[Senate Hearing 113-758]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-758
HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF JANET G. McCABE TO BE ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIR AND RADIATION OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA), ANN E. DUNKIN TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION OF THE EPA, AND MANUEL H. EHRLICH, JR.,
TO BE A MEMBER OF THE CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 8, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-799 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
_________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
TOM UDALL, New Mexico MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director
Zak Baig, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
APRIL 8, 2014
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1
Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana..... 2
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 4
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 4
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 18
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 131
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of
Maryland, prepared statement................................... 154
Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska,
prepared statement............................................. 154
WITNESSES
McCabe, Janet G., nominated to be Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency............ 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 23
Senator Vitter........................................... 25
Senator Inhofe........................................... 50
Senator Sessions......................................... 54
Senator Boozman.......................................... 67
Senator Fischer.......................................... 70
Dunkin, Ann E., nominated to be Assistant Administrator for
Environmental Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 77
Prepared statement........................................... 79
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Vitter........................................... 83
Senator Boozman.......................................... 84
Ehrlich, Manuel H., Jr., nominated to be a Member of the Chemical
Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.......................... 85
Prepared statement........................................... 87
Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer........ 91
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Vitter........................................... 93
Senator Fischer.......................................... 95
HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF JANET G. McCABE TO BE ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIR AND RADIATION OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA), ANN E. DUNKIN TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION OF THE EPA, AND MANUEL H. EHRLICH, JR.,
TO BE A MEMBER OF THE CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Carper, Whitehouse, Markey,
Vitter, Inhofe, Barrasso, Sessions, Crapo, and Fischer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. The committee will come to order.
Today, we will consider three nominations. It is critical
that we move forward with these nominations so that our Federal
agencies can fulfill their mission to serve the American
people, protect their health and safety. That is the role of
this committee.
The first nominee we will hear from today is Janet McCabe,
who is being considered for Assistant Administrator for the
Office for Air and Radiation at EPA. Currently, she is Acting
Assistant Administrator and she previously served as that
office's Principal Deputy to the Assistant Administrator.
Prior to joining EPA, Ms. McCabe was Executive Director of
Improving Kids Environment, Inc., a children's environmental
health advocacy organization based in Indianapolis, Indiana.
She was an Adjunct Faculty member at Indiana University's
School of Medicines, Department of Public Health.
Ms. McCabe has a wealth of public service experience aimed
at protecting air quality and the environment. Ms. McCabe's
extensive experience will serve her well and build on the
important work EPA has done to protect public health by keeping
our Nation's air clean.
In 2010 alone, the clean air standards and programs under
the Clean Air Act prevented 13 million lost work days,
prevented more than 160,000 deaths from pollution, and
prevented 1.7 million asthma attacks.
Like her predecessors at EPA, Ms. McCabe will rely on
science and peer reviewed studies to determine how best to
protect America's families under our landmark laws.
The next nominee we will hear from is Ann E. Dunkin, who
hails from my home State, California. She has been nominated to
be Assistant Administrator for the Environmental Information
Office at EPA. She brings over two decades of technology
management experience in both the private and public sectors,
including 20 years at Hewlett Packard.
She is currently the Chief Tech Officer for Palo Alto
Unified School District, Palo Alto, California, where she is
responsible for managing all aspects of the district's
technology strategy infrastructure and operations. Her
experience spans across disciplines of manufacturing,
engineering, software quality, research and development and
operations and information.
If confirmed, she will be responsible for managing EPA's
information and technology investments and provide tech
services in OEI, which collects, manages, provides and
safeguards environmental information.
The committee is also considering the nomination of Manuel
Ehrlich to be a member of the Chemical Safety Board. Mr.
Ehrlich has over 50 years of chemical industry safety and
emergency response experience, including establishing a
training team to assist in the management of emergency response
incidents.
As a member of the CSB, Mr. Ehrlich will be charged with
investigating industrial chemical accidents, to protect
workers, to protect the public and the environment. Mr. Ehrlich
is very well qualified for this position because he has handled
more than 7,000 chemical safety and emergency responses during
his long career.
The CSB plays a critical role in protecting our communities
from chemical hazards and is part of a working group that
President Obama established after the deadly chemical disaster
in West, Texas. I know Mr. Ehrlich's broad experience in the
public and private sectors will be useful as the CSB and other
working groups conduct a comprehensive review of Federal
chemical safety and security programs and develop
recommendations for improving these programs.
This hearing is a very important step in forwarding to the
Senate these three very, very qualified nominees whom I
strongly support. I look forward to this hearing today.
With that, I turn to Senator Vitter, my ranking member.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, for convening
today's hearing, and welcome to our three nominees.
While I appreciate everyone taking the time to join us
today, I would like to focus on Ms. McCabe and her Air Office
for the next few minutes.
As you know, for some time we have been engaged in a
sustained effort to bring greater transparency to EPA's
activities. Sometimes we have been successful but generally
speaking, getting clear, understandable answers and data from
the agency remains a challenge.
Ms. McCabe has been at the EPA for a number of years, first
as the now Administrator McCarthy's second in command and
currently as the Acting Assistant Administrator of the Air
Office. She has enjoyed a front row seat during our prolonged
efforts with EPA and should be well aware of the expectations
of the role into which she is stepping, including about
transparency.
EPA says it is one of the most transparent administrations
in history, so I think it is time to stop just talking about
that and shed some much greater light on agency processes.
There are many issues I could discuss today but I want to
focus on three for the time being. First is electricity
reliability. While we are dependent on a diverse generation
portfolio including coal, natural gas and nuclear, EPA's
regulatory onslaught makes the future far less certain in terms
of that broad base of support.
American Electric Power's CEO stated, ``89 percent of our
coal capacity slated for retirement in mid-2015'' was providing
the power necessary to meet current demand. EIA projects
additional coal power plant retirement in addition to those
already scheduled for 2016. While existing EPA regulations
contribute to these closures, the pending actions under the
President's Climate Action Plan dramatically increase those
consequences, including negative consequences to reliability
and affordability.
The most damaging rules, greenhouse gas performance
standards for power plants, 316(b) and pending revision to the
ozone standard remain to be finished and imposed on the
American consumer.
The second topic I want to visit is the greenhouse gas
emission performance standards for power plants. The rule for
existing sources is going to affect over 1,500 fossil fuel
plants in the U.S., including nearly 560 coal-fired power
plants. The President set a deadline of June 1 that the agency
appears on track to meet, yet none of us in this room know the
exact contents of the proposal except perhaps the nominee.
The rule for new sources had to be repurposed after
receiving over 2 million comments. Clearly something was
serious wrong. I cannot say that the new version is a rousing
success either. Any contemplation of building new coal-fired
plants will require the use of technologies that are not
adequately demonstrated at a commercial scale and are based on
three incomplete, inoperable projects funded by the government.
In other words, EPA seems to be mandating a regulation based on
fiction.
Increased regulation by EPA through these performance
standards has the potential of resulting in job loss across the
country, serious electricity reliability issues and certainly
increased electric bills.
The third issue I want to touch on is the social cost of
carbon. We have been over this a number of times, and it
continues to concern me that direct answers to the simplest
questions and requests on this remain unfilled. Why did EPA
ignore OMB guidance and not run the social cost of carbon
estimate at a 7 percent discount rate? Why did EPA not do an
assessment of the social cost of carbon with respect to the
U.S.? To date, the social cost of carbon is used in 28 EPA
rules. It is a significant estimate that needs to be fully
understood before being allowed to be used in such a dominant
and perhaps haphazard manner.
These are only a few of the issues I have with the EPA and
how it runs things now. In each instance, the agency seems to
be prepared to select the most difficult, most painful, least
understandable and least transparent path. I certainly hope Ms.
McCabe will work with us to change that positively.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thanks.
Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thank you all for being here. Thank you all
for your willingness to serve in these roles.
My colleagues have heard me say more than a few times that
practicing executive branch government by Swiss cheese; there
are way too many vacancies in the executive branch of our
Government across departments. It is wasteful and inefficient.
It is foolish.
I don't care whether the President is George Herbert Walker
Bush or Bill Clinton or George W. Bush or Barack Obama, this is
not a smart way to go.
Madam Chairwoman, I applaud you for bringing these names
forward and for having this hearing today. I think we have some
pretty good nominees. I look forward to talking with you and
hearing from you and trying to move your nominations forward.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator, for your support.
Senator Barrasso.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
I want to than the nominees and congratulate them on their
nominations.
As stated before, I am from what I consider the most
beautiful State in the country. Folks in my State believe we
can balance our energy needs with our environmental needs. We
are wonderful environmental stewards of the land. People in my
State watch the EPA and watch what the EPA is doing.
Yesterday Senator Enzi and I had a telephone town hall
meeting, and call after call was about the EPA and Government
regulations. People in Wyoming think this agency is behaving in
an extreme fashion. Many of the policies coming out of the
EPA's Air and Radiation Office are the cause of the beliefs I
am hearing from the people around the State of Wyoming.
We have a nominee before us today, Janet McCabe, who has
been nominated to head this very important office and is
currently serving as the office's acting head. Any nominee
tasked with heading up this office should be discussing what
the best ways are to provide clean air while not harming the
economy and economic growth.
The only way to do this is to have a nominee who will work
with us to chart a bipartisan path, consensus, sound science,
transparency and accountability. The Air and Radiation Office
at the EPA has presided over regulations and proposed rules on
greenhouse gases, coal ash, ozone, mercury emissions and
industrial boilers.
Regulations and proposed rules have led to the closing of
dozens of power plants in the United States and are costing our
country thousands of jobs. Folks in those communities where
those plants shut down are now without money, without jobs,
without prospects for jobs and are at risk for serious health
problems as a result of chronic long term unemployment.
Studies show that children of unemployed parents will
suffer significant negative health effects. The National Center
for Health Statistics states that children in poor families are
four times as likely to be in fair or poor health as children
in families who are not poor. There are serious health risks
and these go unnoticed by the Air and Radiation Office at EPA
as they churn out more job crushing regulations with little
environmental benefits.
Any nominee to hold this position must pledge to look at
these important health impacts. To date, the nominee has not
taken this action in her current role as acting head of this
office. To make matters worse, we find that some of these rules
were developed by an EPA employee with no environmental
experience who masqueraded as a CIA agent. No attempts have
been made by the Air and Radiation Office, of which I am aware,
to review and rescind the work of this great imposter. Any
nominee to fill this position must pledge to do so.
