Scott Peters: “I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, proponents of this bill are arguing, in part, that EPA's plan to require carbon…”

“I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, proponents of this bill are arguing, in part, that EPA's plan to require carbon pollution controls under section 111 is going to hurt electric utilities. But it was just last month in the Utility Air Regulation Group v. EPA case that those same leading utilities argued to the Supreme Court that if EPA intends to address climate carbon pollution, it should act under section 111, which is what this bill would prevent EPA from doing. The Utility Air Regulatory Group represents about 60 utilities, from Duke Energy, the Southern Company, FirstEnergy, to the Salt River Project. On February 24, they told the Supreme Court that this was the appropriate way for EPA to address carbon pollution from utilities under section 111. That is exactly what the EPA would do, if it were not for this law. I know there may be some ideological desire to deny climate change and simply hope that the issue goes away, but that is not going to happen. More fundamentally, what we are getting caught up in today is this false choice that you hear over and over again that you have to choose, on one hand, between a healthy environment and, on the other hand, a prosperous economy. Americans deserve nothing less than both. We have to pay attention to this.…”