[House Report 113-365]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


113th Congress }                                             {   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session    }                                             {  113-365

======================================================================



 
               ELECTRICITY SECURITY AND AFFORDABILITY ACT

                                _______
                                

 February 28, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Upton, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 3826]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 3826) to provide direction to the Administrator 
of the Environmental Protection Agency regarding the 
establishment of standards for emissions of any greenhouse gas 
from fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units, and 
for other purposes, having considered the same, report 
favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill 
do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     2
Hearings.........................................................    11
Committee Consideration..........................................    11
Committee Votes..................................................    12
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................    18
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............    18
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures    18
Earmark, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits.......    18
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................    18
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................    18
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................    19
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................    19
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings..............................    20
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................    20
Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................    20
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation...................    20
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    21
Dissenting Views.................................................    22

                          PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

    H.R. 3826, the ``Electricity Security and Affordability 
Act,'' was introduced by Rep. Ed Whitfield on January 9, 2014, 
together with 59 original co-sponsors. This legislation would 
provide direction to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
regarding the agency's pending greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 
standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants. Key provisions 
include the following:
     The bill requires that for any GHG standards 
developed by the EPA for new plants, that the agency: (1) 
establish separate standards for natural gas and coal-fired 
power plants; and (2) set standards for coal-fired power plants 
that reflect emissions levels that have been demonstrated to be 
achievable using commercially available technologies.
     The bill requires that for any GHG standards, 
rules, or guidelines developed by the EPA for reconstructed, 
modified, or existing plants, that the EPA Administrator report 
to Congress on the cost and other impacts, and that the 
regulation shall not take effect unless Congress enacts a 
federal law specifying the effective date.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    On June 25, 2013, President Obama announced a ``Climate 
Action Plan'' that directs the EPA to establish Federal 
standards to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from new and 
existing fossil fuel-fired power plants. In a Presidential 
Memorandum, the President specifically directed the agency: (1) 
to propose standards for new plants by September 20, 2013, and 
to finalize those standards in a ``timely fashion''; (2) to 
propose standards, regulations, or guidelines for modified, 
reconstructed, and existing plants by June 1, 2014, and to 
finalize those standards, regulations, or guidelines by June 1, 
2015; and (3) to require States to submit implementation plans 
not later than June 30, 2016.
    The President has directed EPA to develop these power plant 
standards pursuant to existing executive authorities under 
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), commonly referred to as 
the ``New Source Performance Standards'' (NSPS) program. That 
statute authorizes EPA, in certain circumstances, to establish 
standards of performance under Section 111(b) for new 
stationary sources,\1\ and issue guidelines under Section 
111(d) for existing stationary sources.\2\ Under section 111, a 
``standard of performance'' is defined as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Section 111(b) applies to new, modified and reconstructed 
facilities and authorizes EPA to establish Federal standards of 
performance for certain stationary sources that the Administrator has 
determined cause or contribute ``significantly to air pollution which 
may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare'' 
and to establish ``standards of performance'' for such sources. 42 
U.S.C. Sec. (b)(1)(B).
    \2\Section 111(d) authorizes the EPA Administrator to prescribe 
regulations establishing a procedure under which States submit to the 
Administrator a plan establishing standards of performance for certain 
existing sources and certain air pollutants. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7411(d). 
EPA has only invoked 111(d) for regulations of existing sources five 
times in the agency's history, including for sulfuric acid plants, 
phosphate fertilizer plants, primary aluminum plants, Kraft pulp 
plants, and municipal solid waste landfills.

        a standard for the emissions of air pollutants which 
        reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable 
        through the application of the best system of emission 
        reduction which (taking into account the cost of 
        achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health 
        and environmental impact and energy requirements) the 
        Administrator determines has been adequately 
        demonstrated. 42 U.S.C. 7411(a)(1).