In addition, the Air and Radiation Office has not
recognized the importance of addressing the issue of energy
poverty. Coal is a domestic abundant fuel source. It burns 24
hours a day, 7 days a week. Coal is lifting millions out of
poverty in Asia and the developing world.
At the same time, this Air and Radiation Office is
quarterbacking the war on coal, establishing a carbon capture
and sequestration requirement for future coal-fired power
plants that may never be achievable. Carbon capture and
sequestration is a technology that is not currently and may
never be commercially and economically viable.
Regulations that do not allow coal to continue as part of
America's energy mix will only lead to one thing, poverty for
low income families who spend a greater share of their income
on energy. Any nominee to head the Air and Radiation Office of
EPA must stop denying the technological limitations of CCS and
the importance of reducing energy poverty in America. In her
current role, this nominee has not done so.
Again, I thank you, Madam Chairman, and look forward to the
testimony.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
I ask unanimous consent to place in the record the American
Lung Association Clean Air Survey completed in 2012.
[The referenced information was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Boxer. Seventy-three percent of voters say we don't
have to choose between air quality and a strong economy; 66
percent of voters favor EPA updating air pollution standards by
setting stricter standards; and 72 percent of voters support
new standards for carbon pollution from power plants. This was
across the whole country.
I will try to get your State separated out but it is very
clear that there wasn't any State that didn't agree with these
findings.
Senator Barrasso. Madam Chair, I also ask then to be put
into the record my report on studies showing that EPA's rules
cost Americans their jobs and their health.
Senator Boxer. Of course we will be happy to do that.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. In addition to that, we will also show what
the EPA has done since the Clean Air standard just in 1 year
alone in preventing 160,000 deaths from air pollution.
[The referenced information was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Boxer. We really have a different way of seeing the
world but you can make up your opinions but you cannot make up
the facts. That is the truth.
Yes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding
this hearing.
Welcome to all of the nominees.
As the opening comments show, you have considerable
diversity of views on this panel. I perhaps represent a State
that is the opposite of Wyoming. Wyoming gets from coal, as I
understand, about $1 billion a year in State revenue, so it is
a very important economic driver in that State.
Rhode Island gets asthma, we get ozone, we get days where
the morning radio says that infants, elderly and people with
breathing difficulties need to stay indoors. They become
captive. We get 10 inches of sea level rise that has been
measured since the 1930s, which is a very big deal because when
you are the Ocean State and you get hit with big storms like
the famous hurricane of 1938 when there is 10 more inches of
ocean to throw against the shores, there is considerably more
devastation.
It is only reasonable to anticipate that a storm that has
actually occurred can be repeated. We need to be sensitive to
that. Our bay is 3 to 4 degrees warmer in the winter, so
fisheries like the winter flounder that were huge cash crops
for our fisherman have virtually disappeared. There has been a
better than 90 percent crash in the winter flounder population.
It is really important when we look at this issue that we
not look at a one-sided ledger. Senator Barrasso has his side
of the ledger, and it is a real side of the ledger. I don't
dispute that there are significant benefits to Wyoming from
continuing to mine and burn and sell coal. Those have to be
addressed at any fair resolution.
We simply cannot ignore the other side of the ledger. You
cannot have one-sided accounting. If this were accounting,
accountants would go to jail for only looking at one side of
the ledger. On our side of the ledger, I have a State that is
really very much at risk. We need the EPA to be defending us
against the coal plants that are downwind that have dodged
regulation for years that are pumping through 500,000 foot tall
stacks so that it doesn't hit their immediate area but comes
down on us.
We cannot regulate that through our State Department of
Environmental Management. They don't have the jurisdiction that
far. We need the EPA. It is the only place we can go when we
have kids in the emergency room with that thing on their finger
measuring their blood oxygen levels and the mom who thought she
was going to have a day at work stuck there with them while
they try to get their oxygen levels under control and back to
breathing right again.
That is nothing I am ever going to walk away from. I
appreciate EPA's support. Good luck navigating the differences
between the two sides of the ledger on coal.
I would ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my
remarks be admitted.
Senator Boxer. Without objection.
[The referenced statement was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Boxer. Now that you have seen the unity of this
committee on issues of the environment, welcome.
We are going to start with Ms. McCabe. We are going to ask
you to stay to 5 minutes, please. After that, I will cut you
off because I am sure we will have questions.
Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JANET G. McCABE, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIR AND RADIATION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. McCabe. Thank you, Chairman Boxer.
Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter and members of the
committee, thank you for holding this hearing. I am honored to
appear before you and grateful for the time that you and our
staff have spent with me prior to today.
I would also like to thank the members of my family who are
here with me today behind me, my husband, Jon Laramore and my
children, Peter, Alice and Dan. I think of them every day and I
am so grateful for their support.
It is a great honor and very humbling that President Obama
has nominated me to serve as Assistant Administrator for the
Office of Air and Radiation. For the past four and a half
years, I have had the privilege of working in that office to
help fulfill EPA's mission, to protect human health and the
environment.
After a career of almost 30 years working at the State
level to improve air quality and to protect the health of
American families and communities, this opportunity is an
incredible honor and responsibility and one that I take very
seriously.
In the decades since the Clean Air Act was enacted, our air
is cleaner and safer and our economy has grown and prospered.
If confirmed, I will consider it my responsibility to work with
all parties to continue that progress so that both the
environment and the economy can provide for current and future
generations.
The Office of Air and Radiation has an important role over
the coming years to continue to protect Americans from air
pollution, especially the most vulnerable among us, including
our children and our seniors. We also must take thoughtful and
reasonable steps to address the threat of climate change.
Responding to climate change is an urgent, public health,
safety, national security, economic and environmental
imperative that presents great challenges and great
opportunities.
As a Hoosier, I know this very well. Indiana has been and
continues to be a strong manufacturing State. A reliable and
affordable energy supply is vitally important to its economy
and coal is a big part of that. In my 12 years at the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management, I worked with
industries across the State, as well as public health and
environmental groups to implement clean air laws in a common
sense way that made progress in improving air quality and
supported jobs and businesses.
When I worked for Improving Kids Environment, a children's
health non-profit in Indianapolis, the significance of
addressing air pollution and climate change for future
generations hit home even harder as I worked one on one with
families across Indiana wanting a healthy start and a healthy
future for their kids.
I would like to mention three things about how I will carry
out my responsibilities if confirmed. First, working for State
agencies in two States has taught me that government, at
whatever level, works best when all perspectives are at the
table, when there is openness to good ideas wherever they come
from.
I am proud that people from my home State from across the
political spectrum were able to say when I was nominated that I
was willing to listen. I am already applying this approach
while serving as Acting Assistant Administrator and I will
continue to do so if confirmed.
Second, we must base our decisions on sound science, a
transparent record and the law. I am proud of the strong
scientific and technical expertise in the Office of Air and
Radiation and throughout EPA and proud of the agency's work
with the scientific community to make sure that our decisions
are appropriately grounded in science. If confirmed, I will
make sure that we continue to do our work that way.
Third, I will continue to bring to may my job my
understanding of the State perspective. Implementing the Clean
Air Act is a partnership--EPA and State, local and tribal
governments and EPA must be mindful of those perspectives as it
develops national rules and programs so that they will be able
to be implemented and effective.
I know from the conversations we have already had that the
members of this committee and the other nominees beside me
share a passion for public service. I look forward, if
confirmed, to working closely with you the faithfully execute
the Clean Air Act. We all want to serve the American people by
providing a safe and healthy environment and the opportunity to
enjoy it in a strong and growing economy.
I am grateful for you considering my nomination. Thank you
very much and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McCabe follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Ms. McCabe.
Ms. Dunkin.
STATEMENT OF ANN E. DUNKIN, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Dunkin. Good morning, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member
Vitter and other members of the committee.
It is my honor to appear before you as President Obama's
nominee to be Assistant Administrator for Environmental
Information for the EPA.
Before I begin, I want to thank my partner, Kathleen, for
her support today and throughout this process. I also want to
thank my nephew, Dylan, whom I had the honor to raise, for
taking time away from his first professional job to be here
with us today.
While they are no longer with us, I want to acknowledge my
parents for making it possible for me to be here today. My
mother started programming in the 1950s at the University of
Pennsylvania, when there were only two women in her class at
Wharton. She has been a lifelong role model for me.
My father, who believed that all of his children, including
his daughters, could do anything they set out to do, inspired
me to pursue my dream, even in the male dominated field of
engineering and technology.
My father's family is full of engineers and I have always
loved technology, so it was no surprise that I studied
engineering in college. I chose industrial engineering because
I cared about people and systems as well as things.
After graduating from the Georgia Institute of Technology,
I joined Hewlett Packard where I worked for nearly 20 years. I
started as a manufacturing engineer and quickly moved into
manufacturing management where I learned the core values that
were embodied in the HP way and that even today, guide my work
as a leader, values such as treating people with trust and
respect, always acting with integrity and accomplishing results
through team work.
Over time, I moved from manufacturing management to
software quality to research and development, to operations and
then information technology earning progressively more
responsibility along the way.
I worked on many exciting projects and programs running
operations for HP's Internet startup businesses during the dot-
com boom to developing tools to support printer R&D to managing
IT for Indigo, an Israeli digital press manufacturer that HP
acquired. My final position at HP was back in R&D as the
program manager for a major new printer development program.
Throughout my time in HP's technology intensive
environment, I learned how to manage, lead and optimize
technology functions. Since people are any organization's
greatest asset, I learned how to work with and lead people at
the same time. From managing a small development team to
leading a group of 500 programmers as a program manager, I
developed my professional expertise in designing and running
technical organizations at one of the best technology companies
in history.
After I left HP, I joined the Palo Alto Unified School
District as the Director of Technology and later, as the Chief
Technology Officer, where I am responsible for envisioning,
procuring, and supporting technology solutions to enable the
work of 12,500 high-achieving K-12 students, along with nearly
2,000 faculty and staff.
While I loved building exciting new technology at HP, I
found that working for the Palo Alto Unified School District
and helping every student and staff member achieve their
potential have been more meaningful to me. Working in the
public sector has allowed me to contribute more profoundly to
my community than working in the private sector.
