House Hearing, 113TH Congress - The Obama Administration's Climate Change Policies and Activities
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsHouse Hearing, 113TH Congress - The Obama Administration's Climate Change Policies and Activities
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsTHE OBAMA ADMINISTRATIONS CLIMATE
CHANGE POLICIES AND ACTIVITIES
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
SEPTEMBER 18, 2013
Serial No. 11382
(
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON
87109 PDF
2014
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 5121800; DC area (202) 5121800
Fax: (202) 5122104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 204020001
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 5011
Sfmt 5011
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JOE BARTON, Texas
Chairman Emeritus
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Vice Chairman
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
PETE OLSON, Texas
DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
BILLY LONG, Missouri
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina
SUBCOMMITTEE
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Ranking Member
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
ANNA G. ESHOO, California
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GENE GREEN, Texas
DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado
LOIS CAPPS, California
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
JIM MATHESON, Utah
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
DORIS O. MATSUI, California
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands
KATHY CASTOR, Florida
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
JERRY MCNERNEY, California
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
PETER WELCH, Vermont
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
PAUL TONKO, New York
ON
ENERGY
AND
POWER
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
Chairman
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Vice Chairman
Ranking Member
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JERRY MCNERNEY, California
PAUL TONKO, New York
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
GENE GREEN, Texas
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
LOIS CAPPS, California
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
DORIS O. MATSUI, California
PETE OLSON, Texas
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands
DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado
KATHY CASTOR, Florida
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio)
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio)
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
JOE BARTON, Texas
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
(II)
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 0486
Sfmt 5904
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
C O N T E N T S
Page
Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth
of Kentucky, opening statement .........................................................................
Prepared statement ..........................................................................................
Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California, opening statement .............................................................................
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan,
opening statement ................................................................................................
Prepared statement ..........................................................................................
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York,
opening statement ................................................................................................
1
3
4
5
7
8
WITNESSES
Ernest J. Moniz, Secretary, Department of Energy ..............................................
Prepared statement ..........................................................................................
Answers to submitted questions ......................................................................
Regina McCarthy, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency ................
Prepared statement ..........................................................................................
Answers to submitted questions ......................................................................
9
12
204
30
32
219
SUBMITTED MATERIAL
Report, The Presidents Climate Action Plan, dated June 2013, Executive
Office of the President, submitted by Mr. Whitfield .........................................
Invitations, dated August 6, 2013, and follow-up requests, dated September
4, 2013, submitted by Mr. Whitfield ...................................................................
Hearing memorandum, dated September 16, 2013, submitted by Mr.
Whitfield ...............................................................................................................
Supplement, dated September 2013, Explaining Extreme Events of 2012
From a Climate Perspective, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 94, No. 9, submitted by Mr. Whitfield 1
Charts from report, International Energy Outlook 2013, dated July 2013,
Energy Information Administration, submitted by Mr. Whitfield ...................
Article, Making Energy Access Meaningful, dated Summer 2013, by Morgan
Bazilian and Roger Pielke, Jr., Issues in Science and Technology, submitted
by Mr. Whitfield ...................................................................................................
Report, dated September 17, 2013, Revolution Now: The Future Arrives
for Four Clean Energy Technologies, Department of Energy, submitted
by Mr. Tonko ........................................................................................................
Letter of September 11, 2013, from Jon Bruning, Attorney General, State
of Nebraska, to Gina McCarthy, Administrator, Environmental Protection
Agency, submitted by Mr. Terry .........................................................................
Report, dated August 8, 2013, Human and natural influences on the changing thermal structure of the atmosphere, by Benjamin D. Santer, et al.,
submitted by Mr. Waxman ..................................................................................
1 Internet
link to the supplement is on page 112.
(III)
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 5904
Sfmt 5904
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
39
60
108
113
116
135
161
180
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 5904
Sfmt 5904
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATIONS CLIMATE
CHANGE POLICIES AND ACTIVITIES
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2013
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER,
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:18 a.m., in room
2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Scalise, Hall,
Shimkus, Pitts, Terry, Burgess, Latta, Olson, McKinley, Gardner,
Pompeo, Kinzinger, Griffith, Barton, Upton (ex officio), McNerney,
Tonko, Engel, Green, Capps, Doyle, Barrow, Matsui, Christensen,
Castor, Dingell (ex officio), and Waxman (ex officio).
Also present: Representative Schakowsky.
Staff present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Gary Andres,
Staff Director; Charlotte Baker, Press Secretary; Shawn Bonyun,
Communications Director; Matt Bravo, Professional Staff Member;
Allison Busbee, Policy Coordinator, Energy and Power; Patrick
Currier, Counsel, Energy and Power; Tom Hassenboehler, Chief
Counsel, Energy and Power; Brandon Mooney, Professional Staff
Member; Gib Mullan, Chief Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing,
and Trade; Mary Neumayr, Senior Energy Counsel; Andrew
Powaleny, Deputy Press Secretary; Peter Spencer, Professional
Staff Member, Oversight; Tom Wilbur, Digital Media Advisor; Phil
Barnett, Democratic Staff Director; Alison Cassady, Democratic
Senior Professional Staff Member; Greg Dotson, Democratic Staff
Director, Energy and Environment; Bruce Ho, Democratic Counsel;
Roger Sherman, Democratic Chief Counsel; Ryan Skukowski,
Democratic Staff Assistant; and Alexandra Tietz, Democratic Senior Counsel, Energy and Environment.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to call this hearing to order this
morning. Today, the subcommittee is having a hearing to explore
President Obamas Climate Change Action Plan. And I certainly
want to thank Secretary of Energy, Mr. Moniz; and Gina McCarthy, our new Administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency, for joining us this morning. And I want to be sure we start the
clock so that I dont speak forever because that would be pretty
(1)
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
2
boring for everybody. But I did want to thank you two for being
with us this morning.
I will tell you that I am extremely disappointed. We sent letters
to the Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, Health
and Human Services, Department of the Interior, Department of
State, Transportation, Ex-Im Bank, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the U.S. Agency for International Development because they are very much involved in this Action Plan as well, and they did not send witnesses
to testify.
Now, in June of this year, President Obama went to Georgetown
University and he gave his speech in which he announced a Climate Change Action Plan for America. And in that speech he mentioned that he was tired of excuses for inaction. Now, I am just
going to tell you I take exception to that because in his Action Plan
he included many of the component parts of the cap-and-trade legislation that was considered by the Congress in 2009, the WaxmanMarkey bill. And that legislation passed the House but it did not
pass the U.S. Senate. So, rather than inaction on the part of Congress, Congress made a decision, and that was that it did not want
to adopt that legislation.
So I understand the Presidents view on climate change. And I
would like to predicate this by saying worldwide CO2 emissions last
year amounted to 800 gigatons. Of that, 30 gigatons are caused by
humans. That is 3.75 percent of all worldwide emissions come from
human activity. So the question becomes if you have a broad spectrum of action on this plan, and we know that it is one of the Presidents priorities and we know that in the last 4 or 5 years we spent
$70 billion on climate change, this year we expect to spend $22 billion.
So what we are focused on this morning is we want to know
more about the plan. Is it going to contribute to higher energy
costs? Is it going to raise unemployment rates? Is it going to create
obstacles to economic growth? Is it going to have an impact on our
ability to compete in the global marketplace?
And I specifically wanted to read from some headlines in newspapers around Europe and elsewhere about this issue. And all of
these were within the last 3 months. Support for the European
Unions climate and energy policy eroded further Friday as the
Czech Republic became the latest member to denounce subsidies
for clean but costly renewable energy and pledged to use more fossil fuels. Europes industry is being ravaged by exorbitant energy
costs. Europes quixotic dash for renewables is pushing electricity
costs to untenable levels. We cant sacrifice Europes industry for
climate goals that are not realistic. The European Unions energy
and climate policy is in disarray and losing credibility. Utilities
are turning to coal and cheap lignite, emitting more CO2 than
ever. Europe faces a crisis in energy cost.
As you know, the new government in Australia, as their first
order of business, have decided to repeal the carbon tax legislation.
They also plan to abolish the Climate Commission, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and the Climate Change Authority.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
3
Now, so far in the year 2012, 375 coal units at power plants in
America are closing, 294 of them because of EPA regulations. In
the first half of 2013, 151 coal mines in America have closed.
So this is a discussion today that we recognize we have different
views on, but we are trying to make a sincere effort to understand
the ramifications, the impact of climate change. As a Congress, we
have the responsibility, with all of this money being spent, to get
a better feel of what is the government really doing? Because it is
comprehensive. It spreads throughout the entire government. And
this hearing is about how we want to know what is going on, and
we are going to back to every one of those agencies that I mentioned earlier, whether we sit down with them individually or as
a committee. We want to know and understand precisely what is
going on.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:]
PREPARED
STATEMENT OF
HON. ED WHITFIELD
In late June, President Obama released his Climate Action Plan, which broadly
outlined a variety of executive actions for Federal agencies to implement the administrations climate policies.
On August 6, I wrote thirteen of these agencies, including the White House
science advisors office, requesting testimony and specific information about each
agencys climate-related activities and the coordination of that activity across the
Federal Government.
Despite six weeks notice, we will not get many answers today. Eleven agencies
requested to testifytwice, I might adddid not provide a witness or submit information about agency activity to the subcommittee. That does not send a positive
message for increased public understanding of what this administration is doing on
an economically consequential policy matter.
The point of my request was for the subcommittee to examine the scope of Federal
climate change actions that have been tolling billions of dollars a year in spending
and countless man-hours of work since the mid-1990s, reaching over $22 billion this
year alone. The State Department reports that over the period 20102012, the U.S.
provided over $7.5 billion in foreign assistance to address climate change.
This is an oversight hearing. Congress needs specific information from the administration to evaluate the Federal Governments current and planned regulatory actions. Without this information, the public is left out of the debate, without knowing
the extent of agency activity, whether it effectively addresses the established risks,
or what it really will accomplish.
Whatever you think about managing future climate or global warming risks, oversight of theadministrations plans to respond to those risks is critical for Congress
to make sound economic and policy decisions. Federal agencies must account transparently for the effectiveness and impact of their actionsespecially when a number
of these actions collide directly with Americans efforts to develop our diverse energy
resources, which are so vital to economic strength and competitiveness.
Today we will hear from the heads of two Federal agencies, who I have a high
respect for, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthyboth of whom are aware of my serious concerns with the direction of the administrations climate change policies, especially those being implemented by the
EPA.
The Presidents global warming agenda being implemented through the EPA has
been holding back the economy which continues to struggle. Since 2009, the agency
has been busy imposing costly requirements on coal-fired electricity and other fossil
fuels while targeting manufacturers with new regulatory burdens, only increasing
to the economic uncertainty. This week, EPA is expected to release their proposal
to control greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, one that is almost certain
to further the economic uncertainty facing our Nations utilities and have devastating effects on our communities and most importantly, the consumers who pay
their electricity bills every month.
In my view, this is not a sound economic and climate policy. There is a better
path forward, one that stops treating affordable domestic energy and a strong economy as part of the problem and embraces them as a vital part of the solution.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
4
In a number of subcommittee hearings we have explored the ingredients for U.S.
economic resurgence. This resurgence in good part depends upon access to affordable and reliable electricity, energy diversity, and embracing the tremendous opportunities presented with our new-found oil and natural gas abundance.
Weve begun to see early fruits of what this resurgence could be in the tremendous jobs creation and economic vitality from the shale gas revolution. IHS Global
Insight recently reported that this energy revolution has already increased average
household income by an average of $1,200 in 2012, a figure that is projected to grow
to $2,700 in 7 years. Households are spending less on electricity and less on goods
and services within the broader economy, all because of less expensive energy.
Building on this momentum, we should set policies that ensure energy access and
establish prudent future planning, through electric grid reliability, expanded energy
infrastructures of pipelines, roads, ports, increased R&D for energy, agriculture, and
increased coal, LNG, and nuclear exports that carry U.S. energy access the world
over.
Last week, a delegation from Bangladesh visited me to explain their need for U.S.
expertise and help particularly in gaining access to coal-fired electricity. With only
about 47 percent of their population having access to electricity, Bangladesh is one
of the most energy poor nations on the planet, and one particularly susceptible to
extreme weather events, but the World Bank, reflecting the administrations climate
policy, had recently turned down funding for Bangladeshi coal development. So
today, I hope we can examine how agency priorities meet our positive vision and
agenda for economic growth.
I recently read an article that stated that the arctic ice had nearly a million more
square miles of ocean covered with ice than at this time last year. But, this hearing
is not about the failure of predictions that summer arctic would be ice-free by this
year, the 15-year pause in global temperature rise, or the rush to call every horrible
weather disaster an omen of climate doom. Clear away the gloom and doom tactics
and there are serious issues to address, such as what is needed to build our economy or to bring meaningful energy access to Bangladesh, but you have to be serious
about it. I look forward to hearing from our two agencies today on exactly what the
administrations climate plan entails for a vision of economic resurgence and energy
access to all.
Mr. WHITFIELD. So, once again, Mr. Secretary and Madam Administrator, thank you for being with us.
At this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Todays hearing is the first time in a long time that this committee is holding a hearing on climate change. I welcome this hearing, and I want to commend Chairman Upton and Chairman
Whitfield for holding it. Climate change is the biggest energy challenge we face and a clear and present danger to the United States
and to the world.
I also commend the administration for sending Energy Secretary
Ernie Moniz and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to testify. It
is unusual to have two Cabinet Secretaries testifying at a subcommittee hearing. Your presence makes it clear how seriously the
administration is taking this hearing.
As Secretary Moniz explains in his statement, the scientific evidence is overwhelming. That is why the President released a comprehensive Climate Action Plan in June. His plan is reasonable, it
is affordable, and it will protect our atmosphere for our children
and future generations. It will make our country the global leader
in the clean energy economy of the future.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
5
In past hearings and markups and in debates on the floor, Republicans on this committee and in the House have opposed many
elements included in the Presidents plan. Last Congress, the
House voted 53 times to block action on climate change.
This Congress, the House has already voted to slash funds for research into clean energy and energy efficiency. House appropriators
voted to eliminate funding for international negotiations on the climate treaty. And our committee even refused to listen to the scientists. Over the last 2 years, subcommittee Ranking Member
Rush and I have written 27 letters requesting hearings on climate
change. And until today, no hearing was ever scheduled. I hope
today will mark the start of a change in approach.
That is why my question for House Republicans is simple. What
is your plan? If you dont like the Presidents plan, what is your
proposal? The President has said he is willing to listen to other
ideas for protecting our planet and fulfilling our moral obligation
to future generations. What are yours?
Yesterday, I held a forum with the members of the Safe Climate
Caucus to hear from Americans who are already experiencing the
impacts of climate change. From California to New York, from Iowa
to Texas, we heard stories of wildfires, droughts, floods, sea level
rise, and record temperatures. Their accounts were moving and
powerful. These extreme weather events are happening now and
they are costing lives, destroying livelihoods, eliminating jobs, creating billion-dollar disaster relief legislation.
We need to start addressing this enormous threat now. The
longer we wait, the more damage we will cause, the more deeply
we will need to cut carbon pollution, the bigger the bill will be for
taxpayers, and the further we will fall behind China and Germany
in the race to develop the new energy technologies of the future.
The President was right. We dont have time for another meeting
of the Flat Earth Society. Saying no to every solution is not a plan.
Doing nothing is not a plan. If all the Republicans on this committee do today is criticize, they are either denying the science or
ignoring it. No one can accept what the scientists are telling us and
fail to support a plan of action.
That is why I hope we can move past denial and start a constructive dialogue. Secretary Moniz and Administrator McCarthy have
both told me they want to work with the stakeholders in implementing the Presidents plan. They would welcome working with
Congress, especially with this committee, which has vast jurisdiction over our Nations energy policies.
We should listen closely to their testimony today. Where we disagree, lets offer alternative solutions. The climate clock is ticking
and too much is at stake for more politics as usual.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this chance for an opening statement.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Waxman.
At this time, I would like to recognize the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
6
Todays hearing is about oversight of the Presidents climate
change policies and activities, and it is disappointing that 11 agencies, which had ample notice to identify witnesses, including scientists, and work with staff to accommodate them on different panels, chose instead to decline our request. Climate policy is a central
feature of this administrations energy policy, and given the tens of
billions of dollars currently being spent on climate activities, there
is no good reason for so many agencies to decide that they cannot
testify before this committee.
When the administration first attempted to impose its climate
policies on the American public through the cap-and-trade legislation, we needed a reality check, and at that time, it was noted that
without meaningful international participation, jobs and emissions
would simply shift overseas and there would be no meaningful impact on global carbon emissions, or the temperature changes that
may result from those emissions. Other nations would continue to
seek to grow their own economies and would naturally take advantage of U.S. economic and manufacturing weakness. And we heard
that first hand in this committee.
Last week, the Labor Department reported that there are still
11.3 million people unemployed, including 4.3 million long-term unemployed, and 7.9 million involuntary part-time workers, whose
hours have been cut back or are unable to find full-time jobs. It
makes no sense to impose an ineffectual and economically harmful
energy policy, one I would remind folks that was rejected through
the front door here in the Congress by Senate Democrats.
Unfortunately, the administration is now working to circumvent
Congress through the backdoor, seeking to regulate what it was
unable to legislate no matter perhaps what the cost to jobs and the
economy really is. Thoughtful oversight is necessary so that the
public can understand more clearly what is happening and what
the impacts of the administrations climate policies may be. And I
believe that it is a disservice to the public to suggest a policy approach will meaningfully address climate risks when in fact it will
not, despite tens of billions of dollars spent and countless jobs lost.
So today, with the help of the private innovation and Americas
newfound energy abundance, the U.S. indeed is the envy of the
world as it relates to energy access and the safe and responsible
development of energy resources. We stand at the very threshold
of profound economic opportunity for the Nation and its future generations.
So we should pursue constructing a new architecture of abundance as a central feature for future economic strength and to provide the economic foundation to address climate risks. There
should be no question that the economic wherewithal fostered by
Americas energy resurgence will provide a wide avenue for innovation that will answer energy and environmental challenges of the
future.
Yes, it is good to have Secretary Moniz and Administrator
McCarthy before us this morning. You two stand at the center of
energy policy in this Nation and your agencies will play either positive or negative roles to ensure a strong, vibrant, and innovative
energy sector in the future.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
7
My interest is to understand how you intend to address the new
realities of American energy abundance, and what your respective
agencies roles should be in promoting access to abundant, affordable energy resources that are so necessary to meeting future challenges in making our Nation more competitive. I look forward to
having that discussion.