EPA's pending CO2 regulations for new power plants

    On September 20, 2013, EPA proposed ``Standards of 
Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary 
Sources: Electric Generating Units'' which would establish 
separate carbon dioxide (CO2) standards for natural 
gas-fired and for coal-fired electric generating units.\3\ In 
the proposal, EPA effectively requires that any new coal-fired 
units built in the United States install carbon capture and 
storage (CCS) technologies, which have not been successfully 
demonstrated for commercial service at any full scale 
commercial power plant in the world.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\This proposed rule replaces a prior draft rule published in 
April 2012 in which EPA had proposed to set a single standard for both 
natural gas-fired and coal-fired power plants. See 77 Fed. Reg. 22392 
(April 13, 2012).
    \4\See 79 Fed. Reg. 1430 (Jan. 8, 2014). For natural gas-fired 
units, the rule proposed a carbon dioxide (CO2) standard of 
1,000 pounds per megawatt hour (lbs/MWh) for large units (greater than 
850 mmBtu/hour), and a standard of 1,100 lbs MWh for smaller natural 
gas units (less than 850 mmBtu/hour), and to exempt certain units that 
supply less than one-third of its potential electric output to the 
grid. See 79 Fed. Reg. 1430 (Jan. 8, 2014). For coal-fired units, the 
rule proposes a standard of 1,100 lbs/MWh over 12 months, or 1,000 to 
1,050 lbs/MWh over a period of 84 months (7 years). Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EPA maintains in the proposed rule that CCS technologies 
for new coal-fired power plants have been ``adequately 
demonstrated'' for purposes of CAA section 111 based on three 
government-funded CCS power plant projects under the Department 
of Energy's (DOE) Clean Coal Power Initiative, including a 
project under construction in Mississippi, and two planned 
projects in Texas and California. EPA also cites a fourth 
small-scale, Canadian government-funded CCS post-combustion 
project under construction in Saskatchewan, Canada. At the 
November 14, 2013 legislative hearing on the discussion draft 
of H.R. 3826, EPA Acting Administrator Janet McCabe pointed to 
these four projects, all of which involve use of CO2 
for enhanced oil recovery, as the basis for meeting the 
statutory requirement that CCS technologies be adequately 
demonstrated for coal-fired power plants.
    Status of CCS Technologies for Commercial-Scale Power 
Plants: EPA's proposal to mandate CCS for coal-fired power 
plants has generated significant legal controversy because 
there are no power plants in commercial service anywhere in the 
world that have installed and operated the CCS technologies 
necessary to comply with the rule. None of the four government 
funded projects cited by EPA is in operation, and two of the 
projects have not yet broken ground. According to DOE's own 
National Energy Technology (NETL), moreover, ``these 
technologies are not ready in their current state of 
development for implementation on commercial coal-based power 
plants because they have not been demonstrated at appropriate 
scale, require approximately one-third of the plant's steam and 
power to operate, and are cost prohibitive.'' Consistent with 
these statements, at a hearing on October 29, 2013 before the 
House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, DOE's former 
Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, Charles D. McConnell, 
testified that ``it is disingenuous to state that the 
technology is `ready'.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\DOE's Deputy Assistant Secretary of DOE's Office of Clean Coal, 
James Wood, said in June 2012 that ``our goal is to have commercially 
available capture and storage technologies broadly available in the 
public sector by 2020-2025.'' See speech, The Third International 
Advanced Coal Technologies Conference, June 4, 2012 Xi'an, China, 
entitled ``Carbon Capture: Opportunities and Obstacles,'' James F. 
Wood, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Clean Coal, U.S. Department 
of Energy available at http://www.uwyo.edu/ser/_files/docs/conferences/
2013/china/james%20wood.pdf. I September 2013, the Attorneys General of 
17 states and senior environmental regulator from one additional state, 
wrote: ``It seems incontrovertible that no post-combustion reduction 
system has been adequately demonstrated'' for CO2 emissions 
from EGUs on a broad, commercial scale. A system of carbon capture and 
storage is perhaps a decade away from being technologically and 
economically feasible. A permitting system for storing CO2 
emissions underground and a set of legal rules governing liability for 
CO2 storage has not been put in place in most states.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Numerous witnesses have testified before the Subcommittee 
on Energy and Power that CCS is not currently commercially 
viable for coal-fired power plants. For example, at the 
November14, 2013 hearing on the discussion draft of H.R. 3826, 
witnesses testified as follows:
     Mr. Ed Chicanowiz, an engineering consultant who 
has designed and tested environmental controls for fossil power 
stations for more than four decades, testified that ``CCS, at 
some time in the future, may prove a feasible technology to 
control CO2 emissions.'' He further testified, 
however, that ``[i]n my opinion, we need until about 2020, to 
make this assessment with a reasonable degree of confidence. 
CCS is not commercially proven now.''
     Dr. Donald van der Vaart, Chief of the Permitting 
Section of the North Carolina Department of Environment and 
Natural Resources-Division of Air Quality, testified: ``EPA's 
recently proposed NSPS for utility units assumed carbon capture 
and storage--or CCS--has been `adequately demonstrated.' One 
need only look at the yet to operate Kemper County Energy 
Facility in Mississippi, with its substantial governmental 
funding, as prima facie evidence that EPA's conclusions are 
unsupported. In addition to the fact that there is not a single 
fossil fuel-fired utility plant operating with CCS, EPA 
themselves acknowledged geologic sequestration is not generally 
available at the emission units themselves.''
     Mr. Ross Eisenberg, Vice President, Energy and 
Resources Policy for the National Association of Manufacturers 
similarly testified: ``Because CCS is neither commercially 
available nor cost effective for a utility-scale power 
generation project, the rule effectively bans the construction 
of any coal-fired power plant going forward.'' He further 
testified: ``Partial CCS for a utility-scale coal-fired power 
plant has not been adequately demonstrated and is extremely 
costly. The EPA can only point to four examples of CCS to 
support its conclusion; only two are actually under 
construction, and only one of those is in the United States. 
The EPA cannot point to a single completed, operational 
facility that meets the standard for coal it has chosen. While 
we believe CCS holds great promise as a technology, it is not 
ready to be deployed the way the EPA insists it will be 
deployed in the near term.''
    Other witnesses have similarly testified before the 
Subcommittee regarding the technical, economic, legal and other 
barriers to deployment.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\See, e.g. Sept. 20, 2012 Testimony of Mr. Robert Hilton, Vice 
President, Power Technologies for Government Affairs for Alstom 
(``Alstom does not currently deem its technologies for CCS commercial 
and, to my knowledge, there are no other technology suppliers globally 
that can meet this criteria or are willing to make a normal commercial 
contract for CCS at commercial scale.'' Further, ``the time to 
commercialization for CCS technology is not clear.''); Sept. 20, 2012 
Testimony of Mark McCullough, Executive Vice President of American 
Electric Power (``as a consequence of our first-hand experience and 
intimate understanding of CCS technologies, AEP is convinced that CCS 
is many years from providing a commercially viable solution to reducing 
CO2 emissions due to the numerous technical, financial, 
legal, and regulatory challenges that must first be addressed''); Sept. 
20, 2012 Testimony of John N. Voyles, Jr., Vice President, Transmission 
& Generation Services for LG&E and KU Energy LLC (``the volume of 
storage necessary to facilitate such operations on a continuous basis 
for the life of an electric generating station has yet to be 
established. Very serious questions remain regarding the implications 
such injection processes have on mineral and property rights, the 
monitoring of the CO2 plume across property lines or state 
boundaries and the verification systems necessary to ensure long term 
monitoring is taken into account.''); June 19, 2012 Testimony of Steven 
E. Winberg, Vice President, Research & Development for CONSOL Energy 
Inc. (``What is needed is commercially-available CCS technologies and 
this is 10 to 15 years away from the time when CCS suppliers will be 
able to provide performance guarantees and warrantees.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CCS Capital Costs and Other Limitations: Even if all of the 
power plant projects cited by EPA to show CCS is ``adequately 
demonstrated'' were in operation and meeting EPA's proposed 
emissions standards, the costs associated with CCS are 
prohibitive. At the November 14, 2013 hearing relating to H.R. 
3826, Mr. Eisenberg testified: ``The Energy Information 
Administration estimates the overnight capital cost to build a 
new integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) coal plant 
with CCS to be $6,599 per kilowatt (kW). This is more than six 
times the price of a new NGCC plant, the natural gas standard 
the EPA picked as the NSPS for that fuel. It is triple the 
price per kW of a new onshore wind farm, double the cost per kW 
of new hydropower and more than $1,000 per kW more expensive 
than solar or nuclear. The standard that the EPA has chosen for 
coal--which, by definition, must be adequately demonstrated and 
take into account cost--is so expensive that nobody would build 
it.''
