahead. Thank you. Nasa and noaa found in the 134 years of Record Keeping no year was hotter around the globe than 2014. The president s proposal will enable america to lead the way to avert the most calamitous impacts of Climate Change such as sea level rise, dangerous heat waves and economic disruption to our farmers, businesses, tourist industry, to our people. I often say if people cant breathe they cant work or go to school. We know that this particular proposal will avoid up to 3,700 cases of bronchitis in children, 150,000 asthma attacks, 3,300 heart attacks, 6,600 premature deaths and 490,000 missed days of school. Who are we working for . The people of this country or the polluters . I think that is the question. The Obama Administration gets it. And so do the American People. Lets look at a new staff poll which found 83 of americans including 61 of republicans say if nothing is done to reduce Carbon PollutionGlobal Warming will be a serious problem into the future. And 77 of americans of all political stripes say the federal government should be doing a substantial amount to combat Climate Change. Last year this committee for four former epa administrators all republicans who served under president s nixon, george w. Bush agree Climate Change requires action now and shouldnt be a partisan issue. I thought for sure that would change some minds on my republican side. Not one mind was changed. Now, the president s plan relies on the authorities under the Clean Air Act which was created with an overwhelming bipartisan consensus. In 1970 the Clean Air Act passed the senate by a vote of 730, passed the house by 3751, was signed into law by president nixon. The Clean Air Act has a proven track record of success. What president obama is doing is building on that success. I often say in all of the years i have been in office its a long time no one ever complained that the air was too clean. Barbara, the air is just clean enough. Dont do anything more. They want us to keep cleaning the air. My home state has been a leader in proving you can grow this economy. California households pay the ninth lowest electricity bills and the per person carbon foot print is among lowest in the country. We also added 491,000 jobs in the first year of the states cap in trade system, a job growth rate of 3. 3 better than the National Rate of 2. 5 . And over the last four years we have turned a 26 billion budget deficit into a projected 4 billion surplus. Dont tell me that if you move forward on clean air you destroy the economy or destroy your budget. It is quite the opposite. Climate change is happening now. We cant afford to wait. And i commend the president and the epa for taking action to protect our families and our children from the worst impacts. In the time remaining i ask unanimous consent to place into the record the article today in the Washington Post. Without objection. Thank you mr. Chairman. It says studies on modifying climate urge geo engineering would be a risky last resort scientists say. I urge everyone to read this. We dont need this brave new world of geo engineering. We can move forward on the policies that the president has put forward and that republican president s have put forward. Lets move ahead and do the right thing for our children and our families and our nation. Thank you members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. It already threatens health and welfare and economic well being and if left unchecked it will have devastating impacts on the United States and the planet. The science is clear. The risks are clear and the high cost of climate inaction are clear. We must act. That is why president obama laid out a Climate Action plan and why this summer the epa will be taking flexible common sense steps to cut Carbon Pollution from the power sector. These steps will help build a more resilient nation and lead the world in our Global Climate fight. Starting in january 2014 epa issued three proposals. These rules will set standards for co 2 emissions from new, existing and modified and reconstructed fossil fuel powered plants. As we announced the epa intends to finalize these rules by mid summer 2015. Epas stakeholder outreach and Public Engagement in preparation has been unprecedented and resulted in an unprecedented amount of public input. We are reviewing the comments received on the proposal and the more than 3. 5 million comments on the proposal for existing and modified and reconstructive sources. As we work our way through the comments what is completely apparent is not only the time and effort that states and many stakeholders have put into developing their input but the importance that we as a Country Place on moving forward to address Climate Change. This input is especially important given the Important Role the states will play in this program. We have received comment on a range of crucial issues from the investments these rules might require to maintain reliability which is a consideration we view with the utmost importance in implementing all clean air protections to costs to right levels of stringency and establishing a workable path to bring about success in moving to a less carbon intensive Energy Production while safe guarding a reliable and affordable supply of electricity. Businesses and consumers, many comments identify opportunities to drive investment in innovative Clean Technologies as well as reiterating the importance of emissions reduction in addressing Climate Change. We are addressing and accounting for all of the information and ideas received on the three separate proposals and we are confident that the final rules will be improved as a result of this input. While epa is firmly focused on the work needed to finalize rules that take into account the input we receive we remain committed to continuing engagement with states, tribes, other federal agencies, Resource Planning organizations and others. As part of this process we know that states are beginning to think about the very real task of drafting and developing state plans used to implement the plan when it is issued. We are preparing to provide states the assistance they need as they begin to develop their state plans. That is why we are also starting a rule making process to develop a rule that both would set forth a proposed federal plan and by providing a model could help states thinking about their own plans. I want to be clear that epas strong preference is that states submit their plans tailored to their specific needs and priorities and we believe states will want to do that here. We also know that setting out a federal plan is an important step to assure clean air obligations are fulfilled. We believe many states find it helpful to find a federal plan proposal as they begin to develop compliance plans. That is why we are aiming to issue the federal plan proposal in mid summer, as well. When fully implemented the plan is expected to help deliver 730 million tons of reduction in co 2 emissions, a substantial reduction of the harmful pollution and lead to thousands fewer heart attacks and other Health Benefits. These reductions deliver tens of billions of dollars in Public Health and climate benefits that outweigh the costs of the plan. The reductions achieved with the reductions in Carbon Pollution alone will yield 7 in Health Benefits for every dollar we invest in meeting the standards. Because Energy Efficiency is a smart Cost Effective strategy we predict average bills will be 8 cheaper than projected to be without the Clean Power Plan. When he unveiled his Climate Action plan in june of 2013 president obama made clear among his goals was not only achieving meaningful reductions in domestic but asserting leadership in the International Effort to combat Climate Change. We believe the Clean Power Plan will fulfill obligations under the Clean Air Act to protect communities from dangerous air pollution. It is a significant component of the administrations broad based set of actions that have achieved and will continue to achieve significant reductions in Greenhouse Gas emissions. There is evidence that the Clean Power Plant has spurred progress and commitment from other countries and advanced the International Discussion as a whole. We are confident that all of this can be achieved in a way that strengthens the economy and creates new jobs at home. I look forward to your questions, senator, thank you very much. Thank you very much ms. Mccabe. We are using the early bird rule. It is my understanding that senator marquee is under a time constrain and i think the Ranking Member is going to let you have her time. It is my understanding also that senator fisher has time constraints and i will be very happy to yield my time to her for questions. We are going to have eight minute rounds, senator fisher. Thank you mr. Chairman for your courtesy and thank you Ranking Member. Thank you for being here today. I am glad to have the opportunity to talk with you about the impacts of your power plant rules on my home state of nebraska. As you know nebraska is the only state in the nation with the wholly publically owned utility sector. Public power utilities are costbased entities with no profit motivation or obligation to provide stakeholder dividends. That is vitally important i believe to keep in mind as epa considers these proposed rules. The compliance cost will be directly borne by nebraska residents through their electric rates. Today i would like to touch on some of the concerns raised in the Public Comment period by my states public power utilities and by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality regarding mandates from existing power plants. Our state has written that the Building Blocks contain quote inaccurate assumptions and Unrealistic Expectations that will result in goals that may be unattainable regardless of the Emission Reduction strategies employed, unquote. Lets start with Building Block one. The nebraska deq states quote heart rate improvements of 4 to 6 are not achievable at nebraska coal fired plants. Nebraska utilities are required by law to deliver least cost, reliable electricity as such they have implemented most if not all achievable heat rate improvements at existing facilities. I think i said heart rate before. It is heat rate. As you know as a basis for setting the Building Bloc