I come to work every morning knowing that my work and that
of my team is improving the education of every child in our
district. I am proud of what we have accomplished in the time
have been with the district.
If confirmed, joining the Environmental Protection Agency
would be a natural next step in my personal, professional
development as it would be an opportunity to contribute not
just to my local community but to impact the entire country and
help improve the quality of life for every American.
While I have not yet worked directly in the environmental
field, I have had a lifelong concern for environmental issues.
Having grown up in the 1970s, I was part of a generation that
experienced the Nation's increasing awareness of the importance
of caring for our environment.
Hewlett Packard was an early leader in environmental
stewardship and environmental considerations were always high
on our list of concerns in both product development and
operations.
In Palo Alto, we emphasize environmentally sound practices
such as safe technology recycling, reduced energy use and
overall environmental sensitivity.
I was thrilled to have been nominated to this job and look
forward to the chance to bring my experience and expertise to
bear for this country. Should I be confirmed, it would be my
honor and privilege to serve as the Assistant Administrator for
Environmental Information for the EPA and I would work every
day to be worthy of the opportunity.
Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter and
members of the committee, for the opportunity to meet with you
today.
I am happy to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dunkin follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Mr. Ehrlich.
STATEMENT OF MANUEL H. EHRLICH, JR., NOMINATED TO BE A MEMBER
OF THE CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD
Mr. Ehrlich. Thank you, Chairman Boxer.
Good morning, Madam Chairperson, Ranking Member Vitter and
members of the committee. My name is Manny Ehrlich, and I very
much appreciate the chance to appear before you today as
President Obama's nominee to be a member of the Chemical Safety
and Hazard Investigation Board.
I have dedicated my entire career to protecting health and
safety through prevention and investigation of chemical
incidents, and I am humbled and honored to have been nominated
to a position that will enable me to apply that experience in
service to our country.
I currently reside in northern New Jersey but very much
look forward to relocating to the Washington area should I
receive the honor of confirmation. I have spent over 50 years
in the chemical industry in a variety of positions of
increasing responsibility ranging from analytical bench chemist
to Vice President of Health Safety and Relations, to general
manager of the largest hazardous materials training response
academy in the United States.
I am currently a health safety and environmental consultant
with a broad range of clients around the country.
I have spent much of my career with BASF, one of the
largest chemical companies in the world where I progressed from
plant management to lead emergency response efforts across
North America. In that capacity, I responded to, managed and
investigated numerous hazardous material incidents in the
United States, Canada and Mexico.
During my career, I concentrated heavily on programs both
inside and outside of companies that helped improve overall
chemical worker safety. I have been very active in the American
Chemistry Council, formerly known as the Chemical Manufacturers
Association, participating in or leading many committees whose
primary objectives were to develop and implement programs
designed to train and educate members of the chemical community
in improving response and protecting safety.
Having matured, which is a euphemism for aged, to positions
beyond the wearing of personal protective equipment, I have
spent the last 15 to 20 years sharing lessons learned
throughout my career with members of the chemical industry and
emergency responders. My focus is primarily centered on
accident avoidance and prevention, incident investigation and
root cause determination which includes the critical practice
of updating tools and techniques required to address each of
these areas.
I am currently the on-call chemist for the Chemical
Transportation Emergency Response Center, also known as
CHEMTREC in the United States, a 24-hour service that assists
responders on the scene of chemical incidents. I am also a
member of the National Fire Protection Association's committee
that develops competency standards for chemical emergency
responders.
My background in chemistry, engineering and education has
allowed me to take very complex subjects and present them to
personnel at all levels in an easily understood manner so that
maximum learning may be garnered by the audience.
The CSB is nationally and internationally recognized for
its excellence in investigations and preparation of technical
information relative to those investigations. If confirmed, I
will rely upon my half-century of experience to further the
critical CSB mission in order to support the excellent work
done by the board and its investigators. I have long shared
their goals for making the chemical industry a safer place to
work and protecting communities.
Sadly, early in my career in the industry, I experienced
the tragic loss of life of workers in facility accidents where
I was employed. I made a commitment then and there to dedicate
my career to preventing such accidents from happening to anyone
else. Thus, my focus across the years has continued to revolve
around the commitment to do all within my power to assure that
employees return from work at days end in the same condition as
they reported to work that day.
Finally, this nomination is a watershed moment in my
career. I can think of no better way, if confirmed, to continue
to have a positive impact on the safety of the chemical
industry, its workers and neighboring communities, by applying
my skills and abilities for the betterment of my country.
I want to thank Mona Holzberg, Joe Gehrum, and Tim and Toni
Fay for coming to Washington with me today to lend support. My
daughter, Beth Kanderski, texted me and said she is here in
spirit.
I want to thank you for allowing me to appear before you
today and look forward to your questions.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehrlich follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you all. I want to thank you all for
your very good statements and very to the point. I am very
proud of the quality of nominees.
To all the families here, we really are so glad you are
here because we know as people with families ourselves, we
couldn't be here without the support of our families. I am
really happy you brought them.
Before I get into my questions, I wanted to ask each of you
to say yes or no to each of these questions. I will ask the
question and then go this way around.
Do you, if confirmed, to appear before this committee or
designated members of this committee and other appropriate
committees of the Congress and provide information subject to
appropriate and necessary security protections with respect to
your responsibilities?
Ms. McCabe. Yes, I do.
Ms. Dunkin. Yes, I do.
Mr. Ehrlich. Yes, I do.
Senator Boxer. Second, do you agree to ensure that
testimony, briefings, documents in electronic and other forms
of communication of information are provided to this committee,
its staff and other appropriate committees in a timely manner?
Ms. McCabe. Yes, I do.
Ms. Dunkin. Yes, I do.
Mr. Ehrlich. Yes, I do.
Senator Boxer. Do you know of any matters which you may or
may not have disclosed that might place you in any conflict of
interest if you are confirmed?
Ms. McCabe. No, I don't.
Ms. Dunkin. No.
Mr. Ehrlich. No, I don't.
Senator Boxer. I will start my questions.
Ms. McCabe, this is a report, I trust you are familiar with
it, on our Nation's air from 2010. The information in there is
that since 1990, the Clean Air Act has resulted in the average
emission of the six common air pollutants, including
particulate matter, VOx and NOx, dropping
59 percent, while the U.S. economy grew by 65 percent.
Americans drove 40 percent more miles, the population grew 24
percent and our energy use increased 15 percent.
We have seen a reduction in the pollutants and a big rise
in the economy. Are you aware of this study?
Ms. McCabe. I am, Senator.
Senator Boxer. I assume from your testimony that you
believe it is really important that as we move forward with
regulations that we understand that we don't want to stifle or
hurt people in their jobs. I am assuming you are aware of that?
Ms. McCabe. Absolutely.
Senator Boxer. But health comes first. I want to hold up a
picture of what it looks like out the window in China. Anyone
who says that this is what is good for America, they won't say
that but they go after the EPA with a vengeance even though 80
percent of the people support the EPA doing more.
I just want you to know, we don't need to speculate. We can
see what happens in a country where the environment is thrown
under the bus. I don't need your comments. I am laying those
out here because the split on this committee is enormous.
Even my dear friend who I am going to give 8 minutes to
counter everything I have said, Senator Inhofe has stated that
if he gets the gavel--he doesn't say if, he says when, which he
said for a long time--that his first thing is to go after the
EPA because he says they are going after the petroleum
industry. I don't think that is the job of this committee to
risk the public health of the people for any industry.
We have to grow our economy and make sure we have
prosperous businesses, while we cleanup the air. We know in
eastern Europe when the walls came down, you couldn't really
see the air. The first thing they did was clean it up so they
could have economic growth.
[The referenced report follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Ms. McCabe, you said you would base all your
decisions on science. Could you reiterate that?
Ms. McCabe. Yes, absolutely, Senator Boxer. Our decisions
are based on sound science, following accepted and peer-
reviewed methodologies.
Senator Boxer. The issue has been raised that the rogue,
crazy person who made believe he was a CIA agent, the catch me
if you can guy, who is now in jail and has paid back money to
the taxpayers, that in fact he was making all the clean air
decisions over there.
Isn't it true that every decision is peer-reviewed and
every rule is subjected to public comment before it becomes a
rule?
Ms. McCabe. That is absolutely right.
Senator Boxer. And that science is involved in all that?
Ms. McCabe. Absolutely, it is.
Senator Boxer. At every step?
Ms. McCabe. Every step.
Senator Boxer. Is it correct that the vast majority of
public comments on the rules for new power plants, the vast
majority of those are comments to limit carbon emissions from
power plants? I understand the agency received over 2.5 million
public comments, is that correct?
Ms. McCabe. That is correct.
Senator Boxer. The vast majority supported EPA actions to
limit carbon emissions?
Ms. McCabe. There were many, many comments in support of
those limitations.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Ehrlich, can you describe how your
background--all of you gave beautiful opening statements--in
the chemical industry gives you the qualifications to do this
job? You mentioned you witnessed a horrible accident. Where and
when was that?
Mr. Ehrlich. It was in Wyandot, Michigan, in 1978 or 1979.
Senator Boxer. What happened there?
Mr. Ehrlich. We had an explosion in a chemical plant that
fatally injured my plant superintendent. I think one of the
things that has been lacking, at least it was in my experience
at this point in time, was information wasn't passed along
basically from generation to generation, if you will.
I think that is a very important issue for the Chemical
Safety Board. They have tremendous resources. They have
tremendous information and it is important to get that
information out to industry to people who are going to continue
to work in the industry and make it a safer place to work.
If nominated, I really hope that is one of my assignments.
Senator Boxer. Yes, because we have so much information,
for example, if the plant in Texas had had the right
information.
Last question. Ms. Dunkin, EPA plans to use more electronic
filing of monitoring reports and other documents to support EPA
in the States' compliance. EPA and the States have had to do
more with less these days and it is even more important than
ever that agency staff and the public have access to monitoring
reports to identify releases of toxic substances that may be
harming people and the environment.
Will you work with the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance to make sure that timely monitoring data is made
easily accessible to the agencies, States and the public?
Ms. Dunkin. If confirmed, it would be my pleasure to work
with that organization.