    Even ignoring the technical challenges and costs concerns 
associated with CCS, moreover, the four projects cited by EPA 
are all enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects. While such 
projects may be suitable for certain states or regions of the 
country, EOR for power plants is not practicable nationally 
given geographic and geologic constraints. The Southern 
Company, which owns the Kemper project in Mississippi, has 
stated that the unique characteristics of the project ``cannot 
be consistently replicated on a national level'' and ``should 
not serve as a primary basis for new emissions standards 
impacting all new coal-fired power plants.''
    Energy Policy Act of 2005: EPA's proposed standards for new 
plants have raised further legal controversy because the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005 prohibits the agency from considering 
technology used at a facility receiving assistance under the 
DOE's Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI), or at a facility that 
is receiving an advanced coal project tax credit, as being 
``adequately demonstrated'' for purposes of Section 111 of the 
CAA.\7\ The effect of these provisions is to prevent EPA from 
prematurely mandating use of a technology before it is 
commercially viable.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\See 42 U.S.C. 15962(i)(``No technology, or level of emission 
reduction, solely by reason of the use of the technology, or the 
achievement of the emission reduction, by 1 or more facilities 
receiving assistance under this Act, shall be considered to be 
adequately demonstrated for purposes of section 111 of the Clean Air 
Act . . . .''); 26 U.S.C. 48A(g) (``No use of technology (or level of 
emission reduction solely by reason of the use of the technology), and 
no achievement of any emission reduction by the demonstration of any 
technology or performance level, by or at one or more facilities with 
respect to which a credit is allowed under this section, shall be 
considered to indicate that the technology . . . is adequately 
demonstrated for purposes of section 111 of the Clean Air Act . . . 
.''); see also H.R. Rept. No. 109-215 at 239-40 (July 29, 2005)(``the 
use of a certain technology by any facility assisted under this 
subtitle . . . will not result in that technology . . . being 
considered achievable, achievable in practice, or `adequately 
demonstrated' for purposes of [section 111 of the Clean Air Act]'').
    \8\To the extent that some have argued that CCS technologies should 
be viewed like scrubbers in the 1970s, this is not an appropriate 
analogy. When EPA was seeking to mandate ``wet scrubbers'' in the 
1970s, scrubbers, unlike CCS technologies, were actually in use in 3 
power plants and construction underway at another 15 power plants, none 
of which received subsidies. 37 Fed. Reg. 5767, 5768 (March 21, 1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On November 15, 2013, Members of the Committee wrote to EPA 
regarding these provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and 
to request that the agency withdraw the proposed rule. While 
EPA failed to provide a timely response to the Committee's 
request and proceeded with publication of the proposed rule in 
the Federal Register on January 8, 2014, on February 7, 2014, 
EPA posted on its website a ``Notice of Data Availability'' and 
related ``Technical Support Document'' (TSD). These documents 
maintain that, notwithstanding the provisions of the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005, the agency can make a determination that 
CCS is the best system of emission reduction adequately 
demonstrated for new coal-fired power plants. EPA maintains 
that CCS for power plants is adequately demonstrated because 
each of the ``components'' of CCS has been demonstrated to be 
feasible, and even if not demonstrated for a facility that 
generates electricity, they have been demonstrated for various 
discrete projects in the industrial sector.
    EPA's position that demonstration of the ``components'' of 
CCS in other sectors shows CCS for power plants is ``adequately 
demonstrated'' is undermined by the fact that these components 
have not been integrated at commercial scale and operated in 
commercial service in full-scale commercial power plants. Most 
of the additional projects cited by EPA are also DOE CCPI 
projects. Further, DOE is continuing to spend billions of 
dollars to demonstrate CCS technologies for coal-fired power 
plants, which would be unnecessary if the technologies were 
presently adequately demonstrated for commercial service in the 
electricity sector. Moreover, as former DOE Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of DOE's Office of Clean Coal, James Wood, said in 
June 2012: ``technologies to capture and store carbon emissions 
from electric power plants are elusive, expensive and, although 
there are CO2 separation technologies in use in the 
natural gas and chemical processing industries, there has not 
yet been widespread deployment in the electric power industry, 
and there is little history of the integration of these 
technologies with electric generation in reliable or cost-
effective modes.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\See, Speech at The Third International Advanced Coal 
Technologies Conference, June 4, 2012 Xi'an, China, ``Carbon Capture: 
Opportunities and Obstacles,'' James F. Wood, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary, Office of Clean Coal, U.S. Department of Energy, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Electricity Prices and Fuel Diversity: In addition to the 
above, the proposed CCS mandate has generated controversy 
because of its potential impacts on the diversity, 
affordability and reliability of the nation's electricity 
supplies. The nation's electricity generation fleet is 
currently experiencing a dramatic shift, away from coal-fired 
generation and increasingly towards use of natural gas and 
renewable energy sources, spurred by low natural gas prices and 
a suite of new environmental regulations. This shift will 
largely occur over the next few years as natural gas prices are 
expected to remain low and recent environmental regulations 
accelerate the retirement of a significant portion of the 
nation's coal-fired power plants, expected primarily between 
2014 and 2016.\10\ As recently as February 14, 2014, EIA has 
projected that there will be more coal-fired power plant 
retirements by 2016 than have been scheduled, and that 60 
gigawatts (GW) of capacity will retire by 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\See NERC, 2013 Long-Term Reliability Assessment, Dec. 2013 
(``The amount of coal-fired generation during peak is expected to 
decline substantially, as 39.4 GW of retirements and derates outpace 
4.3 GW of new additions, resulting in a net reduction of 35.1 GW by 
2023. Most unit retirements are planned between 2014 and 2016, when 
requirements of environmental regulations become effective.'') The 
2014-2016 timeframe is triggered by the Environmental Protection 
Agency's (EPA) Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) (a/k/a ``Utility 
MACT'') rule which is scheduled to take effect in April 2015, with a 
deadline that may be extended by up to one year by state permitting 
agencies. In addition to coal retirements, NERC has identified a 
variety of emerging reliability challenges, including challenges 
associated with reliably integrating high variable renewable 
generation, nuclear generation retirements, and other challenges. Id. 
at pp. 2-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the November 14, 2013 legislative hearing relating to 
H.R. 3826, Oklahoma Attorney General E. Scott Pruitt, 
testified: ``EPA's proposed EGU NSPS would foreclose the 
construction of new coal-based electric generation absent 
carbon capture and storage (``CCS''), yet CCS is likely to 
remain commercially infeasible for a decade or more.'' He 
further testified: ``The elimination of coal as a fuel for new 
electric generation would have highly concerning implications 
for electricity prices and for the economy and job-creation in 
general, as well as the competitiveness of American 
manufacturing.''
    The President and CEO of East Kentucky Power Cooperative, 
Tony Campbell, also testified that: ``Coal-fired generation is 
essential to ensure energy diversity and to keep electricity 
prices low. Although natural gas prices are currently low, 
recent data from the United States Energy Information 
Administration (``EIA'') shows that natural gas prices have 
increased by more than 50% since April 2012.''
    More recently, at a February 11, 2014 hearing before the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, DOE Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Clean Coal, Office of Fossil Energy at 
the Department of Energy, Julio Friedmann, testified that CCS 
for new coal plants could increase electricity costs 
dramatically, stating that for the first generation technology 
for a pulverized coal plant adding CCS ``looks something like a 
70 or 80 percent increase on the wholesale price of 
electricity.''
    Precedential Effect of Proposed Regulation: Finally, the 
proposed rule has generated controversy because of concerns 
that EPA's proposed CCS mandate for new coal plants will set a 
precedent for other types of facilities, including refineries 
and other sources subject to regulation under CAA section 111. 
Mr. Eisenberg testified at the November 14, 2013 hearing that: 
``In the proposal, the EPA cannot point to a single operating 
facility in the United States that uses partial CCS, a 
technology the EPA insists is `adequately demonstrated.' In 
addition, the EPA for years has maintained the practice that it 
cannot require facilities to `redefine the source'; it can 
dictate a standard of performance, but not pick a technology. 
Here, the EPA clearly picked a technology (IGCC) that is 
fundamentally different from a coal-fired boiler. A precedent 
based on choosing IGCC with partial CCS as the best system of 
emissions reduction could have wide-ranging consequences for 
other industries receiving a GHG NSPS.''

