U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

67–094 PDF 2011

RENEWABLE ENERGY: COMPLEMENTARY POLICIES 

FOR CLIMATE LEGISLATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 26, 2009 

Serial No. 111–6 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

(II) 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

BARON HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, New Jersey 

ELIOT ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JANE HARMAN, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachussetts, opening statement ................................................... 1 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement ....................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 8 

Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 10 

Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 11 

Hon. Steve Scalise, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 13 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 13 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the State of North 

Carolina, prepared statement ............................................................................. 119 

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 122 

Hon. Mike Ross, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arkansas, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 124 

WITNESSES

Howard K. Gruenspecht, Acting Administrator, Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy ............................................................................ 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 127 

Ronald Binz, Chairman, Colorado Public Utilities Commission .......................... 42 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Stan Wise, Commissioner, Georgia Public Utilities Commission ........................ 60 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 136 

Ralph Izzo, President, Chairman and CEO, Public Service Enterprise Group .. 70 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 72 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 146 

Edward Lowe, General Manager, Renewables Market Division, General Electric ......................................................................................................................... 79 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 81 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

RENEWABLE ENERGY: COMPLEMENTARY 

POLICIES FOR CLIMATE LEGISLATION 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:40 a.m., in Room 

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Markey 

(chairman) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Markey, Doyle, Inslee, 

Butterfield, Melancon, Matsui, McNerney, Welch, Dingell, Pallone, 

Engel, Green, Gonzalez, Baldwin, Matheson, Barrow, Waxman (ex 

officio), Upton, Hall, Stearns, Whitfield, Shimkus, Blunt, Pitts, Sullivan, Scalise and Barton (ex officio). 

Staff present: Matt Weiner, Clerk; Melissa Bez, Professional 

Staff; John Jimison, Senior Energy Counsel; Jeff Baran, Counsel; 

Joel Beauvais, Counsel; Lindsay Vidal, Press Assistant; Andrea 

Spring, Minority Professional Staff; Amanda Mertens Campbell, 

Minority Counsel; and Garrett Golding, Minority Legislative Analyst. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY 

Mr. MARKEY. Welcome. Today the Subcommittee on Energy and 

Environment is going to have a very important hearing because the 

American people are calling for a clean energy revolution. 

According to a December 2008 poll conducted by the Washington 

Post and ABC News, 84 percent of Americans support requiring 

utilities to increase their use of wind, solar and other renewable 

sources of power. In his address to Congress earlier this week, 

President Obama outlined his vision for a clean energy future that 

will not only help turn around our ailing economy but also drive 

new investment and job growth for decades to come. The President 

called upon Congress to enact cap and invest legislation to slash 

global warming pollution and spur renewable energy growth, and 

that is what this committee intends to do. 

President Obama has called for 25 percent of our electricity to 

come from renewable resources by the year 2025. The American 

Renewable Energy Act, the renewable electricity standard bill that 

Congressman Platts and I introduced earlier this year, would 

achieve that goal. Such a standard would create hundreds of thousands of new jobs and can provide an essential pillar of strong energy and climate legislation. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

Renewables are already growing fast. In 2008, we installed in the 

United States over 8,000 megawatts of new wind-generating capacity in the United States, over 40 percent of all new electricity-generating capacity additions in our country. The Department of Energy recently issued a report charting a course to generation of 20 

percent of the county’s electricity from wind alone by 2030. Study 

after study has demonstrated the massive potential for solar, biomass, geothermal and incremental hydropower as well. One of the 

key drivers of the recent surge in renewables has been the growth 

in State renewable electricity standards. Twenty-eight States and 

the District of Columbia now have mandatory standards. Those 

standards cover over half of the country’s electrical load and will 

require the addition of more than 60,000 megawatts of new renewable power by 2025. 

Renewables are an engine of job creation. With a single wind turbine containing between 200 and 400 tons of steel, a clean energy 

economy will reinvigorate our manufacturing sector. Those jobs are 

going to be done by the same blue-collar workers doing the same 

kind of work just with new technologies already in communities 

like Newton, Iowa, where wind blades are now produced by the 

same blue-collar workers left unemployed when Maytag left town. 

The manufacturers of renewable energy technologies are located all 

across the country from LM Glassfiber’s wind turbine blade factories in Arkansas, Michigan and North Dakota to First Solar’s 

thin film solar plant in Toledo, Ohio. People are living the renewable energy revolution. 

Just as the United States is blessed with great business and 

technology innovators, it has also been blessed with an abundance 

of renewable resources. A federal renewable electricity standard 

will allow us to harness potential from every region of the country 

from wind across middle America to biomass in the Southeast to 

solar in the Southwest. Every part of the country can benefit and 

contribute. A renewable electricity standard and a carbon cap are 

complementary policies. As a zero-carbon electricity source, renewables will of course contribute to our climate goals but a renewable 

standard will also spur technology development and job creation 

immediately, driving renewable energy costs down and domestic 

green jobs up. If we build a strong domestic renewable energy industry, that will drive economic growth over the coming decades 

and make it easier for America and the rest of the world to meet 

declining carbon caps over the long term. At the same time, by lowering demand for natural gas, a renewable standard will deliver 

major energy savings for consumers while enhancing our energy security and global competitiveness. 

This is an important subject for our country. I look forward to 

our distinguished panel. 

I now turn and recognize the ranking member of the committee, 

the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton. 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and before I begin 

my statement, I would like to submit for the record an article by 

Professor Jay Apt, executive director of the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center. Sadly, Professor Apt was not permitted to 

testify today to make a couple of important points and observations 

on the topic. I would like to read two lines from his article that are 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

very important for us to hear. ‘‘Legislation that mandates specified 

electricity production from renewable sources paves the way to 

costly mistakes because it excludes other sources that can lead the 

country’s goals. Rather than specifying a winning technology, Congress should specify the goals and provide incentives to reach 

them.’’ I would ask that the hearing record be left open for the submission of additional statements including my friend, Mr. Burgess, 

who had to go to another hearing on the Senate side in terms of 

his opening statement. 

Mr. MARKEY. Without objection. 

[The statement of Mr. Burgess follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here 67094A.001
5 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 11 here 67094A.002
6 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON 

Mr. UPTON. Today’s hearing, ‘‘Renewable Energy: Complementary Policies for Climate Legislation’’, is indeed an important one. 

I am supportive of renewable energy for many reasons. Primarily 

it is domestically produced, it helps us achieve energy independence and it is clean, which helps obviously our environment. As 

policymakers, our goal should be to promote energy independence, 

keep energy affordable and foster a cleaner environment. It is not 

appropriate for us to be picking winners or losers. We should support all sources of energy that meet those goals and everything 

must be on the table, all of the above, as we seek to expand the 

use of renewable energy. 

This month my chairman, Mr. Markey, introduced a renewable 

electricity mandate. I do support using more renewable electricity 

but the bill, I think, provides too narrow an approach, only allowing for a few select renewable sources rather than all renewables, 

and most notably, this bill does not include other forms of emission-free power. Emission-free sources of energy should be at the 

forefront of any discussion of climate change. It is a glaring omission to not include all forms of emission-free electricity. A renewable-only electricity mandate would effectively be an added tax on 

electricity and this government mandate would increase prices and 

hurt consumers by adding increased costs at a time of very dire 

economic times in our country. 

U.S. residential electricity prices already are projected to increase in the coming years and this bill would undoubtedly increase those prices even more at a time when American working 

families and businesses can least afford it. The federal mandates 

ignores the standards already crafted by States to meet their specific regional needs. My State, Michigan, has already tailored a renewable plan to mesh with the renewable resources available in 

our region, and this bill ignores those different regional needs. A 

one-size-fits-all approach would not be the most effective means to 

harness the power of renewable sources of energy. 

I thought we were trying to focus on reducing carbon dioxide 

emissions. If we add all clean electricity sources in the Markey bill, 

the impact on greenhouse gas emissions and energy security would 

be significant and our air quality and planet as a whole would be 

much better off. I would in fact support creating a national electricity standard and I would be happy to work with you in crafting 

a bill that creates a nationwide electricity standard that promotes 

any form of zero-emission power. That is what we ought to be focusing on, not a narrow renewable mandate that has somewhat 

minimal environmental impacts and does in fact increase energy 

prices. 

Energy legislation should be inclusive. Let us decide where we 

want to go and allow the market and all available technologies to 

get us there. If we are serious about reducing emissions, being energy independent and creating jobs, keeping nuclear off the table 

is a mistake. In addition to be a zero-emission-based low power 

source, each nuclear plant employs between 600 and 1,500 folks 

with an equivalent number of indirect jobs. There are thousands of 

jobs involved in the construction at these sites and obviously I 

think it improves our economy as each new plant adds more than 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

$500 million a year to the economy. A renewed commitment to nuclear power and the construction of dozens of new plants on American soil will foster the rebirth of the manufacturing industry and 

the creation of tens of thousands of new high-paying jobs while at 

the same time reducing emissions. 

In conclusion, I am supportive of finding policy options to address 

climate change but in today’s economic and national security environment, we have to be mindful of the impact on our country. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the chairman emeritus of the Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy and 

I thank you for holding this important hearing. You are to be commended for building a strong record on this matter and for making 

a strong case for swift and well-thought-out action on climate 

change. The title of the hearing speaks for itself. Renewable energy 

can and should be a complementary policy for climate change, but 

as I have said for years, it must be well thought out and it must 

be a real renewable energy standard. 

We in Michigan are saddled, as you know, with an extremely depressed economy, and I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, that we have exactly the kind of workers who can benefit 

from the jobs created by a strong renewable energy sector. We have 

some of the best metal workers in the world, who would be delighted to have the opportunity to be in the forefront of these new 

technologies. I would also point out in Michigan, like in many other 

States, our State, we have our own renewable standard. Ours is 10 

percent by 2015. As we move forward with a national standard, it 

is important that we take what the States have already done into 

consideration and that we have a framework then within which 

they can work. It is also important, as my friend from Michigan 

has just said, that it is important that we should consider the differences and the peculiarities in the situation of each of the States. 

Now, as always, Mr. Chairman, the devil is in the details. For 

example, it makes a great deal of sense to understand that we 

should not be putting waste in landfills if when we do so we are 

taking up space and in the long run we are spewing methane into 

the atmosphere. This is, as we all know, one of the very greenhouse 

gases which we need to rein in to effectively address the problem 

of climate change. So why add to the problem of landfill space and 

methane gas when we can utilize that waste for energy while still 

maintaining strong air quality standards. 

Finally, I want to stress the importance of an inclusive approach 

as we move forward with climate change legislation. While we are 

talking specifically about renewables today, it is my strong belief 

that any comprehensive climate change legislation needs to include 

all renewables and indeed other non-greenhouse-gas-emitting technologies. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy. I look forward to 

hearing from our witnesses today and I yield back the balance of 

my time. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, the ranking member 

of the full committee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is important 

to have a good hearing schedule if we are going to begin to move 

on this issue of climate change. I commend you and the full committee chairman, Mr. Waxman, for scheduling and notifying that 

we are going to have a number of these hearings. 

The question that I would have today before getting into the substance of the renewable debate is whether you want to have a series of hearings where you only hear one point of view. We have 

five witnesses today. There is one that has been offered by the Minority, the public utility commissioner from the State of Georgia. 

We had another witness, a professor from Carnegie Mellon that we 

did everything except smuggle him in under cover of darkness last 

night and disguise him as a chair or something in the hearing room 

to try to get him to testify. He wasn’t allowed to because apparently you and/or your staff doesn’t think that it is fair to have a 

broad range of views or more comprehensive range of views on this 

particular issue. We have had the same problem in every hearing 

that we have had so far in this subcommittee on this issue, not renewable but just climate change. It is not fair to say you are going 

to have hearings and then not allow the Minority to have a full 

complement of alternative views so that we get a fair and balanced 

hearing record in which to determine what legislative approach, if 

any, needs to be taken. I know time is of the essence but I don’t 

think one or two additional Minority witnesses is going to slow the 

process down that much and I am hopeful that in the near future 

we will come to some agreement so that we can have a full and balanced hearing. 

Mr. MARKEY. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BARTON. I will be happy to yield. 

Mr. MARKEY. The standard which I am using is the standard 

honestly which was applied to me as the ranking member on the 

telecommunications committee. I was afforded one witness for each 

hearing for all those years, and that was deemed to be fair by the 

Majority at that time, and all I am doing is extending the same 

courtesy that the Majority, now in the Minority, that was extended 

to me because that was the precedent that was set and that was 

the determination that was made with regard to the number of witnesses— 

Mr. BARTON. Reclaiming my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. —the Minority would have. 

Mr. BARTON. Reclaiming my opening statement time, Mr. Chairman. We will go back and get the witness lists from my chairmanship. I am not going to disparage such a distinguished gentleman 

as yourself and a friend of mine as you are, but that is not my 

recollection at all. We had hearings in which there were more Minority witnesses than Majority witnesses, and it is just not acceptable to have a witness situation where the preponderance of the 

witnesses is so overwhelmingly at a philosophical and ideological 

point of view that it is just not—at a minimum, it is not balanced. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

Time will tell about where some of these issues stand up, so I am 

not going to belabor it but this issue isn’t going to go away. I have 

talked to you about it privately. I have talked to Chairman Waxman about it. We will continue to discuss it as professionals. It is 

something that can be resolved and that should be resolved, and 

knowing your personal fairness as a human being, I think it will 

be resolved. 

Mr. MARKEY. I appreciate that. But I think when you go back 

and you look at the history, you will see that my recollection of— 

Mr. BARTON. Well, we will see. The facts are the facts and we 

ought to be able to recreate the facts from the past. I mean, you 

can’t predict the future but you can at least with some degree of 

accuracy recreate the past. 

With the 1 minute I have left here in my opening statement, if 

Professor Apt had been allowed to testify, he would have told us 

than an RES is impractical, requires a lot of transmission construction and is not the most cost-effective way to reduce CO2. He would 

have also explained that the grid can’t handle more than 20 percent of its power coming from an intermittent source such as wind 

and that the highly interconnected electricity grid is subject to cascading blackouts when there are disturbances, even in remote 

areas. Professor Apt is the executive directive of the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center, and he has conducted important 

work on the inefficiencies of RES. At some point in time I hope that 

his report will be included and I haven’t given up hope that he may 

at some point in time yet be allowed to testify. 