And I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
PREPARED
STATEMENT OF
HON. FRED UPTON
Todays hearing is about oversight of the Presidents climate change policies and
activities. It is disappointing that 11 agencies, which had ample notice to identify
witnesses, including scientists, and work with staff to accommodate them on different panels, chose instead to decline our request. Climate policy is a central feature of this administrations energy policy, and given the billions of dollars currently
being spent on climate activities, there is no good reason for so many agencies to
decide they cannot testify before this committee.
When the administration first attempted to impose its climate policies on the
American public via cap-andtrade legislation in 2009, we needed a reality check.
At that time, it was noted that without meaningful international participation,
jobs and emissions would simply shift overseasand there would be no meaningful
impact on global carbon emissions, or the temperature changes that may result from
those emissions. Other nations would continue to seek to grow their own economies
and would naturally take advantage of U.S. economic and manufacturing weakness.
Last week the Labor Department reported that there are still 11.3 million people
unemployed, including 4.3 million long-term unemployed, and 7.9 million involuntary part-time workers, whose hours have been cut back or are unable to find fulltime jobs.
It makes no sense to impose an ineffectual and economically harmful energy policyone I would remind folks that was rejected through the front door here in Congress by Senate Democrats. Unfortunately, the administration is now working to circumvent Congress through the back doorseeking to regulate what it was unable
to legislate no matter what the cost to jobs and the economy. Thoughtful oversight
is necessary so the public can understand more clearly what is happening, and what
the impacts of the administrations climate policies may be. And I believe it is a disservice to the public to suggest a policy approach will meaningfully address climate
risks when in effect it will not, despite tens of billions of dollars spent and countless
jobs lost.
Today, with the help of private innovation and Americas newfound energy abundance, the U.S. is the envy of the world as it relates to energy access and the safe
and responsible development of energy resources. We stand at the threshold of profound economic opportunity for the Nation and its future generations.
We should pursue constructing a new architecture of abundance as a central feature for future economic strength and to provide the economic foundation to address
climate risks. There should be no question that the economic wherewithal fostered
by Americas energy resurgence will provide a wide avenue for innovation that will
answer energy and environmental challenges of the future.
It is good to have Secretary Moniz and Administrator McCarthy before us this
morning. You two stand at the center of energy policy in this Nation and your agencies will play either positive or negative roles to ensure a strong, vibrant, and innovative energy sector in the future.
My interest is to understand how you intend to address the new realities of American energy abundance, and what your respective agencies roles should be in promoting access to abundant, affordable energy resources that are so necessary to
meeting future challenges. I look forward to having that discussion.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back.
At this time I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Tonko, for a 5-minute opening statement.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
8
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Chair
Whitfield, for holding this very important hearing.
The International Panel on Climate Change will soon issue its
latest report summarizing the findings of recent climate science.
That report is likely to reiterate the message they sent us 5 years
ago. Greenhouse gases continue to rise in the atmosphere, the
planet is warming, sea level is rising, and a significant degree of
this change is attributable to human activities. We are seeing the
impacts already. Higher sea levels create more perilous conditions
when hurricanes approach the coast. Higher temperatures enhance
drought conditions, creating significant losses for farmers and
ranchers and set the stage for more intense, widespread forest
fires.
Our infrastructure, our communities, and our economy are all
vulnerable to these changes. Add to these facts that our infrastructure is aging and we are neglecting to maintain the very systems
that we rely on to support a modern, thriving society. We can continue along our current path leaving State and local governments
to fend for themselves, patching things together as they wear out,
are damaged, or are destroyed. Or we can use the tremendous intellectual and entrepreneurial resources that we have to address
the challenge of climate change.
Our current path of inaction leaves tremendous opportunities for
job creation, for social progress, and for economic growth untapped.
It wastes resources, especially human resources. President Obama
realizes this and has offered a modest, balanced plan to reduce
greenhouse gases and to rebuild and redesign the modern and resilient infrastructure that we require for the future.
The administrations plan seeks to realize the potential of new,
cleaner energy technologies. At the same time, the plan recognizes
the important role that fossil fuels play in our economy. We continue to use these fuels, as will other nations, but that does not
mean we need to use them inefficiently or without regard to the increasing risk that they pose for the future of our planet.
Our citizens could be employed building our 21st century transportation, energy, and water infrastructure. Our manufacturers
could be supplying the parts and equipment for a modern electric
grid, a high-speed rail, wind farms, combined heat and power systems, energy-efficient vehicles, fuel cells, and advanced batteries.
Other nations are moving forward incentivizing and assisting their
industries and positioning themselves and their citizens for the future. They are thinking long-term while we subject to our Nation
to unnecessary austerity and an endless series of stop-gap funding
bills. This is not the bold and inspired thinking that created this
Nation and made it the great nation that it is.
No one set out to change the chemistry of our atmosphere and
a set our planet on a new climate trajectory, but it has happened
and we must act, act now to slow this process and adapt to the new
conditions. The Presidents plan is a fine start. I am very pleased
that we have Secretary Moniz and Administrator McCarthy here
with us today. These two officials and their agencies are tasked
with a great deal of responsibility for making this plan a success.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
9
Thank you both for being here this morning. I hope this is not our
last hearing on this topic and that we will have additional opportunities to hear from other Federal agencies. There is a lot of work
to do and we have wasted too much time already.
Thank you again, Chair Whitfield, for holding this very important hearing, and with that, I yield back.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time, we will
begin with Secretary Moniz, 5 minutes for his opening statement.
And once again, Mr. Secretary, thanks for joining us this morning.
Be sure and turn your microphone on.
STATEMENTS OF ERNEST J. MONIZ, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; AND REGINA MCCARTHY, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STATEMENT OF ERNEST J. MONIZ
Mr. MONIZ. Thank you. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and
Ranking Member Waxman, members of the committee. Thank you
for the opportunity to speak about the Presidents Climate Action
Plan and in particular the DOEs role in its implementation.
I will start with saying, again, the evidence is overwhelming; the
science is clear. The threat from climate change is real and urgent.
And the basic science behind climate change is simple: carbon dioxide makes the earth warmer and we are emitting more and more
of it into the atmosphere at a rate that has long been understood
to have a material cumulative impact on a scale measured in decades, not centuries.
This increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas above all from the
combustion of fossil fuels is affecting the climate. Carbon dioxide
is particularly important both because of the magnitude of the
emissions and because it is long lived in the atmosphere. Again, all
of this was known a long time ago. What was not anticipated was
the pace at which energy needs would grow to serve 7 billion people on the planet with rapid industrialization. Every ton we emit
now irreversibly commits our children and grandchildren to the
risk of climate disruption.
Now, while we cannot attribute any particular storm, for example, to climate change, cumulatively, we can say that rising sea levels, increasingly severe droughts, heat waves, wildfires, and major
storms are amplified by a warming climate. This is already costing
our economy billions of dollars a year, and common sense and prudence demanded that we take action. So that is the driving force
behind the Presidents Climate Action Plan, and its three pillars
are to cut carbon pollution domestically, to prepare for the worsening impacts of climate change, and to lead international efforts
to combat climate change and prepare for its impacts.
My main focus today will be on what the U.S. can do domestically to reduce carbon pollution, and in particular, on DOEs role
in the Climate Action Plan. Of course, many other agencies have
critical roles as well. First, we must use our energy more intelligently. I am committed to energy efficiency both to achieve reductions in carbon emissions and to reduce energy bills for families
and businesses. The Department of Energy also plays a central role
in developing the low carbon technologies of the future. Coal and
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
10
natural gas will remain significant sources of energy in the years
to come, and that is why DOE has issued a draft solicitation for
$1 billion in loan guarantees for advanced fossil energy technologies that reduce carbon emissions. In addition, DOE has already committed $6 billion on clean coal technologies all with the
goal of enabling the use of fossil fuels and a carbon-constrained
world.
Some of the most impressive energy developments in recent
years have been in renewable energy technology. DOE recently released a paper called Revolution Now that outlines some of these
critical clean energy developments for wind, solar, LEDs, and EV
batteries. The key message is the pattern of dramatic cost reductions, strong government RD&D and supportive policy, and rapidly
increasing deployment, much like the story of unconventional natural gas production that unfolded over the last 30 years.
A clear indicator of the Nations energy system transformation is
the business model evolution taking place in the utilities sector in
response to energy efficiency and renewable energy market trends.
Changes in energy technologies take time, sustained investment,
and stable policies. Even in this age of budget austerity we need
to ensure that we continue to invest in clean energy.
As part of the Presidents Climate Action Plan, the Department
of energy will also assist in the development of the Quadrennial
Energy Review.
Now, while we must take action to reduce the carbon pollution
that causes global warming, impacts from climate change are already here and more are on the way. Let me highlight just one
project that demonstrates how we are approaching this in terms of
infrastructure resilience. In the aftermath of Sandy, the vulnerability of our electricity and fuels infrastructure to severe storms
and flooding was evident. Recently, I was in New Jersey to sign an
MOU with Governor Christie and the New Jersey Transit Corporation to design a micro-grid that will provide reliable distributed
power for a critical transportation corridor. This is an example of
the sort of smart infrastructure we will need throughout the country, and this can provide a first-of-its-kind example for the Nation.
It also exemplifies our commitment to work more closely with State
and local governments.
The third part of the Presidents plan is leading international efforts to address climate change. A global effort will be required to
future climate damages. Here at DOE we are focused on helping
countries around the world expand the use of clean energy, improve energy efficiency, and strengthen global preparedness and resilience to climate change. While the State Department has the
lead on international negotiations such as phasing down HFCs, domestic clean energy success will allow America to lead by example
and at the same time to open up business opportunities for U.S.
companies as a huge global market for clean energy opens up over
the next decade.
In conclusion, history has repeatedly shown that we can grow the
economy while making tremendous strides in reducing pollution.
We will need our smartest scientists, our brightest engineers, and
visionary policymakers to get this done. The President has put
forth a smart and prudent plan to slow global warming, to prepare
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
11
for worsening climate impacts, and to ensure a safer, healthier future for our children and grandchildren. And I might add my
grandchildren are 8 and 10 years old, so I am excited to be part
of the Presidents plan to reduce the risks of climate change.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moniz follows:]
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.001
12
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.002
13
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.003
14
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.004
15
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.005
16
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.006
17
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.007
18
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.008
19
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.009
20
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.010
21
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.011
22
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.012
23
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.013
24
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.014
25
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.015
26
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.016
27
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.017
28
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.018
29
30
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
And Madam Administrator McCarthy, you are recognized for 5
minutes for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF REGINA MCCARTHY
Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, Congressman
Waxman, members of the committee.
In June, the President reaffirmed his commitment to reducing
carbon pollution when he directed many Federal agencies, including the EPA, to take meaningful steps to mitigate the current and
future damage caused by carbon dioxide emissions and to prepare
for climate changes that have been set in motion.
Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time.
Over 97 percent of climate scientists are convinced that humancaused climate change is occurring. If our changing climate goes
unchecked, it will have devastating impacts on the United States
and on our planet. Responding to climate change is an urgent public health, safety, national security, and environmental imperative
that presents an economic challenge as well as an economic opportunity. Both the economy and the environment must provide for
current and future generations. We can and must embrace cutting
carbon pollution as a spark for innovation, for job growth, clean energy, and economic growth. The Nations success over the past 40
years makes clear that environmental protection and economic
growth do go hand-in-hand.
The Presidents Climate Action Plan directs Federal agencies to
address climate change using our existing authorities. The plan has
three key pillars: cutting carbon pollution in America, preparing for
impacts of a changing climate, and leading international efforts to
combat climate change.
EPA plays a critical role in the plans first pillar, which is cutting
carbon pollution. Over the past 4 years, EPA has begun to address
this task. In 2010 EPA and the National Highway Transportation
and Safety Administration along with the auto industry and other
stakeholders, worked together to set greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for model years 2012 to 2025 light-duty vehicles.
Over the life of those vehicles, the standards will save an estimated
$1.7 trillion for consumers. It will cut Americas oil consumption by
12 billion barrels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6 billion
metric tons.
EPA and NHTSAs standards for model year 2014 through 2018
heavy-duty trucks and buses present a similar success story. Under
the Presidents plan, we will be developing a second phase of
heavy-duty vehicle standards for post-2018 model years.
Building on that success, the President asked EPA to work with
States, utilities, and other key stakeholders to develop plans to reduce carbon pollution from both future as well as existing power
plants.
EPA will soon propose carbon pollution standards for future
power plants, reflecting new information and the extensive public
comment that we received on our 2012 proposal. For existing
plants, we are already engaged in outreach to States and a broad
group of stakeholders with expertise who can help inform the development of proposed standards, which we expect to issue in June
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
31
of 2014. Using these standards, States will have the primary role
in developing and implementing plans to address carbon pollution
from existing plans, allowing us to capitalize on State leadership
and innovation while accounting for regional diversity and providing ample flexibility.
The plan also calls for the development of a comprehensive strategy to address methane emissions. EPA will work with other agencies to reduce these emissions through incentive-based programs.
The Presidents plan also calls for a broad array of actions to
strengthen Americas resilience to climate impacts. EPA will incorporate research on impacts into implementation of our existing programs and we will develop information and tools to help decisionmakers, including States, localities, and tribes, to better understand and address the current effects and the future effects that we
know are coming in a changing climate. EPA is working closely
with our Federal agency counterparts on building national resilience, including developing the National Drought Resilience Partnership, ensuring the security of our freshwater supplies and protecting our water utilities.
The Presidents plan recognizes that we must couple action at
home with leadership abroad. Working closely with the State Department, EPA will continue to engage our international partners
in efforts to reduce carbon pollution through activities, including
public-private partnership efforts to address methane emissions
and other short-lived climate pollutants.
In conclusion, the Presidents plan provides a roadmap for Federal action to meet the challenges of a changing climate, to promote
clean energy solutions that capitalize on American innovation and
that drive economic growth.
Thank you again and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:]
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.019
32
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.020
33
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.021
34
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.022
35
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.023
36
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.024
37
38
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Madam McCarthy.
And before I begin my questions, I would like to ask unanimous
consent to introduce a few relevant documents into the record. I
would like to enter, one, the Presidents Climate Action Plan; two,
the invitation letter sent to the Federal agencies requesting witnesses today, the majority committee staff hearing memorandum.
In addition, I would like to enter the special supplement to the
bulletin of the American Meteorological Society released this month
and entitled Explaining Extreme Events of 2012 from a Climate
Perspective; excerpts from the Energy Information Administrations annual Energy Outlook 2013, including a chart reflecting
world energy-related carbon dioxide emissions 1990 to 2040 and a
table reflecting world carbon dioxide emissions by region and country for 1990 through 2040; and finally, an article entitled Making
Energy Access Meaningful published this summer in the National
Academy of Sciences publication Issues in Science and Technology. Without objection, the documents will be entered into the
record.
[The information follows:]
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.025
39
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.026
40
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.027
41
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.028
42
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.029
43
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.030
44
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.031
45
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.032
46
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.033
47
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.034
48
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.035
49
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.036
50
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.037
51
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.038
52
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.039
53
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.040
54
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.041
55
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.042
56
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.043
57
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.044
58
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.045
59
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.046
60
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.047
61
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.048
62
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.049
63
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.050
64
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.051
65
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.052
66
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.053
67
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.054
68
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.055
69
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.056
70
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.057
71
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.058
72
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.059
73
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.060
74
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.061
75
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.062
76
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.063
77
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.064
78
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.065
79
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.066
80
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.067
81
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.068
82
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.069
83
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.070
84
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.071
85
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.072
86
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.073
87
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.074
88
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.075
89
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.076
90
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.077
91
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.078
92
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.079
93
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.080
94
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.081
95
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.082
96
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.083
97
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.084
98
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.085
99
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.086
100
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.087
101
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.088
102
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.089
103
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.090
104
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.091
105
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.092
106
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.093
107
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.094
108
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.095
109
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.096
110
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.097
111
112
[The American Meteorological Society bulletin supplement is
available
at
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20130918/
101308/HHRG-113-IF03-20130918-SD011.pdf.]
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.098
113
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.099
114
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.100
115
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.101
116
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.102
117
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.103
118
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.104
119
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.105
120
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.106
121
122
Mr. WHITFIELD. And at this time I will recognize myself for 5
minutes of questions.
Recently, during the August break, I spent time at some universities in the State of Kentucky, and in talking to students, one of
their major concerns was trying to find a job upon graduation. And
I started thinking about that and I went back and I looked at the
last 62 years the unemployment rate in America, and the last 4
years, 2009 through 2012, the unemployment rate has been higher
in America than at any time in the last 62 years except for 3 of
those years.
Now, in his speech to Georgetown University, the President specifically said that as we transition, try to make this transition,
which we know cannot be done overnight, and the President frequently talks about an all-of-the-above policy, but America is the
only country in the world where you cannot build a new coal-powered plant because the emission standards cannot be met because
the technology is not available. And we know that regulations on
existing plants are going to be coming out in 2014 in June.
But in that speech, the President said in talking about his Action
Plan, that we must provide special programs for people who lose
their jobs. And as I quote it, there have been significant closures
of electricity production plants using coal, and over 151 coalmines
have been closed. So I would ask either one of you what are the
special plans in the Presidents Action Plan to help address these
people who are losing their jobs because of these policies?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, let me begin. I just want to indicate that I think that I am sensitive and certainly the Environmental Protection Agency has been sensitive that as we pursue our
mission to protect public health and the environment, we have to
be sensitive to the economic consequences of our actions
Mr. WHITFIELD. Then, Ms. McCarthy
Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Particularly
Mr. WHITFIELD [continuing]. Do you know specifically what plan
is in effect? He talked about we are going to have the special plans
to address the concerns of these people who lose their jobs.
Ms. MCCARTHY. I am not familiar with the details of those plans,
but I am familiar
Mr. WHITFIELD. OK.
Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. From reading the Climate Action
Mr. WHITFIELD. OK.
Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Plan that the President
Mr. WHITFIELD. OK.
Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Sees this as both a challenge as
well as an economic
Mr. WHITFIELD. OK.
Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Opportunity for this
Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, in looking at the organization chart for the
Climate Action Plan, I notice that there is one chart under the Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy referred to as the Green
Cabinet. How does the Green Cabinet differentiate from the regular Presidential Cabinet?