Senator Boxer. We will follow up with you on that.
Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. I am going to defer to Senator Inhofe so he
can get back to his other committee. I will follow Senator
Inhofe.
Senator Boxer. OK, that is fine. Senator Inhofe has 8
minutes.
Senator Inhofe. If I can do an opening statement, can I
have 5 minutes for questions?
Senator Boxer. You have 8 minutes. That is what your staff
asked for, and that is what you were given.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. OK. I am going to talk to my staff then.
Ms. McCabe, it is good to see you again. Thank you for
taking time to come to my office last week. I enjoyed our
visit. We had some disagreements. I expressed grave concern
over the EPA's distortion of the cost of regulation.
The cost of regulation is something that has to be
considered. During the Obama administration, the agency
regularly understated the cost and overstated the benefits of
the EPA's rules so that it can get away with more expensive
regulations that are actually allowed.
Now that we are 5 years into the Administration, we are
starting to see the true impact of the President's and the
EPA's war on fossil fuel. When you compare what has actually
happened to what the EPA said would happen, it is quite
startling.
With the utility MACT, for example, the EPA said it would
result in the retirement of fewer than 10,000 megawatts of
electricity generation. This is substantial in its own right if
it is 10,000. Reality is proving it far worse.
In direct response to the EPA's rules, power generation
companies have announced plans to shutter 51,000 megawatts of
generation. Most of these would be closed down during the next
53 weeks as the compliance deadline for the utility MACT will
arrive.
If this were not bad enough, the EPA in the new 2 weeks
will go final with the 316(b) rule for water intake cooling
towers according to the NERF. This rule is expected to take
another 40,000 megawatts of electricity generation.
If you add that together, 51,000 and 40,000, that is 91,000
megawatts of electricity. Together the real world impact of
these regulations is causing massive risk to our Nation's
electricity reliability. In fact, one commissioner at FERC
recently said we are likely to see rolling electricity
blackouts during the summer months in just a few years. He went
on to say this could very likely and will very likely happen
the summer after next.
Everyone seems to agree these risks are being caused by the
EPA. We all understand that. Rolling blackouts are coming and
it is because of this Administration and its policies. The
Administration is not stopping there. These figures are
concerns and concerns do not even take into account the new
greenhouse gas regulations that EPA is rushing to enact.
The new source performance standards, NSPS, on new and
existing power plants are going to make it economically
impossible to maintain any diversity in our electricity and
fuel supplies. This will make us even more vulnerable to supply
shortages and to price shocks. To make matters worse, the
Administration is making strides to regulate hydraulic
fracturing and methane emissions from the natural gas
production and transmission process which could further drive
up the price of energy and electricity. This kind of regulatory
onslaught is no way to run the machine called America.
During our meeting, Ms. McCabe, you told me that you were
designing your regulations to give States flexibility as they
begin to implement these policies. But the flexibilities
allowed only point to renewable fuels, which are neither
reliable nor affordable. Americans cannot run on renewables
alone but that is where the war on fossil fuel leads.
The impacts we are beginning to see are extremely negative.
The Administration and the EPA don't seem to care about that.
The electricity affordability and reliability is no part of the
EPA's thought process.
I made this commitment yesterday. I am going to have a
Congressional Review Act and I am going to use that on every
one of these regulations because the problem you have here is
it all sounds very good here in this committee but when it gets
down to it, the people who are elected need to be participating
in the process.
You, Ms. McCabe, are able to do it. You are not elected,
you are taking over and you are a very quality person. I have
enjoyed working with you in the past but you are not elected
and these guys are.
The CRA is an ability to make sure that people understand
the penalties we pay for these excessive regulations, the cost
in terms of money, in terms of employment and they can get
involved in the process.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
Ms. McCabe, it is good to see you again. Thank you for
taking time to come into my office last week. I enjoyed meeting
you.
During our meeting I expressed grave concern over the EPA's
systematic distortion of the cost of its regulations. During
the Obama administration, the agency has regularly understated
the costs and overstated the benefits of the EPA's rules so
that it can get away with more expensive and onerous
regulations than are actually allowed.
Now that we are 5 years into the Obama administration, we
are starting to see the true impact of the President's and the
EPA's War on Fossil Fuels. And when you compare what's actually
happening to what the EPA said would happen, it's quite
startling.
With the Utility MACT rule, for example, the EPA said it
would result in the retirement of fewer than 10,000 MW of
electricity generation.
This is substantial in its own right, but reality is
proving to be far worse. In direct response to EPA rules, power
generation companies have announced plans to shutter 51,000 MW
of generation. Most of these will be closing down in the next
53 weeks as the compliance deadline for the Utility MACT rule
arrives.
And if this were not bad enough, the EPA--in the next 2
weeks--will go final with its 316(b) rule for water intake
cooling towers. According to the NERC, this rule is expected to
take another 40,000 MW of electricity generation offline.
Together, the real world impacts of these regulations are
causing a massive risk to our Nation's electricity reliability.
In fact, one Commissioner of FERC recently said that we are
likely to see rolling electricity blackouts during the summer
months in just the next few years. What everyone seems to agree
on is that these risks are being caused by the EPA.
So this is what is already happening. Rolling blackouts are
coming, and it's because of the Obama administration.
But the Administration is not stopping there. These figures
and concerns do not even take into account the new greenhouse
gas regulations the EPA is rushing to enact. The New Source
Performance Standards on new and existing power plants are
going to make it economically impossible to maintain any
diversity in our electricity fuel supply. This will make us
even more vulnerable to supply shortages and price shocks.
To make matters worse, the Administration is making strides
to regulate hydraulic fracturing and methane emissions from the
natural gas production and transmission processes, which could
further drive up the price of energy and electricity.
This kind of regulatory onslaught is no way to run this
machine called America.
During our meeting, Ms. McCabe, you told me that you were
designing your regulations to give States flexibility as they
begin to implement these policies. But the flexibilities
allowed only point to renewable fuels, which are neither
reliable nor affordable. They may work in some scenarios and as
part of our broader energy portfolio--but America cannot run on
renewables alone. But that is the world where the War on Fossil
Fuels leads.
The impacts we're beginning to see are extremely negative,
but the Administration and the EPA do not seem to care.
Electricity affordability and reliability clearly have no part
in the EPA's thought process.
But this is something I want to change, and it's why I'm
committed to using the Congressional Review Act on any
significant EPA regulation that comes out until the EPA gets
honest about the cost accounting it uses in its rules. Because
if the agency is not going to be honest, then the EPA, the
President, and the Members who support their policies need to
own them, which in the Senate means up or down votes on whether
to keep or get rid of the EPA's regulations.
Senator Inhofe. With that, I would ask you, Ms. McCabe,
when the EPA put out its utility MACT rule, it estimated it
would result in retirement of fewer than 10,000 megawatts at
power plants. That was 2 years ago. Do you stand by that
assessment?
Ms. McCabe. Senator Inhofe, let me first say how much I
enjoyed meeting with you the other day and look forward to
working with you.
As I recall from that record, what was estimated as part of
that record was that less than half of a percent of coal-fired
generation would retire as a result of the MACT's rule.
Senator Inhofe. In spite of what they have said, a recent
report concluded that 51,000 megawatts of generation as a
direct result of this regulation and most of this will occur in
the next 53 weeks, as I said in my opening statement, when you
add to that the 316 rule.
FERC Commissioner Moeller recently said these reductions to
our baseload electricity generation could result in rolling
blackouts in the next few years. If we find ourselves in that
situation of blackouts and you are in the position you own
right now, will you admit that this the fault of the EPA and
its regulations?
Ms. McCabe. I am not familiar with the specific statistics
that you are citing, Senator. I will tell you that we work very
closely with the Department of Energy and with FERC.
Senator Inhofe. That's fine. This was 1977 or whenever it
was the Clean Air Act was passed or the amendments, section
321(a) says the Administrator shall conduct continuing
evaluations of potential loss or shifts of employment which may
result from the administration or enforcement of the provisions
of this Act and applicable implementation plans.
You said in my office, when I read this to you--to me this
is very specific--what is vague about this statement?
Ms. McCabe. I don't think I suggested anything was vague
about the statement, Senator. The agency does conduct ongoing
reviews and inquiries into the expected impacts of the rules
through the regulatory impact assessments that we do with every
single rule.
Senator Inhofe. If you are doing that, you are doing it
internally because nobody knows this is going on. Since you
made that statement, let me ask this question.
I have a Senate bill, we now have quite a number of co-
sponsors, that will put teeth in 321(a) because I don't believe
you have been complying with this. The bill that we would have,
the amendment I would have that we are going to try to get
through would say you have to do it before you pass or bring
forth any more regulations.
In other words, it puts teeth in it, says you have to do
it. Would you support that?
Ms. McCabe. I am not going to take a position on the bill,
Senator, but I will tell you that through the rulemaking
process, which is a public and open process, we do conduct
economic analyses.
Senator Inhofe. If that is true, then why would you not
want to support legislation that makes it a requirement because
you may be gone some day and someone else may be in there and
they may not be as cooperative as you are?
Senator Boxer. Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Let me briefly respond to some of the Chair's comments in
her time.
First of all, the report she highlighted, I just want to
point out, that half the time period covered by that report
covers EPA under Republican leadership, so that report reflects
EPA under half Republican and half Democratic leadership.
Second, let me ask Chairman Boxer's staff to hold up the
smog poster. I just want to state for the record no Republican
supports anything like that situation and certainly we have
supported and will support regulations that always avoid that
and reduce that sort of risk.
Third, let me point out that we are probably going to talk
99 percent of our time today about carbon and greenhouse gas
issues that have nothing to do with smog and particulate
matter, nothing at all. I just wanted to point that out.
I know a lot of political debate in Washington is pretty
cartoonish, but I would hope that in the committee of
jurisdiction for the EPA, we can get beyond that and talk about
facts and substance in a meaningful way. That is what I am
going to try to do.
Ms. McCabe, electricity reliability, yesterday, as I am
sure you know, Administrator McCarthy noted that EPA needs to
closely align with DOE and FERC when designing the greenhouse
gas emissions proposal for existing power plants.
Last week, importantly, at FERC, there was a discussion
about how the sizable increase in electricity demand in January
was served mostly from coal-fired generation while natural gas
generation actually declined. Have you reached out to FERC to
discuss those findings since it is relevant to the greenhouse
gas emission discussion?