EPA's pending CO2 regulations for existing power plants

    Pursuant to the President's Climate Action Plan, EPA is 
also proceeding to develop CO2 regulations for 
existing plants. In the Fall of 2013, EPA conducted ``Listening 
Sessions'' and also released a document dated September 23, 
2013 that it referred to as ``Questions for States'' and was 
entitled ``Considerations in the Design of a Program to Reduce 
Carbon Pollution from Existing Power Plants.''\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\In that document, EPA expresses its view that the agency may 
take either a ``source-based approach'' or a ``system-based approach'' 
to regulation under section 111(d). EPA specifically asks states to 
provide information regarding their experience with ``programs that 
reduce CO2 emissions in the electric power sector,'' 
including ``greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions performance standards, 
emissions budget trading programs, resource planning requirements, end-
use energy efficiency resource standards, renewable energy portfolio 
standards, and appliance and building code energy standards.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the November 14, 2013 legislative hearing on H.R. 3826, 
Assistant Administrative Janet McCabe, rejected the view that 
states, rather than EPA, would set standards of performance. 
Specifically, she testified that: ``It is EPA's role to set the 
guideline, the target.'' When asked whether it was states or 
EPA that would have the actual authority to set the performance 
standards for existing plants, she testified that ``EPA will 
set the target, but states will have flexibility to meet that 
in whatever way makes sense to them. So it does not need to be 
a unit by unit regulation, or expectation.''
    There is significant concern that the agency will seek to 
set standards that go beyond the scope of the agency's legal 
authorities under section 111(d). At the November 14, 2013 
hearing relating to H.R. 3826, Oklahoma Attorney General E. 
Scott Pruitt testified that ``[i]n recent years the EPA has 
expressed an unwillingness to appropriately defer to state 
authority under the Clean Air Act.'' Further, he and the 
Attorneys General of 16 other states sent a white paper to EPA 
in September 2013 in which they stated: ``In contemplating 
regulation of existing EGUs, however, EPA appears poised to go 
beyond the establishment of procedures and usurp the states' 
authority by setting minimum substantive requirements for state 
performance standards.''\12\ They further stated: ``The 
prospect for EPA adoption of GHG performance standards for new 
or existing coal-based EGUs raises serious concerns. EPA's 
aggressive standards for new coal-based EGUs indicate a 
similarly aggressive approach to existing coal-based EGUs. 
While EPA is authorized to require States to submit plans 
containing performance standards, EPA may not dictate what 
those performance standards shall be. Nor may EPA require 
States to adopt GHG performance standards that are not based on 
adequately demonstrated technology or that mandate, in the 
guise of `flexible approaches,' the retirement or reduced 
operation of still-viable coal-based EGUs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\The Attorneys General further expressed concern that: ``In 
short, EPA may attempt to force coal-fueled EGUs to decrease operation 
time or retire early, or force utilities to rely more heavily on 
natural gas and other resources in an effort to ensure greater 
CO2 emission reductions. Such proposals, often offered as 
ways of providing ``flexibility,'' do not conform to the limitations 
Congress has placed on EPA in the Clean Air Act, nor do they properly 
preserve the primary role of States in the development of standards of 
performance for existing sources. Under Sec. 111(d), it is the States, 
not EPA, that are authorized to adopt performance standards; therefore 
it is the States, not EPA, that weigh the Sec. 111(a)(1) factors to 
determine what technology is adequately demonstrated.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dr. Van der Vaart also testified at the November 14, 2013 
hearing that there were significant legal questions about EPA's 
authority to regulate under section 111(d). Even in cases where 
EPA does have authority to establish emissions guidelines, 
however, he testified that that authority is limited: ``EPA is 
not authorized to impose emissions standards on existing 
sources. Rather, EPA can only establish a unit-specific 
guideline that describes what control technologies have been 
demonstrated. Once EPA provides that guideline, section 111(d) 
allows States to develop unit specific emission standards after 
considering many factors including the cost, physical 
constraints on installing controls, and the remaining useful 
life of the emission units. The plain language of the Act as 
well as legal precedent precludes EPA and States from designing 
a standard that relies on reductions made outside of the 
emissions unit. Any flexibility in compliance with a standard 
based on a specific emission unit resides with the States who 
have the primary responsibility for implementation of this 
program.''
    Mr. Campell also testified at that hearing that ``EKPC's 
greatest apprehension relates to regulations for existing 
sources. EKPC operates three baseload power plants fueled by 
coal and one plant operated by natural gas-fired combustion 
turbines. EKPC has invested almost $1 billion in retrofitting 
existing coal-fired power plants with modern air pollution 
control equipment. Further, EKPC spent another $1 billion to 
construct two of the cleanest coal units in the country. An 
existing source rule that requires CCS would leave EKPC with no 
choice but to convert these units to natural gas, essentially 
wasting the extensive capital investments that have been made 
to lower pollutants from the coal-fired units.'' Further, 
``EKPC is very worried about the supply of electricity to its 
rural cooperative members and its cost. There is a lack of 
technology that would allow EKPC to control GHG emissions, and 
a lack of demonstrated benefits to the environment. Most if not 
all coal-fired units will be forced to retire as a result of 
the regulation of GHG emissions, which would astronomically 
increase electricity rates and ultimately cause further job 
losses.''
    While EPA has not yet proposed standards for existing power 
plants, the costs and job impacts of such regulations have the 
potential to be very significant given coal-fired power 
generation currently supplies approximately 40 percent of the 
nation's electricity. At the November 14, 2013 hearing, Stephen 
Hawkins of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) 
maintained that his organization's cap-and-trade proposal for 
regulation of existing plants would cost about $4 billion 
annually. At the hearing, however, a November 13, 2013 letter 
from the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity to 
Chairman Whitfield was submitted which stated that National 
Economic Research Associates has preliminarily estimated that 
the costs of the NRDC proposal could result in ``total costs to 
consumers of as much as $145 billion'' between 2018-2033, and 
could result in more than 2.85 million jobs lost over the next 
two decades.