Mr. MONIZ. Mr. Chairman, so the Green Cabinet denotes that
there are occasional meeting of principals from the agencies who
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
123
have special responsibility in the climate action plan so we can get
together and discuss coordination of programs, make sure there are
not duplications. So it is a subgroup of the Cabinet who again
meets periodically together with key White House presidential assistants to discuss the general set of issues
Mr. WHITFIELD. Um-hum.
Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. Around climate change.
Mr. WHITFIELD. And who is the person at the Department of Energy responsible for the coordination of all the task forces relating
to climate change in the government?
Mr. MONIZ. Well, of course, I consider myself as having ultimate
responsibility
Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, but
Mr. MONIZ. The action officer
Mr. WHITFIELD [continuing]. You have designated a
Mr. MONIZ. The action officer, if you like, is my Chief of Staff,
Kevin Knobloch, who is keeping track of all of our responsibilities
under the CAP.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Kevin Knobloch?
Mr. MONIZ. Yes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. And, Ms. McCarthy, who is your designated person for this?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Again, I have ultimate responsibility. We have
two primary components. We have a mitigation strategy, which we
are managing out of our office in Air and Radiation primarily. That
would be Janet McCabe, who is currently the acting assistant administrator. On the adaptation side, which is looking at climate resilience and preparedness we had our Office of Policy that is directed by associate administrator Michael Goo.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, I noticed the GAO or in the budget there
is $22 billion allocated for climate change Action Plan for 2013.
How much of that money will be allocated to EPA?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I am sorry. Could you repeat the question, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. WHITFIELD. There is 22 billion planned to be spent in fiscal
year 2013. How much of that money was allocated to EPA?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I cant answer that question, sir, but I am happy
to follow it up.
Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Do you know from the Secretary of Energys
position, Secretary Moniz, how much of the 22 billion
Mr. MONIZ. Well, I think the problem, first of all, is how one
counts. For example, if we count our energy efficiency programs,
which of course have the objective of saving money and also
Mr. WHITFIELD. OK.
Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. Would be part of the solution for climate
change, well, then, lets add 1 billion there.
Mr. WHITFIELD. OK.
Mr. MONIZ. So if we talk about all the programs that are helpful
for climate change
Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes.
Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. Then we are talking about $5 billion
Mr. WHITFIELD. OK.
Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. Mostly in our R&D budget, but as I say,
most of that is for, you know, efficiency, nuclear power
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
124
Mr. WHITFIELD. Um-hum.
Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. Clean technologies, actually, we can
throw in fusion. The one exception one might say is the substantial
resources we devote to carbon capture and sequestration specifically to make coal competitive in a low-carbon world.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. My time is expired. I recognize Mr.
Waxman for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. WAXMAN. Secretary Moniz, in your testimony you describe
the dangers we face from climate change. Is it too late to protect
the planet from the worst effects of climate change?
Mr. MONIZ. Well, first of all, I think it is clear we cannot avoid
implications. We are seeing them today. In my view this decade is
the critical one that we need to move out smartly and smartly
Mr. WAXMAN. How much time do we have?
Mr. MONIZ. Well
Mr. WAXMAN. Can we afford to wait to act?
Mr. MONIZ. It will be a long-term commitment, but we have to
act in this decade because, as I said, the CO2 problem is cumulative and every ton we emit, you can check it off against our children and grandchildren.
Mr. WAXMAN. My concern is that we are facing this urgent
threat, but all Congress is doing is getting in the way.
This Congress has rightly been called the do-nothing Congress.
But on climate we are doing worse than nothing. We are affirmatively obstructing progress.
Administrator McCarthy, you have been accused of leading a war
on coal. But in 2009 the President supported market-based legislation to make major carbon pollution reductions while investing $60
billion to develop clean coal technologies like carbon capture and
sequestration, isnt that right?
Ms. MCCARTHY. That is my understanding.
Mr. WAXMAN. The chairman said that this is the only country in
the world where new coal plants cannot be built. You havent released any regulations to prevent coal plants from being built, have
you?
Ms. MCCARTHY. We have not, no.
Mr. WAXMAN. At the time, our bill was criticized for being too
generous to the coal industry. But virtually all the Republicans on
this committee and the coal industry opposed the legislation despite its massive investment in that industry. We wanted to invest
in innovative approaches so that coal could still be used, but Republicans opposed us.
Last year, I tried a different approach. I wrote an op-ed calling
for an emissions fee that would put a price on carbon. I even said
that I would support using the revenues raised to reduce other
taxes. But Republicans in the House also opposed this approach.
Republicans outside the House, some of them, supported it. In fact,
House Republicans opposed every idea that has been raised for addressing climate change.
Administrator McCarthy, you promulgated regulations last Congress reducing carbon pollution from cars and trucks. House Republicans voted to strip you of the authority to regulate those emissions, isnt that right?
Ms. MCCARTHY. That is my understanding.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
125
Mr. WAXMAN. They also voted to strip EPA of authority to regulate carbon pollution from power plants, isnt that right?
Ms. MCCARTHY. That is right.
Mr. WAXMAN. Secretary Moniz, I have heard some Republicans
say that they like the idea of energy efficiency. But when I look at
their record, they voted to block enforcement of requirements for
energy-efficient light bulbs and they have reported a budget for
your department for next year that would cut funding for energyefficiency programs. The same is true for investments in research
to develop the solar, wind, and other clean energy technologies of
the future.
Secretary Moniz, within your department there is a division
called ARPAE, which invests in advanced energy research
projects. It is widely praised by the scientific and research communities for finding breakthrough technology. Yet this year, the House
Appropriations Committee voted to slash its budget by over 80 percent, isnt that right?
Mr. MONIZ. Yes, that is correct, sir.
Mr. WAXMAN. In this committee I often hear Republican members argue against U.S. efforts to do anything about reducing emissions because our Nation would be at a competitive disadvantage.
They say we need a global approach.
But then the House Appropriations Committee votes to defund
the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is the
international body charged with negotiating an international climate treaty. Last Congress, House Republicans also voted to
defund not only our international efforts but defund our governments lead climate negotiator.
Add it all up, what do you have? House Republicans have voted
against climate change legislation, they voted against climate regulation, they have voted against climate research and development,
and they voted against international climate efforts.
It is an appalling record. And it is why my question to them is,
What is your plan? It is easy to criticize other peoples solutions.
But if all you do is criticize, you are either a climate denier because
you dont think anything needs to be done, the science doesnt warrant it, it is not happening, or they are ignoring the warning of scientists. Secretary Moniz told us that we have a very narrow window to act. We should be starting to act now, and that is why we
need to stop ignoring the scientists and start listening to them, Mr.
Chairman.
So tell us what your plan is, dont just criticize, because we are
facing a serious problem not for the future but right now with extreme weather events.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlemans time is expired.
At this time I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Upton, for 5 minutes.
Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, I think that it is important as we conduct oversight
of agency actions on climate change and energy that we also reflect
on the statutory frameworks of the agencies implementing such
policy. And as an example, a point that I like to make is, as we
reflect back on DOEs energy coordination role, it was developed
frankly back at the time of energy constraints, way back in the
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
126
1970s. I think you would agree, Dr. Moniz, that we are currently
in a new era of North American energy abundance. Now, where I
believe, and I think the stats will show that as well, that we can
actually be energy independent for North America by using all of
our resources that are available. And I would like you to comment
on that as part of the record.
Mr. MONIZ. And certainly, Mr. Chairman, the President and I
both are very supportive of all-of-the-above energy strategy within
a world where we are working to reduce CO2 emissions.
Mr. UPTON. And I know on page 10 of the Presidents Climate
Action Plan, the natural gas bullet, it refers to natural gas as a
bridge fuel. And is it the policy of DOE to consider natural gas as
a bridge fuel?
Mr. MONIZ. Well, our policy is to do what we can to support
clean, safe production of natural gas, and I might add also of socalled unconventional oil.
Mr. UPTON. So as we look at what you may be doing as an agency to approve or consider export applications for LNG, is it bridge
fuel? Is that part of the discussion or the debate?
Mr. MONIZ. No, sir, that has not been part of the discussion to
date. I mean our approach to the LNG exports is by law to approve
them unless we rule an application as not in the public interest.
A public interest determination has many facets. We have just
given, as you know, another two applications conditional approvals
recently. I should emphasize that the final approval will require
the environmental review through FERC and then coming back to
the Department of Energy.
Mr. UPTON. I just know as I look at the situation, particularly
as we try to become North American energy independent, the new
discoveries and fields that we have been able to find of natural gas
are an exciting, positive change. We look at the advent of the manufacture of vehicles, passenger vehicles perhaps using natural gas.
We look at some of the large fleets some of our businesses, whether
they be UPS or AT&T and others being able to convert those vehicles to natural gas. I have a major manufacturer in my district,
Eaton, which is looking at natural gas trucks for their fleet. We
even look at locomotives, our railroads, looking at perhaps a very
positive transition from diesel to natural gas and the work of, I
know, Caterpillar and General Electric producing those and seeing
if in fact it will have a very positive impact on our economy and
to real change.
Ms. McCarthy, does EPA consider natural gas abundance as a
bridge fuel?
Ms. MCCARTHY. EPA views natural gas abundance as a positive
for air quality as an opportunity for us domestically to be safe and
secure in our energy supplies. Our responsibility is to ensure that
that is done as safely and responsibly as we can working with the
industry.
Mr. UPTON. You know, one of the concerns that I hear, particularly as I talk to the railroad folks and they are looking at this potential change conversion to natural gas is that they are concerned
as they look at purchasing these, if in fact they work, that the regulations may change, thus impacting the payback period as it relates to theis EPA considering new regulations to do that?
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
127
Ms. MCCARTHY. Any regulations that EPA would consider are
going to be thoughtfully proposed and commented on. Right now,
sir, I think it is safe to say that EPA is investing very heavily in
opportunities to understand the sector, to gather data, to work with
the industry in a collaborative way. We see this as a very positive
collaboration moving forward. We see this as a significant opportunity to reduce air pollutants and to move forward in a safe and
effective domestic supply. And so I am very encouraged about the
relationship we are building with the gas industry, the rules we
have already put out. I see no reason for concern that that situation is going to change and people wont be able to rely on this as
a cleaner fuel moving forward.
Mr. UPTON. Thank you. I know my time is expired.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlemans time is expired. At this time, I
recognize
Mr. MONIZ. Mr. Chairman, may I just add a footnote with your
permission?
Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, sir.
Mr. MONIZ. I just want to say to Chairman Upton I would add
to your list marine applications, and also in fracking, replacing diesels with natural gas engines there as well, less oil use and better
air quality.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
At this time I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
McNerney, for 5 minutes.
Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to explore two things in my 5 minutes. First is the
confidence that you have that climate change is taking place as a
significant threat and as caused by a large degree by human activities; and secondly, if actions taken to combat climate change will
harm or benefit the economy. So, first, Secretary Moniz, would you
address the first question? How confident are you that climate
change is taking place, that it is a significant threat, and that it
is caused to a large degree by human activity?
Mr. MONIZ. Well, again, first of all, of course the scientific community overwhelmingly endorses those statements and I personally
do. As I have said in a previous hearing for this committee, I think
my confidence in those statements does not rely just on the results
of some very complicated computer models but some very simple
arithmetic in terms of what has been known for a long time about
the strength of CO2, the greenhouse effect, and that the amount
that we are emitting is of the scale that within decades we would
reach areas such as doubling preindustrial emissions, which have
always been viewed as being highly, highly risky.
Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Administrator McCarthy, I would
like to address my second question to you in this form: How have
higher standards such as those as fuel efficiency helped drive innovation and create jobs?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we have been working with the auto industry in particular over the past few years to understand what they
need to have certainty moving forward on air quality standards, on
fuel efficiency, on greenhouse gas standards. We have worked together. And as a result of our rules, we have been able to support
the industry in a robust sort of reemergence of that industry both
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
128
domestically and internationally. We are proud of the work we
have done together. We are delivering fuel-efficient vehicles for
consumers in the way they want them. We are saving them money.
We are reducing greenhouse gases. And we believe we are part of
the auto industrys efforts to gain a competitive advantage that is
to a great advantage for jobs and economy in this country.
Mr. MCNERNEY. So you believe the Detroit has become more
competitive with these higher fuel standards
Ms. MCCARTHY. We believe so.
Mr. MCNERNEY [continuing]. Thereby creating more jobs?
Ms. MCCARTHY. We know that certainty is important moving forward. We have provided this industry a path forward until 2025.
That gives them an opportunity to do research, to develop new
technologies, and to have a solid footing moving forward.
Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you.
Mr. MONIZ. If I may just add
Mr. MCNERNEY. Sure.
Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. Sir, on the auto side, I think it is actually even a bigger story going back to when the auto industry in
this country looked like it was on its last legs, a whole combination
of issues from support for GM and Chrysler assuming they had
proper restructuring for the future, to loan guarantees for Ford and
Nissan; Nissan built a plant in Tennessee because of that loan
guaranteeto preparing for the future with electric vehicle markets and the great success story of Tesla, we could talk about
Fisker, which we all know is a different issue today, but overall,
this portfolio has taken us to an incredibly vibrant auto industry
that is growing faster than the Chinese auto industry.
Mr. MCNERNEY. Are there any other technologies or items that
energy efficiency or work toward renewable energy has created jobs
that you would like to point to?
Mr. MONIZ. Certainly. We could go through lots and lots of those
stories. First of all, on again the autos, Tesla is a story of 3,000
jobs in California. That is way above even their business plan.
Take the solar PV business and I will go back to our loan guarantee program. When there was no debt financing available, those
loans supported the first six utility-scale PV projects in this country. There have subsequently been 10 with pure private financing.
That is jobs all the way from manufacturing, to supply chain, to
the installation and operation.
Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, do you see grid modernization playing a
role in helping reduce climate change and also in creating jobs?
Mr. MONIZ. Grid modernization is a very, very high priority. It
has multiple benefits. One would be the integration of renewables
into the system. A second is that it can provide with intelligence
embedded in the grid. It can provide new consumer services and
higher efficiency, lower bills. And finally, it will be needed, as the
example I gave in New Jersey, to provide resilience against the extreme weather events that we are seeing more and more of.
Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you.
At this time I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
129
I want to welcome our two witnesses and give you the red badge
of courage for showing up. We invited 13 agencies and I dont know
if you all drew straws and got the long straws or whatever, but you
two are here and we are glad you are here. We didnt hear from
Department of Agriculture, Defense, HHS, Interior, State Department, Transportation, Export-Import Bank, NASA, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, Office of Science and Technology
Policy, or U.S. Agency for International Development. For some
reason they couldnt make it, but you two are and you all have
been here before and we are glad you all are both here.
Each of you and the other 11 agencies got a letter dated August
the 6th, 2013, asking you to attend, and it asked you to answer
nine questions. Now, when Mr. Waxman was speaking in his Q&A
he said that the Obama administration has spent about $60 billion
on climate change. The number I had was 70 billion, but we will
go with Mr. Waxmans 60 billion number. And this is really an effort to let the Obama administration put their best foot forward.
So we asked nine questions and I asked the staff if your agencies
had answered these questions. And I am told that they had not. So
I am going to read them into the record and then give each of you
briefly a chance to see if you can get us these answers.
The first question that we asked your agency was to describe the
climate change-related research and technology programs that you
are actively engaged in, including programs or activities undertaken with other Federal agencies. We didnt get an answer to that.
We asked you to describe the climate change adaptation, mitigation, or sustainability-related activities engaged in, including activities undertaken with other Federal agencies. We didnt get an
answer to that.
We asked you to identify all the climate change-related interagency task forces, advisory committees, working groups, and initiatives in which your agency is currently participating and or has
participated in since January of 2005, didnt get an answer to that.
We asked you to identify all climate change or clean energy-related funding, grants, or financial assistance programs which your
agency is currently participating or has participated in and the
amount of climate change or clean energy-related funding, grants,
and financial assistance distributed by your agencies since January
of 2005, didnt get an answer to that.
We asked you to identify all the climate change-related regulations or guidance documents, including regulations or standards to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions issued or proposed by your agency
since January 2005 or under development, didnt get an answer to
that.
We asked you to identify all the climate change-related international negotiations, agreements, partnerships, working groups,
or initiatives in which you currently or have previously participated since January 2005, didnt get an answer to that.
Provide the approximate amount of annual agency funding attributed to climate change activities of the fiscal years 2005
through 2012, didnt get an answer to that.
Describe the actions that your agency has undertaken to respond
to the Executive Order by the President, 13514, including the approximate cost, personnel, and other resources dedicated by your
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
130
agency to implement that Executive Order, didnt get an answer to
that, Mr. Chairman.
And last but not least, to provide a list of each sub-agency, division, and/or program office within your agency that is currently engaged in climate change-related activities and to provide an estimate of the approximate number of your agency employees and/or
contractors engaged part-time or full-time in climate change-related activities. Guess what, didnt get an answer to that.
Now, Mr. Waxman has been asking this committee and the subcommittee to hold hearings on President Obamas climate change
efforts all year long. We asked nine questions. We didnt get one
straight answer. Are you trying to hide something? Are you embarrassed by it? Or you just dont care to respond to the Congress?
Mr. MONIZ. Well, I will answer first at least, Mr. Barton. Thank
you.
Look, I am very happy to come and discuss any and all of those
questions. I will address a few of them now if you would like. Certainly, well, for the Department of Energy, for example, the question on regulations, et cetera, standards, that is clear. It is efficiency standards is what we do in this regard.
In terms of the programs, as I said earlier, I would say our last
budget, fiscal year 2013 enacted, the question is ambiguous, but if
we take all of the programs that help address climate change, even
if they have other objectives like efficiency, then that count would
come to about 5.4 billion. But as I say, there are multiple objectives. There is fuel diversity, nuclear energy, fossil energy, et
cetera.
Mr. BARTON. Well, my time has expired.
Mr. MONIZ. OK.
Mr. WHITFIELD. And I think, Mr. Secretary, we do appreciate
your making an effort to answer, but I do hope that you all would
get with your staffs and try to respond to us because, as was indicated, we asked these questions
Mr. MONIZ. We will do that, sir.
Mr. WHITFIELD [continuing]. Some time ago and we would appreciate you all responding to that.
Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, the point I am trying to make is we
are trying to have a good faith effort here to have a real dialogue,
but in order to have the dialogue, we have to have the facts. And
we are being stonewalled, which means the American people are
being stonewalled. These are not complicated questions and they
are not trick questions. If the Obama administration has this great
Climate Change Action Plan, every one of these questions should
be able to be answered in detail and in glowing terms. So I would
hope that you two representatives of the Obama administration,
you know, first of all, both of you are good people. You are smart,
you have got integrity, you have worked with this committee. Get
us the straight facts and then we will have a debate with the other
side
Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON [continuing]. Over what those facts mean.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Barton, will you yield to me just to correct a
statement
Mr. BARTON. If I have time, I will be happy to yield.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
131
Mr. WAXMAN. Well, you quoted me as saying the $60 billion has
been spent, but my statement was that we proposed $60 billion to
go to be spent under our legislation. Secondly, it is unprecedented
to have to Cabinet-level officials who have the primary burden of
dealing with the climate change issue come before a subcommittee.
I hardly call that stonewalling.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Actually, CRS said 70 billion over the last 4
years but
Mr. WAXMAN. Well, we are talking about differenthe quoted me
as saying 60 billion. I wasnt saying it was 60 instead of 70. My
statement about 60 billion was what we proposed to spend in the
cap-and-trade bill.
Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Dingell,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy.
Administrator McCarthy, welcome back to the committee and
congratulations on your new position as EPA Administrator.
Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you.
Mr. DINGELL. We wish you great good luck as you take on this
new position.
And also, Mr. Secretary, we welcome you to the committee.
Gentlemen and ladies, these questions will be yes or no and I
will request that you give us some additional information as a response after the response has been made.
So for both of our witnesses, does EPA or the Department of Energy see a future for coal as a viable energy source in light of the
impending greenhouse gas regulations? Please answer yes or no
and then submit additional information for the record.
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. MONIZ. I agree. Yes. Um-hum.
Mr. DINGELL. Now, Administrator McCarthy, I understand that
there will be a different proposal for modified sources, i.e., units
that have been updated, and also for existing sources that have not
been modified. Can you tell me if EPA is reaching out to all stakeholders concerned about both components of the greenhouse gas
rule? Please answer yes or no.
Ms. MCCARTHY. To the best ability we can, yes, we are.
Mr. DINGELL. Would you please also, Madam Administrator, submit more information for the record?
Now, is EPA thinking about a unit-by-unit compliance goal for
the existing and modified source carbon standards? Please answer
yes or no.
Ms. MCCARTHY. We are thinking about that and a number of
other different flexible strategies.
Mr. DINGELL. Would you submit such additional comments for
the record as you deem appropriate?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, sir.
Mr. DINGELL. Now, the debate about climate change is not just
about air but it is also about water. I am sure that both you and
the Secretary understand this.
Administrator McCarthy, you do all know that the Great Lakes
contain 20 percent of the worlds freshwater. Luckily, our water
levels are up slightly this year after years of inadequate ice cover
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
132
on the lakes and too little precipitation, rain and snow. Lower lake
levels affect not only shipping and boating and recreation but also
make it easier for algae blooms to form, endanger fish habitats,
and threaten drinking water sources, as well as industrial and cooling water intakes. Madam Administrator, do you believe that the
Presidents Climate Action Plan provides the direction for EPA to
deal with the unique problems of the Great Lakes? Please answer
yes or no.
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes.
Mr. MONIZ. Sir, may I
Mr. DINGELL. Will EPA under your leadership continue to work
with other Federal and State agencies to address climate-related
problems on the Great Lakes? Yes or no?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes.
Mr. DINGELL. In dealing with water quality, do you believe that
EPA has adequate clarification of its jurisdiction under the Clean
Water Act to ensure protection of water sources? Please answer yes
or no.
Ms. MCCARTHY. Not as yet but we are certainly working on that.
Mr. DINGELL. I want you to give us some additional response on
that because that is a matter of deep concern, I think, to you, and
it is to me, too.
Now, Madam Administrator, as these problems on the Great
Lakes become more frequent, do you believe EPA will need further
clarification of its Clean Water Act jurisdiction? Please answer yes
or no.
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, I do.
Mr. DINGELL. And I believe you are finding, Madam Administrator, that the actions taken by the Congress to foreclose you and
EPA from getting us additional work in terms of rules and regulations clarifying the Supreme Court decision are extremely
unhealthy, am I correct? Yes or no?
Ms. MCCARTHY. We find them very difficult.
Mr. DINGELL. Now, I am sure you have seen a recent map published in the National Geographic showing what would happen if
all the world ice were to melt. While this is a somewhat drastic scenario, it shows almost all of Florida and all of New Jersey submerged. It was not the map, however, that intrigues me most. The
map showed little or no effect on the Great Lakes. Do you believe
that EPA along with other Federal agencies have the tools necessary to predict what affects climate change might have on the
Great Lakes basin and the region in which they exist? Please answer yes or no.
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes.
Mr. DINGELL. Would you submit additional information for the
record as you deem it appropriate?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I will.
Mr. DINGELL. Now, I would like to have a submission from you,
Mr. Secretary, about what it is you are going to do about potential
shortages and whether we have shortages coming on electric power
because of the actions that are going to have to be taken with regard to global warming and matters of that kind and how that is
going to affect our future in terms of the reliability and availability
of electric power.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
133
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If you would submit that for the record, please.
Mr. MONIZ. And I will just note, sir, that we have a report of
vulnerabilities of the energy infrastructure that will answer many
of your questions. I might just add one factoid that there are projections that in an unconstrained world in terms of greenhouse gas
emissions, we could see about a 2-foot drop in the level of the Great
Lakes in this century, which would of course be very, very disruptive.
Mr. DINGELL. Industry is going to make a large number of retirements of plans because of
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlemans time is expired.
Mr. DINGELL. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Hall, for 5 minutes.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
And the argument about whether or not climate change is taking
place, I know one thing by the argument that Mr. Barton had with
the gentleman from California, something that is taking place and
taxing the hard-working people of this country is taking place.
And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your opening statement when
you set out, and it wasnt an estimate on your part. This is from
the Congressional Research Servicethey usually are pretty accuratethat the climate change funding for climate science technology, international assistance, and adoption was approximately
70 billion for the period 2008 to 2012.
Now, Mr. Barton, you got better answers. I counted, I think, 12
or 15 of those people that didnt give you any answer it all. By no
answer you got a better answer than I had received from Mrs.
McCarthy about a year ago in the Science Committee if you remember coming before our committee there. And I may have asked
you a question you didnt like and your answer was I am not in
the business of creating jobs. That is out of the record itself. And
I left word there if you wanted to apologize to the many millions
of people that were unemployed and many of them hungry. And I
have never seen that apology to this day.
Actually, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent
to submit more of my questions in writing. I have more than the
5 minutes lets me make here.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection.
Mr. HALL. That is taking place at 20 billion per year and we can
figure that up however we want to. And I yield back the time. I
thank both the witnesses for appearing.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
time.
At this time I would recognize the gentleman from New York,
Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes.
Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Secretary Moniz, if we were going to reduce our carbon pollution,
we need to deploy more clean energy and boost energy efficiency.
Yesterday, the Department of Energy released its report showing
that wind and solar power, LED lighting, and electric vehicles are
growing rapidly in this country as a result of well-designed Federal
and State incentives and investments in research and development.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
134
That being said, the report finds that as a result of these measures,
the historic shift to a cleaner, more domestic, and more secure energy future is not some faraway goal. We are living it, and it is
gaining force. I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter this
report into the record, Mr. Chair.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00138
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00139
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.107
135
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00140
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.108
136
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00141
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.109
137
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00142
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.110
138
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00143
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.111
139
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00144
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.112
140
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00145
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.113
141
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00146
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.114
142
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00147
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.115
143
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00148
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.116
144
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00149
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.117
145
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00150
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.118
146
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00151
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.119
147
148
Mr. TONKO. Thank you. The report contained a particularly striking graph about the cost and deployment of wind energy in the
United States. Wind capacity has skyrocketed in our country, and
I believe the committee has that graph. OK. We are posting it on
the screen. Thank you.
[Graph.]
Mr. TONKO. Secretary Moniz, what has been the key to wind
powers success? As you see, we have the graph itself on the display
screen.
Mr. MONIZ. Well, I think the story, as I alluded to earlier, it is
actually the same story that we saw decades ago with unconventional natural gas. We had investment from the Federal Government, we had public-private partnerships, and we had time-limited,
well-crafted incentive that has these things taking off. We are seeing the same thing now with wind. As we can see, the deployment
is very, very striking. And of course the cost certainly in good wind
areas are quite competitive with other sources.
The report has similar graphs, same kind of message, with
photovoltaics. Solar energy, it is not fully appreciated how competitive solar is already in the right conditions, which is typical for this
stage of a technology penetrating the market.
Mr. TONKO. So is the response for solar as strong as this wind?
Mr. MONIZ. Perhaps stronger.
Mr. TONKO. Super. What can we do to
Mr. MONIZ. And also, if I may, in LEDs it is totally incredible.
It has gone from, I dont know, 50,000 to 20 million deployed in the
country in a very short time, and the cost has gone from $50 to $15
and the lifetime savings from one LED is over $100.
Mr. TONKO. Thank you. What can we do to ensure that todays
R&D is utilized fully into emerging energy technologies so that we
can achieve these same levels of success?
Mr. MONIZ. Well, first of all, we need to, as I said earlier, we
need a sustained commitment to maintain the research development demonstration and deployment push. That is absolutely required. And these will be market-competitive technologies again
sooner rather than later.
The other thing is, of course, we would like to capture the full
value of these developments and that involves other things that we
are doing such as, for example, the advanced manufacturing partnership to really help establish the cutting-edge manufacturing capacity and training in this country.
Mr. TONKO. Um-hum. Energy efficiency is a key part of the
Presidents Climate Action Plan. Energy efficiency is one of the
cheapest and most cost-effective ways to reduce carbon pollution
while saving consumers money, and it is a big part of the Department of Energys responsibilities under the Presidents plan. Mr.
Secretary, the Presidents plan calls for new energy efficiency
standards for appliances and equipment. Why are energy efficiency
standards a good way to reduce carbon pollution?
Mr. MONIZ. These standards apply to reducing all of our emissions, carbon emissions, as well as conventional pollutants by reducing the energy needs quite substantially. But I really want to
emphasize all of our rules have a cost-benefit test and they also
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00152
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
149
save money for consumers. The upfront marginal increases are
overwhelmed by the energy savings at the consumer level.
Mr. TONKO. Well, some believe that taking action to address climate change will kill jobs and cost consumers money. Is that an
accurate description of these energy efficiency standards?
Mr. MONIZ. No, we believe that they create jobs for one thing by
saving money in the economy that can be devoted to other purposes.
Mr. TONKO. Um-hum.
Mr. MONIZ. And in addition it gives us products that we can sell
globally.
Mr. TONKO. Um-hum. I see that my time is up, Mr. Chair. I will
yield back.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlemans time is expired.
At this time I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Shimkus, for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, welcome. I am glad to have both of you here today.
Secretary Moniz, any serious plan for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions substantially must have a strong nuclear component. Do
you agree with that?
Mr. MONIZ. I am sorry. Could you repeat that?
Mr. SHIMKUS. Nuclear power is critical and obviously having a
greenhouse gas plan
Mr. MONIZ. Yes, we are supporting nuclear power. Yes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Do you consider nuclear programs to be a critical
part of this administrations plan?
Mr. MONIZ. Yes, it is all of the above, and nuclear is strongly
there.
Mr. SHIMKUS. So you probably werent interested in following the
last licensing case before the NRC and the only person who voted
against licensing? That was the then-Chairman Jaczko, who was
appointed by this President. So the concern is the conflicting signals we are seeing. You have got the presidential-appointed chairman of the NRC casting the only no vote for licensing a new nuclear power plant in this country. And so that leads to the other
questions.
Under this administration how many nuclear reactors have
closed down?
Mr. MONIZ. I believe there are five
Mr. SHIMKUS. It is actually six. We have got one in New Jersey,
Wisconsin, California, Florida, and Vermont.
Mr. MONIZ. And five being built.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Right, without the vote to license by the chairman
of the NRC, who was appointed by the President. So I will give you
that point, but you have to give me a point on jobs that a lot of
jobs have been lost by the shutdown of these nuclear facilities.
Under the Presidents Climate Action Plan, EPA is expected to
propose a rule later this week setting greenhouse gas standards for
new power plants that will require CCS technologies for any new
coal plant built in the U.S. This is effectively, as many of us fear
and Administrator McCarthy knows where I stand on this, a ban
on new coal-fired power plants. Do you believe, as the Secretary of
Energy, that it is defensible for the EPA to impose regulations that
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00153
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
150
essentially ban the building of new coal-fired power plants in this
country?
Mr. MONIZ. Well, I certainly am not going to comment on the ongoing
Mr. SHIMKUS. But from an energy position of the baseload demand or the requirements of this country in low-cost power, obviously removing coal-fired power plants from the fleet will raise
costs?
Mr. MONIZ. Again, our job at the Department of Energy is to
Mr. SHIMKUS. Hopefully
Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. Support the
Mr. SHIMKUS [continuing]. Production of low-cost energy for our
consumers
Mr. MONIZ. Making technologies
Mr. SHIMKUS [continuing]. And our manufacturers and the like.
Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. For coal in a low-carbon world. And I
might add there is lots of activity already
Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, we are going to keep following on that course
of questions. Is the DOE aware of any U.S. commercial-scale power
generation plant using coal as a fuel that captures, transports, and
permanently stores carbon dioxide?
Mr. MONIZ. Well, as you know, there have been a number of
demonstrations. There is the commercial
Mr. SHIMKUS. That is not the question. The question is is there
one today
Mr. MONIZ. Commercial plant 75 percent complete and Mississippi
Mr. SHIMKUS. But it is
Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. And also although
Mr. SHIMKUS [continuing]. Not generating and not storing.
Mr. MONIZ. But if I may add, it is not a power plant, but I think
we should not ignore the fact
Mr. SHIMKUS. That is another good point.
Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. That 12 years we have the Great Plains
Weyburn project, 20 million tons have been used for EOR, and it
is running on a commercial basis.
Mr. SHIMKUS. All right. The point, as you know, CCS takes billions of dollars. There is no commercially available technology to do
it. It is not being conducted right now forand I am going to turn
to the administrator, who is a friendbut for these new rules to
be promulgated, it is a signal that we are not going to build new
coal-fired power plants until there is at least a demonstrated ability to have this technology, and the concern is the costs are going
to be great.
Administrator McCarthy, has EPA ever established a new source
performance standard for an emissions source on the basis of technology that has not been commercially proven by operation at commercial scale?
Ms. MCCARTHY. We have in the past, for example, our use of
scrubbers was seen as an innovative but
Mr. SHIMKUS. But it was commercially available at that time?
Ms. MCCARTHY. It was
Mr. SHIMKUS. That is the whole difference between the clean air
debate and the greenhouse gas debate is in the clean air debate
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00154
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
151
technology was available. In the greenhouse gas debate it is not
available. That is really the number one concern that we have. Do
you want to
Ms. MCCARTHY. No
Mr. SHIMKUS. I mean do you agree with that or
Ms. MCCARTHY. Congressman, the rule has yet to be issued, but
I will say that this is an issue that was heavily discussed. That is
the reason why we are reproposing. We will have a full debate
about this when the rule goes out, but I would indicate to you that
this rule is not about existing facilities. It is about the future
plants that are being constructed. And there are four plants that
are planning on and designing in CCS at levels that would beat
anything that we had proposed in our earlier proposal.
Mr. SHIMKUS. And I hope you are right and I hope it is successful. The point is it will be costly.
I am going to end on this, Mr. Chairman.
And I think you have litigation issues that are unknown. The
State of Illinois is applying for this, as you know. Mr. Secretary,
you are doing your research there. There are other issues just than
being able to, you know, get this down in deep sequestration
aquifers.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Ms. McCarthy, will you provide us a list of those
four plants you just referred to?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Certainly.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you.
At this time I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And like my colleagues,
I would like to welcome Administrator McCarthy and Secretary
Moniz and thank you both for appearing today and look forward to
our discussion. And I have enjoyed it so far.
Administrator McCarthy, I have been concerned in the past that
EPA has not taken DOEs concern about reliability seriously when
developing utility rules. Can you commit to giving deference to
DOE on grid reliability when drafting a rule for existing power
plants? Is that part of the consideration with EPA?
Ms. MCCARTHY. We have worked hand-in-hand in developing this
proposal and we certainly will on the evaluation of comments in
moving any rule forward.
Mr. GREEN. OK. And I see the Secretary shaking his head, too,
so I am glad you all are working together because even though we
want as clean air as we can, we still want to be able to turn on
the lights.
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, sir.
Mr. GREEN. And particularly in Texas have our air-conditioning
in the summer.
I generally support the research and international efforts to address greenhouse gas emissions that the administration is undertaking. When it comes to regulating carbon from our industrial
services, I do see that Congress should move past its gridlock and
develop a regulatory plan instead of the EPA. I think Congress
ought to do our job and particularly the Supreme Court said the
EPA already has the current authority. But until Congress starts
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00155
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
152
to legislate again, we cant sit here and just complain about the
EPA are doing what the Supreme Court said it has the authority.
Climate change is real and it is something that Congress should
act on.
Secretary Moniz, where are we with the CCS technology? I know
that the plant in Mississippi may be up and running in the next
year, but even that is not guaranteed. When do you reasonably expect CCS to become technologically and economically feasible?
Mr. MONIZ. Well, I think we should talk about carbon capture
and sequestration. Certainly carbon capture, whether it be for combustion plants or for gasification plants, is demonstrated technology. We continue to invest in new technologies that will further
reduce cost, but those are used technologies in various places, well,
certainly in the petrochemical industry, in the former case, Great
Plains plant in the second case.
And on sequestration side, storage side, as I said earlier, this one
plant, this one field in Weyburn for enhanced oil recovery has already stored 20 million tons. And largely in Texas actually we are
using 60 megatons a year for producing 300,000 barrels of oil. So
this is a growing concern so the components are all there.
Mr. GREEN. Well, and I think some of our concern is that we
dont want the requirements to get past what either the technology
or what you can capitalize to be able to deal with. And so there
needs to be coordination there if that technology is there and there
are examples of it. But is the plant up in Mississippi? Do we have
a timeline on when they are going to actually be up and running?
Mr. MONIZ. I believe they are operating in 2014 or 2015. It is
quite close. It is a gasification plant again, and again, the CO2 will
go to enhanced oil recovery in local fields.