Ms. McCabe. We do communicate with FERC and with DOE on an
ongoing basis about our rules.
Senator Vitter. Do you personally talk to FERC about this
issue?
Ms. McCabe. I have not personally talked to FERC about the
issue to which you just referred.
Senator Vitter. Has your staff directly talked to FERC
about their presentation last week and the consequences of
that?
Ms. McCabe. I don't know, Senator.
Senator Vitter. You can supplement the record on that.
Ms. McCabe. Sure.
Senator Vitter. Do you agree that this scenario illustrates
the need for additional sources of reliable energy in major
quantities besides natural gas or electricity generation?
Ms. McCabe. I agree that we need to pay close attention to
making sure that we have reliable energy supply and that a
diverse energy supply is important to this country.
Senator Vitter. Thank you.
I want to move to the Endangered Species Act. EPA's
proposed NSPS rule will likely force a shift away from coal-
fired energy toward many things that are much more land
intensive sources of energy. In addition, things like wind have
the potential to kill endangered species like the California
condor.
According to Fish and Wildlife Director Dan Ashe, his
agency has an obligation to consult when there are potential
impacts to endangered or threatened species. Yet, EPA and his
agency are not consulting on that NSPS rule. What are the
specific legal and policy reasons behind EPA not consulting
with Dan Ashe and his agency about that while consulting, for
instance, on 316 rulemaking which would seem to have a much
less serious potential impact?
Ms. McCabe. I am familiar with the Endangered Species Act
requirements. I want to emphasize that we are early in the
process of this particular rulemaking. Before we finalize any
rule under this program, we would make sure that we satisfied
our obligations under the Endangered Species Act.
Senator Vitter. Would that include formal consultation,
which has not yet been triggered, with Fish and Wildlife?
Ms. McCabe. If that is determined to be required, Senator.
Senator Vitter. Why wouldn't that be appropriate given what
I talked about, given the shift toward much more land intensive
energy sources and wind which has consequences on birds?
Ms. McCabe. I think as we move through the rulemaking
process, we need to evaluate exactly what is required under the
Endangered Species Act and that is what we intend to do.
Senator Vitter. Finally, on social cost of carbon, as you
know we discovered last November that your office provided
technical assistance for modeling on this ongoing effort. I
have three related questions.
One, did you participate in the interagency working group?
Two, did you sign off on any contributions made by your office,
including the technical assistance and modeling provided?
Three, in our continued effort to bring transparency to a
process that seems very closed, would you commit to providing
the committee with names and vitals of those in your office who
participated or signed off on EPA's contributions to the
development of the social cost of carbon estimates and if so,
by what date?
Ms. McCabe. I did not personally participate in those
discussions. That is a process that is not run by the Office of
Air and Radiation, nor by the EPA, so I am not in a position to
commit to providing information about it but I will be glad to
take that question back.
Senator Vitter. If you could answer the other parts of the
question for the record, did you sign off on the work that did
come out of your office related to this? Will you provide
names, titles, participation levels of anyone out of Air and
Radiation on this project?
Ms. McCabe. I am sorry, I thought I caught most of the
parts of those questions. I did not officially sign off in
writing on participation. Certainly EPA scientists and
technical experts do participate in various interagency
workgroups, so I was aware of that. As I said, I would be glad
to take back your request that we provide more specific
information.
Senator Vitter. The request is specifically about your
office.
Ms. McCabe. I understand.
Senator Vitter. It is fully within your bailiwick. We are
trying to understand this process which has been quite hidden,
quite frankly. We just want to know who is in it and what their
involvement was.
Ms. McCabe. I understand your interest, Senator.
Senator Boxer. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thank you. Ms. McCabe, nice to see you.
Thanks for visiting with me here recently.
I have been following the status of renewable fuel
standards and our progress toward advanced biofuels. It is a
matter of great interest to us in Delaware.
On November 15, 2013, last year, the EPA issued proposed
renewable fuel volume standards for 2014. As you are well
aware, these standards were supposed to be finalized I believe
last year in 2013 before the compliance year begins. Recently,
we heard these standards will not be out until June 2014, so I
have a couple questions.
The first one is do you have a better idea today when new
standards will be released? If in June, do you expect the
industry will ask for additional time for compliance similar to
what happened this year?
Ms. McCabe. I do expect those rules will be finalized in
June. As we said previously, we will certainly consider the
needs for compliance time as we finalize those rules.
Senator Carper. My question is, is this the new norm? Do
you expect future rules to be implemented this late in the
game?
Ms. McCabe. It is very much our desire to be timely with
the issuance of these rules. In fact, in this particular
rulemaking, we laid out some alternatives to set up a more
routine process. We understand that certainty and
predictability is really important to the industry and would
very much like to be able to get onto a path where we are
meeting those timely obligations in a routine way. Hopefully we
will be able to lay out a more routine approach.
Senator Carper. To my colleagues, to the extent that we
want to make sure the industry, those who count on these rules
actually being developed and promulgated, to the extent we can
actually vet nominations and where they find favor, approve
them, confirm them, we actually provide that certainty. I urge
my colleagues to keep that in mind.
Staying on the subject, what has EPA done to increase
transparency in the REN markets and does the EPA intend to do
more?
Ms. McCabe. We do provide information on our Web site and
our data base about the REN market. We understand the interest
in that. We have a rule working its way through the process
that addresses inappropriate development and sale of REN, so we
are very mindful of the need for greater transparency.
Senator Carper. I am going to channel George Voinovich for
a minute, our former colleague and Governor, and here on this
committee for a number of years. George and I worked with a
number of my colleagues, including Jim Inhofe, Democrats and
Republicans on diesel emission reduction and legislation, one
of our proudest accomplishments over the last dozen or so
years.
I was encouraged by much of what was in the President's
Climate Action Plan. However, I was surprised and in fact,
disappointed to see what was not included and that is to
support our efforts to reduce black carbon here at home.
Recent studies have shown, as I think you know, black
carbon was the second most damaging greenhouse agent behind
carbon dioxide. The most effective way to reduce black carbon
is by cleaning up diesel emissions. Do you believe the Diesel
Emission Reduction Act and other domestic clean diesel programs
should be part of our strategy to address climate here at home?
Ms. McCabe. These are very important programs for public
health in this country. I agree.
Senator Carper. Why didn't the Administration include it?
Ms. McCabe. There were some very, very difficult choices
that needed to be made in the President's budget this year,
Senator Carper, and that unfortunately was one of them.
Senator Carper. It was a bad choice. We are going to do
everything we can to reverse that.
I want to ask you a question, Ms. McCabe, about reaching
out to business. Since you have been at EPA, what have you done
to make sure that all stakeholders are heard during the
regulatory process, especially those that will be impacted the
most?
Ms. McCabe. This is extremely important. As I said in my
opening statement, we can't make good decisions without having
everybody at the table.
With respect to the power plant regulations we were
discussing a minute ago, we have had over 300 meetings, even
before a rule is out on the street, a proposal, to make sure
that we are hearing from everyone.
I and my staff are very regularly in contact with
stakeholders of all sorts, including business and industry on
any rules with which we are proceeding and other programs
because we do a lot in the Office of Air and Radiation that is
not regulatory to make sure that we have them at the table and
that we are getting their good ideas.
Senator Carper. Thanks so much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. McCabe, I always have concern about loss of electric
generation capacity in the country as a result of closures of
coal-fired power plants. I don't know if you have done anything
to evaluate in terms of what gets retrofitted versus what just
closes in terms of energy generating capacity, will the
decisions be made to retrofit, go to the expense of that versus
just close a power plant based on greenhouse gases, ozone,
mercury, whatever.
Could you give me an estimate of what electric generation
capacity you think is going to get closed rather than
retrofitted as a result of the EPA's new and proposed rules
under the Administration?
Ms. McCabe. We do pay a lot of attention and we have
particularly in the mercury and air toxic standards. We
consulted with those in the energy field to try to get a sense
of what the effect would be on the industry. There are many,
many things that go into a decision of a power plant closing.
Senator Barrasso. Cumulative impact, though? Do you have an
idea of what kind of generating capacity is going to be lost
cumulatively for the country as a result of the rules and
regulations?
Ms. McCabe. In each rule that we do, we look at the impacts
of that rule in the context of the rules that have gone before
it.
Senator Barrasso. Do you have any idea of the cumulative
impact of what is being proposed and what has been proposed on
actually closing electric generation for the country?
Ms. McCabe. It actually would be very difficult to estimate
the closures versus retrofits due to environmental regulations
alone because there are so many factors that go into those
decisions. I will tell you that the facilities we see making
the decisions to close right now tend to be the older, less
well controlled and less used power plants.
Senator Barrasso. There is not an assessment of the overall
loss of electricity generation potential.
The President, when he was running in 2008, talked about
the issue of coal. Under his plan, he said electricity rates
wouldn't necessarily skyrocket. I look at all the States where
there are coal-fired power plants and the impact on people's
electric bills. I guess the question is where is the same
affordable and reliable replacement power for all of those
folks who I worry about going into energy poverty in short
term? If the coal-fired power plants close, what happens in
this country?
Ms. McCabe. Senator, this is a very important issue. As I
mentioned in my opening, I come from Indiana where people rely
on coal--90 percent I think of the State's power comes from
coal.
Senator Barrasso. That is what Senator Evan Bayh used to
say, so it is important in Indiana, yes.
Ms. McCabe. I am glad that I agree with Senator Bayh.
We looked at the expected effects on electricity costs when
we did the mercury and toxic rules in consultation with DOE and
other agencies. We estimated that electricity prices might go
up by 3 percent which is well within the range of normal
fluctuations in electricity prices. This is an issue that we
look at. It is in our regulatory impact assessment process so
is open to public comment and review, as is every rule that we
do.
Senator Barrasso. The EPA stated in their proposed rule for
new coal-fired power plants that carbon capture and storage for
coal is commercially available. I strongly disagree. I believe
as industry has stated, technology is not currently and may
never be commercially available.
My question is, are you aware of any effort or have you
participated in any conversations in your office to consider
carbon capture and sequestration standards for new and existing
natural gas-fired power plants?