Let me also say that if we are going to have a renewable energy 

standard, I would change the terminology and make it a clean energy standard. I would include nuclear, I would include clean coal 

and then I would put some sort of a cap on cost increases so that 

as we go into this new world, we don’t end up with cascading electricity retail and industrial price increases on our consumers and 

our industrial manufacturers that force many of them, in the case 

of industry, to go out of business and move their plants overseas, 

and in the case of our retail constituency, force them into lifestyles 

that are less than they are today. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Pittsburgh, Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as we 

work on this committee to build a comprehensive national policy to 

address the very real threat of climate change, I think it is critical 

that we remember that different States and different regions of our 

Nation will face unique challenges as we all do our part to lower 

the emission of greenhouse gases into the air. A solution in one 

part of our country may not be workable in another due to the different resources each of our States possesses. 

There is no doubt that our Nation’s renewable energy portfolio 

must be expanded to meet the ever-growing energy needs of our 

citizens. Like most of you on this dais, I fully support increased investment and deployment of renewable sources such as wind, solar, 

hydro and geothermal power. We need to advance the efficiency of 

these technologies. We need to create incentives for investment in 

these sources of power and we need to ensure that the energy we 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

generate can be transmitted to where the real need is. However, 

we also need to ensure that we don’t shut off the lights or dramatically increase the cost of electricity in the parts of our Nation 

where these renewable resources aren’t as abundant. Many of our 

States have moved forward with their own renewable standards 

based on the resources available to them. In fact, in my State of 

Pennsylvania, we already have an 18 percent renewable standard 

and I would like to submit a summary of this policy for the record. 

Mr. MARKEY. Without objection, it will be included. 

[The information was unavailable at the time of printing.] 

Mr. DOYLE. This standard sets up a two-tiered system that not 

only includes the aforementioned technologies like wind and solar 

but also includes distributed generation, large-scale hydropower, 

energy efficiency and even waste coal clean-ups. It recognizes the 

resources available in our State and has brought significant environmental benefits to our citizens. I think it is critical that any 

standard we pass in this committee take a similar approach and 

allow States the necessary flexibility to meet the compliance requirements. Simply stated, there is no silver bullet to solve the climate crisis and there is no silver bullet standard that can be 

achieved everywhere in our Nation. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and the members of this committee to establish a workable and flexible renewable standard that will drive investment in new technology while 

recognizing the real-world cost and compliance issues we face. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and we certainly look forward to this hearing on a particularly important subject matter, renewable electricity standard. 

I might say that over 90 percent of the electricity generated in 

Kentucky and about eight other States comes from coal and 50 percent of the electricity generated in the entire country comes from 

coal. Coal is a reliable, available and affordable resource. Shifting 

even a small amount of our electricity generation from coal to renewable sources of electricity such as solar and wind would cause 

problems dealing with availability, affordability and reliability. 

Kentucky, for example, cannot meet a larger percentage of its 

growing needs for electricity. That means either drastically reducing demand or importing large quantities of expensive renewable 

power from the West and Southwest over an interstate power grid 

that is simply not up to the task today. Importing large quantities 

of power will require significant, lengthy and costly upgrades to the 

cross-country transmission system when we have the ability to do 

that at home today. 

So the question is, we all understand we need renewable power 

but how much will it cost, and I know that in one of the pieces of 

legislation that I have seen, there is an additional 5 cents per kilowatt-hour if States do not need their renewable mandatory sources. 

I had a local electricity company compute an electric bill on one industrial plant in my hometown with an additional 5 cents per additional kilowatt-hour, and it increased their rates by $18,750 per 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

month. At a time when our economy is weak, we do not want to 

take an opportunity of forcing industries out of business, losing jobs 

and transporting those jobs to countries like China who are bringing on one new power plant with electricity every 2 weeks to 

produce electricity. 

So as we move forward, I think we have to look at the total ramifications, the additional cost involved, and to make sure that we 

still have the opportunity to use our most abundant resource, and 

that is coal. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to be 

here today and I also would like to thank all the witnesses for 

being here today too. 

My State of California has a long history of support for renewable energy. While our initial renewable portfolio standard set a 20 

percent goal by 2017, we have strengthened our commitment to 20 

percent by 2010 and 33 percent by 2020. This commitment will 

lead to a cleaner plant and good-paying green job growth. The Sacramento region has been a laboratory on this issue and we have 

seen upwards of 100 clean energy companies emerging in our area 

from biofuels to solar to hydrogen fuel cells. These companies have 

brought good-paying jobs to a region in need. That is not to say 

that this has always been easy. While California has been a leader 

in this field, there are challenges to overcome. We will need to address a host of issues from transmission capacity to emerging technologies. I look forward to getting more insight on the challenges 

we must tackle and opportunities we will have from the witnesses 

we have here today. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for highlighting this important 

issue and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you 

for convening this hearing today on such an important issue. 

Like all of us, I believe that renewable and alternative sources 

of energy are important parts of the process in curbing greenhouse 

gas emissions and increasing energy independence. However, as 

Congress considers legislation dealing with the RES, the renewable 

electricity standard, it is imperative that we include all forms of 

viable alternatives in this standard. I would like to highlight one 

of those today mentioned by the former chairman. 

In my district, the Lancaster County Solid Waste Management 

Authority operates a waste-to-energy facility that is literally turning trash into clean energy. During a visit last year I had the opportunity to see this incredible technology firsthand right there on 

the banks of the Susquehanna River. Trash that would have otherwise filled the local landfill is instead producing 198 million kilowatts of electricity a year. The plant is operated using just 10 percent of the electricity with the other 90 percent being sold to the 

local electric provider. There are six waste-to-energy facilities in 

Pennsylvania, and the State depends on them to manage more 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

than 8,700 tons per day of municipal solid waste. A baseload generation capacity of 268 megawatts powers many homes and businesses in the State. 

The old-line opposition to waste-to-energy facilities claims that 

they pollute the air. However, with significant advances in technology in the last couple of decades and the sorting and removal 

of much of the waste before it is burned, the emissions from wasteto-energy facilities have become increasingly clean. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency says that electricity from waste-toenergy facilities is some of the cleanest energy out there. 

The Europeans and Japanese have been utilizing this process at 

far greater levels for decades. China plans to build 300 plants like 

the one in Lancaster. They can see the great potential that is 

present in this technology. Therefore, I believe that as this committee considers RES legislation, it is imperative to include wasteto-energy as a key part of this. To not include waste-to-energy 

sends a signal that we are not serious about the value of all alternative and clean energy sources, and I might add that this applies 

to nuclear power as well. It does send the signal though that we 

truly do not care about energy independency and viable options for 

decreasing greenhouse gases. It makes no sense to haphazardly 

pick and choose what renewables and alternatives should be included and which should not. 

So I hope this committee will recognize this value and efficiency 

of waste-to-energy as we move forward, and I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing. 

My perspective comes from two experiences. First, I spent 20 

years as an engineer in the wind industry business and saw the 

technology transform from a fringe industry to a highly successful, 

competitive business. Second, I have been running around meeting 

entrepreneurs and looking at some incredible technology that is 

available from around the country, so from these two experiences, 

I am certain that the technology is out there. We can meet whatever standards we put up, especially if it is on such a good purpose 

for reducing greenhouse gases, improving our national security, 

creating jobs. We can do this. The real limiting factor, in my humble opinion, will be what the federal and State legislatures do in 

this issue. 

Renewable energy standards is one strong tool we have to move 

forward and has been highly successful in application. As my colleague, Ms. Matsui, said, in California we have had a very good experience. The utility companies have not only met the standards 

but they have met them ahead of schedule and are very enthusiastic about proceeding with this issue, and so when we get the utility companies to embrace the program, they turn on the local entrepreneurs, things start happening. So I think we need to move 

ahead and we need to be aggressive and we need to accept what 

we have to do and use this tool of renewable energy standards to 

make this happen. 

With that, I yield back. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE SCALISE 

Mr. SCALISE. I would like to thank the chairman for calling the 

hearing and look forward to hearing from the panel as we talk 

about renewable energy. 

These are all important issues in the broader context of developing a comprehensive energy policy which our country sorely 

lacks. When we talk about a comprehensive policy, clearly we are 

talking about renewable sources of energy but we are also talking 

about the importance of conservation, efficiency, as we had the 

hearing earlier just a few days ago on that issue, but also you have 

to talk about the importance of the role that domestic production 

of oil and gas plays in that comprehensive energy policy strategy 

and ultimately our goal is not only to reduce emissions but also reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, which not only is an 

economic threat but is a threat to our country’s security. 

So when we talk about the broader comprehensive policy and 

then specifically talking about renewable sources of energy, I think 

it is very important to talk about the role that wind plays, the role 

that solar plays in that, but I think it is also important to talk 

about the role that other renewable sources play as well, and one 

renewable source of energy that sometimes unfortunately gets left 

out of the discussion is the role that nuclear power plays and 

should play in this discussion, and I think right now it is not a part 

of that discussion and should be because it is a proven form of renewable energy, a form that many other countries have already figured out. Unfortunately, our country is behind in that and is going 

to continue to stay behind until we include nuclear power as a 

source of renewable energy, which it is, and unfortunately if it not 

going to be included in the legislation, we need to include it or otherwise we will have, I think, a failed renewable policy. So we are 

going to continue to show how the role nuclear plays in renewable 

energy is very important and very proven and is in fact adopted by 

many other countries. 

With that, I will yield the balance of my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all the 

panel for being here but I particularly want to point to my friend, 

Ralph Izzo, who is chairman and CEO of the Public Service Enterprise Group, which is a New Jersey-based energy company. Under 

Ralph’s leadership, PSEG has been a leader in renewable investments. In February, PSEG’s subsidiary announced their Solar for 

All program that will invest $800 million to bring solar energy to 

communities by placing solar panels at Brownfield sites, government buildings, low-income housing areas and on utility poles, and 

PSEG has also announced the development of an offshore wind 

project off the coast of Atlantic City. 

I mention these because they are great examples of how a renewable electricity standard can spur private investment into renewVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:02 Feb 02, 2012 Jkt 067094 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A094.XXX A094

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

able energy. New Jersey has one of the most aggressive renewable 

electricity standards in the country requiring that 20 percent of our 

electricity needs come from renewable energy by 2020. New Jersey 

is one of the 28 States that require a renewable electricity standard, and thanks to these laws, all of these 28 States are experiencing faster growth in renewable energy, and I can just imagine 

what we would accomplish with a national RES. 

I have long been a supporter of a renewable electricity standard. 

Last year I worked to help pass an amendment to the Energy Independence National Security and Consumer Protection Act that 

would have created an RES of 15 percent by 2020 nationally, and 

I am also a cosponsor of the chairman’s bill that requires that 25 

percent of our energy come from renewable energy by 2025. 

Congress should be doing more to encourage investment in renewable energies. This should include tax incentives, low-interest 

loans and a renewable energy standard. By establishing a strong 

RES, we will be challenging energy companies and utilities to innovate and invest in renewable energy, and this will help us not only 

reduce greenhouse gases in this country but it also will create 

green jobs. PSEG’s Solar for All program will create 400 to 500 direct annual jobs in my State, and I am happy that my State is on 

the frontline of renewable energy production and I am hopeful that 

Congress will pass legislation to establish a strong renewable electricity standard nationally. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Blunt. 

Mr. BLUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a topic that almost all of us agree on, on the goal of renewable energy and a lot 

of our discussion of course is how we get there. 

In November of 2008, Missouri voters approved the Missouri 

Clean Energy Initiative at the ballot, which creates a renewable 

portfolio standard for investor-owned utilities to utilize 15 percent 

renewable energy sources in their total output by 2021 and so the 

States are moving forward sometimes with initiative efforts in the 

States. I have a statement for the record, and the only thing I 

would like to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, from that statement is 

just my belief that for renewable portfolio standards to make sense 

and work, we need to be sure that we are categorizing and counting the things that are renewable, that do matter. That has to include, in my view, hydro, it has to include clean coal, it has to include nuclear and certainly the other things like the good example 

that Mr. Pitts just gave of waste-to-energy from Pennsylvania. 

Thank you for holding the hearing, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, especially 

for calling this important hearing today. 

Renewable energy is going to be one of the key pillars of a clean 

energy economy. We are not going to be able to avoid catastrophic 

climate change without a dramatic increase in the amount of enVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:02 Feb 02, 2012 Jkt 067094 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A094.XXX A094

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

ergy generated from renewable sources. Today only 21⁄2 percent of 

our electricity comes from all non-hydro renewables, but fortunately the United States has tremendous renewable energy resources that we have only just begun to tap. 

In addition to the so-called Wind Belt that extends from the Dakotas down to Texas, there is substantial biomass potential in the 

Southeast as well as significant solar resources in the Southwest 

and throughout the United States. The Department of Energy recently issued a report showing that we could get 20 percent of our 

needed electricity from wind alone by 2030. Every region of the 

country has renewable resources that could be tapped to achieve 

our national goal of expanding renewable energy generation and reducing global warming pollution. More renewable energy also 

means more good jobs right here in the United States. Over the 

last few years the wind industry has been an engine of job growth. 

Last year wind companies created 35,000 new jobs. Some climate 

solutions require big technological breakthroughs but renewable 

energy is something we can deploy today. We can ramp up wind, 

solar, biomass and geothermal electricity production now. As the 

deployment of clean energy increases, the cost for this technology 

will continue to decline. 

A big driver for renewable energy development has been the willingness of States to forge ahead despite the absence of federal leadership. Twenty-eight States and the District of Columbia now have 

mandatory renewable electricity standards which require utilities 

to generate an increasing percentage of their electricity from renewable sources. These policies are working. More renewable energy is being generated with little or no effect on the electricity 

prices of American consumers. 

One potential effect of a cap-and-trade system is a so-called dash 

to gas. Because burning natural gas for electricity produces less 

global warming pollution than burning coal, utilities may switch 

from coal to natural gas to reduce their emissions, and that could 

drive up the price of natural gas, increasing costs to consumers and 

companies that use it. When paired with a cap-and-trade system, 

a renewable electricity standard could help stabilize natural gas 

prices and prevent the dash to gas. By providing long-term incentives for renewables, a federal renewable electricity standard would 

also give a big boost to those clean technologies while reducing the 

chances that utilities would have stranded investments in dirtier 

technologies. I don’t believe that a federal renewable electricity 

standard and a federal cap-and-trade system are duplicative or mutually exclusive. On the contrary, they may complement each other 

in important ways. 