Additional considerations

    Any regulations of CO2 emissions from U.S. power 
plants should be viewed in the context of overall global 
emissions. U.S. GHG emissions represent only 19% of global 
emissions according to EPA, and that share is declining every 
year as China and other developing economies increase their use 
of energy. U.S. energy related CO2 emissions have 
declined dramatically and are likely to remain flat in the 
coming years. In April 2013, EIA reported that U.S. 
CO2 emissions resulting from energy use were at 
their lowest levels since 1994. More recently, EIA projected 
total U.S. energy-related emissions of CO2 will 
remain below the 2005 level in every year through 2040, and 
will be more than seven percent below their 2005 level in 
2040.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\See EIA ``AEO2014 Early Release Overview.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Any regulations of CO2 emissions from U.S. power 
plants should also be examined to determine whether they will 
have any meaningful impact on future global climate changes. 
Administrator McCarthy, at a September 18, 2013 hearing before 
the Subcommittee, when asked about whether EPA can solve the 
problems of climate change, testified: ``I think what you are 
asking is can EPA in and of itself solve the problems of 
climate change. No, we cannot.'' In response to questions from 
Representative Pompeo regarding whether EPA regulatory actions 
will have a meaningful impact on climate indicators, she 
acknowledged that it is ``unlikely that any specific one step 
is going to be seen as having a visible impact on any of those 
impacts, a visible change in any of those impacts.''

What the Act will do

    H.R. 3826 would ensure that any standards established by 
EPA for new power plants would be achievable based on 
technologies that have actually been demonstrated at commercial 
power plants, rather than based on what EPA expects will be 
demonstrated in the future. H.R. 3826, further, would ensure 
that EPA's pending GHG regulations for existing plants would be 
subject to Congressional approval.
    In particular, for new power plants, H.R. 3826 provides 
that any rule establishing GHG standards for new plants may not 
be issued unless the EPA Administrator: (1) establishes 
separate standards for natural gas and coal-fired plants; (2) 
sets standards for the coal category that have been achieved 
over a one-year period by at least 6 units located at different 
commercial power plants in the United States; and (3) 
establishes a subcategory for coal-fired plants that use 
lignite coal and sets standards that have been achieved over a 
one-year period by at least 3 units located at different 
commercial power plants in the United States.
    For existing power plants, H.R. 3826 provides that any rule 
establishing GHG standards or guidelines applicable to 
modified, reconstructed, or existing plants shall not take 
effect unless a federal law is enacted specifying the effective 
date. Further, for any such rule, the bill would also require 
that the EPA Administrator submit a report to Congress 
regarding the proposed rule, its economic impacts, and the 
projected effects on global GHG emissions.
    H.R. 3826 would also repeal EPA's earlier proposed rules 
for new power plants, including the rule announced on September 
20, 2013, any subsequently issued rules for new plants that do 
not meet the requirements of the bill, and any GHG standards or 
guidelines applicable to modified, reconstructed or existing 
plants issued prior to the date of enactment.

Supporters of the legislation

    The legislation is supported by a broad coalition 
representing virtually all aspects of the U.S. economy. 
Supporters include:

American Chemistry Council
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Forest & Paper Association
American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers
American Iron and Steel Institute
America's Natural Gas Alliance
American Petroleum Institute
American Public Power Association
Association of American Railroads
Council of Industrial Boiler Owners
Electric Reliability Coordinating Council
Industrial Consumers of America
Industrial Minerals Association--North America
International Liquid Terminals Association
National Association of Manufacturers
National Federation of Independent Business
National Mining Association
National Oilseed Processors Association
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
National Taxpayers Union
Portland Cement Association
The Fertilizer Institute
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
United Mine Workers

                                HEARINGS

    The Subcommittee held a hearing on the discussion draft of 
H.R. 3826 on November 14, 2013. The Subcommittee received 
testimony from:
           Joe Manchin, Senator, West Virginia;
           Janet McCabe, Acting Administrator for Air 
        and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
           E. Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma Attorney General;
           Henry Hale, Mayor, Fulton, Arkansas;
           Tony Campbell, President and CEO, East 
        Kentucky Power Cooperative;
           Donald R. van der Vaart, Chief, Permitting 
        Section, North Carolina Department of Environmental and 
        Natural Resources-Division of Air Quality;
           David Hawkins, Director of Climate Programs, 
        Natural Resources Defense Council;
           Susan F. Tierney, Managing Principal, 
        Analysis Group;
           J. Edward Cichanowicz, Engineering 
        Consultant; and
           Ross Eisenberg, Vice President, Energy and 
        Resources Policy, National Association of 
        Manufacturers.

                        COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

    On January 13 and 14, 2014, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Power met in open markup session, and forwarded H.R. 3826 to 
the full Committee, by a roll call vote of 18 ayes and 11 nays. 
During the markup, one amendment was offered and was rejected a 
roll call vote.
    On January 27 and 28, 2014, the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce met in open markup session to consider H.R. 3826. 
During the markup, five amendments were offered, of which 4 
were rejected by record votes, and 1 by voice vote. A motion by 
Mr. Upton to order H.R. 3826, reported to the House, without 
amendment, was agreed to by a record vote of 29 ayes and 19 
nays.

                            COMMITTEE VOTES

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes 
on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto. A 
motion by Mr. Upton to order H.R. 3626 reported to the House, 
without amendment, was agreed to by a roll call vote of 29 ayes 
and 19 nays. The following reflects the roll call votes taken 
during the Committee consideration:


                      COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee made findings that are 
reflected in this report.

         STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

    H.R. 3826 provides direction to EPA regarding the agency's 
pending GHG regulations for power plant rules to ensure 
continued access to diverse, reliable, and affordable 
electricity supplies in the United States.

   NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX EXPENDITURES

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R. 
3826 would result in no new or increased budget authority, 
entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues.

       EARMARK, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED TARIFF BENEFITS

    In compliance with clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI 
of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee 
finds that H.R. 3826 contains no earmarks, limited tax 
benefits, or limited tariff benefits.