Ms. McCabe. When we put out the proposal under 111(b) for
new power plants, we looked at the information that was
available for both coal-fired and gas-fired power plants. We
have to go through a very well established process to determine
the best system of emission reduction. For the coal sector,
because of the availability and use, in some cases for decades,
of carbon capture and sequestration technology, we felt that it
had been adequately demonstrated for the coal industry.
We did not find the same information available for natural
gas which, as you know, is already much lower emitting.
Senator Barrasso. Do you believe the technology is there
for natural gas for carbon capture and sequestration?
Ms. McCabe. I don't believe that we have a record to show
that it is the best system of emission reduction as required
under the law.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. I am going to call on Senator Whitehouse but
before I do, I am going to put a couple of things in the record
I think Senator Barrasso would find interesting.
In December 2013, Michigan's DTE Energy announced it was
lowering rates for retail customers by 6.5 percent in 2014
because of lower fuel supply costs. The average residential
customer would see a savings of $80 a year and business rates
will drop.
AEP, American Electric Power, on January 14, proposed a
rate reduction to Ohio customers beginning in the summer of
2015 because of falling prices for electricity in the wholesale
market because of decreased demand.
It goes on and I will put the rest of that in the record.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7799.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7799.116
Senator Boxer. It is also important to note--as you defend
coal which is your absolute right and I respect you totally for
it--that the Koch Brothers said so much natural gas has been
discovered from shale drilling that gas is very, very cheap
now, so electricity from gas is cheaper than electricity from
coal.
Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, said ``The new climate rule
is in line with market forces. Anyway, we are not going to
build any coal plants. In any event, you are going to choose to
build gas plants every time regardless of what the rule is.''
There are other quotes backing that up. We will put that side
by side with Senator Barrasso's comments.
I will turn to Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Ms. McCabe, I was encouraged to see that the carbon
pollution standards for existing power plants have been sent to
OMB. I believe that happened last week.
The Presidential memorandum on power sector carbon
pollution standards instructed EPA to work with the States
while formulating those standards. What can you tell us now--I
understand it is over at OMB and the text of the bill has not
been made public, the standards have not been made public--what
can you tell us about how you have reacted to the instruction
to work with the States while formulating these standards?
Ms. McCabe. Since late last summer, I personally, as well
as my staff and the Administrator, have had dozens and dozens
of meetings, phone calls, conference calls and opportunities to
discuss these rules with the States. It has been an incredibly
helpful and fascinating process.
Actually there is a lot of commonality among what we are
hearing from the States, even though there certainly are
differences in State views about these issues. They are things
like we need to make sure we provide as much flexibility in the
rules as we can for States to develop their plans. Of course
this is built into 111(b); it is all about EPA setting the
national expectation but then States building a plan that can
be suited to their particular State situations.
Having been a State regulator myself, I am very aware of
the State's role and responsibility and opportunity in that
partnership, in that element of the Clean Air Act.
Senator Whitehouse. If a State wished to step in, it could
engage under these rules to reduce carbon in ways beyond simply
what including plants could do in terms of reducing their
emissions?
Ms. McCabe. Many States are very forward looking right now
in things they are doing to reduce the carbon intensity in
their States. They would certainly be able, we hope, to write
guidelines that will provide them as much flexibility as
allowed by the law to pursue those sorts of things.
Senator Whitehouse. When you are looking at the economic
effects, you are allowed to look at economic effects, are you
not?
Ms. McCabe. That is right.
Senator Whitehouse. When you look at the economic effects,
do you look broadly at the economic effects with concern on the
one hand there may be some increases in power costs to
individuals as a result of changes to different industries.
On the other hand, I was just in Iowa and they have, I want
to say, 28 percent of their power coming from wind. They are
manufacturing turbines at a company called TPI in Iowa. I think
they have manufactured 100,000 blades. They are paying farmers
thousands of dollars to locate the wind turbines on their
farms. You can farm up to within 20 feet of them, so it doesn't
interfere too badly with the farmer's use of his land for
agricultural purposes.
These are local jobs in Iowa and they are important enough
to Iowa that the Iowa legislature unanimously--not just
bipartisan but in unanimous fashion--passed a resolution asking
us to continue the production tax credits to help support this
industry that is so important to Iowa.
Would those types of considerations come into your economic
analysis as well, the local jobs, local industry and local
economic growth that can be created when you move away from
fossil fuels?
Ms. McCabe. To the extent that there is data and that there
are approved methodologies available for us to evaluate those
sorts of impacts, we certainly will, Senator. I want to mention
that those windmills are becoming more and more prevalent in my
home State as well as you see across the corn fields.
Senator Whitehouse. We hope they are going to be prevalent
off the shores of Rhode Island fairly soon as well. We have
some going in offshore.
My final comment to you is I would ask that you not be
deterred from doing what is the right thing to do
administratively under the theory that this should be handled
by Congress and the Administration shouldn't act under its
administrative authorities while Congress isn't acting
legislatively.
I think, frankly, that is an unfair comment when people
make that because the polluting industries have basically got
Congress locked down. It is very hard to negotiate with
somebody over a good carbon bill when they are pretending that
carbon pollution doesn't cause climate change, when they are
pretending that the 10 inches of sea level rise we have seen
off Rhode Island isn't real or doesn't matter.
Until people are willing to come out of their bunker and
say OK, this isn't real, let's negotiate, we are not going to
get anything done. They shouldn't both stop negotiations in
Congress and then tell you that you shouldn't act until
Congress has taken this up. They are the ones who are causing
Congress not to take it up. I hope you will go ahead boldly and
follow the facts and science.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you so much.
Senator Vitter made a good point when he showed the great
progress that the Clean Air Act has achieved--amazing, lives
saved, working days saved, children's visits to the emergency
room saved--since 1990 and the Clean Air Act amendments.
Senator Vitter makes a point. Half of those were controlled by
Republicans, half were controlled by Democrats.
It is true but I remember the days when this committee was
led by a Republican, John Chaffee, who was so pro-environment
and from Rhode Island. The environment was a bipartisan issue.
It breaks my heart to see what has happened.
In this committee, when it is infrastructure, we are really
on the same page and I am so grateful for that. We work very
well together. On the environment, it is so difficult. I would
argue to my friend that because it is no longer a bipartisan
issue, things have changed.
I would put in the record an executive summary of a report
that showed in the 112th Congress, the last Congress, there
were 95 votes to undermine the Clean Air Act protections,
including votes to repeal the health-based standards that are
the heart of the Clean Air Act and block EPA regulation of
toxic mercury and other harmful emissions from power plants.
Those all passed.
[The referenced information was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Boxer. Then in the 113th, and we are still in it,
the House has voted 20 times to weaken the Clean Air Act. This
has nothing to do with climate change. This is direct assault
on the Clean Air Act. Unfortunately, we stopped it in the
Senate and it didn't go anywhere. Even if it did, the President
would definitely veto that. I am convinced of that. Just by the
grace of God we have been able to stop the repeal of all the
very important Clean Air Act. I won't even go into the Clean
Water Act.
The last point I am going to make is this. My colleagues
are very astute, and every time I show a picture of China--
let's show it again--they point out what does this have to do
with us? We don't want to do that. Of course they don't want to
do that. It is the result of what they are trying to do to the
Clean Air Act that would eviscerate it.
I remember in Los Angeles, we had 110 days, I think, a year
of alerts. We had that there. I don't want to make it up; I
want to show you the absolute truth--166 days in Los Angeles
before the Clean Air Act kicked in, where you couldn't go
outside and now it is zero. Now hold up the picture of China.
This is not rhetoric, this is proven fact and science.
My friends always say whenever we talk about climate change
that climate change has nothing to do with these kinds of air
quality problems. I went back and looked at the endangerment
finding which the draft was written by George Bush's
Administration and passed by the Obama administration and
upheld by the Supreme Court.
Listen to this. ``Climate change is expected to increase
regional ozone pollution with associated risks in respiratory
illnesses and premature death.'' That is in the Federal
Register, 66525. Then there is this one. ``Climate change can
affect ozone by modifying emissions of precursors, atmospheric
chemistry, transport and removal. This is consistent. There is
now consistent evidence from models and observations that 21st
century climate change will worsen summertime surface ozone in
polluted regions of North America compared to future with no
climate change.
``In addition, there is an expectation there will be an
increase in levels of ambient ozone leading to increased risk
of morbidity and mortality from exposure to ozone.''
All of these are the effects of climate. I hear this whole
argument from my friends on the other side--climate change,
that's carbon, that doesn't hurt anything. Just read the
science and the Supreme Court decision that said absolutely
carbon is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. As much as you
want to, you can't separate dirty, filthy air from carbon
because that is part of the problem.
I want to say to you because my time is running out, I
don't have a lot of questions for the three of you and I will
tell you the reason. I just think you are eminently qualified
and I am proud of these nominations. I am proud of your
motivation, each of you, in accepting this challenge. It is
hard to put yourself out here, it is hard to be the recipient
of some of these questions on both sides. We are tough, I admit
that and part of your job is to respond and you have. You have
responded with dignity and the facts.
Thank you very much.
With that, I will call on Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. I have just a brief rebuttal.
Chairman Boxer, again, I think to hold up the poster from
China and suggest that result is a Republican agenda is absurd
and it is completely irresponsible.
Senator Boxer. Let me correct the record.
Senator Vitter. Can I please have my time undisturbed as
you did?
Senator Boxer. No, no, no. I will give you an extra 3
minutes.
Senator Vitter. And you will continually interrupt which is
unprofessional.
Senator Boxer. I am not unprofessional.
Senator Vitter. You are interrupting me. I gave you
uninterrupted time. It is my time to speak.
Senator Boxer. I am the chairman. You characterized my
comments and when one person characterizes the comments, the
other person has the right to rebuttal. I will give you an
additional 3 minutes. You will have 8 minutes.
Senator Vitter. Uninterrupted? Will it be uninterrupted?
Senator Boxer. Yes, I will reserve my time for when you are
done, if I have to respond, but I would urge you not to
characterize what I said. I never said it was the Republican
agenda.
Could you hold up the picture? What I said was, when you
try to repeal 28 times various portions of the Clean Air Act,
when you try to stop a rule that will cleanup coal-fired plants
and that rule, by the way, isn't even done yet Senator
McConnell is trying to repeal it before it is even put into
place, you don't intend for this to happen. Trust me, the
leaders in China didn't either. This is not good for them.