I look forward to working these synergies with our witnesses 

today and with members of the committee. I yield back my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Waxman follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 67094A.003
17 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 67094A.004
18 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shimkus. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Pennsylvania has a lot of coal there too, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman from Illinois. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I am honored to be considered from Pennsylvania, 

a fossil fuel state, which we are trying to protect their jobs too. 

I have shown these posters before. A lot of the senior members 

of this committee were here during the Clean Air Act, and this is 

Peabody Mine #10, Kincaid, Illinois. When the Clean Air Act was 

passed, 1,000 mine jobs left. That mine is still closed. And we are 

moving hell bent to a cap-and-trade regime that for the fossil fuel 

industry will do the same thing, and whether that is coal and 

whether that is crude oil, whether that is oil shale, the day of reckoning is coming, and I just want to pose this as far as the last 

hearing on efficiency and the current hearing now on renewables, 

let us consider this: If we were to improve the efficiency of the existing coal power generation fleet by only one percentage point, 

that is to increase from 33 to 34 percent efficiency, which is doable 

with technology today, we would save more energy than we would 

gain by expanding existing wind generation capacity 12 fold. This 

increase in efficiency would also result in 3 percent reduction of 

carbon dioxide release from coal power generation for the same 

amount of power delivered. Going further, if we aggressively improve efficiency by four or five percentage points, then emissions 

could fall by 250 metric tons, about 13 percent of last year’s carbon 

dioxide emissions from coal power. 

So Mr. Chairman, I think as we have talked before here in the 

committee and also on the Floor that I hope you will save fossil 

fuel use, low-cost power and coal in any movement on climate 

change, and I yield back my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barrow. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARROW 

Mr. BARROW. I thank the chair, and I want to welcome Mr. Stan 

Wise today also, one of the members of the Georgia Public Service 

Commission, because he has an insight to share in this. 

I just want to add to all the concerns that have been raised about 

such proposals that don’t include making room for nuclear as a 

part of the portfolio and not including efficiency and not crediting 

those things. The unintended consequences that we will get from 

this, a lot of folks are making proposals and telling us in Georgia 

that we have enough biomass to cover our end of the deal but I 

don’t think folks realize that folks are writing checks in Georgia 

that Georgia biomass cannot cash. I would hope we would have 

learned from the unintended results of our first tentative efforts to 

stimulate the growth in alternative fuels, that a small mandate 

that can only be met with existing technology without really forcing 

folks to really create new technologies had the unintended consequence of driving up the cost of other things as you take things 

that are spoken for in other marketplaces and try and direct them 

toward your new area of interest. We learned that with the price 

of food, through corn and corn starch ethanol. I don’t want us to 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

learn that lesson again at the price of Georgia consumers for Georgia biomass. We simply don’t have the biomass in Georgia to meet 

the projections some folks are calling for without deranging the 

market for pulp for paper, lumber for construction. You name it, 

we could pick the State clean and not be able to generate enough 

to meet the mandates that are being proposed by some. 

What I also want to raise is the idea that if we don’t have a mandate that is going to be met, we are going to have essentially an 

income transfer from one part of the country to the other, and the 

unintended consequence of this will be that some ratepayers in 

other parts of the country will benefit from an income transfer 

without generating any new net renewables in that part of the 

country to show for it. I am willing to vote for some pain but not 

if there is no gain. If we can’t get the gain in our part of the country because the only thing we can do is buy our compliance and we 

don’t get any gain in net renewables anyplace else because they 

have a surfeit because the mandate is set so low they already got 

renewables to burn, we are not going to get any new renewables 

anyplace else to show for the sacrifice being asked of some parts 

of the country. I can’t support that, and I want to challenge those 

who are going to propose these mandates that we make sure we 

get some net renewables someplace else to show for this. Otherwise 

we will have the irony of not supporting nuclear as an alternative 

in Georgia but providing money for other folks to support nuclear 

in other parts of the country as they get money to spend any way 

they want and they expand nuclear, even though is not supported 

by the proposed. So let us don’t have that. Let us try and make 

sure that we got some new net renewables and we are all fed out 

of the same spoon. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Waive opening, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN 

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As President Obama so clearly said on Tuesday night, to truly 

transform our economy, to protect our security and to save our 

planet from the ravages of climate change, we must ultimately 

make clean renewable energy the profitable kind of energy, and 

this not only means making investments in the development of new 

renewable energy technologies, but also taking policy steps to drive 

the production of more renewable energy in America. A federal renewable energy standard is one of the measures we need in place 

if we are to harness the power of clean renewable energy and be 

a leader in the 21st century global economy. 

I am proud that my home State of Wisconsin has required electric providers to increase their use of renewables to generate electricity. Wisconsin’s current RES requires utilities to produce 10 

percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2015, 

and last year the Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming, comprised of members of a cross-section of Wisconsin’s economy, recVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:02 Feb 02, 2012 Jkt 067094 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A094.XXX A094

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

ommended in its final report that the RES be increased to meet the 

10 percent requirement 2 years earlier and reach 25 percent by 

2025. 

I do have some concerns and questions relating to the crafting 

of a federal RES that I hope we will discuss during this hearing 

today. Among them, what renewable energies should be allowed to 

qualify. For instance, Wisconsin has an abundance of woody biomass. Should that be included? What about energy derived from 

solar light pipe technology such as those made by a company in my 

home State? And what about some of the energy-efficient technologies that we discussed in our hearing just a couple of days ago 

including combined heat and power technologies and waste heat 

energy. I also have some questions about the constraints that we 

face in transmission as we generate more renewable energy. 

But despite some of the challenges in defining and implementing 

a national RES, I believe it to be a key component, a key complementary measure to ending our dependence on foreign oil, tackling environmental degradation and addressing our economic recovery. 

I look forward to our witness panel today, and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Melancon. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLIE MELANCON 

Mr. MELANCON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the attention that you have shown to this issue and I would like to thank 

the witnesses for taking time to be here this morning. 

As I have said before in hearings, meetings and anywhere else 

people will listen, I believe that we must take climate change seriously because I have a grandson that I want to be able to enjoy 

the same planet that I did, whether it is hunting or fishing or any 

other reason. I want Louisiana’s coast to still exist for his and the 

other generations to come. 

That being said, I encourage all my fellow committee members 

to be reasonable and responsible in how we approach climate 

change policies. There can be large costs associated with some 

strategies and it is important more now than ever to ensure that 

those costs do not simply get passed down to the consumers, who 

are our constituents. 

We are here today to discuss complementary policies to climate 

change legislation and the crux of such legislation would be to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, an 

important and time-sensitive task. Reducing emissions of carbon 

dioxide and other greenhouse gases is the right move to make but 

we should focus on that goal and not lose perspective. Wayne Leonard, who is the chief executive officer of Entergy, wrote an op-ed, 

which I would like to submit for the record, for the New York 

Times. In it he explains the realities of how a policy like RES 

would impact his company. He points out that having to invest in 

either development of renewable technology or the purchase of 

credits would drastically change their business model. It would create a drive towards cheaper and cheaper fuel sources to compensate for new costs, meaning that more expensive natural gas 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

would be squeezed out of production to make room for more cheaper coal. This dynamic would have the precise opposite effect that 

we should be aiming for by countering some of the emission reductions achieved by development of renewable electricity. 

I would like to conclude by reiterating my support for efforts to 

reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions but also to emphasize 

the importance of taking a balanced approach that keeps in mind 

the impact this will have on our increasingly burdened constituents. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the time. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired, and all time for 

opening statements has been completed for the members. I will 

now turn to our very distinguished panel. Our first witness this 

morning is Dr. Howard Gruenspecht. He is the acting administrator for the Energy Information Agency. Dr. Gruenspecht worked 

with the Department of Energy’s Office of Policy as director of economics, electricity and natural gas analysis. Thank you for joining 

us, Mr. Gruenspecht. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENTS OF HOWARD K. GRUENSPECHT, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; RONALD BINZ, CHAIRMAN, COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION; STAN WISE, COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION; RALPH 

IZZO, PRESIDENT, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, PUBLIC SERVICE 

ENTERPRISE GROUP; AND EDWARD LOWE, GENERAL MANAGER, RENEWABLES MARKET DIVISION, GENERAL ELECTRIC 

STATEMENT OF HOWARD K. GRUENSPECHT 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

today. The Energy Information Administration is the independent 

statistical and analytical agency within the Department of Energy 

that produces data projections and analyses to assist policymakers, 

help markets function efficiently and inform the public. We do not 

promote, formulate or take positions on policy issues, and our views 

should not be construed as representing those of the Department 

of Energy or the Administration. My testimony reviews the role of 

renewable electricity generation and recent EIA projections, provides an overview of the renewable resource base and discusses 

some key findings from some of our earlier analyses of renewable 

electricity standards. 

As discussed in many of the opening statements, spurred by 

State renewable incentives and mandates as well as federal tax incentives for renewables and projected prices for natural gas and 

other fuels, our Annual Energy Outlook 2009 reference case 

projects that renewable energy sources will play a growing role in 

electricity generation as shown in figures 1 and 2 of my written 

testimony. Overall, the projected growth in non-hydropower renewable generation in our reference case constitutes 52 percent of the 

overall projected growth in electricity sales through 2020 and 38 

percent of the growth in electricity sales through 2030. These estimates do not include the very recent American Reinvestment and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

Recovery Act, which provides some additional incentives for renewable energy. 

Let me now turn to some insights from recent EIA analyses of 

past proposals for a federal renewable electricity standard. First, 

because the levelized cost of renewable generation resources tends 

to be higher than that of equivalent conventional resources, there 

is a tendency for an RES to increase electricity prices and consumer expenditures on electricity though by relatively small 

amounts. For example, in our June 2007 study of a 15 percent 

RES, EIA found that residential consumers spent about four-tenths 

of a percent more on electricity than in the reference case. However, these electricity price impacts can be partially offset if fuel 

consumption for electricity generation such as natural gas and coal 

is reduced enough to reduce the price of these fuels. It is important 

to note that impacts on individual consumers and electricity sellers 

can vary considerably in part for some of the reasons that were 

brought up in the opening statements. 

The impact on carbon dioxide emissions, which are not currently 

regulated at the federal level, depends on the fuels being placed. 

Carbon dioxide benefits are significantly larger when coal is displaced than when natural gas is displaced. Certain renewables 

such as biomass cofiring at existing plants directly displace coal 

use. Other increases in renewable generation generally displace the 

most costly generation source that would otherwise be used to meet 

demand. Due to the effect of increasing concerns related to greenhouse gas emissions on investor behavior, our new projections include fewer additions of new coal-fired power plants than earlier 

projections and that tends to reduce the displacement of coal from 

levels projected in our previous RES analyses. 

Regarding regional impacts of an RES also raised in many of the 

opening statements, different parts of the country have access to 

different types of renewable energy with different cost and performance characteristics. Some parts of the country such as the Southeast would rely on a significant increase in the cofiring of biomass 

resources such as forestry residues in existing coal plants to move 

toward compliance with an RES. Other parts of the country such 

as the Great Plains or the Pacific Northwest are likely to focus on 

their abundant wind resources. The designs of all the federal RES 

proposals EIA has examined allow for renewable energy credit 

trading so electricity sellers in regions are not limited to locally 

available resources. However, in our June 2007 analysis of a 15 

percent RES, EIA found that while some interregional trading 

credits occurred, most RES compliance occurred through growth in 

eligible generation within each region. 

Looking at transmission issues, the need for expansion of the 

transmission system will depend on the stringency of an RES proposal and the desire to exploit some of the best renewable resources which are often located far from major population centers. 

The more stringent the RES proposal, the greater the likelihood 

that markets near the best renewable resources will not be able to 

absorb the potential increase in generation and additional transmission capacity would therefore be needed to move it to other 

markets. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

Electricity demand and supply must balance continuously in the 

absence of cost-effective electricity storage technologies. As reliance 

on intermittent resources increase, the traditional electricity system paradigm of generation follows load becomes harder to sustain. 

Greater reliance on intermittent generation could be more easily 

accommodated with energy storage or if some portion of the load 

could be made to follow changes in generation, such as through 

smart grid technologies that allow for automatic or economically 

driven time shifting of non-critical loads. 

In conclusion, as is the case with many energy issues, the devils 

or angels associated with the design of an RES or other types of 

energy policies are in the details. EIA is prepared to provide the 

committee with whatever assistance we can as you develop and design possible legislation. 

Mr. Chairman and member of the committee, this concludes my 

testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gruenspecht follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 31 here 67094A.005
25 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 32 here 67094A.006
26 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 33 here 67094A.007
27 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 34 here 67094A.008
28 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 35 here 67094A.009
29 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 36 here 67094A.010
30 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 37 here 67094A.011
31 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 38 here 67094A.012
32 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 39 here 67094A.013
33 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 40 here 67094A.014
34 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 41 here 67094A.015
35 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 42 here 67094A.016
36 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 43 here 67094A.017
37 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 44 here 67094A.018
38 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 45 here 67094A.019
39 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 46 here 67094A.020
40 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 47 here 67094A.021
41 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 48 here 67094A.022
42 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Gruenspecht, very much. 

Our second witness this morning is Mr. Ron Binz. He is the 

chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission since 2007 

where he has carried out Colorado’s 20 percent state renewable 

electricity standard. Previously Mr. Binz was president of Public 

Policy Consulting specializing in energy and telecommunications 

policy. Welcome, Mr. Binz. 

STATEMENT OF RONALD BINZ 

Mr. BINZ. Good morning, Chairman Markey. It is nice to see you 

again after all these years. 

My name is Ron Binz and I am the chairman of the Colorado 

Public Utilities Commission. It is my privilege and great honor to 

speak here today about the role that renewable energy will play in 

the Nation’s attempt to address global climate change. I congratulate the chairman on calling this hearing and I look forward to the 

opportunity to talk about a real success story, what we call the 

New Energy Economy in Colorado. 

Colorado is moving forward aggressively to adopt renewable energy as a major portion of our generation resources in the State. 

The collection of all those efforts of new jobs, of companies relocating to Colorado, of rural economic development, we call the New 

Energy Economy, and it is easy to date the beginning of that. It 

was Election Day in 2004 when the State’s voters passed the renewable energy standard. It had failed three times in the legislature. Citizens took it to the ballot. It passed in 2004. After initial 

opposition to it, the utilities have come back to support the process. 

In fact, the legislature 2 years later doubled the standard in the 

State to 20 percent by 2020. 