Mr. GREEN. Well, and there has been success in, you know, the
Midland area, the Permian basin for, you know, enhanced oil recovery and we even have a pipeline from Mississippi to the Gulf coast
to use so
Mr. MONIZ. Yes.
Mr. GREEN [continuing]. There are examples.
Mr. MONIZ. On average in Texas it has been about a half-a-ton
stored per barrel of oil produced.
Mr. GREEN. OK. I appreciate it because it is a beneficial use. We
can use it for
Mr. MONIZ. Um-hum.
Mr. GREEN [continuing]. Enhanced recovery. You testified that in
developing the GHG regulations for existing power plants you engaged in the outreach to a broad group of stakeholders with expertise who can inform development of proposed standards and regulation guidelines, which you expect to issue in June of 2014. You also
said that for us to be successful, the policy to be developed would
have to promote economic growth. Some people say that any policy
to address climate change is only going to do harm to our economy.
To what degree will utilities play a role in developing these regulations? Is there a formal process already scheduled that they participate in?
Ms. MCCARTHY. EPA has already engaged in a number of utilityand energy-related forums talking about this issue and we will engage with the utilities every step of the way. It is my concerted be-
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00156
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
153
lief and I think you will see this as we talk to States that they are
taking numerous actions already that are reducing greenhouse
gases. There are so many States that already have renewable fuel
standards, energy efficiency standards. They are working with
their mayors to make their cities more efficient. There are ways in
which we can recognize and understand how best we can shape
these plans that States need to develop that will be beneficial to
them from an economic perspective and beneficial to the U.S. and
the world to reduce the threat of climate change.
Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I know I am over time, but these
power companies are actually part of that process?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Very much so.
Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlemans time is expired.
At this time I recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
Scalise, for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding
this hearing and, Administrator McCarthy and Secretary Moniz, I
appreciate you all being here talking about climate change policies.
And of course a lot of this comes in the context of economic policy, how these policies have an impact on families, how they have
an impact on the economy. We hear all the time from small businesses I meet with, I know talking to my colleagues the same
thing. Some of the biggest impediments they have to creating jobs
right now are policies coming out of Washington, and frankly, Administrator McCarthy, the policies coming out of EPA seem to be
at the top of that list, a lot of the threats are coming out of EPA.
And I know you are new to the current job you have and that
you have been at the EPA in different roles throughout the years.
And I dont know if you all recognize those impacts. We have
talked about them before in our committee hearings, but when you
look at the climate policies that you are proposing, I want to read
a comment from you recently and get your take on it. I think the
administrator said this recently. Essentially, the President said
that it is time to act. He said he wasnt going to wait for Congress
but that he had administrative authorities and that it was time to
start utilizing those more effectively in a more concerted way.
And so, Administrator McCarthy, when you talk about the Presidents task to you to act regardless of what Congress does, it causes
a big concern not only to Members of Congress but to people across
the country who believe in a democratic process where Republicans
and Democrats work together. And Congress is the body that is
supposed to shape law and then the President through his Secretaries, including you, are the ones who are supposed to administer
the policies that Congress passed.
And so when you are echoing the President, who says, you know
what, I dont care if Congress didnt do it; it is time to act anyway,
I hope you understand the chilling effect that is sent across the
country. And I would like to get your interpretation of what you
think the President means and what you think the authority you
have to act is even if Congress chooses not to go down the path you
want to.
Ms. MCCARTHY. Let me rephrase the issue in a way that hopefully is a bit more positive. I think the President
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00157
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
154
Mr. SCALISE. Because it is not positive when I hear those comments.
Ms. MCCARTHY. I think the President has reached out and indicated that congressional action would be something that he would
want to engage in and that he would welcome. I think what he has
also told us to do is look at the laws that Congress has already enacted through their own public democratic process and what have
they told the agencies that their responsibility is and their authority is. We are not doing anything at EPA or in the climate plan
that goes outside the boundaries of what Congress has said is our
mission and our authority.
Mr. SCALISE. Well, and I would hope you would keep that in
mind as you develop policies because we are concerned about some
of the things that you are doing in terms of them going against
wishes of Congress. And the cap-and-trade bill that was defeated
when there was a super majority in the Senate, so clearly Congress
spoke that that is not something that we wanted. Just a few weeks
ago we in the House voted. The vote was 237 to 176 to reject a carbon tax, an actual vote
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes.
Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. On the House Floor to reject a carbon
tax and it passed overwhelmingly with Democrats voting with Republicans. And in fact Barbara Boxer was recently quoted saying,
we dont have the votes for carbon tax or carbon fee. I would hope
you would take all of that into consideration when you are looking
at climate change policies. Not only did we say we dont want it;
we voted to reject a carbon tax. And so you need to take that into
consideration. That is not an authority you have, and in fact, Congress has now said that is something that you dont have an authority. We reject that.
I want to also bring up when you look at the impacts of these
kind of policies how they are working in other countries. And again
it has a real impact on our economy when some of these rules are
proposed, but some of these other countries across the globe have
already tried to go down this road in terms of climate change policy
that you are looking at. There was just a revolt in Australia in
their government, a complete upheaval because of their carbon tax.
In fact, there is a movement with this new government to repeal
the carbon tax.
Read from the Telegraph just a few weeks ago, Brussels fears
European industrial massacre sparked by energy costs. The Business Report, Merkel warns E.U. against tough carbon targets. Financial Times, European utilities warned E.U. over energy risks.
Special Online, Germanys Energy Poverty: How Electricity Becomes a Luxury Good. It goes on and on. And the U.K. Express,
3,000 pounds-a-year bills on the way as energy prices rise again.
The Telegraph, Romanic Germany risks economic decline as green
dreams spoils.
I hope you understand that in the countries that have tried this
it is failing miserably. They are having revolts in those countries.
So Congress has acted. Congress has sent a message to you. I hope
you would respect those messages that have been sent not just here
in Congress but look at what has happened in where they have actually gone down this road in other countries and they are seeing
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00158
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
155
dramatic declines in their economy, dramatic increases in energy
costs that hurt real families. These are the concerns we have. As
you are looking at climate policy in your agency, recognize the will
of the people here in this country.
I yield back.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlemans time is expired.
This time I recognize the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Capps,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. Will Mrs. Capps yield to me for 30 seconds?
Mrs. CAPPS. Yes, I will.
Mr. WAXMAN. I just want to point out that there is no reason you
should be mindful of proposals that even passed the House if they
are not law. You have got to be mindful of what the laws are. And
what you have to do is enforce the laws. So this argument you
should pay attention to what Republicans were able to pass
through the House is not a law.
Thank you for yielding to me.
Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. Thank you also from me, Administrator
McCarthy and Secretary Moniz, for appearing today and for your
testimony.
Given the immediate and long-term threats posed by climate
change, I am very encouraged that we are finally having a formal
discussion on this pressing issue. With Congresss inaction, the
Presidents Climate Action Plan is a welcome step forward and we
need to debate it because we need to cut carbon pollution. We need
to help prepare for the impacts of climate change.
Last February, I wrote a letter to the President signed by 40 of
my colleagues urging him to create a panel to help local communities to prepare for climate change impacts. One of our key recommendations in this letter was to fully evaluate the budgetary
impacts of this problem. Climate change is already costing the Federal Government tens of billions of dollars in disaster assistance,
right? By investing some of this money up front in resiliency measures we could minimize these costly impacts down the road and we
could create jobs doing that implementation. So I was pleased to
see the President included a similar task force on preparedness in
his Climate Action Plan.
Administrator McCarthy, can you discuss what the task force
will be working on and to what extent it will be examining this
budgetary impact? For example, will you be issuing findings comparing the long-term costs of inaction to those of building a more
resilient infrastructure?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you for the question. As you recognize,
the Presidents Climate Action Plan focused just as heavily on the
adaptation question as it did on the mitigation issues in the international component. I think he did that recognizing the extreme
concern that communities are facing now and the public health impacts associated with not recognizing that the climate is changing
and preparing for that and making our communities more resilient
in a changing climate.
He established a task force to look at these issues. We are going
to be working with every State and community. There is support
already that has been recently issued by the Department of the Interior to look at resiliency projects, $100 million as a result of the
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00159
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
156
Climate Action Plan moving this forward. We all have, each agency, developed Climate Action Plans. We are participating on both
national forums as well as developing our own task forces to begin
working with communities more effectively to integrate what we
know about a changing climate into the work that we do. There is
a great deal of work on going. It has been nurtured over the past
few years, but it certainly has been given a boost in the action plan
and will move this forward.
Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you.
Mr. MONIZ. May I just have a
Mrs. CAPPS. Well, OK, but I have a question for you, too. Let me
ask the question and then maybe you can weave that in.
DOE currently focuses heavily on more mature technologies like
solar and wind. While I support these efforts of course, I want to
make sure we are not neglecting some other promising renewable
technologies. For example, there are several companies, including
Ecomerit in my district, which are developing exciting new technologies to reliably harness energy from ocean waves, tides, and
currents. In fact, Ecomerit was recently awarded a $500,000 DOE
grant to help develop its wave energy technology. This only
scratches the surface, however, of public and private investments
that are needed.
So, Mr. Secretary, I was going to ask you, and you can respond
any way want to, what does the Presidents Climate Action Plan
do to expand the development of marine and hydrokinetic energy
technologies?
Mr. MONIZ. Thank you. If I may just add
Mrs. CAPPS. Sure.
Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. A note to the earlier question that in addition to that task force, there has also been a specific Sandy task
force led by HUD. The work that I described earlier on the microgrid comes under that umbrella and that will be translatable to
other parts of the country.
Mrs. CAPPS. Absolutely.
Mr. MONIZ. Finally, under FEMA we also have responsibilities
for DOE for, you know, energy infrastructure, other agencies for
other parts of our national infrastructure.
On your question to me
Mrs. CAPPS. Yes.
Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. It is very important that we not forget
what are sometimes called the forgotten renewables, and that includes
Mrs. CAPPS. Absolutely.
Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. Hydrokinetic waves, tides, small hydro,
advanced geothermal, and we are looking to increase our emphasis
on those as we go forward.
Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. If I could follow up, I would love to have
a written response on some of the ways that you want to do that
that I could take back to some promising industries in my local district that would love some support like the one that was given to
Ecomerit in terms of clean energy technology.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleladys time is expired.
At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, for 5 minutes.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00160
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
157
Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Moniz, you have recently taken over leadership at
DOE and you understand the role of DOE in establishing and coordinating national energy policy. Can you tell us whether DOE is
going to have an active role going forward in ensuring that the climate policies pursued by other Federal agencies do not negatively
affect the affordability and availability of energy?
Mr. MONIZ. Thank you for the question. The principal way in
which we will be doing that over these next, say, 3 years is the socalled quadrennial review process. That will be convened out of the
Executive Office of the President but the Department of Energy
will be establishing the secretariat and the analytical
underpinnings. And that will involve the entire administration. So
that will be our principal role there. And I can also assure you, as
I have in previous testimony here, that we view our job in technology development as being to innovate to keep lowering the costs
of energy for our consumers and our industry.
Mr. PITTS. So you will review climate policies, regulatory initiatives of EPA that have the potential to negatively affect the affordability and reliability of energy?
Mr. MONIZ. Well, for processesand Ms. McCarthy can answer
I mean of course we have review processes. What we will do in this
context is help provide the threads, some of the analytics to bring
together all the agencies to discuss energy policy broadly, environment, security, economy.
Mr. PITTS. Administrator McCarthy, I want to understand with
all the climate change-related programs that your agency pursues
such as research, technology development, grants, education, and
outreach, does your agency determine at the outset what those programs are supposed to accomplish and then go back and evaluate
whether they actually did accomplish what they set out to do?
Ms. MCCARTHY. We keep quite close track. And I would just add
that many of the programs that we run are programs that Congress has specifically directed us to run and at specific funding levels.
Mr. PITTS. Now, does EPA make information about what these
programs have actually achieved available to the public?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Very much so. We are quite
Mr. PITTS. Can you identify for us what or where that information is available?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I can certainly provide that to you.
Mr. PITTS. Now, EPA has been implementing climate policies for
a number of years. Have you evaluated what that work has actually accomplished in terms of meaningfully addressing climate risk
and could you share that with the committee?
Ms. MCCARTHY. We certainly take a look at work that we do to
understand what kind of greenhouse gas reductions might have
been reduced, but as we all know, reducing climate risk is a global
effort and the U.S. is participating in that effort as rigorously as
we can.
Mr. PITTS. Now, Ms. McCarthy, does EPA coordinate with other
agencies when it evaluates the impact of its regulatory action relating to the power sector?
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00161
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
158
Ms. MCCARTHY. Very much so. In every regulatory process all
agencies participate in the interagency review. Part of that is to
look at the cost-and-benefit analysis that EPA produces and to
comment on both of those. Those are
Mr. PITTS. For example, have you consulted with the Department
of Health and Human Services about the impact of energy poverty
or higher energy prices on health or the ability to respond to extreme weather events?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, what we have done is to ensure that we
do a complete analysis to the extent that it is available to us and
appropriate on what the economic consequences are of our rulemaking, and we take great pains to make sure that we do not
threaten reliability, nor do we put out rules that will significantly
increase cost to consumers.
Mr. PITTS. One other question, Administrator McCarthy. The
Presidents Climate Action Plan says on page 10 that curbing
emissions of methane is critical to our overall effort to address climate change. And it refers to an Interagency Methane Strategy
Group
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes.
Mr. PITTS [continuing]. That is identifying technologies and best
practices for reducing methane emissions. I should also note that
EPAs Web site indicates that we can cut methane significantly by
reducing reliance on landfilling and increasing use of modern
waste-to-energy facilities like the one in my district, the Lancaster
County Solid Waste Management Authorities facility. Will you recommend to the Interagency Methane Strategy Group or may I request that you recommend the importance of focusing on ways to
increase the United States use of waste energy for managing nonrecyclable waste?
Ms. MCCARTHY. We will raise that issue but I think if you see
the tone and tenor of the Presidents remarks in the Climate Action
Plan, it is an effort to understand where methane is being generated, how effectively to work with the industry on strategies that
will reduce that methane and recapture it because it becomes a significant financial opportunity. Those are the kinds of things we certainly want to capitalize on.
Mr. PITTS. Thank you.
Mr. MONIZ. If I may add, the $1 billion loan guarantee program
that we will be issuing would include MSW technologies as a possibility.
Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is expired.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlemans time is expired.
At this time I recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Doyle, for 5 minutes.
Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator McCarthy, it is a pleasure to have you here today.
Secretary Moniz, I just want to say your recent visit to Pittsburgh was appreciated and well-received by all of us in attendance
and we hope to have you back there soon.
Well, your visit is very timely today because many of us are eagerly awaiting the first rule regulating carbon pollution from power
plants, the single-biggest emitter of carbon in the United States.
And though I think the legislation to address climate change
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00162
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
159
through a cap-and-trade system would have been an easier, more
direct approach to limiting our Nations global warming impact, we
tried that here in this committee, and unfortunately, we were unable to get it passed.
But having said that, I want to point out that where I live in
southwestern Pennsylvania we are witnessing coal plant retirements nearly every month, which is impacting the economy and
many of our constituents and potentially the reliability of the electric grid. Now, whether that is because of low natural gas prices,
environmental regulations, or old age, the fact is we are taking a
lot of old power plants off-line and making it very difficult to build
new ones.
So the central tenet of the Presidents Climate Change Plan is
of course the new source performance standards for power plants.
And it has been widely reported that the standard for new coalfired power plants would require some type of CCS technology to
comply. Now, I am aware of and have supported the creation of
several demonstration projects for CCS across the country, but I
am not aware that there is anyone that would be considered BSER,
you know, the best system of emission reductions, as defined by the
Clean Air Act. Can you tell me how CCS is going to achieve that
requirement that BSER be adequately demonstrated considering
cost, energy requirements, and environmental impacts?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Congressman, first of all, it is good to be here.
Thank you for the welcome.
The first thing I would say is that relative to the retirements
that you were discussing, we have been very strongly engaged with
our energy colleagues to ensure that as retirements are happening
that we work with our energy office and our agency and others to
make sure that those issues are managed effectively, and we do not
see that there is any gap in our communication system in ensuring
that we can achieve those regulatory standards effectively without
threatening reliability.
In terms of the rule that is coming out, I do not want to speak
exactly to what the rule is going to say. It would be inappropriate
for me to do that. But I will say that on the basis of information
that we see out in the market today and what is being constructed
and what is being contemplated that CCS technology is feasible
and it is available today.
Now, that is not to give a signal about what is going on in the
rule. That needs to be put in a broader as well as a more specific
context and we will meet our regulatory obligation to look at what
is possible and what we should be doing for new future power
plants. Frankly, the challenge is that we need to provide certainty
for how you construct a coal facility in the future that will allow
investment in that technology and allow the technologies that you
are investing in to grow and become more and more competitive
and lower those costs.
Mr. DOYLE. Let me ask you a little follow-up to that because I
am aware of the Kemper plant in Mississippi that has been cited.
Now, that plant is utilizing an innovative technique that pipes the
carbon dioxide emissions to depleted oil fields and uses the CO2 to
force oil to the surface. In Pennsylvania, that is a little less real-
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00163
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
160
istic for us unless we want to build a pipeline to Texas for our CO2,
which I dont think is quite practical.
I am just curious. How is EPA taking into account the regional
differences that there are from, you know, different places in our
country as we look at these technologies? You know, this seems to
be working but it is not something that could work in my neck of
the woods. And are you going to, you know, create guidelines that
recognize the diverse fuel mix of the country and specifically those
regions like southwestern Pennsylvania that are still heavily dependent on fossil fuels?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I think we all recognize that the use of
CO2 that is captured in enhanced oil recovery becomes very costbeneficial in the use of CCS. There is no question about that. And
we also see part of that being as a result there are significant pipelines that are being constructed to take advantage of those cost
considerations.
Now, there is also an opportunity to sequester, which is, I think,
demonstration projects and investments that the Secretary can
speak to, but there are also products that are being produced at the
end of these design systems that actually can be sold. So there is
a variety of things that we see developing that make it very promising for coal to have a certain future as the President intends in
an all-of-the-above strategy.
Mr. DOYLE. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I see my time
has expired.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Doyle, I may mention to you that this rule
is expected out on Friday, I believe, by the 20th, and we will be
having a hearing on the proposed rule.
Mr. DOYLE. Thank you.