We have seen what happens when you don't have Clean Air Act
protections in place. I never said it was part of the agenda; I
said it would be a consequence of repealing all of these
landmark laws.
Now I will turn it over to Senator Vitter for 8 minutes.
Senator Vitter. Uninterrupted, thank you.
Again, you are saying that poster is a consequence, that
poster which is laughable is a consequence of Republican
proposals. That is exactly what you said and that is
ridiculous, cartoonish and irresponsible.
We just passed in this committee four environmental bills
on a broad bipartisan basis. The graph you just showed of bad
air days declining in California in 1976 is under Republican
national governance as much as Democratic national governance.
To talk about amendments to the Clean Air Act, yes, the
Clean Air Act is, in fact, where the whole carbon debate is
centered. That is the vehicle inappropriately, in our opinion,
for this administrative onslaught. Yes, of course there are
going to be proposals about the Clean Air Act. Nobody is trying
to repeal the Clean Air Act. Folks are trying to move forward
with the Clean Air Act according to its intention, in my
opinion, and that agenda.
To suggest that somehow that is the same as smog and
particulate matter and we are trying to repeal the Clean Air
Act is just completely cartoonish. For the committee of
jurisdiction to sort of dip that low to create a cartoon
debate, I don't think serves anyone well at all.
Senator Boxer. You are done?
Senator Vitter. Yes, I'm done.
Senator Boxer. Is Senator Markey going to speak?
As long as I have some time, that photo is not a cartoon.
Senator Vitter. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. You're welcome.
That photo is not a cartoon, it is the reality for people
who live in a country where the environment has been thrown
under the bus.
House Republicans even voted to rescind EPA's regulation to
reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide from
power plants that cause ozone and particulate matter violations
in downwind States.
People can walk out, it is their right. They can say I
reached a new low by showing a picture that is clearly not made
up or a cartoon but is reality, or a chart. They can do that
but here is the deal. I am going to tell the truth and here is
the deal, the truth.
I am reading from a report, Energy and Commerce Committee,
House Republicans voted to repeal a rule that will prevent up
to 34,000 deaths, 15,000 heart attacks, 400,000 cases of
aggravated asthma, and 1.8 million lost work days each year and
produce health benefits of up to $280 billion annually,
outweighing its estimated annual cost by as much as 350 to 1.
That is unbelievable. That is just one regulation, reducing
emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide.
Senator Markey was over in the House through a lot of these
votes. I know he knows what they are. This is real. Say what
you want, colleagues, or leave, it doesn't matter. The facts
are the facts and the American people want their air clean and
they want their water safe. They don't want chemicals
exploding.
I am sorry to say and reiterate what has happened in this
country until the people demand it to change. The environment
has become a partisan issue and it hurts me to say it because
when I started in politics, it was totally a bipartisan issue.
As a matter of fact, the leader in my home county was a
Republican named Peter Behr who was a beloved senator, a State
senator, whom I supported, who was the leader on a clean and
healthy environment.
It saddens me that we have to face vote after vote, 28
times, 38 times, 48 times, environmental riders. It is wrong. I
won't be intimidated.
Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much.
We welcome our nominees. You are each eminently qualified
and we thank you for your willingness to serve our country in
these enhanced roles.
Ms. McCabe, you worked up in Massachusetts over the years,
and that is going to qualify you to be the one that can
understand and translate Administrator McCarthy's Boston accent
for the others at EPA. I think that is going to be a very
important role for you.
Ms. McCabe, you have an important task before you in
setting standards to reduce carbon pollution from power plants
in the United States. I am confident that it can be done in a
way which is good for the environment and good for the
pocketbooks of the people in our country.
I am confident because of what I have seen happen in my own
State of Massachusetts. There has been an 11 percent annual
growth in the clean energy sector in the creation of jobs as
the State has invested almost 90 percent of the proceeds from
the regional greenhouse gas actions into energy efficiency,
helping to make our State amongst the most energy efficient in
the Nation.
In addition to working with States that primarily produce
fossil fuels, will you also be working with States that are
innovating new ways to cut carbon pollution while growing their
economies as you craft new standards for carbon pollution with
power plants?
Ms. McCabe. We certainly will, Senator. You are absolutely
right that States like Massachusetts are leaders on energy
efficiency and other very innovative and positive ways to
reduce the energy we use in ways that save people money.
Senator Markey. We are a small State but we now have 5,000
companies with 80,000 jobs in the clean energy sector in
Massachusetts. Most of that is just in the last 5 or 6 years,
tremendous growth and it reflects the innovation that can
happen as we move to these new technologies of the 21st
century.
I also wanted to focus on methane emissions from natural
gas, which also impact the climate, public health and the
energy bills of most Americans. I would just note for my
Republican colleagues who have expressed concern that
protecting people's health might increase the cost of
electricity, that they should be concerned that exporting
America's natural gas overseas will also raise electricity
prices and harm the manufacturing resurgence and job growth
America has been experiencing in the last few years.
The explosion in Harlem in March tragically underscored the
threat that old natural gas distribution pipelines can pose. A
report I released last summer found that gas customers in
Massachusetts paid up to $1.5 billion in extra charges from
2000 to 2011 because of the leaking gas pipelines.
The cost to consumers nationwide was in the tens of
billions. Besides wasting money, this leaked natural gas, which
is primarily methane, is a potent climate pollutant.
Ms. McCabe, the Interagency Methane Strategy that was
recently released raises concerns about methane leaks on the
distribution side of the natural gas system. Is that something
the EPA will be looking at further?
Ms. McCabe. Yes, in cooperation with the Department of
Energy, which has significant responsibilities in these areas.
The Office of Air and Radiation doesn't have as much
responsibility on those particular aspects, but we will
certainly be working with the Department of Energy on those
issues.
Senator Markey. Finally, Ms. McCabe, just a quick comment
on ongoing work at the EPA on bioenergy. In 2011, the EPA
granted a 3-year exemption from regulation under the Clean Air
Act for carbon emissions from bioenergy facilities. EPA then
commissioned an expert panel of the Science Advisory Board to
review the agency's proposed bioenergy carbon accounting
framework.
They found that EPA's framework needed to account for the
important ongoing role that forests play in sequestering
atmospheric carbon dioxide and that we cannot automatically
assume biomass energy is carbon neutral. Basically, you can't
cut down a 150-year-old forest, burn it and assume there are no
net carbon impacts.
In 2012, my home State of Massachusetts published final
carbon accounting regulations using a methodology very similar
to those recommended by the Science Advisory Board. I would
encourage EPA to incorporate these key science-based
recommendations into whatever new rules are established to
govern carbon emissions related to bioenergy.
Ms. McCabe. We will make sure to take a look at those.
Senator Markey. Thank you. I thank all of you so much for
your service.
The planet is running a fever. There are no emergency rooms
for planets, so we have to engage in the kind of smart, forward
looking activities that help us to avoid the worst, most
catastrophic consequences of global warming.
You are on the front lines of doing this but being smart as
you are doing it. I think there is a way we can move forward
that actually creates hundreds of thousands of new jobs in our
country. I think that should be our goal.
I thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you so much.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I have two additional committees at this very moment so it
is a good panel and I appreciate you being here.
An abstract of a recent article linking climate change to
extreme weather may be a powerful way to motivate people. The
IPCC has tended to over generalize its research results and
accentuate the negative side of climate change. This is
somebody who supports the climate change agenda.
Taken together, considerable evidence suggests that the
international mainstream media and pro-environmental
organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even
exaggerate the damage caused by climate change.
In this article, we suggest that information manipulation,
which is generally overlooked in the literature, can be a novel
and helpful mechanism for resolving the climate problem.
Ms. McCabe, it seems to me it says quite plainly, these are
professors from Singapore, I believe, maybe not as politically
correct and sophisticated in western concerns, but it seems to
me that it suggests what we have been seeing, an exaggeration
of many of the complaints about global warming.
My question to you is do you believe this is justified? If
you are confirmed to this important office, will you tell the
American people resolutely the truth as it exists according to
the best science that you have, yes or no?
Ms. McCabe. I am not a climate scientist myself. I work
with climate scientists and I will do my best to make sure that
all of our programs and policies are based on the best
available science that is thoroughly debated in the public.
Senator Sessions. Let me ask you this. Have hurricanes
increased in intensity or number in the last 50 years around
the world?
Ms. McCabe. Senator, I am not familiar with exact
statistics. I am aware that when the climate warms, which it
is, that creates more energy in the atmosphere that can lead to
more extreme weather events as well as droughts and wildfires.
Senator Sessions. That is a really good theory. That is
what we are being told by the people that taxpayers pay to take
high government office. That is what the President of the
United States has said. I would agree.
However, Dr. Pielke testified at that table last year it is
misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters
associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have
increased on climate time scales either in the United States or
globally. In fact, the IPCC says ``current datasets indicate no
significant observable trends in global tropical cyclone
frequency over the last century.'' Does that not dispute what
you just told us?
Ms. McCabe. Senator, I am not exactly familiar with what
you are quoting from but there are numerous reports that have
been put out by U.S. scientists, government scientists, and
international scientists that have gone through extensive peer
review.
Senator Sessions. So you are going to continue to insist
that we have had more hurricanes over the last 50 or 100 years
when the numbers are plain? They are accounted for worldwide
each year and their intensity is accounted for and all you have
to do is add them up. If you do that and it shows you are
incorrect, will you acknowledge that?
Ms. McCabe. Senator, the scientific evidence is out and
available for the public for them to understand and use and
talk to us about.
Senator Sessions. You are about to take this office. I
asked you this question in private and you said, and said it
again as I understand it in public, you believe that we have
had more storms and more hurricanes.
Ms. McCabe. I believe that the scientific record shows that
over a long period of time and over broad geographic areas,
there have been changes.
Senator Sessions. You dispute then the IPCC's recent
finding that current datasets indicate no significant observed
trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the last
century. That is the International Panel on Climate Change.
Ms. McCabe. I can't speak to that exact quote, Senator, but
I know that the IPCC has made many findings relative to the
effects of climate change around the world.