The New Energy Economy means more than just clean electrons. 

Colorado’s Office of Economic Development traces 22,000 jobs, new 

jobs in Colorado, what we are calling green collar jobs. Now, to give 

you a sense of that scaled up to national numbers, that would be 

1.25 million jobs nationally in this energy sector. Our investments 

in renewable energy are also helping the State make progress toward the Governor’s Climate Action Plan. Significant wind and 

solar resources are reducing carbon emissions in the state. For that 

reason, Mr. Chairman, I would take slight exception to your notion 

of this being a complementary policy. We think of it as a 

foundational policy. Our belief is the reduction of CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions is going to require the development of renewable energies is not just an add-on to a carbon policy, it is going 

to be a foundation of it. 

I dwelt in my testimony about solar energy. I put a map in there 

that was developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

in Colorado showing solar resources around the country. Everyone 

knows that solar costs more than electricity produced by coal or 

natural gas today. Everyone also knows that the cost of PV is falling and many predict that it will achieve grid parity some time in 

the future but the cost of solar and other renewable technologies 

doesn’t fall simply over time, it falls with the volume and deployment as that increases. Ramping up solar supply, just to again 

focus on solar, will thicken the supply chains and large manufacVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:02 Feb 02, 2012 Jkt 067094 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A094.XXX A094

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
43 

turing base, grow the commitment to R&D and generally increase 

competition in the design and installation of solar. 

Much has been said about parts of the country who have relatively less wind power and I understand that Georgia, home of my 

soon to be former best friend, Stan Wise here, Georgia may not 

have the wind capacity that Colorado does but just to underscore, 

Mr. Pallone talked earlier about the efforts in New Jersey. New 

Jersey, maybe to your surprise, is the second largest State for solar 

deployment in the country, second only to California. The resources, the solar insulation levels in New Jersey are far poorer 

than they are in the southeastern part of the United States. I think 

the draft legislation wisely gives a three times credit for distributed 

solar generation. I think that is a very important step to boost the 

efficiency and economy of those kinds of resources. 

I just want to conclude with two things. First, this salutary social 

effect of pushing renewable energy through an RES kind of standard is one of the main reasons that I as a regulator in Colorado 

hope that other States adopt RES policies. That will begin to bring 

these break-even points on cost closer in time to today. Bringing 

down the level of carbon emissions and the cost of renewable technologies is in my view a shared responsibility shared by all citizens 

of this country, and as far as I am concerned, that is where the 

nexus for federal interest in this matter derives. 

As chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Colorado, I 

can unreservedly endorse the benefits of a renewable energy standard. Because of the action of 28 States with RES policies, the costs 

are falling today. RES will provide a needed boost to that continued 

development. In my experience, it enjoys strong consumer support 

and can be implemented with reasonable impacts on rates. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Binz follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 51 here 67094A.023
45 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 52 here 67094A.024
46 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 53 here 67094A.025
47 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 54 here 67094A.026
48 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 55 here 67094A.027
49 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 56 here 67094A.028
50 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 57 here 67094A.029
51 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 58 here 67094A.030
52 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 59 here 67094A.031
53 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 60 here 67094A.032
54 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 61 here 67094A.033
55 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 62 here 67094A.034
56 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 63 here 67094A.035
57 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 64 here 67094A.036
58 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 65 here 67094A.037
59 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 66 here 67094A.038
60 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Binz, very much. 

Our next witness is Mr. Stan Wise, a commissioner on the Georgia Public Service Commission. He has previously served as Cobb 

County commissioner in Georgia and is a former president of the 

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. We welcome you, sir. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF STAN WISE 

Mr. WISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the committee for this opportunity to speak before you today as you wrestle 

with this very difficult issue. 

I am a publicly elected commissioner on the Public Service Commission and as a regulator I am responsible for ensuring that retail 

electricity customers receive safe, reasonably priced, reliable electric service. I am concerned that a one-size-fits-all RPS mandate 

fails to recognize that there are significant differences between the 

States and regions in terms of available and cost-effective renewable energy resources and that having such a standard in energy 

legislation will ultimately increase consumers’ electricity bills. 

We should be discussing ways to promote clean energy of all 

types. We need to develop and deploy all energy sources that can 

ensure an adequate supply of energy in the future, that can power 

our economy and that moves us forward to improving our environment, especially in ways that reduce greenhouse gases. Major energy sources that can meet these needs include nuclear, coal, coal 

with carbon capture and sequestration, natural gas, energy efficiency as well as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal. The distribution of these energy sources is different across the country. 

Some regions have more nuclear power than others, some coal, and 

others have wind and solar opportunities. We should be encouraging States and regions to take advantage of these sources that 

can best advance our energy and environmental goals with the understanding that the exact use of sources will be different in each 

State or region. 

Establishing a uniform national RPS focused exclusively on a 

limited number of sources like wind, solar, biomass or geothermal 

without regard to crucial regional differences will unnecessarily 

drive up electricity costs, jeopardize reliability and divert capital 

that will be needed to achieve other objectives like meeting aggressive carbon targets. My State, for example, does not possess an 

abundance of what is described as renewable in many of the legislative proposals. The DOE data shows that Georgia does not have 

abundant solar energy that is available in other parts of the country, wind turbine generation available to States located in the 

Great Plains nor do we have abundant geothermal. My State and 

our region must seek to encourage the growth of research and development in the use of energy resources that are available and 

economically viable to provide our future needs. This will include 

the development of coal with carbon capture and sequestration, nuclear power, natural gas and energy efficiency. There is renewable 

development occurring in our State and currently we are considering a biomass plant that would replace a small coal-fired plant, 

and even though it is one of the largest in the country, it will only 

equal 100 megawatts. Some regions of the country have access to 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
61 

wind resources. Wind can be a ready resource but has its limitations. Its availability is severely limited and cannot be dispatched 

by utility operators when the load demand peaks. A study by the 

Joint Coordinated System shows that several regional transmission 

planning organizations and the TVA in the Southeast does not and 

cannot meet anything greater than 30 percent all of the time. This 

gap demand would have to be recovered by building additional natural gas-fired generation. The report also shows that if the eastern 

United States were to meet the 20 percent of its energy requirements with wind, that 229,000 megawatts of wind capacity would 

have to be built. Some are discussing building transmission lines 

from areas with wind resources primarily in the West, to the eastern United States. These proposals raise concerns about cost, reliability and additionally transmission that doesn’t solve the intermittent nature of wind resources. 

Solar power has a capacity even lower than wind. Humidity and 

cloud cover in the Southeast makes it very difficult to maintain a 

capacity of lower than 20 to 25 percent. That would also have to 

be backed up with fossil fuels, most likely natural gas. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to go ahead and skip ahead to my 

summary to make sure that I have the opportunity to get this in. 

Even with the challenges it is still the desire of the Congress to impose these federal mandates, then certain conditions should be 

taken into account, that States should be allowed to develop renewable or clean energy standards that take into account the resources 

available in the State or region. This will ensure State-to-State equity while maximizing the benefits of expanding clean energy. Targets and timetables should be practical and allow State or regional 

variations depending on the resources available. The definition of 

qualifying resources that would count toward compliance with a 

federal standard should be expanded from the list in the current 

proposals including existing hydro that should count towards compliance the same as existing wind and solar. Nuclear generation 

should be included due to the fact that it emits no carbon. The definition of biomass should be expanded to include all recoverable 

wood material. This would include whole trees which are currently 

excluded from credit towards compliance. Energy efficiency should 

be included as a resource that would count towards compliance. 

This is a resource that is being expanded in Georgia and the Southeast and its use should not be limited in any federal standard. Utilizing municipal solid waste for energy production should be included toward compliance. This is a renewable resource that is 

available across the country and will reduce the use of other environmental impacts. 

I thank the chairman for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wise follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
62 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 69 here 67094A.039
63 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 70 here 67094A.040
64 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 71 here 67094A.041
65 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 72 here 67094A.042
66 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 73 here 67094A.043
67 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 74 here 67094A.044
68 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 75 here 67094A.045
69 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 76 here 67094A.046
70 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Wise, very, very much. 

Our next witness, Dr. Ralph Izzo, is the president, chairman and 

CEO of the Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated. Mr. Pallone has already listed the distinguished history of Dr. Izzo. We 

welcome you, sir. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF RALPH IZZO 

Mr. IZZO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Upton and 

members of the committee. Our family of companies distributes 

electricity and natural gas to more than 2 million utility customers 

in New Jersey and we own and operate approximately 17,000 

megawatts of electric generation in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic 

and Texas. I appear before you this morning to express my strong 

desire to see this Congress adopt a national renewable electricity 

standard. I would like to recognize your leadership, Chairman Markey, on this issue as well as that of Congressman Pallone, who has 

championed renewable energy for as long as I have known is, 

which is probably a lot longer than either of us care to think about 

right now. 

Global warming is the most important environmental challenge 

of our time, and to avoid catastrophic impacts from climate change, 

most scientists agree that we must achieve carbon emission reductions of 80 percent by 2050. To reach this target, we urgently need 

decisive federal action, not a patchwork of state and regional fixes 

but a strong, progressive national energy policy. A carbon cap-andtrade program will be a central part of such a policy but we need 

a portfolio of solutions. To achieve necessary carbon reductions, we 

must do nothing less than electrify our transportation sector and 

decarbonize our electric sector. We need policies aimed directly at 

driving these transformations, and an RES will create demand for 

technologies that will transform the way we generate electricity. 

With this policy we will create jobs and we will develop new technologies that we can export all over the world. In other words, investment in renewable energy is a strategy for long-term sustainable growth. 

As an investor and a businessman, I believe the adoption of a 

federal RES would create tremendous opportunities. PSEG, our 

company, our company, is already beginning to invest heavily in alternative energy. Two weeks ago, our utility filed a proposal with 

New Jersey regulators to invest almost $800 million in solar generation over the next 5 years. This will include putting solar panels 

on Brownfields, low-income housing, government buildings and on 

roughly 200,000 utility poles. We are also planning a 350-megawatt 

offshore wind farm off the coast of southern New Jersey and we recently created a joint venture to develop compressed air storage facilities that can store energy and help make renewable generation 

more competitive. 

A federal RES will send clear market signals to companies like 

ours to increase their investment in renewable electric generation. 

In the long term, these investments will be a net benefit to customers. In the short term, however, renewable energy is more expensive than fossil fuel generation. We must be upfront with consumers about these costs, but the most effective way to minimize 

cost is through a national approach. A strong national program will 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
71 

create economies of scale and drive down production costs, and 

once developers can rely on a stable national market for renewable 

energy credits, it will reduce their cost of capital. 

It is also worth nothing that certain emerging renewable technologies such as offshore wind and solar will need additional federal incentives, particularly through the tax code. Fostering these 

industries is important to our long-term climate change strategy. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, as you know, our country faces 

daunting challenges. We must dramatically reduce carbon emissions and transform our energy economy and we must do this while 

we face rising unemployment and an economic crisis. Implementing 

an RES will send a clear signal to investors that a true shift has 

occurred in our approach to a national energy policy. Let us encourage sustainable investments to power our way out of this downturn. We need to get started now. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Izzo follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
72 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 79 here 67094A.047
73 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 80 here 67094A.048
74 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 81 here 67094A.049
75 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 82 here 67094A.050
76 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 83 here 67094A.051
77 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 84 here 67094A.052
78 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 85 here 67094A.053
79 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Izzo, very much. 

Our final witness, Mr. Edward Lowe, is General Electric’s energy 

general manager of renewable energy and market development. GE 

is one of the country’s largest renewable technology producers and 

actually supplies half of all wind turbines in the United States. We 

welcome you, Mr. Lowe. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD LOWE 

Mr. LOWE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the potential impacts of a federal renewable electricity standard. 

GE believes that a federal RES is the single most important step 

the Congress can take to lay the long-term foundation for a green 

collar workforce and a domestic renewable energy manufacturing 

base. Today GE’s renewables business has an installed base of over 

25 gigawatts in more than 65 countries, employs 4,700 people globally and we have created over 10,000 supplier jobs. Since entering 

the renewables business in 2002, GE has invested over $850 million in renewable energy technology and production. We have increased wind turbine reliability and efficiency 12 and 19 percent 

points, respectively. We have developed leading-edge integration 

technology and we continue to invest in wind and solar technology 

advancements. During the time period we have tripled our U.S. 

wind assembly facilities and increased wind turbine production six 

fold. GE is the leading wind turbine supplier, as the chairman indicated, with nearly one of every two wind turbines in the United 

States being a GE wind turbine. This growth has created well-paying U.S. jobs. Nationwide, we employ 2,000 people in our wind and 

solar businesses in five States while supporting over 4,000 supplier 

jobs in 15 additional States. 

An example of the economic benefits that we generate is a wind 

blade manufacturing facility that opened last year in Newton, 

Iowa, and was referenced earlier. This is owned by TPI Composites 

and employs 500 people in a facility that was previously closed by 

Maytag. In the past 2 years, wind turbine and turbine component 

manufacturers announced or added or expanded 70 facilities, 55 

alone last year. This growth was driven by successive extensions of 

the wind production tax credit in 2005 and 2006 and the growth 

of State renewable portfolio standards. If Congress were to approve 

a federal RES this year, GE would expect to see considerable 

growth and demand for its renewable products. Responding to this 

growth would in turn prompt us to explore the expansion of our existing wind turbine facilities and construction of new facilities, increase commitments to component suppliers and add new suppliers. These investments could result in the creation of approximately 3,000 to 5,000 jobs to support our wind business. We are 

aware of 10 to 12 foreign suppliers who have expressed a strong 

interest in opening facilities in the United States but are awaiting 

a long-term policy signal to support the required investment. 

Recent studies point to the job creation potential of a federal 

RES. The Department of Energy estimates that achieving 20 percent wind by 2030 would create 500,000 jobs. With accelerated policy support, the solar PV industry predicts 230,000 jobs by 2016. 

Based on our experience, State RPS programs should have certain 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
80 

key elements, among which is an aggressive long-term goal out to 

2020 or 2025, achievable interim goals, meaningful non-compliance 

teeth, tradable renewable energy credits and support for distributed generation. In addition, legislation to expedite transmission 

expansion is essential. Finally, a federal RES will be a critical 

down payment on future climate change legislation by accelerating 

the near-term deployment of wind, solar and other low- or zeroemission technologies. 

In summary, a federal RES is essential to creating a sustained 

green collar workforce and a domestic renewable energy manufacturing base and a federal RES will also serve as a critical complement to climate legislation. 