                        COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                  CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate 
provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                 Washington, DC, February 12, 2014.
Hon. Fred Upton,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3826, the 
Electricity Security and Affordability Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne S. 
Mehlman.
            Sincerely,
                                              Douglas W. Elmendorf.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 3826--Electricity Security and Affordability Act

    Summary: On January 8, 2014, the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) published a proposed rule that would establish 
uniform national limits on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from 
new electricity-generating facilities that use coal or natural 
gas. The rule also sets new standards of performance for those 
power plants, including the requirement to install carbon 
capture and sequestration technology. H.R. 3826 would repeal 
this pending rule and place new requirements on any future 
regulations addressing GHG emissions from new or existing power 
plants.
    CBO estimates that implementing this legislation would cost 
$2 million over the 2015-2019 period, subject to the 
availability of appropriated funds. Enacting H.R. 3826 would 
not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-
go procedures do not apply.
    H.R. 3826 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: CBO estimates 
that implementing H.R. 3826 would cost $2 million over the next 
five years. The costs of this legislation fall within budget 
function 300 (natural resources and environment).
    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 
3826 will be enacted by the end of 2014 and that the necessary 
amounts to implement the legislation will be appropriated. 
Under the bill, CBO expects that EPA would need two years to 
develop new regulations--using requirements specified in H.R. 
3826--for GHG emissions from new power plants. Based on the 
cost of developing the regulations published in January 2014, 
CBO estimates that work would cost $4 million. We also estimate 
that implementing and enforcing the new rule would cost $3 
million over the 2017-2019 period. However, because we expect 
EPA will spend about $5 million over the same period under 
current law to implement and enforce the rule published in 
January 2014, the net additional cost of implementing H.R. 3826 
would total about $2 million over the next five years.
    Pay-As-You-Go considerations: None.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 3826 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Susanne S. Mehlman; 
Impact on state, local, and tribal governments: Lisa Ramirez-
Branum; Impact on the private sector: Amy Petz.
    Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                       FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

                    DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

    No provision of H.R. 3826 establishes or reauthorizes a 
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of 
another Federal program, a program that was included in any 
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program 
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance.

                  DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

    The Committee estimates that enacting H.R. 3826 
specifically directs to be completed no specific rulemakings 
within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551.

                      ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                  APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

             SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

    Section 1: This section provides the short title of 
``Electricity Security and Affordability Act.''
    Section 2: This section provides direction relating to the 
establishment of standards for new fossil fuel-fired 
electricity generating units (EGUs).
    Section 2(a) provides that the EPA Administrator may not 
issue, implement, or enforce any proposed or final rule under 
section 111 of the CAA that establishes GHG emissions standards 
for new fossil fuel-fired EGUs unless the Administrator meets 
the requirements of subsections (b) and (c).
    Section 2(b) provides that the Administrator must establish 
separate source categories for new EGUs fueled with coal and 
natural gas. This section provides that for the coal category, 
the EPA Administrator may not set a standard unless it has been 
achieved for a continuous 12-month period by at least 6 EGUs 
located at different power plants in the U.S., which 
collectively are representative of the operating 
characteristics of EGUs at different locations in the U.S., and 
which have operated for the entire 12-month period on a full 
commercial basis.
    Section 2(c) further provides for the coal category that 
the Administrator must establish a subcategory for new EGUs 
fueled by lignite coal, and may not set a standard for that 
subcategory unless it has been achieved for a continuous 12-
month period by at least 3 EGUs located at different power 
plants in the U.S., which collectively are representative of 
the operating characteristics of EGUs at different locations in 
the U.S., and which have operated for the entire 12-month 
period on a full commercial basis.
    Sections 2(b) and (c) also provide that in establishing 
standards for the coal category, the Administrator may not set 
the standards based on results from a demonstration project.
    Section 3: This section provides that any rules or 
guidelines issued by the Administrator establishing standards 
of performance under CAA section 111 for modified or 
reconstructed fossil fuel-fired EGUs, or guidelines for 
existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs, will not take effect unless a 
Federal law is enacted specifying such rule's or guidelines' 
effective date. The section further provides that such rules or 
guidelines may not take effect unless the Administrator has 
submitted to Congress a report containing (1) the text of such 
rule or guidelines; (2) the economic impacts of such rule or 
guidelines, including potential effects on economic growth, 
competitiveness and jobs, and on electricity ratepayers; and 
(3) the amount of GHG emissions that such rule or guidelines 
are projected to reduce as compared to overall GHG emissions.
    Section 4: This section provides that the EPA's proposed 
standards for new fossil fuel-fired EGUs, and any substantially 
similar rules that do not meet the requirements of section 2 of 
this Act, are of no force and effect. The section further 
provides that any rules or guidelines for modified, 
reconstructed, or existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs promulgated 
prior to enactment of the Act are also of no force and effect.
    Section 5: This section contains the following definitions:
    (1) ``Demonstration project'' means a project to test or 
demonstrate the feasibility of carbon capture and storage 
technologies that has received government funding or financial 
assistance.
    (2) ``Existing source'' has the meaning given such term in 
CAA section 111(a), except that such term shall not include any 
modified source.
    (3) ``Greenhouse gas'' means any of the following: carbon 
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, 
hydrofluorocarbons, or perfluorocarbons.
    (4) ``Modification'' has the meaning given such term in CAA 
section 111(a).
    (5) ``Modified source'' means any stationary source, the 
modification of which is commenced after the date of enactment 
of the Act.
    (6) ``New source'' has the meaning given such term in CAA 
section 111(a), except that such term shall not include any 
modified source.

         CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

    This legislation does not amend any existing Federal 
statute.

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                               I. SUMMARY

    On June 25, 2013, President Obama announced a Climate 
Action Plan to cut carbon pollution and prepare for the effects 
of climate change.\1\ In that Plan, he directed the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to use its existing 
authority under the Clean Air Act to control carbon pollution 
from new and existing fossil fuel-fired power plants.\2\ 
President Obama simultaneously issued a Presidential Memorandum 
on Power Sector Carbon Pollution Standards providing more 
detailed direction to EPA, including deadlines.\3\ The 
memorandum set deadlines of September 20, 2013, for a new 
proposed rule for new plants; June 1, 2014, and June 1, 2015, 
for proposed and final rules, respectively, for existing 
plants; and June 30, 2016, for states to submit plans for 
regulating existing plants.\4\ On September 20, 2013, EPA 
issued proposed carbon pollution standards for new coal- and 
natural gas-fired power plants.\5\ EPA has held listening 
sessions across the country to discuss its forthcoming proposal 
for existing plants.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Executive Office of the President, The President's Climate 
Action Plan (Jun. 2013) (online at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/
files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf).
    \2\Id. at 6.
    \3\President Barack Obama, Presidential Memorandum--Power Sector 
Carbon Pollution Standards (Jun. 25, 2013) (online at 
www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/25/presidential-memorandum-
power-sector-carbon-pollution-standards).
    \4\Id.
    \5\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Standards of Performance 
for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric 
Utility Generating Units; Proposed Rule, 79 Fed. Reg. 1430 (Jan. 8, 
2014) (hereinafter GHG Performance Standards NPRM) (online at 
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-01-08/pdf/2013-28668.pdf).
    \6\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Carbon Pollution 
Standards; Public Listening Sessions (online at www2.epa.gov/carbon-
pollution-standards/public-listening-sessions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 3826 would block EPA's proposed carbon pollution 
standards for both new and existing coal-fired power plants, 
which are the largest stationary sources of carbon pollution in 
the country.\7\ Existing coal plants alone account for roughly 
one-third of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions.\8\ Thus, 
blocking EPA's standards would significantly impair efforts to 
address climate change. Supporters of this bill claim that this 
bill is needed to ensure that EPA's standards for coal are 
achievable. But in reality, this bill would prevent EPA from 
addressing carbon pollution from coal regardless of the 
availability of effective pollution controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2011 (Apr. 12, 2013) (online 
at www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-
2013-Main-Text.pdf).
    \8\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This bill would set conditions for EPA's regulation of new 
coal-fired power plants that will never be met, ensuring that 
carbon pollution from these plants remains uncontrolled. Under 
this bill, EPA would only be permitted to set standards for new 
coal plants if the power sector first voluntarily broadly 
adopts the pollution controls needed to comply with these 
standards, without any government mandate, funding, or 
financial assistance. This simply will not occur. Economists 
view pollution as a classic ``market failure,'' in which every 
firm has an incentive to pollute, even though the combined 
effects of such pollution make society as a whole worse off. 
Controlling pollution reduces firms' profits, or at best 
diverts resources that otherwise could be more profitably 
deployed. Thus, competitive firms do not generally control 
their pollution absent non-market incentives, such as 
government regulation or financial assistance. There is no 
reason to believe that this situation is different when it 
comes to carbon pollution.
    Supporters of this bill argue that the bill's extreme 
restrictions on EPA's standard-setting authority are needed 
because EPA's proposed standard for new coal-fired power plants 
would require use of partial carbon capture and sequestration 
(CCS) technology, which they claim is unavailable. This claim 
is false. EPA's proposed standard is based on a wealth of 
evidence that partial CCS is available, feasible, has been used 
commercially for decades, and is scheduled to come online in 
full-scale commercial applications at coal-fired power plants 
in the United States and abroad in 2014. Moreover, EPA's 
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air 
Act and with decades of agency practice and judicial precedent 
on issues ranging from smog to acid rain.
    This bill would also ensure that carbon pollution from 
existing coal-fired power plants remains uncontrolled by 
requiring that Congress pass a new federal law before EPA can 
address these emissions. This has the effect of revoking EPA's 
existing authority to act. Moreover, EPA has not yet issued a 
proposed standard for existing coal plants, and EPA has been 
engaging in extensive stakeholder outreach to determine the 
best way forward. Nevertheless, this bill would end EPA's 
efforts without even knowing what EPA may propose.
    In committee, Democratic members offered amendments, among 
others, to delay this bill's effect until another federal 
program could be identified to reduce carbon pollution, to 
allow EPA's proposed new coal plant standards to move forward, 
but with federal funding to help utilities install CCS, and to 
modify provisions of this bill that would prevent EPA from 
setting standards based on available pollution controls. The 
majority rejected each of these amendments. In a party line 
vote, Republican members even rejected an amendment that simply 
acknowledged the scientific fact that ``[g]reenhouse gas (GHG) 
pollution threatens the American public's health and welfare by 
contributing to long-lasting changes in our climate that can 
have a range of negative effects on human health and the 
environment.'' No Democratic members voted to deny this climate 
science.
    In sum, H.R. 3826 is a radical rewrite of the Clean Air 
Act, and represents a significant step backward in addressing 
climate change. The following sections provide additional 
background on EPA's Clean Air Act authority, EPA's proposed 
standards for new and existing coal-fired power plants, and the 
specific provisions of and numerous problems with this bill.