Mr. WHITFIELD. On Saturday afternoon. Will everybody be here
on Saturday?
At this time I recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr.
Terry, for 5 minutes.
Mr. TERRY. What an unexpected surprise to go this early. I appreciate that.
So I am going to start off by asking unanimous consent to put
the letter of our Attorney General from Nebraska, his letter to
Gina McCarthy and a white paper that was done with other AGs
into the record.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00164
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00165
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.120
161
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00166
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.121
162
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00167
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.122
163
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00168
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.123
164
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00169
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.124
165
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00170
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.125
166
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00171
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.126
167
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00172
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.127
168
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00173
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.128
169
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00174
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.129
170
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00175
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.130
171
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00176
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.131
172
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00177
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.132
173
174
Mr. TERRY. And the date of the letter is September 11, 2013.
It is particularly, Ms. McCarthy, important to note that our Attorney General is involved in this because, A) it is an impact to our
State, but B) we are a public power State so he is a lawyer, in essence, for our public power generators. And they have a concern on
the rules that are being promulgated. I know they arent finalized
yet but, nonetheless, in regard to coal as a new fuel, we have old
coal-fired plants that probably arent going to make it. They arent
going to be able to adhere to the new rules, so the issue is can we
build new plants with coal since we are only a couple hundred
miles from the Powder River basin, and this is by far the prominent feedstock for our generators?
So he has a question and I have the same question and that is
that does the EPA believe that it has the legal authority to eliminate coal as a fuel for nuclear electrical generation?
Ms. MCCARTHY. We have the authority and responsibility to establish standards in the case of new facilities and guidelines where
the individual States look at their own energy mix and come back
to EPA with plans on how to comply. So I do think we believe that
we are moving in a legally sound direction, but I would also caution you that one of the reasons we are re-proposing, Congressman,
is because there were a lot of comments on our original proposal.
There were comments on the technology, there were legal concerns,
so I would ask that we have this conversation in a more concrete
way when the new source rule comes out and to not also project
what we are doing in the new source as being either appropriate
or legally correct for existing facilities because neither is the case.
Mr. TERRY. All right. And I appreciate that answer and it would
be easier if we had the final rule.
Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we havent even proposed one yet, sir. We
are planning to re-propose a rule.
Mr. TERRY. OK.
Ms. MCCARTHY. So we will have certainly plenty of time
Mr. TERRY. Well, we certainly have concerns regarding our ability to use the cheapest and most readily available feed source for
electrical generation
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Terry, I may just interject one moment. We
were truthfully so shocked by the original rule that
Mr. TERRY. Yes.
Mr. WHITFIELD [continuing]. We are anticipating what the new
rule is, so, sorry.
Mr. TERRY. Well, and to follow up on that though is with the
newly to-be-proposed rule after the comments, is there still room
for new coal electrical generation?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I think that the rule will provide certainty for
the future of new coal moving forward, and I think in terms of existing facilities, we believe that coal represents now and will continue to represent a significant portion of the energy supply moving
forward for decades to come.
Mr. TERRY. All right. How about there has been several questions regarding nuclear power as well, and can we even meet what
the new greenhouse gas standards will be without nuclear power
as part of the portfolio?
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00178
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
175
Ms. MCCARTHY. The new source standard isnt designed to influence the existing portfolio. It is designed to ensure that future
power plants that are being constructed to take advantage of technologies that will ensure that they are as clean as they can be and
have a past certain and a future that will be carbon-constrained.
Mr. TERRY. Well, it is important, I think, to have nuclear power
which has basically zero greenhouse gas emissions
Ms. MCCARTHY. I think the President
Mr. TERRY [continuing]. To be part of our portfolio and
Ms. MCCARTHY. The President certainly shares your concern that
we make room for all fuels and all power generation types.
Mr. TERRY. Yes, we are going to grade on actions, not words. So
I appreciate that.
Mr. MONIZ. And if I may add on that, sir, I would note that we
went through, in my view, a lot of years with words and not actions
and we are now seeing actions and not words, $8 billion loan guarantees for nuclear new programs on small modular reactors. So I
would say that we are walking the talk.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlemans time is expired.
At this time I recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui, for 5 minutes.
Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank our distinguished witnesses for joining us today.
I applaud the administration for taking on climate change, and
I strongly support the goals of the Presidents Climate Action Plan
to cut carbon pollution and better prepare our country for the impacts of climate change. Human-caused climate change is real, it
is happening now, and it will continue to produce devastating effects unless we take immediate action. Failure to act in an urgent
manner is shortsighted and detrimental to our environmental and
economic interests.
Some say that addressing climate change will cost too much
money but they neglect to consider the cost of inaction, as well as
the tremendous economic benefits of positioning our country as a
global leader in clean energy. Clean energy industries currently
employ hundreds of thousands of Americans and the potential
growth in this sector is enormous. My home district of Sacramento
boasts 14,000 clean energy jobs. Throughout the United States,
there are already 119,000 solar jobs and 80,000 wind jobs. Thousands more are employed in energy efficiency and other areas. This
is a sector that could create millions of jobs and lead to faster economic growth.
But we do have competition. According to the Pew Charitable
Trust, last year, China invested $65 billion in clean energy compared to only $36 billion in the United States. The U.S. ranked
10th in clean energy investments per dollar of GDP behind China,
all of Europe, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and Japan.
Secretary Moniz, these other countries recognize the economic
potential of clean energy. What are they doing to capitalize on it?
Mr. MONIZ. They meaning other countries?
Ms. MATSUI. Yes.
Mr. MONIZ. Clearly, I think people are seeing frankly, you know,
trillion-dollar markets developing. They are developing now for
clean energy to address climate, to address air pollution, just to ad-
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00179
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
176
vance technology. And certainly a country like China, as you know,
is providing significant incentives for domestic manufacturing capacity.
Ms. MATSUI. Well, you know, the United States has always been
a leader in clean energy technologies but clearly we are really facing these competitive challenges from abroad. The Presidents Climate Action Plan is a critical step to ensure not just that we address the dangers of climate change but also that the United States
can compete and lead in the clean energy economy of the future.
Secretary Moniz, how will the Presidents Climate Action Plan spur
clean energy innovation in the United States and create new clean
energy jobs here at home? Do you believe that the United States
can once again lead the clean energy revolution?
Mr. MONIZ. I certainly think we can and we must lead that revolution. And I will mention two ways in which we are moving forward. And the one is, for example, through our continuing loan program to bring, as I said earlier, many, many technologies to the
fore. I mentioned utility-scale solar has been a huge success and
California has been a big part of that but also the loan program
for advanced fossil and for nuclear. It is across the board for these
technologies.
Another different kind of initiative I alluded to earlier are things
like the Advanced Manufacturing Initiative where we want to capture things like 3D printing, which can apply to new energy technologies, as well as a host of other technologies. So those are some
of the things that we are moving forward.
Ms. MATSUI. Um-hum. Well, thank you. Now, my Republican colleagues are quick to argue that tackling climate change will hurt
the economy, but in reality, climate change itself poses an enormous economic risk, and failure to address it could be disaster for
the global economy.
In May CBO released a report concluding that delaying action to
reduce carbon pollution would increase the expected damage from
climate change by increasing the risk of very costly, potentially
even catastrophic outcomes. The Clean Air Act provides a very
good example of how we can make steady progress in cleaning up
the air while growing the economy. Since its enactment in 1970,
the Clean Air Act has reduced key air pollutants in the United
States by 2/3 while the economy has tripled in size. Administrator
McCarthy, what does the history of the Clean Air Act tell us about
our ability to cut pollution while building the economy?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you for asking the question.
We know that in our experience under the Clean Air Act we have
been able to significantly lower pollution while at the same time
GDP has risen and the economy has grown. We know that the economic goals do not have to conflict with our environmental standards, and we also know, in fact, that this country is where it is because we have both cleaned our environment, kept it safe and
healthy for our families, recognized the public health value and environmental value that represents, while we develop an economy
that respects those needs as well. We are asking for that same
strategy to be employed as we tackle what I believe to be the most
significant public health challenge of our time, which is climate
change.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00180
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
177
Ms. MATSUI. I thank you very much and I ran out of time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleladys time is expired.
At this time I recognize the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr.
McKinley, for 5 minutes.
Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think we can agree that the CO2 levels are undeniably increasing and some scientists and climatologists have concluded that
their energy models reflect that CO2 levels coincide with temperature increases. Now, we were supposed to have some charts up
here. These are the models that have been suggested by many of
the scientists and climatologists, but however, as you well know,
these models are key components of developing climate change policy, but unfortunately, as we are finding out, this is the projection
but here is the reality of temperature changes over the last 40
years. Actually, we can say over 40 years there has been almost no
increase in temperature, very slight. In fact, the CO2 levels even
with the increased greenhouse CO2 level emissions, the Arctic ice
has actually increased by 60 percent as shown by the aerial view.
Also that Antarctica is expanding. But more importantly, this report coming out of the United Nations, the IPCC report coming up
is saying that most experts, most experts believe by 2083, and 70
years, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.
That leads to the question today. What should be done about it?
We hear the testimony from the Administration that all climate
change is manmade and America needs to reduce its CO2 emissions. Lets put this in perspective. Hypothetically, lets assume
that all coal-fired generation in America were curtailed, all coalfired generation were curtailed. According to the United Nations
and the IPCC, this would reduce the CO2 levels of the globe by
merely 210 of 1 percent by ridding all coal-fired power in the
United States.
The Administration also needs to remind people, as you heard
from the chairman in his opening remarks, that manmade problems, if we could, only represent 4 percent of all the emissions of
the globe. Natural emissions represent 96 percent. So as a result,
this Administration is, by virtue of this stream of job-killing regulations, is putting our Nation at risk all in the idea of clinging to the
notion that cutting 210 of 1 percent is going to save the world environment.
Let me remind, the rest of the world is not listening. The Presidents energy policy is not being followed. China, India, Russia, and
Europe are all expanding their use of coal. The Administration is
working now on a new global initiative, exporting uncertainty. According to the President, he is not going to allow low-interest loans
to be made to developing nations around the world. Struggling nations to come out of poverty will continue to suffer. Lives will be
lost. Children will be sick and perish as a result of this Presidents
support of this policy.
One of the biggest moral responsibilities of the United States
should be to help emerging nations come out of poverty. The most
abundant and resourceful source of power is coal. For a nation to
emerge from poverty, it must have access to energy, energy for refrigeration, for cooking, and commerce.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00181
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
178
Just to give you an example, in the sub-Saharan of Africa, the
total amount of power that they can generate in Africa is a 60 watt
light bulb per person, a 60 watt light bulb for 3 hours a day, 60
watt light bulb for 3 hours a day. Why should they be denied access to affordable energy so they can come out of poverty? Please
take this message back to the President.
This President must not prevent people around the globe from
obtaining affordable, dependable energy. And threatening American jobs over 210 of 1 percent of the CO2 emissions is not an acceptable energy policy. Crushing Americas economy to reduce the
CO2 levels by 210 of 1 percent is an abuse of his presidential authority.
Now, if I could in just the time, I am just curious from both of
you the issue now is we are 400 parts per million. Can you tell me
what level do you want it to be? Is it what many people are promoting, 300 parts per million?
Mr. WHITFIELD. You all can respond but his time is expired.
Mr. MONIZ. OK. I would like to respond, Mr. McKinley. There
were a lot of issues you raised there. If I may focus down for the
sake of response, first of all, as I have said before in this committee, the issues in terms of the risks of climate change are not
based just upon models, as I said. It is some pretty simple arithmetic. Number two, I dont believe anyone has ever said that
quotes all climate change is manmade. The statement is that the
anthropogenic forcings from CO2 are clearly of the scale that have
long been expected to produce the kinds of change that we are seeing and will see.
Third, I think we should addressthere are many things but let
me focus on the hiatus, so-called, in the increase of warming temperatures. First of all, lets not forget this decade is the warmest
decade in recorded history. So it is not exactly like it has been cooling off.
But secondly, the issues of decadal scale changes in the rate of
increase are fully expected. El Nino, La Nina, for example, are part
of this. Those models at that time did not include other issues such
as deep water warming, et cetera.
I will give you an example. There is an article right now in Nature whereby looking at the observed surface water temperatures
in the Pacific, putting them in in the East Central Pacific, putting
them in, it comes completely with this hiatus and it is only a hiatus in the constant global warming. So I believe we have to say this
is a misreading of the record.
The statement stands that anthropogenic CO2 emissions and
other greenhouse gas emissions are a driver at the level of multiple
degrees centigrade in this century. We are up .9 so far. And that
is very consequential. In fact, I remind you that we wouldnt be
here if it werent for the greenhouse effect of water vapor, which
has provided 60 degrees Fahrenheit of surface warming. We are
just tuning that by a few degrees centigrade at great peril.
Mr. WHITFIELD. We are going 2 minutes and 35 seconds over
so
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent that we put in the record a study by Dr. Benjamin Santer, atmospheric scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00182
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
179
where he says neither volcanoes nor the sun nor internal variability nor any combination of those natural factors can plausibly explain the atmospheric temperature changes we have actually observed from space since 1979.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00183
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00184
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.133
180
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00185
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.134
181
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00186
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.135
182
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00187
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.136
183
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00188
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.137
184
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00189
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.138
185
186
Mr. WHITFIELD. And I also would like to put in the record your
photo of how ice has expanded by almost a million square miles in
the last year in the Arctic Circle.
Mr. WAXMAN. Reserving the right to object. And I would like to
be recognized on my reservation.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Absolutely, recognized.
Mr. WAXMAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think this illustrates why
we need a committee where we bring in the scientists. I just
thought the statements that the gentleman from West Virginia
read to us were incredibly inaccurate and contrary to everything
else everybody in the scientific community has to say, including
Secretary Moniz, who is an MIT professor for 40 years, he was the
Department of Physics head of the Linear Accelerator Center, undersecretary of DOE, a Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Stanford
University. We need scientists to come in here and talk about
science, not
Mr. WHITFIELD. So, Mr. Waxman, are you objecting to this?
Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I just want to make that point but I will not
object.
Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Well, I wont object to yours, either.
And at this time I would like to recognize Dr. Christensen from
the Virgin Islands for 5 minutes.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am really
glad we are having this hearing.
And of course I support President Obamas sensible plan to address climate change by reducing carbon pollution and helping
communities to prepare for the impacts of climate change.
In reading your testimony and hearing your testimony I applaud
the open approach to setting the standards that has been engaging
and will engage all of the stakeholders and their concern in the
process. Despite this, we continue to hear a lot of criticism of the
Presidents plan from our Republican colleagues, and like our
Ranking Member Waxman, I would simply ask, what is their plan?
The President has said he is willing to work with anyone who
wants to propose alternatives. And I am glad that if Congress wont
act, he will. And I am also glad that both of you included in your
testimony that the economy also benefits from the prior responses,
has benefited from prior responses to climate change.
My district in the U.S. Virgin Islands and the other territories
are really on the forefront of this issue of climate change. And like
our panelists from the Safe Climate Caucus forum yesterday are already experiencing the impact of that change. In the Virgin Islands, we have already endured a serious coral reef bleaching event
that significantly impacted our fisheries, and by extension, our
tourism product and our economic stability. If we were to continue
to do nothing, we could expect increased ocean acidification, sea
level rise, which will impact our coastal infrastructure, and of
course more intense storms, as much of the country is experiencing.
So it is absolutely and abundantly clear that climate change is
real and that we have to act. And it is important also, as was discussed with Congresswoman Matsui, that our country lead on this
really vital issue.
But as we respond, we also have to make sure that we transition
to cleaner energy sources in a way that is workable, especially for
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00190
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
187
communities with the greatest economic challenges. In the Virgin
Islands and the other territories, we rely still very heavily on diesel
generation, and at 53 cents per kilowatt today, electricity prices are
the highest in our country. So we really have a strong incentive to
scale up affordable renewable energy and energy efficiency, but it
is going to take some time.
So, Administrator McCarthy, I think you have answered my first
question. I think you have made it clear that the rule you propose
on Friday will apply only to new power plants, correct?
Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. And next, you would start to work on a rule
to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. So it is going to be particularly important for
my constituents that we find cost-effective solutions that work for
our specific circumstances and I think the same is true for all of
the territories and the State of Hawaii given the high prices that
we are already paying and the challenges related to being an island
and where we are located.
So I also have read in your testimony that you plan to work with
the States and the territories to ensure that you understand our
specific circumstances as we do these things. So under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, do States and territories have the flexibility to achieve carbon pollution goals in ways that work for them?
Do you anticipate that that flexibility will be there?
Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK. And, Secretary Moniz, as we look to the
future of our energy supply system, do you see promising technology-based solutions that will allow places like the Virgin Islands
and the other territories to meet our electricity needs with clean
as well as affordable power? And what do you see as the most
promising areas?
Mr. MONIZ. Um-hum. Yes, I do and I also recognize that in fact
islands often have the biggest challenge in that combination of risk
and high energy prices. That is where, first of all, I think not being
dependent upon particularly oil imports is very important, and that
is where renewables can be very important. And also I think there
is at least one advantage in an island setting and that is transportation based upon electricity and/or natural gas can be more attractive because the driving range issues are not as important. So I
think there is a real future for green islands and we would be delighted to work with you on that.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Where are we with ocean thermal conversion?
Mr. MONIZ. With ocean conversion
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. It seems like it would be a good source.
Mr. MONIZ. Yes, and so we continue to do research on that. That
is a case where if you saw that curve that was shown earlier with
cost dropping and deployment, we are still in the early stage of
that curve. There is still a ways to go in terms of cost reduction.
But the research is going on and there are some pilot projects in
various parts of the world.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. My time is up. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00191
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
188
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleladys time is expired.
At this time I recognize the gentleman from Kansas, Mr.
Pompeo, for 5 minutes.
Mr. POMPEO. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. McCarthy, I want to ask a couple of questions of you. So one
of the objectives today is to identify greenhouse gas regulations
that already existed and those in the future and how they actually
impact the climate change, right? So you would agree that we want
to make sure we have a successful climate policy as a result of
those sets of rules and regulations that you promulgate, fair? Fair
baseline statement?
Ms. MCCARTHY. In the context of a larger international effort,
yes.