Thank you for holding this important hearing and the opportunity to present this testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lowe follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
81 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 88 here 67094A.054
82 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 89 here 67094A.055
83 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 90 here 67094A.056
84 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 91 here 67094A.057
85 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 92 here 67094A.058
86 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 93 here 67094A.059
87 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 94 here 67094A.060
88 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 95 here 67094A.061
89 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 96 here 67094A.062
90 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 97 here 67094A.063
91 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 98 here 67094A.064
92 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 99 here 67094A.065
93 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 100 here 67094A.066
94 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 101 here 67094A.067
95 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 102 here 67094A.068
96 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 103 here 67094A.069
97 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Lowe, very much, and that completes opening statements from our witnesses. The chair will recognize himself for a round of questions. 

Mr. Gruenspecht, there has been some opposition to a national 

renewable electricity standard from parts of southeastern United 

States based on the argument that the Southeast lacks renewable 

resources. Your analysis last year showed that the Southeast was 

actually a net exporter of tradable electricity credits because of the 

huge biomass resource there. In other words, the standard allowed 

southeastern states to actually export renewable credits instead of 

just importing coal. A lot of biomass use was mill and other waste 

that would have rotted on the ground if not used to satisfy the 

standard. Can you expand upon what your analysis found? 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Again, we looked at analysis at 15 percent RPS. I guess we got a letter from you yesterday 

and we are going to do further analysis on your standard. But we 

did on a region-by-region basis look at what would happen, I think 

it was a proposal by Senator Bingaman, and we did find that at 

least initially up until about 2020, the SERC region, the Southeast 

Electric Reliability Council region, was able to generate more renewable credits, if you will, than it used internally. Beyond 2020, 

they did import some of their renewable energy credits but they 

still produced about 80 percent of what they needed within the region. It did not break down to State-by-State levels. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Gruenspecht. 

Mr. Izzo, do you believe that a 25 percent renewable electricity 

standard by 2025 is feasible in New Jersey and nationwide? 

Mr. IZZO. Yes, I do. In New Jersey our primary focus will be offshore wind, onshore wind through PJM and local solar, and as you 

have already been told, the NREL map suggests that New Jersey 

has less of an abundance of those resources than other parts of the 

country. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Binz, what about Colorado? Do you think you 

could meet 25 percent by 2025? 

Mr. BINZ. Our current standard is 20 percent by 2020. I think 

25 percent by 2025 will be a stretch but I think we will make it. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Lowe, if we delay in adopting a national policy 

such as a renewable electricity standard to encourage growth in renewables, is there a risk that other countries will end up dominating this growing global market in terms of control of this international market that is clearly going to be there by 2020 or 2025? 

Mr. LOWE. Absolutely. We see national renewable standards 

being adopted around the world. A highlight, too, number one, is 

the 20 percent renewable energy in Europe by 2020. That is expected to drive almost 200 gigawatts of wind installation there. The 

second one that I highlight is China. China used to have a goal of 

10 gigawatts by 2020. They expanded that to 30 gigawatts by 2020. 

Last year they expanded this to 100 gigawatts by 2020. 

Mr. MARKEY. That is 100,000 megawatts? 

Mr. LOWE. That is 100,000 megawatts. 

Mr. MARKEY. That is how much nuclear energy we produce on 

a daily basis in the United States. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
98 

Mr. LOWE. So as is said here, we have the potential for 60 

gigawatts of wind in the United States based on the current state 

RPSs but that is dwarfed by these two other regions. 

Mr. MARKEY. So based upon that, the Chinese industrialists hope 

we don’t adopt a renewable electricity standard? 

Mr. LOWE. I think you can look at a quote that came out of Germany by the German Wind Energy Association. Just so everybody 

knows, Germany ends up supplying about 37 percent of all wind 

turbines or components around the world, and that is because according to the state, they have a very strong domestic policy standard that ends up driving that industry and therefore they can export. As an example, Wind Products is the second greatest exporter 

out of Germany, about 60 billion euros a year, only to cars. 

Mr. MARKEY. I think that the Germans and the Chinese are hoping we don’t have a renewable electricity standard, to be honest 

with you, because we would be importing their products by 2020 

and 2025 and the work would be in their countries, not in ours. 

Mr. Izzo, you have testified that a national renewable electricity 

standard would complement and strengthen climate legislation and 

be workable in concert. Could you elaborate upon that? 

Mr. IZZO. Sure. Under a cap-and-trade system, what you would 

have is a cost for carbon which would then encourage all other 

forms of carbon reduction, in particular things like energy efficiency, greater improvements in current fossil fuel-fired-powered 

plants to increase their energy output per amount of CO2 emitted. 

However, such a climate change bill would not bridge the gap that 

is needed to bring about the longer term solutions that renewables 

are. So that would require a special portfolio selection that says in 

order to build the full portfolio of solutions, not just energy efficiency, not just more efficient fossil fuel plants but carbon-free 

power. One simply needs to look at the fact that 76 percent of all 

renewables produced in 2007 were in RPS States. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Izzo, very much. That is very helpful. 

My time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Michigan. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I want the record 

to show that I do support an RPS. We have it in Michigan, and we 

will see how it works. It was just approved by our State legislature. 

We didn’t have to go to the voters. Our legislature did it. We are 

anxious to see how it works, and I must say that last week I spent 

a considerable amount of my time at two of our universities, who 

are really working on wind technology to make it better, and an 

interesting point, you know, in Michigan we have got a lot of 

storms, as you know, that come across the lake, and when I went 

out to one of these giant wind turbines, it wasn’t turning, not at 

all because the wind was not blowing last week, and so my question is, as much as we want renewable sources of power—and it 

was a cloudy day too so solar wouldn’t have worked either. What 

do you have to do in terms of building for the non-peak times or 

when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, which in 

Michigan is a good part of the time. Mr. Izzo? 

Mr. IZZO. Sure, Congressman. We advocate three forms of energy 

policy to achieve carbon reduction. One is energy efficiency, two is 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
99 

renewables and third is large baseload clean carbon-free technology, which could either be fossil fuel with carbon capture and 

storage or nuclear. We are also investing in compressed air energy 

storage systems, which allow us to store electricity from renewable 

supplies when it is produced and then use it when it is needed. 

One has to take an entire portfolio approach to this. No one slice 

of that will achieve our 80 percent reduction by 2050. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Binz, what has Colorado done for the non-peak 

times? 

Mr. BINZ. Congressman Upton, we are grappling with that very 

issue. The wind penetration in Colorado is pushing 20 percent on 

a capacity factor. If you are an Excel energy customer, one kilowatt-hour out of 10 in 2008 was wind generated. That presents 

some challenges but they are obviously able to solve those challenges to regulating and balancing the system. We use a number 

of resources such as pumped hydrostorage, natural gas peaking 

units to firm up the wind, but still in all, that is a lower cost total 

application than would be using to burn natural gas alone, so we 

come out ahead in that. The other thing I would mention is that 

regional diversification is very helpful. We are looking right now at 

the advantages of bringing in wind from other states that happen 

to have patterns which tend to complement the Colorado wind resources. That is another approach you can take. 

Finally, I want to endorse the storage notion. CAES, or compressed air energy storage, is going to be very important to the future of wind and a comparable but different technology for solar 

will make those dispatchable units in the off-peak and shoulder periods. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Lowe, I am told, I would like you to confirm this, 

that it takes about 60 acres, is that right, in terms of space for 

wind to produce one megawatt of power? Is that about right? 

Mr. LOWE. I would say it is a little bit less than that. 

Mr. UPTON. A little bit less? 

Mr. LOWE. Approximately. 

Mr. UPTON. Fifty acres? 

Mr. LOWE. Forty, I believe. 

Mr. UPTON. Forty? Okay. So to provide 5 percent of our Nation’s 

power using wind, and again I support wind, I support wind in 

Lake Michigan. I know we have a problem with Nantucket in Massachusetts when they didn’t want it. My district is along Lake 

Michigan. How many acres would it then take? 

Mr. LOWE. I am sorry. I don’t have that statistic with me. 

Mr. UPTON. We figured it was 12 billion acres, I think, is the figure that we came up with so we might have to encroach into Nantucket after all. I don’t know if the gentleman is willing to acknowledge that or not. That is a lot of acreage to reach 5 percent. You 

know, we don’t have the great ski mountains of Colorado in Georgia or other places that we are going to be able to use a lot of that 

acreage, but that is a heck of a lot, right? 

Mr. LOWE. I would have to go back and check that number but 

certainly if you take a look at the areas of the country where wind 

is predominant, and one of advantages of it is in large swaths of 

the Midwest where you are still using that land for very vibrant 

agricultural use and yet you are also being able to produce renewVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:02 Feb 02, 2012 Jkt 067094 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A094.XXX A094

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
100 

able energy. One of the byproducts this really has is, the support 

from farmers. We know that a number of farms right now are in 

desperate financial condition and the leasing payments that they 

get by being able to put those wind farms on their property while 

also enjoying— 

Mr. UPTON. I understand. I want to ask one last question before 

my time runs on. 

Mr. Binz, again, knowing Colorado a little bit, does Colorado include hydro as part of your portfolio? 

Mr. BINZ. RES includes new hydro. 

Mr. UPTON. New hydro. So existing hydro, it doesn’t impact that 

at all then, right? 

Mr. BINZ. Actually our hydro opportunities are relatively modest 

in Colorado. This is where the rivers start, not where they end up, 

and so—but we do allow in our renewable energy standard new 

hydro. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, and you know, we all know that preventing climate change will require many strategies. We need climate legislation that caps carbon emissions. We need a federal renewable electricity standard that drives the deployment of renewable energy and stimulates further innovation and we need to focus 

on the easiest and least expensive emissions reductions, and that 

means major energy efficiency standards. In 2007, the House 

passed a renewable electricity standard and it required utilities to 

generate 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. I 

voted for this bill because I think it was the best we could have 

passed at the time. But this bill included provisions allowing 4 percent of the 15 percent of the standard to come from energy efficiency improvements. I am a strong supporter of dramatically improving energy efficiency. The question I have is, how to address 

renewable energy with energy efficiency policies. 

Mr. Izzo, do you think energy efficiency investment should be 

counted under a federal renewable electricity standard? 

Mr. IZZO. No, I see them as separate issues, equally important. 

Ms. MATSUI. So you are concerned that including efficiency in 

RES standards would just allow efficiency to displace— 

Mr. IZZO. Correct. You would diminish the necessary deployment 

we need for renewables. 

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Binz, how about you? 

Mr. BINZ. I feel the same way. I would rather not reduce the effectiveness and I would add to that list. We are strong supporters, 

Governor Ritter in Colorado, strong supporters of research and 

technology having to do with clean coal. We would not want to see 

that defined as a renewable energy resource because it would work 

against the purposes of that bill but we think on a separate track 

those are very important policies as well. 

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Lowe, how about you? Does GE support separate standard for renewable and efficiency or a combined standard? 

Mr. LOWE. I think it can be done either way but the one thing 

I would caution is, if you end up setting a standard and then you 

do not have a clear, articulated basis for what can renewables end 

up providing, then you are not going to see the investment and the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
101 

job creation there. So there has to be a certainty of that and the 

larger portion you allow to be satisfied by other technologies, the 

fewer jobs you are going to create, the fewer renewable penetration 

you are going to have. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, because your answers give us something 

to think about, because whether or not to separate energy efficiency from renewable electricity standard is an issue that we really definitely have to consider. 

I want to ask you also about rates. We have talked a little bit 

about that. I want to step back and get a sense of what the panel 

feels on integration. Twenty-eight States plus the District of Columbia now have mandatory RPSs, and California, as I said, has 

led the way, and we have heard also about Colorado and the good 

work. But I would like to hear some of your thoughts about how 

to integrate all this into various State plans moving forward. 

Chairman Binz, your State has done really excellent work. How 

has your State coordinated with other States on best practices and 

renewable goals? 

Mr. BINZ. Well, I have several answers to that. We have been 

talking with regulators and air offices, environmental regulators in 

a number of States around the West. We are interested in unifying 

our transmission grid. We are right now improving transmission 

between Wyoming and Colorado. We have plans for improving 

transmission to the Southwest as well to New Mexico and Arizona 

for the purpose of making that an integrated market for these resources. So that is very important that we work with our neighbors 

on this. 

You asked about rates. That is something very important, I 

think. Before I was named Public Utilities Commission chairman, 

I did a study predicting what the Colorado renewable energy standard would meet to costs in their State. It turns out I was pretty 

close to right. We have met the standard. Actually our utilities are 

ahead of the standard and the cost differential is less than 2 percent. It is about 1.6 percent at the moment, between what could 

have been built using traditional resources compared to what was 

built using renewable resources. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, and I think I have used up my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I ask my questions, I am going to read a paragraph from Dr. Apt’s statement or 

paper that he wrote because we are here debating a renewable energy standard because we think that there is a theory that manmade emissions, primarily from fossil fuels like coal, which reduce 

amounts of CO2, are causing climate change, i.e., the temperature 

to rise, and one of the solutions being proposed is an RES that is 

going to rely fairly heavily on wind power, which obviously doesn’t 

create CO2. I am going to read a paragraph which is if true very 

ironic, and this is from Dr. Apt’s paper and I quote: ‘‘Wind energy 

is a finite resource. At large scale, slowing down the wind by using 

its energy to turn turbines has environmental consequences. A 

group of researchers at Princeton University,’’ which is in New Jersey, parenthetically ‘‘found that wind farms may change the mixing 

of air near the surface, drying the soil near the site. At planetary 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
102 

scales, David Keith, who was then at Carnegie Mellon, and coworkers found that if wind supplied 10 percent of expected global electricity demand in 2100, which is a number of years off, the resulting change in the earth’s atmospheric energy might cause some regions of the world to experience temperature change of approximately 1 degree Centigrade,’’ which I think is about 1-1/2 degrees 

or 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Now, wind is God’s way of balancing 

heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it is hotter 

to areas where it is cooler. That is what wind is. Wouldn’t it be 

ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive 

switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the 

winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I am 

not saying that is going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale—I mean, it does make some 

sense. You stop something. You can’t transfer that heat and the 

heat goes up. It is just something to think about. 

Mr. Izzo, you are our utility representative but you are not officially representing the views of EEI, are you? 

Mr. IZZO. No, that is correct. I am not here representing EEI. 