  II. EXISTING EPA AUTHORITY AND ACTIONS ON POWER PLANT EMISSIONS OF 
                            CARBON POLLUTION

    President Obama's June 25, 2013, memorandum directs EPA to 
use the agency's existing authority under section 111 of the 
Clean Air Act to control carbon pollution from both new and 
existing fossil-fuel fired power plants. EPA's September 20, 
2013, proposal for new coal- and natural gas-fired power plants 
and its forthcoming proposal for existing fossil fuel-fired 
power plants responds to the President's directive and to the 
direction and requirements of section 111.
A. Clean Air Act authority
    Section 111 of the Clean Air Act directs EPA to set 
performance standards to control air pollution from new 
stationary sources. Section 111(b) requires these standards to 
``reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through 
the application of the best system of emission reduction which 
(taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and 
any non-air quality health and environmental impact and energy 
requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately 
demonstrated.''\9\ Over the long history of this provision, 
which has been part of the Clean Air Act in various forms since 
1970, the D.C. Circuit has provided guidance to EPA on how to 
interpret and implement this directive.\10\ The key 
considerations for setting a section 111(b) standard are 
technical feasibility, quantity of emissions reductions, costs 
that are reasonable (i.e., not exorbitant), and advancing 
pollution-control technology.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Clean Air Act Sec. 111(b).
    \10\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, GHG Performance Standards 
NPRM.
    \11\Id. at 1462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The advancement of pollution-control technology is intended 
to force the adoption of new, innovative, and more effective 
technologies, and not simply those technologies that have 
already been widely adopted. This intent is clearly stated both 
in the requirement for ``best system of emission reduction'' 
and in the legislative history. For example, the Senate 
Committee Reports for the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act 
Amendments explain that new source performance standards 
``should provide an incentive for industries to work toward 
constant improvement''\12\ and ``stimulate the development of 
new and better technology.''\13\ In interpreting this mandate, 
the D.C. Circuit has noted that the statute ``embraces . . . 
technological innovation.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Senate Committee on Public Works, National Air Quality 
Standards Act of 1970, at 17, 91st Cong. (Sept. 17, 1970) (S. Rept. 91-
1196).
    \13\Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Clean Air 
Amendments of 1977, at 17, 95th Cong. (May 10, 1977) (S. Rept. 95-127).
    \14\Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 346 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, section 111(d) requires EPA to issue rules to 
direct states to reduce pollution from existing sources that 
would have been covered by a section 111(b) standard if they 
were new sources, with respect to air pollutants that are 
neither covered by a National Ambient Air Quality Standard 
(NAAQS) or listed as a hazardous air pollutant under section 
112 (i.e., that are not otherwise regulated). Section 111(d) 
provides that the state regulations for existing sources are 
required under a procedure analogous to the requirements for 
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) under section 110. The SIP 
provisions explicitly allow state plans to include ``economic 
incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of 
emissions rights.''\15\ Thus, states have considerable 
flexibility to design their own standards, subject to the 
overall pollution reduction goals for these sources established 
by EPA by rule. EPA can step in and regulate existing sources 
directly if a state fails to develop and enforce adequate 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Clean Air Act Sec. 110(a)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. EPA's proposed rule for new sources
            1. Proposed standards of performance
    EPA has proposed to set standards of performance for carbon 
dioxId.e (CO2) emissions from new coal-fired power 
plants based on a finding that technology to partially capture 
carbon emissions from these plants is the ``best system of 
emission reduction . . . adequately demonstrated.''\16\ 
Specifically, EPA proposes to allow new coal-fired units to 
meet either a limit of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per 
megawatt hour (lbs CO2/MWh), if met over a 12-month 
period, or 1,000-1,050 lbs CO2/MWh, if met over a 
more flexible 84-month (seven-year) period. EPA also proposes 
to set standards for natural gas-fired units based on the 
emission reductions achieved by natural gas combined cycle 
units of 1,000 lbs CO2/MWh for larger units. To meet 
the 1,100 lbs CO2/MWh standard for new coal-fired 
units, power plant operators will need to install partial 
carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology sufficient to 
reduce CO2 emissions by 30% to 50% below units 
without CCS.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, GHG Performance Standards 
NPRM. Note that EPA had issued a previous proposal to set carbon 
pollution performance standards for these sources in April 2012, but 
decided to withdraw that proposal and re-propose in this notice.
    \17\Id. at 1436.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EPA's proposal finds that partial CCS is the best system of 
emission reduction because it is technically feasible, achieves 
significant CO2 reductions, provides an incentive 
for technological innovation, and has reasonable costs, which 
means that the costs can be accommodated by the industry.\18\ 
The proposal relies upon extensive technical information 
including findings of the 2010 Interagency Task Force on CCS, 
which was established by President Obama, studies and reports 
from the Department of Energy national laboratories, 
particularly the National Energy Technology Laboratory, which 
focuses on fossil fuel technologies, and results from 
demonstration projects and full-scale CCS projects that are in 
operation or under construction or development at power plants 
and other industrial facilities.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\Id. at 1467-1485.
    \19\Id. The majority claims that EPA's proposal violates provisions 
in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that bar EPA from consId.ering the use 
of technology at a facility that received federal financial assistance 
under that Act to determine whether the technology is ``adequately 
demonstrated'' for the purposes of Clean Air Act section 111. Letter 
from Chairman Upton and Chairman Whitfield to U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Administrator McCarthy (Nov. 15, 2013) (online at 
energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/
files/letters/20131115EPA.pdf). These claims are based on an erroneous 
interpretation of the provisions, which prohibit EPA from making a 
section 111 determination based solely on the use of technology at a 
federally funded demonstration project, but do not preclude all use of 
such information as supporting evidence, as well as a misreading of 
EPA's proposal, which cites extensive other evidence supporting the 
proposed finding. See, e.g., Environmental Defense Fund, The Strong 
Legal Foundation for the Carbon Pollution Standards for New Power 
Plants: A Response to the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Letter 
on the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Carbon Capture and Storage 
Technology (Dec. 5, 2013) (online at blogs.edf.org/climate411/files/
2013/12/Response-to-House-Committee-Letter-on-EPAct.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With respect to costs, EPA notes several key points. First, 
very few new coal-fired units are projected to be constructed 
in the future due to higher costs than natural gas-fired units 
and some renewable energy resources, as well as uncertainty 
regarding future regulations to address carbon pollution. Thus, 
the rule is projected to impose no notable compliance 
costs.\20\ The few new coal-fired projects that are currently 
being considered or constructed have substantially higher per-
kilowatt electricity costs than natural gas-fired units, but 
some utilities may prefer coal based on considerations of 
energy and fuel diversity, as well as concerns about future 
higher natural gas prices.\21\ Second, there is substantial 
potential to use the captured CO2 for enhanced oil 
recovery (EOR), which considerably lowers the costs. Third, 
requiring partial CCS instead of full CCS, which would require 
capture rates of around 90%, further substantially lowers 
costs. And finally, based on the projected costs of the 
electricity produced, partial CCS is competitive with new 
nuclear power and biomass power, even without EOR.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, GHG Performance Standards 
NPRM, at 1496.
    \21\Id. at 1475.
    \22\Id. at 1475-1477.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In this report, the majority cites to testimony from Dr. 
Julio Friedmann, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Clean Coal, 
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), at a February 11, 2014, 
hearing before the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations, stating that the cost of first generation CCS 
technology ``looks something like a 70 or 80 percent increase 
on the wholesale price of electricity.''\23\ Dr. Friedman 
further stated that actual retail costs for consumers will vary 
by market, and he explained that the percentage increase is 
substantial because the current price of coal is so low, such 
that even a small numeric increase represents a substantial 
percentage of the small initial number. In addition, he noted 
that this estimate is for full capture and costs are ``much 
less'' for partial capture (which is what EPA has proposed to 
require). Finally, he pointed out that companies can sell 
CO2 for enhanced oil recovery, which can recover 
almost half of these costs, and that costs are expected to drop 
by half for second generation technology.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations, statement of Dr. Julio Friedmann, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Clean Coal, U.S. Department of Energy, Hearing 
on Department of Energy Oversight: Status of Clean Coal Programs, 113th 
Cong. (Feb. 11, 2014).
    \24\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the November 14, 2013, Energy and Power Subcommittee 
hearing, Dr. Sue Tierney, Managing Principal of The Analysis 
Group, testified that uncertainty in carbon regulation has made 
new investments in coal-fired power plants risky, while 
simultaneously making it difficult for utilities to gain 
regulatory approval for the CCS projects needed to reduce their 
carbon pollution. She testified that EPA's proposed performance 
standards for new coal-fired power plants are needed to provide 
regulatory certainty for coal and CCS to move forward and that 
EPA's proposed standards will create ``a positive investment 
environment at a time when the nation stands to spend up to a 
trillion dollars on new generating capacity in parts of the 
country.''\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy 
and Power, statement of Dr. Sue Tierney, Managing Principal, The 
Analysis Group, Hearing on EPA's Proposed GHG Standards for New Power 
Plants and H.R.__, Whitfield-Manchin Legislation, 113th Cong. (Nov. 14, 
2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            2. Status of CCS technology
    In the proposed rule, EPA notes that each step of the CCS 
process--CO2 capture, compression and 
transportation, and storage--is feasible and has been 
demonstrated. Technologies to capture CO2 from 
industrial gas streams have been around since the 1930s, and 
the technologies needed to capture CO2 from coal-
fired power generation are all technologically feasible.\26\ 
The U.S. has transported CO2 by pipeline for nearly 
40 years and currently has 3,600 miles of existing pipelines 
that transport more than 50 million metric tons of 
CO2 per year.\27\ CO2 storage, too, is 
both technologically feasible and demonstrated.\28\ EPA cites 
research that 95% of the 500 largest CO2 point 
sources in the U.S. are within 50 miles of a possible 
geological storage site,\29\ while the U.S. Geological Survey 
recently estimated that the U.S. could store 500 times the 
country's annual energy-related CO2 emissions 
underground.\30\ CO2 has been injected underground 
for more than 40 years in the U.S. for the purpose of EOR,\31\ 
including EOR activities in the Permian Basin from 1972 to 2005 
that resulted in net storage of 55 million metric tons of 
CO2 underground.\32\ CO2 storage has also 
been demonstrated at non-EOR sites.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, GHG Performance Standards 
NPRM, at 1471-1472.
    \27\Id. at 1472.
    \28\Id. at 1472-1474.
    \29\Id. at 1472.
    \30\Id. at 1473.
    \31\Id. 
    \32\Id. at 1472.
    \33\Id. at 1472-1473, 1475.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the power sector, CCS has been demonstrated at pilot-
scale at coal-fired power plants in the U.S. and abroad, 
including American Electric Power's Mountaineer Plant in West 
Virginia and Southern Company's Alabama Power Plant Barry.\34\ 
These technologies are now being brought to commercial-scale. 
The first commercial-scale coal-fired CCS projects in North 
America are expected to begin operating in 2014, and include 
Southern Company's 582 MW IGCC Kemper County Energy Facility in 
Mississippi, which will capture 65% of its CO2 
emissions for EOR, and SaskPower's 110 MW Boundary Dam Project 
in Saskatchewan, Canada, which will capture 90% of its 
CO2 emissions.\35\ Other commercial-scale CCS 
projects being developed in the U.S. include the 400 MW IGCC 
Texas Clean Energy Project, the 300 MW IGCC Hydrogen Energy 
California project, and the Future Gen 2.0 project in 
Illinois.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\Id. at 1474-1475.
    \35\Id. at 1475.
    \36\Id. at 1435, 1475, 1479.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At a February 11, 2014 hearing before the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations, Dr. Julio Friedmann stated 
unambiguously: ``this first generation CCS technology is 
commercially available today. You can call up a number of U.S. 
and international manufacturers, and they will sell you a unit 
at a large scale for capture of more than a million tons per 
year.''\37\ He added that a number of these companies now offer 
performance guarantees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations, statement of Dr. Julio Friedmann, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Clean Coal, U.S. Department of Energy, Hearing 
on Department of Energy Oversight: Status of Clean Coal Programs, 113th 
Cong. (Feb. 11, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            3. Similar regulatory requirements in states and other 
                    countries
    EPA's proposed CO2 standards for new power 
plants are similar to standards already adopted by the states 
of California, Oregon, Montana, New York, and Washington. 
California and Oregon require new coal-fired power plants to 
meet a 1,100 lbs CO2/MWh emission standard,\38\ the 
same level EPA proposes. New York and Washington limit power 
plant emissions to 925 and 970 lbs CO2/MWh, 
respectively, which will require new coal-fired power plants to 
capture and store even more of their CO2 than under 
EPA's proposal.\39\ Finally, Montana has adopted a standard 
requiring new coal-fired power plants to capture and store at 
least 50% of their CO2 emissions, similar to EPA's 
proposed standard.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\Cal. Code Regs. tit. 20 2902 (2007); Or. Rev. Stat. 757.524 
(2009).
    \39\N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6, 251.3; Wash. Rev. Code 
80.80.040 (2011); Wash. Admin. Code 194-26-020 (2013).
    \40\Mont. Code Ann. 69-8-421(8) (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EPA's proposed standards are also consistent with efforts 
in other countries. Canada has adopted an emission standard of 
926 lbs CO2/MWh for new coal-fired power plants,\41\ 
while the United Kingdom has adopted an emission standard of 
992 lbs CO2/MWh for all new fossil fuel-fired power 
plants.\42\ Both standards will require new coal plants to use 
partial CCS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Coal-fired 
Generation of Electricity Regulations (Canadian Environmental 
Protection Act) SOR/2012-167 (Can.) (online at www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/
p2/2012/2012-09-12/html/sor-dors167-eng.html#archived).
    \42\Energy Act, 2013, c. 32, 57 (U.K.) (online at 
legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/32/pdfs/ukpga--20130032--en.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. EPA's upcoming proposal on existing sources

    President Obama's June 25, 2013, memorandum directed EPA to 
launch the effort to develop carbon pollution requirements for 
existing power plants ``through direct engagement with States, 
. . . leaders in the power sector, labor leaders, non-
governmental organizations, other experts, tribal officials, 
other stakeholders, and members of the public.''\43\ The 
memorandum also directed EPA to tailor the requirements to 
reduce costs and encourage the use of market-based instruments, 
performance standards, and other regulatory flexibilities.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\President Barack Obama, Presidential Memorandum--Power Sector 
Carbon Pollution Standards (Jun. 25, 2013) (online at 
www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/25/presidential-memorandum-
power-sector-carbon-pollution-standards).
    \44\Id. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EPA is in the process of developing a proposal for existing 
power plants to meet the President's June 2014 deadline. In 
October and November of 2013, EPA held eleven listening 
sessions across the country, which took place at each EPA 
regional office and EPA headquarters.\45\ The purpose was ``to 
solicit ideas and input from the public and stakeholders about 
the best Clean Air Act approaches to reducing carbon pollution 
from existing power plants.''\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Carbon Pollution 
Standards; Public Listening Sessions (online at www2.epa.gov/carbon-
pollution-standards/public-listening-sessions).
    \46\Id. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

             III. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 3826

    H.R. 3826, as reported by the majority, would effectively 
eliminate EPA's existing Clean Air Act section 111 authority 
with respect to coal-fired power plants.