Senator Sessions. I am just going to tell you. I am going
to submit this in writing to you and if you continue to insist
that we have had more hurricanes in the last century and that
they have increased as a result of global warming and climate
change, I don't see how I can support your nomination. I don't
see how I can support somebody who believes they can advocate
against plain fact.
My time is up. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Ms. McCabe, I didn't hear you say there were
more hurricanes. I heard you say that it is a scientific fact
that when the air warms, it can create more hurricanes. Am I
right?
Ms. McCabe. That's correct.
Senator Boxer. OK. Let the record show that.
Senator Sessions. That is not what she told me in the
office. That is not what is being said publicly. This is a
clever alternative.
I am going to ask you. Have they increased or not? That
would be my question.
Senator Boxer. Let the record show I was interrupted by
Senator Sessions and I didn't mind.
Here is the thing. There is a stark divide between the
parties on environmental issues. If anyone doubts that, all
they have to do is watch this committee when we take up the
environment. It is laid bare here which I think is important.
We shouldn't gloss over it or not respond to each other, so it
is laid bare.
All three of you are going to be working to protect global
health and the environment, you, Ms. Dunkin, in a little
different way by providing information stats and such, but
particularly Mr. Ehrlich and Ms. McCabe. I know that you are
going to do the right thing when it comes to protecting public
health and safety because you are going to pay attention to the
science. Am I right on that, Ms. McCabe?
Ms. McCabe. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Boxer. Am I right on that, Mr. Ehrlich?
Mr. Ehrlich. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Boxer. Ms. Dunkin, when you do your numbers, you
are going to do them objectively?
Ms. Dunkin. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Boxer. OK. Here is the deal. Senator Sessions is
extremely upset with some of the reports coming out and he
cited two people in Singapore, which is his right. I would like
to cite the leaders in America, my country.
The U.S. Global Change Research Program is an
intergovernmental agency effort led by the National Oceanic
Administration. I have never heard them being attacked by name,
so let's be clear, the organization that is giving you, Ms.
McCabe, this information on climate is the U.S. Global Change
Research Program, not Singapore, not Pakistan, not France, it
is the U.S. Global Change Research Program headed by NOAA,
including in the interagency, the Department of Defense, the
Department of Energy, NASA, the National Science Foundation and
the Smithsonian Institute.
They all reached agreement on the following statement I
will put in the record and read into the record. ``Global
change is happening now. Increases in population,
industrialization and human activities have altered the world's
climate, oceans, land, ice cover and ecosystems. In the United
States, climate change has already resulted in more frequent
heat waves, extreme precipitation, wild fires and water
scarcity.'' The source is U.S. Global Change Research Program,
Our Changing Climate, 2013, a NOAA-led effort.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7799.117
Senator Boxer. My colleagues can rant and rave about this
all they want. They have every right to rant and rave. I rant
and rave with them, too. That is fine. The facts are the facts
and the fact is the leading voices in America are warning us.
This stark divide exposed today for all the world to see,
which I think it is really important that the world see it,
because the people don't believe it when I speak at conferences
about what it is like over here, is very regrettable.
As I said before, it is totally different from when I got
into politics. My first elected office was in 1976, I hate to
say that, it was so long ago. It is ancient history and the
young people are thinking, is she really that old? The fact is
environment used to be bipartisan. It was wonderful. You could
disagree on 50 other things but you came together because we
all breathe the same air, a Republican, a Democrat, an
Independent, a Green, anybody. We breathe the same air and
drink the same water. We need the protections.
I just wanted all three of you to know I am sorry you had
to be subjected to this difficult hearing. Because it was
difficult, but I think it is healthy and important that people
speak from their heart, wherever that leads them, and that
people lay out what the differences are because the American
people need to understand it.
I hope the young people who were here, I don't know where
you come down on the issue of the environment, but I hope you
will look into this more. I hope it will motivate you. If you
feel that we need action on climate change, I hope you will
push forward on that. Do something about that. Exercise your
rights to make sure you breathe clean air and drink clean
water.
By the way, if you are on the other side, and you want to
see these laws repealed, exercise that right. I hope you won't,
but it is your right, for sure.
In California, we are going through this horrific drought.
Our leaders in California say it is related in fact, most of
them, some of them say they are going to wait and see, but I
will tell you this. It is hurting our State. Thank goodness we
had a few major storms in the last couple of weeks. It was
really rare to see this rain late, but everything is changing.
There are very serious consequences to the economy, to
people's health, to certainly our farm economy, our Silicon
Valley people, and of course, our water users, our consumers.
Eighty percent of our water is used for agriculture because we
are the breadbasket in California, freely a lot more than the
country, and in many ways, the world.
It is a tough time but there are things we can do, but we
can't do them if we keep on fighting over the very fact that
climate change is here as our own leaders are telling us. Our
Supreme Court said, this Supreme Court that is a tough court
for progressives, that in fact carbon pollution is covered
under the Clean Air Act. It took 8 years to get that decision.
I want to thank all of you for being here. The three
nominees, you are great. I am going to do everything I can in
my power to get you confirmed. Even though I know we will have
a few opponents, I think we can get this job done because we
need you in your jobs.
Thank you very much.
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[The following statements were submitted for the record:]
Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin,
U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland
Madam Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing to
fill three critical positions within our Federal Government. I
want to welcome the nominees to the committee. I greatly
appreciate your willingness and interest to answer our
President's call to serve, and I wish you the best of luck and
speed with your confirmations.
EPA's Office of Air is of critical importance to fulfilling
the mission of the Federal agency responsible for keeping our
communities safe and healthy from pollutants emitting into our
environment. There was a time not too long ago that smog
congestion in our cities was so bad you taste it in the air.
There were summer days in this city and its surrounding
suburbs, which I represent, that children and the elderly were
advised to stay indoors because ground level ozone would reach
such high and unhealthy levels.
Because of the Clean Air Act, the frequency of bad air days
has diminished significantly, and as I'm sure the chairman can
attest to, you can actually see the sky again in L.A.
The debates we have in this committee over the efficacy and
stringency of these laws clearly demonstrate that some take
this progress for granted.
I for one don't take it for granted. The Maryland
Department of Environment reports that between 2001 and 2005
the State only achieved good to moderate air quality for 84.6
percent of the year, with the majority of the 15.4 percent of
those bad air days occurring in summer when the heat is a major
contributing factor to ground level ozone. Compare that to
2011, one of the hottest years on record, and yet despite the
incredible heat that exacerbates bad air days, the percentage
of bad days on the year was just 8.8 percent.
So my message to Ms. McCabe is that I certainly appreciate
the work EPA is doing to protect Americans from harmful air
quality.
I also want to encourage the nominee to keep working hard
to finalize rules to address power sector sources of carbon
pollution under the authorities of section 111 of the Clean Air
Act. If Congress lacks the will to act on the greatest threat
to our environment, and given the Court's decision in
Massachusetts v. EPA, than I believe EPA must act to regulate
carbon pollution.
I also want to thank Ms. McCabe for our conversation the
other day on the Renewable Fuel Standard. We discussed my
efforts to reform the law and my interest in EPA's revising its
proposed 2014 RVO for advanced biofuels. I really appreciate
her listening to me and having her commitment to work with me
to address my concerns.
Last, Mr. Ehrlich, I want you to know that January's
chemical spill in central West Virginia shined a clear
spotlight on the importance of the Chemical Safety Board. I
want to know how you will work to make the CSB more effective
in protecting public safety from such incidents and situations
in the future.
Statement of Hon. Deb Fischer,
U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska
Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter, for
holding today's nominations hearing. Thank you, nominees, for
being here and for your willingness to serve the public. I
appreciate the opportunity to share with you the concerns of my
constituents.
EPA's work is of great consequence to our country and to my
home State of Nebraska--impacting everything from agricultural
practices to energy production. I take very seriously my
responsibility as a U.S. Senator to review and consider these
nominations.
A clean and healthy environment is important to us all.
Over the past several decades, we have made great strides in
improving our air and water quality and protecting our natural
resources--while still growing our economy. In Nebraska,
farmers and ranchers are growing more food and fiber in an
increasingly responsible and sustainable manner. Our public
power utilities are serving more customers than ever while
reducing emissions. Businesses are innovating to provide better
goods and services to enhance quality of life, as they maximize
efficiencies and reduce their environmental footprint.
As I travel around Nebraska, pleas for regulatory relief
come from families facing higher electricity bills, businesses
and utilities confronting the compliance costs of new rules,
and producers who are frustrated with a bureaucracy that simply
does not understand the nature of their business.
I am concerned about the increasing cost of compliance with
environmental regulations for Nebraska's public power
utilities. Today, advanced pollution control equipment can
account for up to 25 percent of the cost to build a new power
plant. Nebraska utilities have spent tens of millions of
dollars complying with air emissions regulations, and these
costs are expected to continue to rise. These regulations lead
directly to increasing electricity prices and the monthly bills
of all Nebraskans.
Nebraska utility providers work hard to provide low cost
electricity that is clean and reliable. We rely heavily on
coal-fired generation because for now it remains the least
expensive way to generate electricity. The barrage of current
regulations as well as those being proposed under the Clean Air
Act will likely cause Nebraska's utility producers to close
some of our coal-fired power plants because of the cost to
bring them up to the new emissions standards.
Because greenhouse gas emissions are global in nature, we
must examine what benefit we are seeking by limiting American
utilities' choice of power generation technologies. We know
that strict measures will drive up electricity costs and
customers' monthly bills and jeopardize energy reliability. The
people of the United States deserve affordable energy from our
domestic energy producing natural resources.
While EPA routinely claims benefits in excess of the
regulatory costs, the benefit estimates are speculative at
best. We simply must have more transparency and accountability
when it comes to the underlying scientific justification of
these rules.
The people and public power utilities in Nebraska are
poised to work with EPA to make reasonable and cost-effective
changes that result in meaningful environmental improvements.
What we cannot tolerate, however, is a lack of transparency,
secret scientific findings, a failure to consider economic
impacts, and increasing regulatory uncertainty.
We must work together to pursue a path forward that
continues both these environmental and economic achievements,
one that encourages meaningful environmental improvements
without stifling economic growth.
I am hopeful that we can continue to make progress on these
issues. Ms. McCabe, Ms. Dunkin, and Mr. Ehrlich, thank you
again for being here today. I look forward to your responses
about how we can work together to address these important
objectives.
[all]