Mr. BARTON. Okay. Now, I have been told to paraphrase your 

company’s position is to say we have to, because of these renewable 

mandates in our service territory, we think the rest of the country 

ought to have to do it too. Is that a fair assessment or is that an 

unfair characterization? 

Mr. IZZO. That is an unfair characterization. We are not here advocating New Jersey national security or New Jersey climate 

change. We are here recognizing the importance of national energy 

security and global climate change. 

Mr. BARTON. And doing it very well, I might add. 

Mr. Binz, you at the very end of your answer to Ms. Matsui indicated that Colorado has been able to implement its RES with almost no cost increase. That is very commendable and somewhat 

amazing based on the testimony and the material that I have from 

other sources that show going to a massive RES is going to require 

cost increase of anywhere from 20 percent to 50 percent. Could you 

supply the committee in writing with how Colorado has been able 

to—I don’t doubt what you said is true because you seem like a 

pretty credible guy to me— 

Mr. BINZ. In fact, Mr. Barton, it is the law in Colorado. There 

is a 2 percent ceiling on the cost differential that can be achieved 

as we meet our renewable energy standard. 

Mr. BARTON. Would you support such a component of a federal 

law, that there be a cost cap factor in it? 

Mr. BINZ. I haven’t really thought about that. I think that is 

something you may want to look at. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, think about it, because if we are going to do 

this and the Majority is big on caps, I think a cost cap might be 

a component of it. 

Mr. BINZ. I will be happy to supply the report I showed doing a 

modeling of that but also I will supply what the Commission has 

found in its borders. 

Mr. BARTON. In my last 1 second, Mr. Wise, could you comment 

on the cost of transmission to move wind energy from the Midwest 

to your region of the Southeast? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
103 

Mr. WISE. If the State of Georgia, if the ratepayers that I am 

elected to protect have to pay for the transmission of wind from the 

Midwest to Georgia, we think it would be just astronomical. It is 

just not an affordable project that we could sustain. 

Mr. BARTON. Let the record show, Mr. Chairman, astronomical 

in Texas means a big increase. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, 

Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Something 

that really stood out in Mr. Binz’s testimony on page 6, ‘‘Renewable 

Energy Systems of America relocated from Texas to Colorado in 

March 2008. The company designs, builds and operates wind 

farms.’’ Next bullet: ‘‘Texas-based Dragon Wind will open a plant 

in Lamar, Colorado, to build wind towers.’’ The question, Mr. Binz, 

are you finally going to like Texans? 

Mr. BINZ. We have always liked Texans, sir. They are probably 

our best ski immigrants. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I am from San Antonio. We have a municipally 

owned utility obviously, CPS Energy, and in discussing with them 

renewables, this is what they reported to me, and I have known for 

some time and I commend them but we are in a very special situation in San Antonio. ‘‘CPS Energy’s goal is to achieve renewable energy capacity equal to 20 percent of our customers’ peak electrical 

demand by 2020,’’ so when we are talking about 15 in 2020, Tom 

Udall last year, it was doable. Twenty in 2020 is going to be doable 

probably. Twenty-five in 2025, like you said, it is not the easiest 

thing but probably doable for San Antonio. Among municipally 

owned utilities, CPS Energy ranks number one nationally in wind 

capacity. I don’t think I have to tell you where Texas ranks as a 

State. CPS Energy is currently evaluating proposals from a number 

of companies interested in bringing up to 100 megawatts of solar 

power to San Antonio, enough to power about 23,000 homes. The 

plant could begin providing solar-generated electricity to customers 

in greater San Antonio by late 2010 or early 2011. So when I think 

in terms of standards in renewables, my district probably will fare 

all right. My concern is those that have been expressed by my colleagues from other States, whether it is Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Georgia. Now, Mr. Wise has indicated that there may be 

problems that San Antonio would not experience, but by the same 

token, I do want to point out that San Antonio has invested at this 

point about $240 million just in the license application for a new 

nuclear plant that we just built, a state-of-the-art coal-fired plant, 

so we all over the place but nevertheless on the renewables we 

know exactly what the future holds. But we still have a vested interest in clean coal technology, tremendous interest in the development of new nuclear power plants, but what I am asking is, what 

about Mr. Wise? How do you respond to his testimony? I know you 

may have touched on it and I apologize because I had to absent 

myself from the hearing for a few minutes. This is what he states 

on page 2: ‘‘On the other hand, establishing a uniform RPS focused 

exclusively on a limited number of sources like wind, solar, biomass 

or get without regard to crucial regional differences will unnecessarily drive up electricity costs, jeopardize reliability and divert 

capital that will be needed to achieve other objectives like meeting 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
104 

aggressive carbon targets. As a result, my State and our region 

must seek to encourage the growth of research and development in 

the use of energy resources that are available and economically viable to provide for our future needs.’’ And I would ask all the witnesses, if you were in Mr. Wise’s shoes today, how would you respond to your testimony as well as his observations and his description of his predicament? I can start with Mr. Binz, who is getting all the Texas commercial business. 

Mr. BINZ. Congressman Gonzalez, Texas was an early leader in 

wind, and I think also the analysis that was done, the so-called 

REZ regions, the renewable energy zones that were identified so 

that transmission could be matched to those zones. That is important model that has been carried lots of other places and we do appreciate that as an important expert from Texas, the idea. 

I would say that many of the arguments are very reminiscent of 

what we heard in Colorado before we got busy and figured out how 

to build a renewable energy industry. I know that there is reluctance to do this by utilities who have had a very traditional approach for a very long time and we had such utility in the State. 

They opposed the voter initiative. Two years later they supported 

the doubling of the requirement. Much has been said about biomass in the Southeast. I have also noted in here in my testimony 

significant solar potential in the Southeast. Biomass doesn’t have 

to be new plants burning only biomass. Cofiring of coal is an excellent way of using biomass, and it is my understanding you can 

cofire up to about 15 percent of the input feed to a coal plant without losing any significant efficiency of that plant. That is the place 

to start. If a State is unable at the very beginning of this to actually put an industry on the ground, they can buy renewable energy 

credits. They can say we actually own wind being produced in Kansas or North Dakota and credibly count that against their requirement in their State. That is not the permanent solution because 

you do want to grow renewable industry in your State. But I just 

would exhort States who have not done this to look at the experience of Colorado, and there are lots of other examples of this, of 

where you are going to turn your economy around with respect to 

this issue, find that you have opportunities you never understood 

you had. Governor Ritter’s promise of a new energy economy in 

Colorado has come true and has overridden the skeptics, who 

thought that we couldn’t do it. I think the same can be done in 

many other places. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. There is only about 29 seconds, Mr. Izzo. 

Mr. IZZO. What I would say is, if I begin with the premise that 

we need to reduce 80 percent of our carbon emissions, there are 

going to be a series of solutions that are critical and one part of 

the region achieves competitive advantage by reducing its carbon 

footprint through more efficient coal units and therefore attracts to 

it the revenues from a cap-and-trade system, or another region of 

the country achieves a competitive advantage by having an indigent source of renewable, be it wind or solar. That is all part and 

parcel of a vibrant interstate commerce system and it is something 

that we should applaud and strive to achieve, every part of the 

country doing its bit to reduce carbon. Remember, 25 percent renewable portfolio standard, 35 percent of CO2 from electricity, we 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
105 

are talking about 7 percent of the 80 percent coming from this 

RPS. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD [presiding]. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Thank you very much. 

Well, a logistical problem has developed. We have been called to 

the Floor for two votes. I am going to recess the hearing and ask 

the members to return 10 minutes after the second vote. The committee is in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. All right. The committee will be back in session. At this time the chair will recognize the gentleman from Mr. 

Florida, Mr. Stearns. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that my opening statement be made part of the record. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Very well. 

Mr. STEARNS. Coming from Florida, some of our utilities are concerned about a possible bill from our Chairman Markey, particularly in light of that it doesn’t include anything about clean coal 

or nuclear or waste-to-energy and there is not even a clear understanding whether we are going to have energy efficiency as part of 

it. I think a question I might have for Commissioner Wise is, if we 

assume that many utilities will fall short of the RES mandate and 

end up paying millions of dollars in noncompliance fees, won’t that 

cost the customers and hurt the economy? Why do RES supporters 

claim that this is good for the economy? 

Mr. WISE. I think it does actually help the economy with new 

jobs and growth and opportunities in the new technology but ultimately the ratepayers do pay the difference in our States where we 

are regionally challenged with lack of resources, and if you don’t 

give us credit for the new nukes or efficiencies, then ultimately it 

is going to be a substantial wealth transfer from the southern 

states and ultimately cost us jobs, growth and industry, and be a 

significant cost to the ratepayer. 

Mr. STEARNS. In January, T. Boone Pickens, I was at a symposium where he indicated that the cost per barrel is going to go up 

even higher than it was of $150 a barrel, it might go up to $200. 

So with the possibility the next 2 or 3 years the cost of gasoline 

going up and then you assume that you add all these extra costs, 

it is going to be enormous cost, as you pointed out, to the customers. Now, some dismiss the argument that the RPS will result 

in a wealth transfer from areas of this country that lack renewable 

resources to those that are blessed with them. As a State regulator, 

can you explain why you believe a federal mandate will result in 

increased rates for those in the Southeast? 

Mr. WISE. Again, you know, we even heard from Commissioner 

Binz just a few moments ago that he was talking about these credits that we could buy to go ahead and take credit for wind and 

solar from other parts of the country, but ultimately if they are not 

generated in our State and we are paying credits just to acquire 

them, then once again it just adds cost to our system. We take 

great pride in going ahead in the southern states to have reliable, 

affordable energy and so we have done our job with transmission 

lines. We are not constrained, as many other parts of the country 

that have not paid their way, and so at this point we are talking 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
106 

about adding, you know, real dollars to our ratepayers if we are required to buy these credits to offset what we simply can’t meet 

under the standards being discussed by this committee and this 

Congress. 

Mr. STEARNS. Let us assume you and Florida, Georgia and Florida, have to do this. A lot of money from our States are going to 

go outside our States too, which would have an impact. Georgia has 

nuclear power? 

Mr. WISE. Yes, sir, we do, and we are currently considering two 

new plants to be sited where we have a reactor today. 

Mr. STEARNS. It is puzzling to me that if the folks are considering this RES, want clean energy, why they wouldn’t consider nuclear power. It is produced in the United States. It has zero carbon 

dioxide emissions. It does not put stress on the agricultural community, the timber industry. So why in your opinion have they not 

considered nuclear power? 

Mr. WISE. Again, it might be agenda driven. I really believe that 

if somebody is promoting a new technology and they can benefit 

from it with jobs and growth and industry in their region, they are 

not going to want to give credit for efficiencies for new nuclear 

power, and I think it is unfortunate. These do take care of the 

emissions issues for at least 2,200 megawatts that we are talking 

about adding to Georgia’s load. 

Mr. STEARNS. If you meet all the requirements of clean energy, 

you would think you would get some credit for it. Do you agree that 

as it now stands, our country’s transmission infrastructure is woefully inadequate to achieve a 20 percent by 2021 RPS requirement? 

Mr. WISE. Yes, I do. 

Mr. STEARNS. How much backup power from conventional power 

plants is needed to meet a 20 percent RPS requirement by 2021, 

and if you know the cost? 

Mr. WISE. The cost would add probably 15 percent, is the way 

we are looking today, just to add the backup cost to the shortfall 

that if we say put in wind and/or solar, we are going to see upwards of 75 percent backup probably from natural gas. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. At this 

time the chair will yield 5 minutes to himself. 

Let me thank all of you for coming out today to be a part of this 

hearing. On behalf of the chairman, we certainly thank you very 

much. I understand that Mr. Wise may have to depart for the airport somewhere around 1:00, but let me assure you that this hearing will probably be completed by 1:00. We are told that our next 

vote will be at or about that time, but thank you so very much. 

Let me join my colleagues on this committee and the full committee who support an RES. Some call it the RPS. I am not sure 

which acronym is more preferable to my office, but thank you for 

speaking on the subject today. But I am terribly concerned. I join 

those who have expressed concern and I too am terribly concerned 

about a national standard. I represent North Carolina. I am part 

of the Southeast that you hear so much about. North Carolina has 

developed a State standard, the only one in the southeastern part 

of the country. We have a State standard which is 12.5 percent. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
107 

To the gentleman representing the Department of Energy, the 

acting administrator, and I won’t call you by name, because quite 

frankly, I can’t pronounce it, but let me address this question to 

you. In your testimony earlier you mentioned an analysis that the 

Department of Energy has made. Would you elaborate further on 

that? 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. Yes. These were earlier analyses of earlier 

proposals. In June 2007, in response to a request from Senator 

Bingaman, we looked at a 15 percent RPS. Also, later that year in 

response to a request from, I think it was the ranking on Resources, the ranking on Ways and Means and the ranking on, I 

think Energy and Commerce as well, we looked at provisions that 

were in the House version of legislation that ultimately became the 

Energy Independence and Security Act. Those are all available on 

our web and we can certainly make them available to the committee. Let me make clear, those are not analyses of the proposal 

that Mr. Markey and I believe Mr. Platts have put out. We did receive a letter yesterday from Mr. Markey requesting that we undertake an analysis of that proposal, and we will do that as best 

as possible. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. But do you at least concede that the Southeast 

is extremely limited with respect to wind and solar? Do you make 

that concession? 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. Sure. We got very little—biomass was the 

key resource in the South for increasing renewable generation both 

through cofiring in existing plants, as discussed by some of the 

other panelists, and in dedicated plants. A little bit of solar came 

in as well. But again, biomass was the main thing. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. And of course, our concern in the South is, 

how on earth are we going to find this biomass in order to satisfy 

the standard? I mean, we certainly want to be good Americans and 

play a valuable part in this process but where on earth are we 

going to find the biomass to meet the standard? 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. Well, we have worked with the University of 

Tennessee actually on the regional supplies of the biomass and 

again, this is not with respect to the standard proposed by Mr. 

Markey but with these earlier standards. We did find that there is 

a fair amount of biomass available both from forest residues, possibly from energy crops. It is more expensive than coal but in the 

case of the analyses of those standards, it was brought into use. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. It is going to be extremely difficult. Would you 

agree, Mr. Wise? 

Mr. WISE. I would indeed, and clearly a sustainable—if we did 

it all on biomass alone, it would take—we have heard some numbers. To make the 20 percent number with biomass alone would 

take pretty much all of Alabama and Mississippi of the sustainable 

forest, and I am not sure they are going to volunteer. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I have 50 seconds remaining. Does anyone else 

want to respond to this? 