Mr. POMPEO. You bet. And on your Web site you have 26 indicators used for tracking climate change. They identify various impacts of climate change so you would believe that the purpose of
these rules is to impact those 26 indicators, right? So if you put a
good greenhouse gas rule in place, you will get a good outcome on
at least some or all of those 26 indicators?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I actually think that the better way to think
about it, if I might, is that it is part of an overall strategy that is
positioning the U.S. for leadership in an international discussion
because climate change requires a global effort. So this is one piece
and it is one step, but I think it is a significant one to show the
commitment of the United States.
Mr. POMPEO. Makes perfect sense, but you think it would be reasonable to take the regulations you promulgate and link them to
those 26 indicators the you have on your Web site and say this is
how they impacted them?
Ms. MCCARTHY. It is unlikely that any specific one step is going
to be seen as having a visible impact on any of those impacts, a
visible change in any of those impacts. What I am suggesting is
that climate change has to be a broader array of actions that the
U.S. and other folks in the international community take that
make a significant effort towards reducing greenhouse gases and
mitigating the impacts of climate.
Mr. POMPEO. But these are your indicators, Ms. McCarthy, so
these are
Ms. MCCARTHY. They are indicators of climate change. They are
not
Mr. POMPEO. Right. Precisely.
Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Directly applicable to performance
impacts of any one action.
Mr. POMPEO. How about the cumulative impact of your actions?
Certainly, you are acting in a way, you say these are the indicators
of climate change. It certainly cant be the case that your testimony
today is that your cumulative impact of your current set of regulations and those you are proposing isnt going to have any impact
at all on any of those indicators?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I think that the President was very clear what
we are attempting to do is put together a comprehensive climate
plan across the administration that positions the U.S. for leadership on this issue and that will prompt and leverage international
discussions and actions.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00192
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
189
Mr. POMPEO. So you are putting regulations in place for the purpose of leadership but not to impact the indicators that you, the
EPA, says are the indicators of climate change? I am deeply puzzled by that.
Ms. MCCARTHY. Congressman, we are working within the authority that Congress gave us to do what we can, but all I am
pointing out is that much more needs to be done and it needs to
be looked at in that larger context.
Mr. POMPEO. So in 2010it is in your opening statementwe
have gotten rid of a whole bunch of greenhouse gas, about 6 billion
metric tons. For example, one of your indicators is heat-related
deaths. How many heat-related deaths have been eliminated as a
result of the 2010 NHTSA rules?
Ms. MCCARTHY. You cant make those direct connections, Congressman; neither can I.
Mr. POMPEO. Right. So there is literally no connection to the activities you are undertaking and to the
Ms. MCCARTHY. I did not say that.
Mr. POMPEO. Well, you said you couldnt make the connection, so
tell me what I am misunderstanding. Can you draw connections between the rules you are providing, the regulations you are promulgating and your indicators or is it just on a
Ms. MCCARTHY. I think what you are asking is can EPA in and
of itself solve the problems of climate change. No, we cannot. But
the authority you gave us
Mr. POMPEO. Right.
Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Was to use the Clean Air Act to regulate pollution. Carbon pollution is one of those regulated
Mr. POMPEO. Right.
Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Pollutants and we are going to
move forward with what we can do
Mr. POMPEO. Yes.
Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Is reasonable and appropriate.
Mr. POMPEO. I am actually not asking that question that you
suppose that I am asking.
Ms. MCCARTHY. OK. I am sorry.
Mr. POMPEO. I didnt ask if you had the capacity to solve greenhouse gas issues. What I asked was is anything you are doing
doing any good as measured by the indicators that you have provided forso is your testimony today that you just have no capacity to identify whether the actions EPA has undertaken has any
impact on those indicators? This is about science
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes.
Mr. POMPEO [continuing]. Cause-and-effect. Is there any causal
relationship between the regulations you have promulgated and the
26 indicators of climate change that you have on your Web site?
Ms. MCCARTHY. The indicators on the Web site are broad global
indicators
Mr. POMPEO. They are not broad; they are very specific.
Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Of impacts associated with climate
change. They are not performance requirements or impacts related
to any particular act.
Mr. POMPEO. I actually like the indicators. They are quantifiable.
Ms. MCCARTHY. They are great.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00193
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
190
Mr. POMPEO. Heat-related deaths, change in ocean heat
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes.
Mr. POMPEO [continuing]. Sea level rises, snow cover
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes.
Mr. POMPEO [continuing]. Those are great, quantifiable things
but
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes.
Mr. POMPEO [continuing]. Now what you are telling me is
Ms. MCCARTHY. They indicate the public health impacts associated with
Mr. POMPEO. Exactly.
Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Climate change. Yes.
Mr. POMPEO. But what you are telling me is you cant link up
your actions at EPA to any benefits associated with those quantifiable indicators that the EPA itself has proposed as indicative of climate change?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I think what we are able to do is to showand
I hope we will show this in the package that we put out for commentis what kind of reductions are going to be associated with
our rules, what we believe they will have in terms of an economic
and a public health benefit. But it again is part of a very large
strategy.
Mr. POMPEO. Awesome. My time is up. Thank you.
Mr. MONIZ. If I may just
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlemans time is expired. At this time I
recognize the gentlelady fromI am sorry. Did you have a comment?
Mr. MONIZ. Well, I was going to comment briefly that there is
academic literature that does associate extremely hot days with
mortality, and I would be happy to provide that paper.
Mr. POMPEO. That would be great. Thank you.
Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentlelady from
Florida, Ms. Castor, for 5 minutes.
Ms. CASTOR. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very
much for calling this hearing on the Obama Administrations Climate Action Plan. And, Administrator McCarthy, thank you very
much for your leadership and willingness to assume the challenges
as EPA administrator and it is good to see you today. And, Secretary Moniz, same goes for you. Thank you for being here.
Now, my Republican colleagues arguments today relating to carbon pollution and the changing climate are reminiscent of their arguments and the arguments of special interests in the past when
it comes to updating our standards relating to pollution and health
standards and a clean environment. They predicted as they always
do we are going to have a rise in unemployment; the unemployment rate is going to skyrocket. They predict the economy will go
into a tailspin if America tackles pollution and climate problems.
It is an argument they raise every time America acts to set better
standards for air, for water, for childrens health.
All you have to do is think back to the 1970s. I am old enough
to remember what the mornings were like before the Clean Air Act
and how smoggy it was when you would come out of your house
and you could smell it and taste it. And then the country had the
wherewithal to adopt the Clean Air Act. And over decades, our air
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00194
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
191
has improved. Same can be said in the 1990s when it comes to acid
rain. It can be said how America tackled the problem of
chlorofluorocarbons that were depleting the ozone layer. The same
can be said when it comes to cancer-causing chemicals in plastic.
Plastic industry did not collapse, did it? There is probably more
plastic around today than ever before.
So I would say to my Republican colleagues: have confidence in
Americas ability to innovate in the face of significant challenges,
challenges like climate change. And coming from a vulnerable
State like Florida, I think what we see clearly ahead of us is there
is a greater cost to an action.
Look at what citizens across my State and all across the country
will face in rising insurance premiums when it comes to extreme
event. We are debating flood insurance right now. And that is
going to be tied more and more to the changing climate and sea
level rise in the future. Think about what local governments and
communities are going to have to do to invest in infrastructure. In
the State of Florida we are investing a great deal now to protect
our clean water supply and the drinking water supply from the rising bays and oceans that are going to intrude on the drinking
water supply, the saltwater intrusion. Communities are having to
invest now to protect infrastructure, just the plain old pipes under
the ground that we need to operate as a normal community all up
and down the coast.
So I see in the face of more droughts, more floods, longer fire seasons, more intense fires, faster sea level rise, it is very important
that we take action. The costs ahead of us will be inordinate if the
Congress continues to ignore it. So I am glad that the Administration is taking leadership here.
Secretary Moniz and Administrator McCarthy, in general, lets
talk about cost and benefits. When you propose a major rule, you
are legally required to analyze the cost and the benefits of that
rule, isnt that correct?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes.
Ms. CASTOR. In fact, hasnt cost-benefit analysis been required
for agency rulemaking ever since President Reagan signed an Executive Order on cost-benefit analysis in 1981?
Ms. MCCARTHY. That is my understanding, yes.
Ms. CASTOR. And it is called cost-benefit analysis because you
are required to estimate both the cost and the benefits of government action, is that correct?
Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct.
Ms. CASTOR. If you didnt look at both the costs and the benefits,
the information wouldnt help you assess the merits of a rule. If
you only looked at cost, no rule would ever be worth it. In fact, Mr.
Secretary, DOE recently issued a rule to require microwave ovens
to be more energy efficient. As part of that rulemaking, DOE was
required to estimate the cost and benefits of the new standards by
reducing the use of electricity. The rule will reduce air pollution,
including carbon pollution. That is one of the benefits of the rule,
isnt that right? Did the rule include an estimate of cost of the carbon pollution that would be avoided by the rule?
Mr. MONIZ. Yes, it did. And indeed, the need to do that comes
from a court ruling in 2007.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00195
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
192
Ms. CASTOR. And how did you get to that number? Was it developed through an interagency process and was it based on peer-reviewed science?
Mr. MONIZ. Yes, the process formally started in 2009. It is based
upon three highly peer-reviewed models. There has been transparency on the models back in 2009/2010, every rulemaking that
also opens up for comments going forward. The recent change in
the numbers was strictly updating the peer-reviewed models using
them with the same inputs used previously.
Ms. CASTOR. Thank you.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleladys time is expired.
At this time I recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for
5 minutes.
Mr. LATTA. Well, thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks
very much for having the hearing today. And I also want to thank
the Secretary and the Administrator for being with us today. I
have appreciated the comments today.
And, Mr. Secretary, if I could start with a question to you. As
the chairman had earlier stated in his opening remarks, when the
President came into office, Congress took into consideration what
was essentially his climate plan. Congress considered whether we
would embark on a complicated and expensive regulatory program
that was intent on massively decarbonizing our energy supply and
raising our energy costs. And we were told the U.S. must take the
lead.
Mr. Secretary, do you think it is economically wise for the U.S.
to unilaterally implement policies that will result in more expensive energy costs for American households in manufacturing? And
this question is really important for a district like mine because I
have 60,000 manufacturing jobs. And I spend all my time on the
road going through large meetings, small plants across my district.
And what was happening here in Washington affects these plants
and it affects jobs back home. So, again, do you think it is economically wise for the U.S. to unilaterally implement policies that can
result in more expensive energy for these manufacturing facilities
and for American households?
Mr. MONIZ. First of all, in no small part due to the shale gas
boom, we are actually seeing lower costs in many, many industries
and a growth in many
Mr. LATTA. Well, if I could just interrupt for a minute because
in the State of Ohio 70 percent of our energy is coal-based.
Mr. MONIZ. Yes. Again, across the country certainly we are seeing more manufacturing, lower energy prices, and in fact in Ohio
there is also the issue of developing shale gas now.
Secondly, in terms of the U.S. moving forward, I would say that,
number one, American leadership is indispensable if we are going
to have international action. But secondly, there is very much, I believe, the self-serving interest of developing the new technologies
that will in fact give us a strong position in a future multitrilliondollar market.
Mr. LATTA. OK. Continuing on with that, if I could just continue
on with the questions to you. Again, in the Climate Action Plan
and also in your testimony, we are talking about the three pillars
that you mentioned, and the third point being that the United
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00196
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
193
States needs to lead the international effort. And especially when
we are talking about the climate issues, what does the Administration mean by the U.S. taking that leadership role and does this
mean that we are supposed to be the first nation that decarbonizes
our energy supply on a very large scale and expects the rest of the
world to follow? Or what is that leadership?
Mr. MONIZ. I would say it means that, first of all, we do lead in
clean energy and I believe we do lead for sure in clean energy innovation. We have to help deploy it. We are working, for example, the
Department of State in terms of theif you like the policy level
has made tremendous progress in the G20 context and with China
in terms of HFCs. And at the Department of Energy we are working through a variety of mechanisms.
For example, we lead what is called the Clean Energy Ministerial, which is advancing dialogues with other countries. For example, in many countries now we have active dialogues going on
where our companies are working with companies in those countries. I will mention countries I have been in, Brazil, for example,
recently, yesterday in Vienna, Monday with Turkey, et cetera. They
are very interested in our technologies for industrial energy efficiency. This is a market for our companies to go out there, both
services and technology. That is what we mean by leading.
Mr. LATTA. Also I see from your testimony page 8 you talk about
how you are finalizing the rule covering the standby power of
microwave ovens and you go on with the proposals for the lamp fixtures, commercial refrigerators, and commercial walk-in coolers
and freezers. And I guess the question is are there any other appliance rules that you see that are being planned in the future?
Mr. MONIZ. Yes, indeed, and I would be happy to supply a list
of those. The next one we have saidthe next proposed rulemaking
we hope to advance in November on electric motors.
Mr. LATTA. OK. And if you have any other appliances that you
see coming up in the future if you could supply that to the committee
Mr. MONIZ. Certainly. I would be happy to write a list.
Mr. LATTA [continuing]. We would appreciate that.
Mr. MONIZ. And I might add that in addition to the rulemaking
we are, when it is appropriatefor example, right now with set-top
boxes, we are pursuing voluntary discussions because, frankly,
when the industry and consumers can come together and agree on
a rule that we think is good, that will actually get the rule implemented faster. So we work both on the rulemaking and on convening voluntary approaches to efficiency standards.
Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is expired and
I yield back.
Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding todays hearing.
And like you and Chairman Emeritus Barton and many colleagues on my side of the aisle, I am disappointed that so many
of the Administrations experts that are working to justify and put
out new carbon rules decided not to educate the public by testifying
here this morning. The 2 out of 13 attendance ratio does not bode
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00197
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
194
well for the most open, transparent Administration ever. But I am
sure we will find out where these people are, these people tomorrow that do their jobs after we leave here.
But we do have the few and the proud. Secretary Moniz, Administrator McCarthy, welcome. My question will focus on refineries,
the U.S. energy renaissance, and power grid issues in Texas. First
of all, refineries: Ms. McCarthy, much of todays discussion has
been about the Presidents carbon plan, and it has been about the
power sector, but I also worry about EPAs next steps for the refineries.
Less than 1 month ago your EPA announced that the Houston
area was on track to attain ground-level ozone standards by 2018.
Your EPA put up these reductions are even more impressive given
Houstons rank as one of the fastest-growing metropolitan areas in
the country. But rather than recognizing success, EPA is already
working on more strict ozone and so-called Tier 3 rules. And we
keep hearing rumors of new rules for greenhouse gases in the refining space. All this could mean billions of dollars, billions in compliance costs. These costs will hit families hard and be passed on
to average drivers across the country in places like Sugar Land,
Pearland, and Katy, Texas.
So brieflyI say briefly because I am limited time herecan you
tell me when to expect these carbon rules for refineries, what window of time frame, maam?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I dont have a time frame for you.
Mr. OLSON. No time frame, OK. Will you commit to study the cumulative cost of all these rules when we consider the impacts of
carbon regulations on refineries?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I will certainly commit to following whatever protocols we are required to do, sir.
Mr. OLSON. In the following what I call the Chairman Emeritus
Dingell rule, answering yes-or-no questions, yes or no, can you
guarantee that your rules will not raise gasoline prices? Yes or no?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I dont know what rules you are referring to and
I would never make guarantees to anything, sir.
Mr. OLSON. OK. All right. A further line of question, this is about
the U.S. energy renaissance. As you know, Ms. McCarthy, carbon
emissions from the United States have fallen in recent years without these new regulations. And there are many factors, but a significant reason is the increased use of American natural gas.
Ms. MCCARTHY. Um-hum.
Mr. OLSON. And again, the Dingell rule, yes or no, do you agree
that hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have created an
American energy renaissance that is helping to slash carbon emissions? Yes or no?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes or no, it is a complicated question. I will
take it very short. I believe that certainly the new technology has
advanced our ability to capture natural gas domestically. That has
been a wonderful thing from both air quality as well as domestically, and I think that answers your question.
Mr. OLSON. I will take that leaning yes. Yes or no, would carbon
emissions be higher today if fracking were banned or regulated out
of existence? Yes or no? No fracking, higher emissions?
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00198
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
195
Ms. MCCARTHY. I cant make that direct connection, sir. You are
asking me really complicated questions for yes or no.
Mr. OLSON. OK. I dont think it is that complicated but the answer is pretty clear you think it is yes.
And one final question, this is for you, Secretary Moniz, as well.
My home State, as you know, is in desperate need of new reliable
power. At a time when we are looking at blackouts in 2014 and
2015 without more power generation, the EPA is considering carbon rules that can essentially mandate partial carbon capture and
sequestration. Now, I am not opposed to CCS. As we discussed earlier in my testimony, you came here a couple months ago, my district is actually home to one of the only CCS modifications in the
country, the W.A. Parish plant outside of Needville, Texas.
Mr. MONIZ. Um-hum.
Mr. OLSON. Again, another yes-or-no question. Secretary Moniz
and Ms. McCarthy, do you believe that CCS technology is currently
economic for most coal plants, not just the Parish plant in
Needville, Texas, which is valuable because we have oil and gas
right there, right on the property. They can get the carbon there
quicker.
Mr. MONIZ. As we said, sir, earlier, I mean the combination of
the CCS with EOR is very attractive.
If I may just have one thing, Mr. Chairman. Since this issue has
come up many times about the two of us being here, I just want
to say that, first of all, there has been no trouble occupying 3 hours
with two of us, but secondly, I know my colleagues, our colleagues
across the Administration would be delighted to have a conversation about all of these issues.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much. The gentlemans time is
expired.
I will say to you that you are right, it took up a lot of time today.
We are going to get back in touch with those other agencies and
either meet with them individually or through letter exchange. So
we are going to follow up with them.
At this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, for 5 minutes.
Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you both
for being here and for your service to your country and for the last
few hours have given us.
Secretary Moniz, I have heard you speak in favor of the Presidents Climate Action Plan, and to that extent I understand the
concerns surrounding the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
being expressed. That being said, statements from energy experts
have said electrical prices are projected to have increased over 40
percent since 2001, which is well above the rate of inflation, and
it will continue to rise due to the requirements of EPA clean air
and environmental standards.
In addition to this, over 60 percent of our Nations clean power
generation actually comes from nuclear power, which is virtually
emissions-free, and I am very concerned with the efforts of your
agency in regards to the future of the nuclear energy sector. I believe that any serious plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
must have a strong nuclear component, yet the number of nuclear
plants that have announced their retirement this year has grown
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00199
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
196
to almost epidemic portions and more are expected in the near future. Let me just ask you first off, and keep it, you know, as brief
as possible, what are your goals for the growth of the nuclear energy sector overall?