A. Section 2

    Section 2 of this bill prohibits the EPA Administrator from 
issuing, implementing, or enforcing any rule under section 111 
of the Clean Air Act establishing greenhouse gas (GHG) emission 
standards for new fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating 
units unless specified conditions are met. EPA must set 
separate standards for coal and natural gas units and for units 
burning lignite coal. Additionally, no standard may be 
established for new coal-fired units unless the standard has 
already been achieved for twelve continuous months by at least 
six U.S. generating units, which are located at different 
generating stations, collectively represent the operating 
characteristics of electric generation at different locations 
in the U.S., and are each operated for the entire 12-month 
period on a commercial basis. Section 2 establishes the same 
emissions standard requirements for new units burning lignite 
coal, but requires that the standard has been met by three U.S. 
generating units rather than the six required for non-lignite 
coal.
    In establishing emission standards for lignite and non-
lignite coal-fired units, section 2 prohibits the EPA 
Administrator from relying on the results of demonstration 
projects. Section 5 of this bill defines a demonstration 
project as any ``project to test or demonstrate the feasibility 
of carbon capture and storage technologies that has received 
government funding or financial assistance.'' The term 
``government funding or financial assistance'' is not further 
defined.
    During the full committee markup, Representative John 
Yarmuth introduced an amendment to strike and replace section 2 
with a federal funding mechanism that would allow EPA's 
proposed new source standards to move forward, but help offset 
utilities' CCS costs. This amendment was defeated by a vote of 
16 to 30. Representative Lois Capps introduced an amendment 
during the full committee markup to allow EPA to count 
pollution control technologies used in other countries toward 
the 6-unit and 3-unit requirements for coal and lignite coal. 
This amendment was defeated by a vote of 18 to 26. 
Representative Jerry McNerney introduced an amendment during 
the full committee markup to strike the clauses prohibiting EPA 
from considering demonstration projects. This amendment was 
defeated on a voice vote.

B. Section 3

    Section 3 of this bill prevents EPA from establishing any 
GHG emission standard for modified, reconstructed, or existing 
fossil fuel-fired generating units unless Congress passes a new 
federal law to implement the standard.

C. Section 4

    Section 4 of this bill nullifies all proposed or final EPA 
rules and guidelines issued prior to enactment of this bill 
that propose or set GHG emissions standards for fossil fuel-
fired generating units.
    Ranking Member Henry Waxman introduced an amendment in the 
subcommittee and full committee markups to provide that this 
bill would only take effect once another Federal program, other 
than section 111 of the Clean Air Act, has been identified that 
will reduce carbon pollution in at least equivalent quantities 
and with similar timing to the reductions required under the 
EPA rules and guidelines nullified under section 4. This 
amendment was defeated in full committee by a vote of 18 to 28. 
Representative Jan Schakowsky introduced an amendment in full 
committee markup that would have made no changes to this bill 
other than to accept EPA's scientific finding under the 
proposed new source rule that ``[g]reenhouse gas (GHG) 
pollution threatens the American public's health and welfare by 
contributing to long-lasting changes in our climate that can 
have a range of negative effects on human health and the 
environment.'' This amendment was defeated in full committee on 
a party line vote of 20 to 24. All Republican members present 
during the vote rejected this scientific statement by voting 
against the amendment. All Democratic members present voted to 
accept the science and the amendment.

                   IV. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF H.R. 3826

    This bill raises several major issues, and would 
effectively prevent EPA from requiring coal-fired power plants 
to control carbon pollution to any significant degree under 
existing law. At the November 14, 2013, Energy and Power 
Subcommittee hearing on this bill, David Hawkins, Director of 
Climate Programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council, 
testified that this bill would ``render useless'' the Clean Air 
Act provisions needed to curb carbon pollution from fossil 
fuel-fired power plants, the nation's largest source of this 
pollution.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy 
and Power, statement of David Hawkins, Director of Climate Programs, 
Natural Resources Defense Council, Hearing on EPA's Proposed GHG 
Standards for New Power Plants and H.R.__, Whitfield-Manchin 
Legislation, 113th Cong. (Nov. 14, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. This bill sets conditions for regulating new coal-fired power plants 
        that will never be met, ensuring that carbon pollution remains 
        uncontrolled

    This bill would reverse decades of Clean Air Act precedent 
and practice by barring EPA from requiring new coal-fired power 
plants to install pollution controls unless such controls have 
already been broadly adopted by the power sector without any 
government financial assistance in any form. The bill turns the 
rationale for government regulation of pollution on its head. 
Economists view pollution as a classic ``market failure,'' in 
which every firm has an incentive to pollute, even though the 
combined effects of such pollution make society as a whole 
worse off. Controlling pollution reduces firms' profits, or at 
best diverts resources that otherwise could be more profitably 
deployed. Thus, as a general matter, competitive firms do not 
control their pollution absent non-market incentives, such as 
government regulation or financial assistance.
    And yet this bill would bar EPA from establishing a 
standard for carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants 
until such standard has been met voluntarily, without any EPA 
mandate, by at least six plants, which represent ``the 
operating characteristics of electric generation at different 
locations in the United States.'' This bill would further bar 
EPA from setting any standard for lignite coal-fired plants 
that has not already been met voluntarily by at least three 
U.S. plants. Furthermore, none of these three or six plants can 
have ``received government funding or financial assistance,'' a 
phrase so broad that it may well preclude plants that receive 
local tax breaks or take advantage of any federal tax 
incentives for things such as interest deductions, accelerated 
depreciation, and tax-exempt financing. With these 
restrictions, it is highly unlikely that a standard requiring 
substantial reductions in carbon pollution from new coal-fired 
power plants could ever be adopted by EPA under this bill. In 
fact, it appears that EPA could not even require new coal 
plants to control pollution to the levels achieved by the state 
of the art conventional coal-fired power plants, termed 
``ultra-supercritical'' plants. This technology is now commonly 
used in China, but there is only one ultra-supercritical plant 
in the United States.

B. This bill also ensures that carbon pollution from existing coal-
        fired power plants will remain uncontrolled by requiring 
        enactment of a new federal law before EPA can address these 
        emissions

    For existing coal-fired power plants, this bill's 
requirement that a new federal law be enacted before any carbon 
pollution standard can become effective, as a practical matter, 
blocks the adoption of any such standard under existing law.
    EPA Acting Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe testified 
at the November 14, 2013, Energy and Power Subcommittee hearing 
that this bill's requirements are contrary to the longstanding 
Clean Air Act approach used to require industry to adopt new 
pollution controls such as scrubbers, which have improved 
public health for millions of Americans and were not in 
widespread use before EPA required them. She further testified 
that this bill would not provide an effective and workable 
approach to regulating carbon pollution from coal-fired power 
plants.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy 
and Power, statement of Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator 
for Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hearing on 
EPA's Proposed GHG Standards for New Power Plants and H.R.__, 
Whitfield-Manchin Legislation, 113th Cong. (Nov. 14, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For the reasons stated above, we dissent from the views 
contained in the Committee's report.
            Sincerely,
                                   Henry A. Waxman,
                                           Ranking Member.
                                   Bobby L. Rush,
                                           Ranking Member, Subcommittee 
                                               on Energy and Power.

                                  