All right. The chair yields back the balance of its time. At this 

time the chair recognizes Mr. Inslee from the State of Washington. 

Mr. INSLEE. I want to ask Mr. Gruenspecht, when you did your 

assessment, when the agency did the assessment of potential in the 

South, did it consider hydrokinetic power? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
108 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. No, we did not look at hydrokinetic power. As 

described in our testimony, we have focused on the main sources 

of renewable energy that are sort of known characteristics, known 

costs so we did not look at hydrokinetic power, we didn’t look at 

hot dry rock, geothermal. We focused on the wind, solar, biomass, 

hydro and sort of I guess more conventional geothermal that is primarily in the West. 

Mr. INSLEE. So I am told that Commission staff estimates that 

the Southeast has the potential to develop about 30,000 megawatts 

of installed hydrokinetic capacity. Development of potential is estimated to be about 7,000 megawatts for wave energy, 10,000 

megawatts for ocean current and 13,000 megawatts for in-river 

hydrokinetic projects. Now, except for perhaps the in-river 

hydrokinetic projects, these are pre-commercial application, so you 

just rule them out because they are not commercially in the water 

yet? Is that the reason? 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. Well, I don’t know that we are ruling them 

out. It is just that it is hard for us to characterize what they would 

cost and, you know, again, there is very little basis for us to have 

it but we are being very clear of what we are including and what 

we are not including, and so in the analysis we did of the 15 percent standard and the language in the House bill, we found that 

again the biomass resource in the South, which we could characterize, was what was used. Certainly under a standard, other 

things potentially could come into play if they were cheaper. 

Mr. INSLEE. So you are not taking issue with the report then, I 

take it? 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. I am not taking issue with it. You know, 

words like ‘‘potential’’ and ‘‘could be developed’’ without time 

frames, without, you know, any sense of what it would cost—now, 

it is important to look at it just like some of these advanced geothermal technologies, other things, but we could not really factor 

that into our analysis and say, you know, you got 6,238 megawatts 

of that. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, the reason I ask that is that, you know, if we 

were going to ask ourselves, should we have a national goal of having 15 percent penetration of the phone market to be cellular 

phones in 1992, you know, I wonder what this discussion would 

have been at this hearing. I think probably DOE would come in 

and say well, commercial phones are not commercially available so 

we are only going to count bio phones or something. I mean, that 

is the point I am trying to make. You can respond if you like. 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. I will respond. I am not arguing with you. I 

just want to point out that I guess some of my fellow panelists 

have suggested that our analysis is, I don’t know what the opposite 

of conservative is, it is too liberal, and I guess you are suggesting 

my analysis is too conservative, and we just try to be very clear 

about what we did and why we did it, and really these are very 

thorny issues about new technology and will you catalyze new technology. You know, to be fair, I mean, everyone talks about, you 

know, if we have the mandate it will happen. California had a 

mandate for zero-emission vehicles in the 1990s that they envisioned as being battery powered, and that turned out to be something of a tougher nut to crack than people thought it was in the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
109 

1990s. Now, we are still very interested in battery power, so it is 

not always the case that if you—yes, if you mandate it, there could 

be things that aren’t anticipated that could come in. I agree. 

Mr. INSLEE. But it is an interesting point though. I don’t think 

any State has had an electrical standard that has not failed to 

meet it, is there? 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. I think on some of them so far—again, they 

are all phasing in. I think so far that would be a fair characterization. A lot of them have, if you will, I don’t want to call them escape clauses but, you know, clauses that if the cost is too high or 

if something happens and a lot of that may depend on the availability of federal production tax credits and if the federal production tax credits didn’t exist then maybe some of those provisions 

would get triggered. So like always, it is really—you know, it is 

pretty complicated, as you know. 

Mr. INSLEE. I want to make sure I ask Mr. Izzo about the New 

Jersey experience. My understanding is, New Jersey considered a 

feed-in tariff at one time and actually had a study about costs and 

the study came back saying actually a feed-in tariff was the most 

cost-effective mechanism to really inspire development. I introduced a feed-in tariff and I just wonder if you have any comments 

about feed-in tariffs, what New Jersey is thinking of them or did 

you consider what the virtues or vices were? 

Mr. IZZO. What we did, probably the best example of a successful 

feed-in tariff is the one that has been used in Germany. By successful, I define that to mean where lots of solar energy was encouraged. The reason why New Jersey elected to not use a feed-in tariff 

is, there is a little bit more art than science around selecting what 

the number needs to be. If you pick the, quote, wrong number, you 

could get more than you want, and if you pick it too high and if 

you pick it too low you can get less than you want. So New Jersey 

instead, despite the success of the feed-in tariff in Germany, has 

adopted for something that is really more dependent upon a REC 

market, which is to let the regulatorily created revenue stream 

float to meet the needs of achieving the standard. So rather than 

picking a set number, which is a feed-in tariff, we let the number 

float so as to achieve the RPS. They are comparable methods. We 

believe the REC approach is a little bit more market based. 

Mr. INSLEE. I have one more question. I want to ask Mr. Wise, 

you have a concern about reaching these targets in a renewable 

electrical standard. A feed-in tariff works in a situation where you 

don’t pay or you don’t get—you are not compelled to buy or obtain 

any particular percentage but in fact you only are compelled to buy 

that which is offered to you by an energy producer. Is that a superior model for you, your concerns in the South or an inferior model? 

What are your thoughts on that? 

Mr. WISE. I have no idea. All I know is that if we are talking 

about credits that we have to buy for what to buy if we can’t make 

the number, that is going to add cost to the ratepayer, and it is 

clearly not jobs, it is not growth, it is just additional cost for goals 

that we can’t attain. 

Mr. INSLEE. You may be familiar with this, but the one virtue 

of a feed-in tariff is, you wouldn’t be required to buy it unless 

somebody offered to sell it to you. You would be required to buy 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
110 

it at a specified price, which is usually going to be somewhat overmarket at that moment for alternative capacities, limited to a certain amount by statute or regulation. Some of us think that is worthy of consideration. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time is expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Matheson. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would just also 

associate with what Mr. Inslee just said, that I do think that a 

feed-in tariff is something we ought to consider in this discussion. 

It merits being part of this debate. I think we ought to include it. 

I have some questions, and I am not sure who should necessarily 

answer this on the panel, but you guys can decide, about how the 

issue of an RES fits in with other energy legislation that we are 

considering. If we have a federal RES and we have an energy efficiency mandate as well and we put in a cap-and-trade law in place 

with carbon reductions, how do we ensure that these programs are 

not duplicative, or maybe the more positive way to say it is, how 

do we make sure that the goals of these different programs are 

complementary and not in conflict with each other? 

Mr. IZZO. I will begin, Congressman. I think the beauty of the 

RES program as envisioned here is that it really achieves about a 

7 percent reduction in CO2 emissions and most scientists believe 

we need to achieve an 80 percent reduction. So we are not saying 

here today that renewables are the only solution. To your point, 

there are multiple solutions. There is energy efficiency, there is 

carbon capture and storage, there is new nuclear, there is renewables. To that extent, the importance of a cap-and-trade program 

to set a price for carbon is essential so that different aspects of that 

portfolio will come into play more prominently in different regions. 

So, for example, one may be able to reduce the cost of carbon more 

effectively in the Southeast through nuclear energy, perhaps more 

effectively in the Midwest through wind energy, perhaps more effectively in New Jersey through energy efficiency. So cap and trade 

and a price for carbon seeks to set the price signals for reducing 

carbon. Each of these components, however, will be essential in 

bringing about the complete decarbonization of electricity and the 

complete electrification of transportation. 

Mr. MATHESON. But you don’t foresee potential conflicts between 

the different— 

Mr. IZZO. I don’t. so for example, if the alternative compliance 

payment is 5 cents a kilowatt-hour, which is $50 per megawatthour, that is the equivalent of $70 per ton of CO2 for a coal plant 

in the Northeast. So if carbon dioxide is trading at $50 per ton, you 

will see some other solutions that will offset the need for the REC 

payment in the RPS. 

Mr. MATHESON. Are there other things out there about how to accommodate the regional differences in this country and the ability 

for some places to pursue renewables more than others beyond the 

credit idea of paying for credits for renewable energy produced in 

another part of the country? Are there ways to look at tailoring this 

such that you get away from the one-size-fits-all approach and encourage different regions to do what is appropriate for that region? 

Do any of you have thoughts on that? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
111 

Mr. BINZ. Congressman Matheson, Ron Binz from Colorado. Like 

Utah, we are a heavily dependent State on coal right now, and we 

are looking to move away from that and we are hoping to move to 

clean coal technologies in our region. But we see renewables and 

I hope every State sees renewables as one essential piece of this 

total solution. We have been talking about a ramp-up in Congressman Markey’s bill, a ramp-up which I think will allow these industries to develop in States. I think it will be very transformative to 

put that requirement in. I will be very surprised if Georgia or any 

other southeastern State pays the penalty, if you will, for noncompliance with the 5-cent credit we have been talking about. I 

think they will do it much more effectively with either resources 

that they are generating themselves or purchasing. 

Now, I want to also speak to an issue which I know a lot of members are interested in is, I think we should be looking at strengthening the transmission side so we can move some of these electrons 

around. The virtual purchase of renewable energy by buying credits 

from out of region places works up to a point. At some point you 

actually do need to move the power when you don’t have sinks in 

these regions with the excess capacity. So I guess what I am saying 

is, I think the gradual ramping up of the standard is what is going 

to answer the question you just raised. I think solutions get discovered along the way without an immediate problem being presented 

to these States, and purchases of RECs will eventually be phased 

out. That is in fact how Colorado met its renewable energy requirement its first year. We bought a lot of solar RECs from other 

States. We then said we don’t want to be doing that, we want to 

develop our own industry in the State, and that is what is happening. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. 

The chair will recognize himself, and we might have time for 

more questions if the member are interested. Oh, Mr. Scalise, have 

you been recognized yet for a round of questions? 

Mr. SCALISE. No. 

Mr. MARKEY. Then the chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana. 

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the chairman. 

I do have a couple of questions for Mr. Izzo. In New Jersey, I am 

not sure of the percentage but I know New Jersey generates a significant amount of power from nuclear, and maybe you can share 

with me what that is. 

Mr. IZZO. Our company alone generates 50 percent of our electricity from nuclear. I think statewide is more like 40 percent. 

Mr. SCALISE. Do you believe that nuclear power should be included in the renewable definition? 

Mr. IZZO. No, I don’t. I think it is an important part of global climate change solutions but I don’t think it is a renewable source of 

energy. It is a carbon-free source of energy. 

Mr. SCALISE. Exactly. But why wouldn’t you think that encouraging our country to do what many other countries, especially in 

Europe and beyond, are going to as a carbon-free source that is 

very reliable, not intermittent? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
112 

Mr. IZZO. I am an advocate of encouraging it by setting a price 

for carbon and a cap-and-trade system. Nuclear is quite competitive 

if one allows for the externalities that are not being captured in today’s energy market to be captured. That is quite different than 

the nascent technologies that we are trying to make sure become 

an integral part of that solution mix through an RES. I mean, at 

the end of the day uranium 238 is not renewable. You use it up. 

It is carbon-free but it is not renewable. 

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Wise, I would like to get your take on it as well 

as what some of these compliance fees may ultimately yield in consumer prices. 

Mr. WISE. Say again? 

Mr. SCALISE. Well, first on Mr. Izzo’s comments about nuclear as 

not being considered renewable. 

Mr. WISE. We think including nuclear in this bill would be vital. 

We are currently considering two new reactors and feel like that 

if carbon emissions are one of the issues that we are looking for 

and the goal of renewables, then we think those are one of the 

mainstays of what we are trying to do in Georgia. Again, it goes 

back to the one size fits all. Clearly, we are constrained by lack of 

resources in this marketplace. As the model moves, as the technologies develop, as we have heard from this panel today, we think 

that we will be able to ultimately benefit from them if it is in solar 

if we can do more with the humidity and the cloudy days that we 

have, but ultimately it is just too fast a pace for somebody in a region that doesn’t have the opportunities that maybe they do in 

other States. 

Mr. SCALISE. If standards are set up in a way that don’t encompass some of these other things I guess where we have a disagreement but where many have proven an ability to produce renewable 

sources that don’t count in the definition, ultimately what would 

that mean in terms of prices for consumers? 

Mr. WISE. Well, it would be significant, and every time a new 

proposal comes out we are looking at the impact of what it would 

be on the consumers, the average consumer in our State, and we 

have heard the same numbers that I am sure you have, anywhere 

from 5 to 25 percent is what it could be. 

Mr. SCALISE. Rate increases? 

Mr. WISE. Rate increases on top of already a volatile marketplace. 

Mr. SCALISE. And obviously we can all agree that it is important 

to encourage and expand renewable sources of energy. That definition is probably going to be one of the more critical debates because 

it leaves out some things that truly are renewable but maybe aren’t 

included in the definition. 

Mr. WISE. Waste-to-energy is a classic example, and we are seeing the development— 

Mr. SCALISE. And clean coal. 

Mr. WISE. Clean coal, the sequestration. Biomass is going to be 

something that is a part of it. I am not sure that we are still sustainable to do— 

Mr. SCALISE. And I do want to ask you about that because I 

know it has come up, and before my time runs out, there has been 

some talk that in the southeast part of the country where maybe 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
113 

wind and solar isn’t as prevalent as a reliable renewable, that some 

have said that biomass could make up that difference. Others disagree. What is your take on that? 

Mr. WISE. Again, it is not sustainable to make up the difference 

in our State with just biomass. Biomass would have to be a piece 

of it. It would be a significant piece but we couldn’t meet the 20 

percent. We couldn’t make 10 percent with biomass in the southern 

states. We have a lot of trees but we don’t have that many trees. 

Mr. SCALISE. And obviously then we have the concern about 

what that means to consumers in increased rates. Some of these 

things are thrown around without necessarily factoring in the consequences. I would be curious to see if there would be tracks on 

what consumers would pay because I think most consumers would 

say yes, I want to support expansion of renewable sources of energy, and many people have already started to conserve. Of course, 

they won’t get credit for that. That is not something they are going 

to get credit for but on the backside they could get penalized if 

while they are conserving, while their State is using renewable 

sources of energy that aren’t included in the definition, they are 

going to be paying higher rates and they are going to say wait a 

minute, that is not what I said when I answered that poll question 

about whether I support renewables. It is a whole different story 

when my renewable isn’t included and now I am paying 25 percent 

more on my utility bill. 

