Mr. Chairman, today's hearing on a bill to gut the President's Clean Power Plan is
misguided and unfortunate. I do not support this legislation and urge Members to closely
examine its harmful effects on our country's progress to combat damaging pollution and
catastrophic climate change.
First, let me thank Assistant Administrator McCabe for being here today. I understand
that EPA received over four million comments on the proposed Clean Power Plan, and that you,
Administrator McCarthy and the Agency staff are working day and night to review and consider
those comments.
EPA did an unprecedented amount of outreach to states, industry, and stakeholders when
developing the proposal. And the Agency has continued its outreach. This includes an ongoing
series of listening sessions with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. EPA is also
actively working with states, grid operators, public utility commissions and electricity suppliers
of all kinds to finalize a rule that works for everyone, especially ratepayers.
Like all proposed rules, the Agency is considering adjustments to the Clean Power Plan
based on comments and stakeholder feedback. For example, the draft rule's implementation
timeline won't begin until 2020, but because of feedback, EPA is considering modifications to
allow additional flexibility for states to help address questions of timing, reliability and other
implementation issues. And for that reason I believe the Clean Power Plan is eminently
reasonable and achievable. EPA is clearly committed to an open dialogue to ensure its success.
Meanwhile, the bill before us seeks to undermine all of that work. Under the current
Clean Air Act and the proposed Clean Power Plan, no state is required to submit a state plan. So
giving governors the option to opt out of developing a state plan, doesn't change
anything. However --and this is important--this bill would give governors the option to opt out
of a federal plan, which EPA must implement if a state fails to act.
In that respect we should view this bill for what it really is, an amendment to the Clean
Air Act, which would overturn the principle of cooperative federalism that has been in place for
more than forty years. This cooperation is essential to ensure all Americans are protected from
environmental harm, even if the actions of their home state fall short. Under this bill, large
sources of carbon pollution could be exempt from any meaningful restrictions. Therefore,
scofflaw states get a free ride to pollute without any consequences while every other state foots
the bill.
Finally, this bill would automatically delay implementation of the Clean Power Plan by
extending all deadlines by the amount of time it takes litigation to conclude. That blanket
extension would be given to all polluters regardless of whether their legal arguments turn out to
have any merit.
As we heard at our last hearing, EPA does, in fact, have authority for the Clean Power
Plan and I believe it will ultimately be upheld by the Courts. But this bill would provide an
incentive for polluters to "run the clock" on litigation so all deadlines in the rule would be
extended as long as possible, no matter how frivolous the challenge and regardless of the
outcome. This is an incredibly reckless and dangerous precedent to set with regard to any law.
Climate change is real and Congress should be taking action to address it. The effort by
Republicans on this Committee to push states to "say no" and refuse to cooperate with EPA is
both reckless and dangerous. The New York Times referred to it as "a travesty of responsible
leadership." Meanwhile, former Bush EPA Administrator and New Jersey Republican Governor
Christine Todd Whitman characterized this effort as having "the possibility to undermine our
nation's entire rule of law."
States should begin the careful process of moving to cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable
electric power systems. The Clean Power Plan is a modest and flexible proposal. If my
Republican colleagues have a better idea for protecting against a changing climate, then please
speak up. Just saying no and condemning future generations is not an option. Thank you.