Mr. MONIZ. Well, first of all, I mean the closures obviously have
a bunch of factors. In one case there was an equipment issue in
California.
Mr. KINZINGER. Sure.
Mr. MONIZ. In Vermont it is principally
Mr. KINZINGER. But a lot of it is age. We havent built new
plants
Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. Natural gas
Mr. KINZINGER [continuing]. In 20 years time.
Mr. MONIZ. They are older.
Mr. KINZINGER. Understood.
Mr. MONIZ. But the Department of Energy, before I was there,
have for years already been supporting things like life extension
technologies, et cetera. So that is one direction. Another is we are
still working on the provisional loan guarantee for the Vogtle
plants. It is really important to get some of these new plants built.
Mr. KINZINGER. Has the DOE actually closed any of those loan
guarantees?
Mr. MONIZ. Well
Mr. KINZINGER. No.
Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. On nuclear
Mr. KINZINGER. Why not?
Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. Just theit is an ongoing negotiation
and a
Mr. KINZINGER. Because it has been a while, I know, so
Mr. MONIZ. All I can say is
Mr. KINZINGER [continuing]. I hear the discussion about it
Mr. MONIZ. All I can say is that I have taken a direct interest
in this.
Mr. KINZINGER. OK. Because I mean from our perspective I hear
the Administration use, and in fact I heard you a number of times
today use the loan guarantees as promise for, hey, we support it,
but these are all conditional. They are not finalized. And when you
have a number of plants closing because of the age of these plants
and we are very slow to replace that capacityand let me ask you
this. Do you believe that the greenhouse gas targets set out by the
Administration can be met without the use of nuclear power?
Mr. MONIZ. Clearly, the 17 percent goal for 2020 is what you are
referring to, which we are kind of almost halfway there. Clearly,
if there are a lot of nuclear power plant closures in that time, that
will certainly make it more difficult.
Mr. KINZINGER. And I know this is just we are asking you to
guesstimate, how many more nuclear plants do you think will be
put out of commission before those targets would become unattainable?
Mr. MONIZ. On that I do not know but I can tell you that I am
hoping to have discussions with the industry to try to understand
better where that is going. I mean nuclear power plants that exist
still do have, you know, pretty low marginal costs, which would
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00200
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
197
make them attractive, but as we know, the lower natural gas prices
has lowered the clearing price in many parts of the country.
Mr. KINZINGER. Sure. Absolutely. And again, I want to make the
point of what we were talking about earlier, that there are no loan
guarantees in existence right now. They are conditional.
And I will just say to finish upI wont take all my time; hold
your applause, pleaseif the Administration was serious about addressing climate change, I think it would harness the clean energy
from nuclear power, as we have been talking about. At a minimum
it would follow the law. I heard a lot of discussion about following
the law today. And it would reconstitute the Yucca Mountain program and provide a solid basis for the NRC to issue new plant licenses.
And so I thank you for your time today. I thank you for your testimony. And, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. MONIZ. Well, we are following the law.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back.
At this time, you all may have noticed Ms. Schakowsky is over
here, and we have sort of ignored Ms. Schakowsky. And she is a
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, but she is not
a member of this subcommittee, so traditionally, we finish all the
subcommittee members before we go to Ms. Schakowsky. And Mr.
Griffith, Ms. Schakowsky, has said that he has noted you sitting
over there patiently, so I would like to recognize you for 5 minutes
if you would like to ask your questions now because he
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, I thank you both, especially Mr. Griffith
for that courtesy.
I believe that the threat to at least human life on our planet is
the greatest challenge that humankind has faced. And I feel so
strongly that this Congress, this Congress, is in a moment of such
great opportunity where we could take leadership on behalf of the
United States, on behalf of the countries around the world that we
could benefit economically. This is a moment of great opportunity
that I fear as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee
that we are squandering. And I look at some of the young people
in this audience; this is their century, and I feel an obligation that
we try and do something about this.
I would like to see if either of you have a comment about this
issue of coal and this promulgated ruling that is about to come out.
Some of the charges are that it would have basically an insignificant effect on climate change, and that it actually would jeopardize
the economic opportunities of people in poor countries and further
impoverish them. That is a pretty heavy charge. I wonder if you,
Madam Administrator, could give us some answer to that
Ms. MCCARTHY. I would be happy to begin.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY [continuing]. And Secretary Moniz.
Ms. MCCARTHY. What I would say is that the reason why the
power plant sector is one of the first places to go to regulate carbon
pollution is because it is by far the largest industry sector in terms
of its generation of greenhouse gases. The second reason is that
there are opportunities to reduce greenhouse gases, and that will
position us in the energy future. And I think there is every reason
why we should want to tee up ideas and options for how to do that
effectively, taking advantage of modern technologies that we can
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00201
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
198
take advantage of and escalate their introduction both in the U.S.
as well as internationally. That is what is going to make significant
differences, not just what we are doing here, but its impact in moving cleaner technologies forward.
The issue of the international discussion I think that you will see
that the language in the Presidents Climate Action Plan is very
detailed on this issue. It in no way steps back from both the intent
of the United States and our obligation to work with the developing
countries to ensure that they mature and provide energy for their
citizens. And the language in here is not inconsistent with that
goal. It will not minimize our efforts towards that goal. What it
does say, however, is that we need to be careful about how we are
investing and we dont want developing countries to make mistakes
that we might have made in not positioning themselves for the best
technologies available in a carbon-constrained world.
Mr. MONIZ. I would just add that the Climate Action Plan, as far
as the things like the Ex-Im Bank, does have an exclusion for the
least-developed countries.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I see. Let me just say how much I appreciate
your being here and the fact of having the EPA Administrator and
the Secretary of Energy at a single hearing, I am sure we will have
and I hope you will have an opportunity to hear others, but, you
know, that is not an everyday occurrence and I want to thank you
for that.
I also want to associate myself with Mr. Waxmans plea that has
been made more than once that we have scientists come in and
talk to us. And we can, you know, have the kind of forum where
the science could be challenged, could be questioned where if there
is differing opinions, but I am wondering in the seconds I have is
there really a significant difference of opinion about the science of
climate change?
Mr. MONIZ. Well, again, I would argue that at the level of the
broad impacts in my view there is none. I think there is again very,
very simple arguments as to why this is expected.
I also observed that the pattern of effects was predicted decades
ago. This is not somehow being made up. Clearly, there are specificwhen you start drilling down to specific issues, it is very complicated science. So earlier, we had a discussion about the last several years have seen a slowdown of warming. And as I pointed out,
this is not out of the expectations on decadal scales, but that is a
case where the scientists are still having some argument over the
specific driver.
Recent papers, as one example, have links essentially the El
Nino/La Nina issues to that, but that is an example of something
that still remains to be worked out. It does not obviate the overwhelming conclusion and the overwhelming support for what is
going on in terms of global warming.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleladys time is expired.
At this time I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I did appreciate the comments about using as we move forward
so that we dont impoverish the other nations and impoverish our
own Nation that we use modern technologies as we move forward.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00202
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
199
The problem that I think we have and I would say that the countering plan is is that we ought to make sure those technologies are
available first before we put regulations in place that then cause
us to lose an entire segment of our populations jobs and our energy
production, et cetera. And that has been my concern all along.
And coming from a coal-producing region, I can tell you that the
policies already, not even counting the ones that are going to come
out later this week or ones that may come out in the next few
months, are devastating the economy of my district. And it is quite
moving when you see these people. These are hardworking men
and women who are out there trying to do jobs. It is not just the
coalminers. It is the jobs that are relied upon, the coalmines, and,
you know, every time I turn around there is another manufacturing company that was relying on the coal industry that is going
out of business or needed affordable electricity that is going out of
business. There is another coalmine about every other week and I
am losing a coalmine in my district. Those are people who are making about $75,000 a year that arent making it now.
And then probably the biggest blow that any of my communities
has received, and while in fairness the two first factors they listed
were the double-edged scissors of ObamaCare, they also listed the
fact that the economy is so poor in the area, and it is a coal-producing part of my district. And we just lost a hospital in my district. And so now some of my constituents are going to have to
drive an hour, hour-and-a-half to get to cardiac care and hospital.
This is not a good thing.
And when we look at the cost-benefit analysis, we dont always
look at the fact that if people dont have the ability to afford the
electricity in their homes that they then have to cut back on things
and they have to cut back on some important things. If you cant
heat your home effectively in the wintertimeand in the mountains of Virginia, sometimes it gets pretty coldthat can affect
your health. If you are having a problem with your heart and all
of a sudden instead of being able to go to the local hospital because
of policies enacted here in Washington, you have to drive an hour,
hour-and-a-half to get to heart care, that is going to have an impact on your health. There is just no way around that.
And I think that we need to look at these things, and when we
say that, oh, this is all going to be grand and all going to be great,
I think we have to get the science and the breakthroughs and the
technological breakthroughs out there first before we say we are
going to shut down a lot of coal-powered plants because the technology is not out there for everything that needs to be done in
order to make them 100 percent.
And when you look at poverty, and I noticed that the gentleman
earlier referenced a German article, How Electricity Became a
Luxury Good, I dont think that the people of the United States
of America consider electricity to be a luxury good, and I dont
think we want to be at the point where they have a minister, in
this case you, Ms. McCarthy, in equal the German environment
Minister Peter Altmaier giving out tips on how you dont preheat
your oven to do cooking and maybe if you lower the contrast and
the brightness on your television, you can bring down your electric
bill because the Germans have put themselves in a position where
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00203
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
200
people cant afford it. I dont want that for my country but it is hitting my district hard right now. And so I hope that you would take
that into consideration.
And along with those things, I know that the President outlined
the goal of 17 percent reduction in 2005 greenhouse gas levels by
2020, and he mentioned that also at a climate speech in June at
Georgetown University, and I heard Mr. Secretary say earlier that
we are about halfway there. I guess my question is is that from
programs from the EPA or is that from plant shutdowns? And how
much of the programs that the EPA has enacted brought down
those greenhouse gases in the last 5 years? Can you quantify how
much the programs have brought down?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Let me just put the goal in a little bit of perspective. I think that that goal clearly was stated in the Climate Action
Plan but in no way does that Climate Action Plan say that those
actions are going to add up to that 17 percent. It is a start at looking at the most economically viable opportunities
Mr. GRIFFITH. And you know that the 17 percent
Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. To grow the economy and address
greenhouse gas
Mr. GRIFFITH. And I apologize, my time is running out. The 17
percent, was that just a number that was picked out of the air or
was there some scientific basis for it and can you give me that
basis?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I believe that it was an international goal that
was stated.
Mr. GRIFFITH. All right.
Ms. MCCARTHY. There was certainly some analytics but it was
not directly associated with that plan, but it remains a goal that
we would like to achieve.
Mr. GRIFFITH. I mean I understand we know we are going to try
to reduce greenhouse gases, but do we know specifically how much
each program will give us? And that being said, if you could get
that to me later because my time is just about out.
Ms. McCarthy, I truly believe when you are here to testify, and
I have told people in my district that I think you do care about the
plight of folks
Ms. MCCARTHY. I do.
Mr. GRIFFITH [continuing]. And so I would ask you to commit
whether it is my district or one of the other districts in central Appalachia that has been hit so hard, if we set up a trip, would you
come down and see what is happening in the district of the people
and where the jobs are just disappearing and there are lots of
towns with empty storefronts and
Ms. MCCARTHY. Congressman, I will follow up
Mr. GRIFFITH [continuing]. It looks like a ghost town?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I will follow up directly with you on that.
Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. I appreciate that very much.
And, Mr. Chairman, with that I yield back.
Mr. MONIZ. If I could just say that about half of the reductions
so far have been from the shale gas revolution, purely market-driven, and another part of it has been, especially in the transportation
sector, the efficiency standards holding demand down.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlemans time is
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00204
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
201
Mr. WAXMAN. Which were based on regulations, isnt that correct?
Mr. MONIZ. Correct.
Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Engel, for 5 minutes.
Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me say that I am applauding our committee for finally having a hearing on climate change. I want to say that it is obvious
to me and to everyone else the science is undeniable and it is time
for us to act. And Congress has been ducking this issue even going
so far as to deny the basic science behind climate change. I have
seen the devastating affects right in my area when Hurricane
Sandy hit New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, and my district
suffered huge devastation. Rising seas, stronger storms, and greater flooding will only increase if we choose to do nothing.
So if Congress unwilling to act on the issue, I am very happy the
President has decided to act. And though some may deny the existence of climate change, the science is clear. If people object to the
specifics of the Presidents plan, then they should propose their
own plan for curbing carbon pollution and climate change and the
committee should actively pursue this matter.
We also know from experience that government can regulate pollution without hurting the economy. In fact, many of the ideas that
will help reduce carbon pollution will also grow new industries in
renewables, carbon capture technology, and other new technologies
that will help mitigate climate change.
So, Secretary Moniz, let me ask you, you mentioned in your testimony the devastation that Sandy wrought upon New York, New
Jersey, and Connecticut. One of the major issues arising from that
was the loss of power and the length of time that it took to return.
Can you speak to what the Department of Energy is doing in regard to electricity reliability and how that works with the Presidents Climate Change Plans?
Mr. MONIZ. Yes, thank you. I will mention two areas. One is in
the context of our general work on kind of the electric grid of the
21st century we are folding in very heavily resilience issues, as
well as the kind of renewables and other drivers of that technology.
And I mentioned earlier that one specific project we just had announced in New Jersey looking at a micro-grid to support a major
transportation corridor, which by the way would also be an important evacuation route for New Yorkers.
The second thing, which is very important, and we are working
closely with industry with API, the American Petroleum Institute,
and the EEI. What we learned in Sandy a little bit the hard way
was how the electricity infrastructure and the transportation fuels
infrastructures are so interdependent. So we are working on that
and being positioned for any future event.
Mr. ENGEL. So implementation of these plans is ongoing? We can
expect that soon?
Mr. MONIZ. Yes, it is. We hope to have a product that we will
put out at the end of the month, for example.
Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. I have been a long supporter of alternative fuels for transportations. Besides electric vehicles that you
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00205
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
202
mentioned, what are other alternative fuels is the Department of
Energy working on?
Mr. MONIZ. Well, we certainly supportand particularly for
heavy vehicleslooking at the issue of natural gas as a transportation fuel. We of course have a very extensive program on advanced biofuels moving to cellulosic biofuels, for example. And
these are again a case where costs are coming down quite dramatically, not quite there yet but coming down dramatically.
And of course electrification again costs have dropped dramatically, not yet for the long-range vehicle for the mass market but
the penetration is happening much faster than it did at the comparable stage for hybrid vehicles, looking very, very interesting.
And then more to the future, the hydrogen economy and fuel
cells, that remains kind of a little bit earlier in the development.
But I would say alternative liquid fuels and electricity are looking
actually quite interesting.
Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. I know you both have been here a long
time so, Administrator McCarthy, I am going to submit a couple of
questions for you and spare you from having to answer it. But I
thank both of you
Ms. MCCARTHY. Thanks.
Mr. ENGEL [continuing]. For your hard work
Mr. WAXMAN. Would the gentleman
Mr. ENGEL [continuing]. And
Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman from New York, if
Mr. ENGEL. Yes?
Mr. WAXMAN [continuing]. You have completed your questions, I
would like to just make a
Mr. ENGEL. Certainly.
Mr. WAXMAN [continuing]. Yield to me the time?
Mr. ENGEL. Yes, sir.
Mr. WAXMAN. I just want to make a comment on the hearing,
which I think has been an excellent hearing.
We are at a critical crossroads in this country in our energy policy, and if we decide to do nothing, which I sense is what the Republicans want is to do nothing, it is going to lead to more carbon
pollution, more droughts and floods, and other extreme weather
events, more billion-dollar disasters and relief bills to pay for them
by the taxpayers. If we take that path, history will not treat us
kindly. We will be the generation that ignored the warnings of scientists and left future generations a violent and inhospitable climate.
On the other hand, there is another path. We have a shrinking
window for action but we still have a window to act. And Secretary
Moniz told us that this is the critical, crucial time this decade. If
we act now, if we invest in solar, wind, and other clean energy
sources, if we unleash American ingenuity, we can stop carbon pollution and protect our atmosphere and create millions of new clean
energy jobs.
I want to thank the two witnesses who have been very, very
helpful and terrific in being here all this time. I hope we will all
put aside our partisan differences to help achieve these goals. They
are very important ones for the future of our country and the rest
of the world.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00206
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
203
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Engel.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Waxman.
And I would also say how much we appreciate the two of you
being here today. We do think it is a major accomplishment that
our CO2 emissions are lower than they have been in 20 years. And
as we move forward, I think we all want a balanced approach. We
want to protect the environment but we also want to make sure
that we have a strong, viable economy and that we dont want to
be left in a noncompetitive position in the world marketplace.
And I hope that you all look as forward to being with us in the
future as we look forward to being with you again here. We spent
3 or 4 marvelous hours together. And that will
Ms. MCCARTHY. We will be back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WHITFIELD [continuing]. Conclude todays hearing, but I
would remind Members that they have 10 business days to submit
questions for the record, and I ask that the witnesses all agree to
respond promptly to the questions that we submit to you all.
So thank you again and we look forward to working with you as
we move forward.
Mr. MONIZ. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you.
Mr. MONIZ. We appreciate it very much.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. That concludes todays hearing.
[Whereupon, at 1:22 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00207
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00208
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.139
204
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00209
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.140
205
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00210
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.141
206
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00211
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.142
207
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00212
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.143
208
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00213
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.144
209
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00214
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.145
210
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00215
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.146
211
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00216
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.147
212
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00217
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.148
213
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00218
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.149
214
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00219
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.150
215
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00220
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.151
216
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00221
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.152
217
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00222
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.153
218
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00223
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.154
219
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00224
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.155
220
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00225
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.156
221
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00226
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.157
222
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00227
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.158
223
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00228
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.159
224
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00229
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.160
225
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00230
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.161
226
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00231
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.162
227
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00232
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.163
228
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00233
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.164
229
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00234
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.165
230
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00235
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.166
231
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00236
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.167
232
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00237
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.168
233
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00238
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.169
234
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00239
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.170
235
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00240
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.171
236
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00241
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.172
237
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00242
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.173
238
239
VerDate Aug 31 2005
13:38 May 19, 2014
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00243
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6011
F:\113-82~1\113-82~1
WAYNE
87109.174