Mr. WISE. Some of the users, the potential users of pulp and 

paper in our State are already complaining about the move toward 

biomass, about the impact that I will have on their customers, on 

their industry, and have actually been interveners in some of the 

cases before our Commission raising the issue of what it will do to 

prices for them. 

Mr. SCALISE. And we have already heard some testimony from 

industry who have talked about—one person earlier this week in 

testimony said they have laid off 100,000 people. Some of those 

have been jobs shipped overseas because of the concerns of some 

of these policies, and there is a big cost on the other side and that 

is why it is important that we encourage this but we watch the 

consequences too, so I will yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time is expired. The other gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Melancon, is recognized. 

Mr. MELANCON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. Actually 

I had meetings in my office concerning just what we are talking 

about today in between votes. 

One of the questions I guess I have got and to no one specifically 

but whoever feels they are best to answer this, is there a feeling— 

and I am looking at this. I don’t see in the proposal nuclear anywhere. Would that not be a good alternative? 

Mr. IZZO. Congressman, our company is as we speak working on 

an early site for a new nuclear power plant. With luck, it will be 

ready to produce carbon-free electricity in 12 years. Our company 

is working on an offshore wind farm. With luck, it will produce 350 

megawatts of carbon-free electricity in 4 years. We are developing 

compressed air energy storage systems to make more economic onshore wind. With luck, it will produce carbon-free electricity in 2 

years. We are also in the process of developing solar energy that 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
114 

will be deployed within the next few months, and hopefully in the 

30 seconds it took me to say this, we have installed yet another 

compact fluorescent light bulb and a few more programmable thermostats to bring about energy efficiency this minute. We need to 

do all of it. Nuclear is important but it is not a renewable energy 

supply and it doesn’t need to impinge upon the need for solar, 

wind, biomass and the like. 

Mr. MELANCON. On the nuclear, it is not renewable in a sense 

but it can be reprocessed. Cannot that material be reused? 

Mr. IZZO. You can get more of the energy content out of what we 

today call the waste. I guess you can call that reusing but you can 

be more efficient with the use of the fuel. At the end of the day, 

the fuel is consumed. 

Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Wise? 

Mr. WISE. Yes, sir, I do agree that nuclear power should be considered in these standards. 

Mr. MELANCON. Do you think this is the area on the complementary or should it come under some other section of the bill? 

Mr. WISE. I believe if you are going to have a renewable energy 

standard, that new nukes should be included. 

Mr. MELANCON. I guess the question I have here is, when you 

look at the sources of fuel, if nuclear is not part of the equation, 

if everything available is not part of the equation with proper credits and encouragement, do we end up just going to the cheapest 

fuel and we are back to coal? So if nuclear is not in here, is there 

anybody that would suggest that we do nuclear in this section to 

give options and alternatives to the power companies? 

Mr. WISE. I would clearly hope so. 

Mr. BINZ. Congressman, Ron Binz from Colorado. I would oppose 

the use of nuclear as a fuel that would satisfy the renewable energy requirement because that effectively will gut the provision. 

One nuclear plant will probably wipe out a State’s renewable energy requirement. You won’t get the impact that this bill is intended to effect, namely to bring some new technologies along. I 

completely agree that nuclear ought to be considered as one of the 

primary ways of fighting global warming and climate change but 

I don’t think you do it through this bill. Nuclear power does today 

receive its share of research subsidies and insurance subsides and 

all sorts of other things as do most of the rest of the parts of this 

industry but I think that it would be a mistake to essentially qualify it as a renewable resource, and that is just semantics. Whatever 

it is, it is, but the point is that you don’t want to, I think, take 

away the impact that this legislation is attempting to have for the 

wind, the solar, the biomass, the geothermal and all the other resources that this is intended to boost. 

Mr. MELANCON. Who can tell me what the life span of the material used in the generating facilities, the nuclear facilities? How 

long a lifespan is one cylinder, or how do you measure it? 

Mr. IZZO. Most power plants are on an 18-month refueling cycle 

where they replace one-third of their fuel core. 

Mr. MELANCON. And how much material is that? 

Mr. IZZO. I don’t know the answer. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
115 

Mr. MELANCON. I am still trying to figure out what the 

megawatts consumed by—but anyway, I am out of time, but I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. 

The chair recognizes himself one more time. There were 8,000 

new megawatts of wind constructed in the United States in 2008. 

If we just take Mr. Izzo’s projection for the nuclear power plant 

which he is building for his company, he is using a 12-year 

timeline. If you just multiply 12 times 8,000 megawatts, you are 

near 100,000 megawatts. That is if we stay at the same pace. Of 

course, if we have a national renewable electricity standard, wind 

will wind up at 150,000 or 200,000 megawatts within 12 years before the first nuclear power plant comes on line. So we just have 

to be realistic here. No one is saying nuclear is not going to be part 

of the mix but because of the timeline and the cost of nuclear and 

the fact that we have a history over the last 34 years in terms of 

its financing it, it has great difficulty in receiving financing in the 

private sector, as opposed to France and China and Japan where 

the government pays for it. Here we have to get private investors 

and they have been shying away from it. So just realistically in 

2020, we might have 1,000 or 2,000 new megawatts of nuclear but 

we will have somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 in 

megawatts of wind by then at the pace at which it is going right 

now. That is just the reality of it. But no one is saying nuclear is 

going to be out but that is just the way it will turn out. 

Let me ask Mr. Gruenspecht, Mr. Melancon raised coal. In your 

new Annual Energy Outlook 2009, it shows a fairly substantial reduction in projected coal-fired generation. Can you explain the 

magnitude of that decrease in your projections? 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. It is not really a reduction in coal-fired generation. It is a reduction in new builds of new coal-fired plants, and 

we try to reflect likely behavior under current laws and policies so 

we are not making assumptions about what you would do but we 

do rely on recent behavior as a key indicator, and although existing 

plants continue to be operated based on economic dispatch and 

produce about half the Nation’s power as people have said, concerns about greenhouse gas emissions do appear to be having an 

impact on investment decisions for new plants, and so because that 

impact is being felt, we are reflecting it. 

Mr. MARKEY. And so can you give me an idea of how many 

fewer—can you quantify what you believe the reduction looks like? 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. There is certainly, what, about 10 to 15 

gigawatts, I think, under construction now. 

Mr. MARKEY. Ten to 15,000 megawatts? 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. Ten to 15,000 megawatts, excuse me, under 

construction now, and we see after that not much being built probably until about 2025 and then more. I can get you the specific 

numbers for the record. 

Mr. MARKEY. That is pretty telling, that just looking at the marketplace today that you see only 10,000 to 15,000 in the pipeline 

whereas as we can see with wind that that is the projection for just 

the next 3 or 4 years at current pace absent the extra spur that 

a national renewable electricity standard would create to increase 

construction. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
116 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. I mean, another thing to keep in mind, of 

course, is that difference, that a coal plant or nuclear plant runs 

at a much higher utilization. 

Mr. MARKEY. No, I understand that. 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. I know you do, sir. 

Mr. MARKEY. But just the scale of construction. 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. Absolutely. 

Mr. MARKEY. And Mr. Lowe, you talked about all the jobs that 

would be created in the near term if we move towards this renewable side, and if you could just talk a little bit, Mr. Gruenspecht, 

about the impact that a national renewable electricity standard 

could have in substantially alleviating the demand for natural gas 

in the power sector. How significant an impact on natural gas 

prices could a strong renewable standard have? 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. Well, we do in our past analyses. We haven’t 

yet done the one that you have just sent to us, but in the past it 

is the case that beyond things like biomass cofiring, which clearly 

back out coal, you do tend to back out the most expensive things 

that you would otherwise be using, and in many regions of the 

country that is gas, so you would burn less gas and that can have 

an effect on the price of gas, which affects the price of gas used 

both for electric generation and the price of gas used for other purposes like home heating. So we got, as I described in the testimony, 

in the previous analysis modest increases in what we looked at in 

expenditures for electricity by consumers for the reasons that have 

been discussed but to some extent offset by some reduction in the 

cost of gas. 

Mr. MARKEY. I know Mr. Wise has to go. I would like to let him 

have the last word here. Mr. Gruenspecht, if you look at 2008 

where 50 percent of all new electrical generation installed was natural gas, 42 percent was wind, 6 percent was coal and the remaining 2 percent was low-head hydro, solar, all the rest, I am just 

looking for you to just make a comment about that because natural 

gas is half the CO2 emitted as coal. That is probably why we are 

seeing business decisions being made that are shying away from 

coal. But that seems like a good partnership natural gas and wind 

going forward with the other renewables playing an increasing role 

as the years go by. 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. Again, I don’t want to take a policy position. 

Mr. MARKEY. You are an analyst. 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. I am an analyst. A lot of gas capacity was 

built in the first 5 years of this decade, tremendous amounts, in 

part because many people had thought that gas prices, you know, 

would stay low for a long period of time. We are still working our 

way in some sense through that capacity but in the present environment where there is reluctance to build coal as we discussed, 

what is getting built is mostly the number of coal plants that I 

mentioned plus some combination of a lot of wind and some gas 

where additional capacity is needed. Gas is sort of kicking the can 

down the road in terms of making a decision because most of the 

cost of gas-fired generation is in the fuel other than the plant, and 

if you don’t know what is going to be happening, you don’t want 

to put big money on your plant. You want to just need the need 

as cheaply as possible, be as flexible as possible. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
117 

Mr. MARKEY. What I would like to do, if the two gentlemen from 

Louisiana wouldn’t mind, is give each witness down here 1 minute 

to summarize what they want us to know, and to let Mr. Wise, because he has to run for a flight, give you kind of an extended one 

because you are a little bit outnumbered here. Please give us the 

1 minute you want us to remember on this committee as we move 

forward on a renewable electricity standard. 

Mr. WISE. That is very fair, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it very 

much. I think first and foremost that everybody in this room, your 

committee and this panel have all agreed that renewables and the 

future of energy in this country will be and have a significant part 

of renewables. We just ask for an ultimate understanding that one 

size fits all is not beneficial to my State, the southern States and 

that ultimately that all aspects of clean emissions need to be considered. That would include nuclear, it would include clean coal or 

sequestration, waste-to-energy and enhanced hydro, and I think 

that would be my message. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Wise, very much. 

Mr. Gruenspecht. 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. Mine is easy. We are here for you and the 

members. These are thorny issues. The devil and the angels are in 

the details, as I said. There are lots of different ways to do things. 

Those are your decisions, not ours, but we will be glad to provide 

both data and analytical support. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Gruenspecht, very much, and 

thank you for your good work. 

Mr. Lowe. 

Mr. LOWE. What I would like to leave with you is the fact that 

renewable energy has the ability right now to create significant 

green collar jobs in the United States. From a perspective of wind, 

that is about 500,000 jobs by 2030, on one projection. By 2016, 

there could be approximately 230,000 solar jobs. And we also have 

the ability, as you indicated in your statement, about 8,000 

megawatts of wind going in in each year to immediately reduce 

carbon emissions for generation going in today. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Lowe. 

Mr. Binz. 

Mr. BINZ. Thank you, Chairman Markey. A couple of points. One 

is, I want to emphasize the transformative nature that a renewable 

energy requirement had in my State and I believe that a similar 

salutary effect would be had if it were adopted in other States via 

national legislation. We have got more jobs dedicated to this than 

we would have had if we had gone down the route of traditional 

fossil generation. I would also like to stress that the cost of renewables will come down as their proliferation in the market increases, 

and that is something which I think is a very important part of 

your legislation. Finally, I think we do a disservice to customers if 

we suggest that renewables are going to raise their cost as if other 

compliance measures won’t. We have got a very substantial challenge with global warming to decarbonize the electric sector. I look 

at renewables are a very hopeful component but we should not be 

suggesting that 15 percent if somebody uses that number increase 

that that might drive is on today’s base because we are looking at 

expensive new plants of every stripe that are going to be necessary. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
118 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Binz. 

Mr. Izzo. 

Mr. IZZO. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We face some fairly daunting challenges and opportunities, climate change, national energy security 

and sustainable economic development. We can lay the foundation 

for that with a carbon price through a cap-and-trade system. We 

need a portfolio approach to reducing carbon. Renewable energy is 

a critical component of that portfolio. A national approach is needed. It is only through a national approach that we can make the 

most economically efficient decisions. New Jersey joyfully buys its 

citrus fruits from the Southeast, its grains from the Midwest and 

we joyfully export our pharmaceuticals and telecommunication 

products to those places. The same should be had for energy policy. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank each of you and Mr. Wise for your testimony. This is a very important issue right at the heart of the revolution which is taking place in Germany, in China. If we don’t 

move, they are moving. We will be importing their technologies. 

That is the bottom line. It is an engine of job creation which General Electric is now taking the lead in our country and in the world 

and I think we just have to keep pace and try to exceed the rest 

of the world in this subject. We should try to be number one looking over our shoulders are number two and three and four in the 

world because this is a job creation engine, and if we don’t, we for 

sure will be importing 20 and 30 years from now having lost an 

opportunity to create a real manufacturing base in our country. So 

this is going to be a central part of the debate of climate change 

over the next several months, and we thank you for your participation. It has been very helpful to the committee. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
119 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 127 here 67094A.070
120 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 128 here 67094A.071
121 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 129 here 67094A.072
122 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 130 here 67094A.073
123 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 131 here 67094A.074
124 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 132 here 67094A.075
125 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 133 here 67094A.076
126 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 134 here 67094A.077
127 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 135 here 67094A.078
128 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 136 here 67094A.079
129 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 137 here 67094A.080
130 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 138 here 67094A.081
131 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 139 here 67094A.082
132 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 140 here 67094A.083
133 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 141 here 67094A.084
134 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 142 here 67094A.085
135 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 143 here 67094A.086
136 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 144 here 67094A.087
137 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 145 here 67094A.088
138 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 146 here 67094A.089
139 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 147 here 67094A.090
140 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 148 here 67094A.091
141 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 149 here 67094A.092
142 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 150 here 67094A.093
143 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 151 here 67094A.094
144 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 152 here 67094A.095
145 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 153 here 67094A.096
146 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 154 here 67094A.097
147 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 155 here 67094A.098
148 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 156 here 67094A.099
149 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 157 here 67094A.100
150 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 158 here 67094A.101