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

41–853 PDF 2008

H.R. 2635, THE CARBON-NEUTRAL GOVERNMENT

ACT OF 2007

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,

ORGANIZATION, AND PROCUREMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 2635

TO REDUCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL

WARMING THROUGH MEASURES THAT PROMOTE EFFICIENCY IN THE

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS, AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES

MAY 17, 2007

Serial No. 110–47

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.oversight.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSISGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman

TOM LANTOS, California

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland

PETER WELCH, Vermont

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

BILL SALI, Idaho

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PHIL SCHILIRO, Chief of Staff

PHIL BARNETT, Staff Director

EARLEY GREEN, Chief Clerk

DAVID MARIN, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, ORGANIZATION, AND PROCUREMENT

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

PETER WELCH, Vermont

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania,

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL MCCARTHY, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on May 17, 2007 ............................................................................... 1

Text of H.R. 2635 ..................................................................................................... 4

Statement of:

Figdor, Emily, director, Federal global warming program, U.S. Public

Interest Research Group; Jeffrey Harris, vice president for programs,

Alliance to Save Energy; and Marshall Purnell, first vice-president/

president-elect, the American Institute of Architects ................................ 45

Figdor, Emily ............................................................................................. 45

Harris, Jeffrey ........................................................................................... 56

Purnell, Marshall ...................................................................................... 70

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Figdor, Emily, director, Federal global warming program, U.S. Public

Interest Research Group, prepared statement of ....................................... 47

Harris, Jeffrey, vice president for programs, Alliance to Save Energy,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 59

Purnell, Marshall, first vice-president/president-elect, the American Institute of Architects, prepared statement of ................................................... 73

(1)

H.R. 2635, THE CARBON-NEUTRAL

GOVERNMENT ACT OF 2007

THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,

ORGANIZATION, AND PROCUREMENT,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edolphus Towns (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Towns, Welch, Platts, Duncan, Issa,

Bilbray, Waxman, and Davis of Virginia.

Staff present: Michael McCarthy, staff director; Velvet Johnson,

counsel; Cecelia Morton, clerk; David Marin, minority staff director; A. Brooke Bennett, minority counsel; Larry Brady, minority

senior investigator and policy advisor; and Benjamin Chance, minority clerk.

Mr. TOWNS. The subcommittee will come to order.

Today’s hearing is on an important new bill to make the Federal

Government a leader in reducing emissions that could contribute to

global warming. Chairman Henry Waxman is the author of this bill

and has joined us today. I would like to recognize him first to give

an introduction of the bill and then we will proceed with the rest

of the opening statements. Let me yield now to the chairman of the

full committee, Mr. Henry Waxman from California.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate

this courtesy that you are extending to me. In the months and

years ahead, we will be asking Americans to make many changes

to combat irreversible climate change. Companies will be asked to

internalize the costs of global warming pollution, to operate more

efficiently, and to innovate and find newer and cleaner ways to operate. Families will be asked to make their homes energy efficient

and to buy fuel efficient vehicles.

What this bill does is say that the Federal Government should

lead the effort to protect the planet from global warming.

Over the last few years, the reverse has happened. As companies

have stepped up to act on global warming, the Federal Government

has stepped back.

On January 24, 2007, President Bush issued an Executive order

that actually repealed a previous Executive order calling for the

Government to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

2

The legislation we are considering today says that the Federal

Government is no longer going to be doing the least. It will become

the world leader.

This bill aims to freeze and dramatically reduce the Federal Government’s greenhouse gas emissions until we achieve a carbon-neutral Government in 2050. It also includes specific requirements for

agency actions to help the Government meet these goals.

The Federal Government is the largest energy consumer in the

United States and probably the world. A carbon-neutral Government is a symbol that the United States will set the standard for

environmental responsibility.

The Federal Government’s actions can also transform the economy. The Federal Government owns or controls a huge number of

buildings, vehicles, planes, and other equipment, and it makes

hundreds of billions of dollars of purchases every year. Entire industries have developed solely to meet the Government’s demands

for goods and services. Because Government needs drive technology

advances and create markets for new goods, Federal action can

help develop a more vibrant and cleaner economy.

The Carbon-Neutral Government Act of 2007 establishes the

goals and the mechanisms to harness this potential. Under the legislation, Federal agencies must freeze emissions in 2010, reduce

emissions to meet annual targets, and achieve zero net emissions

by 2050.

To help Federal agencies meet these requirements, the bill contains specific complementary policies to lower emissions through

reducing fuel use and increasing energy efficiency in Federal operations.

Nearly two thirds of all energy consumed by the Federal Government in 2005 was for fuel used for mobility—vehicles, planes,

ships, and other equipment. The Carbon-Neutral Government Act

will reduce these emissions from vehicles by requiring Government

vehicles to meet the California standards for motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions.

The bill also adopts recommendations by the Defense Science

Board and others to ensure that agencies use the real cost of fuel

when assessing the cost effectiveness of efficiency improvements in

equipment. Fuel priced at $2.50 at the pump can cost an agency

15 times that or more once it is delivered to the point of use in a

battlefield or remote location. Considering the real cost will drive

agencies to acquire significantly more efficient equipment and

enjoy substantial operational cost savings.

The Federal Government owns or leases over 500,000 facilities.

The electricity and other energy used in these facilities accounts for

nearly 45 percent of the Government’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The Carbon-Neutral Government Act tackles emissions from both

new and existing facilities.

For new facilities, the bill sets ambitious but achievable goals

recommended by the American Institute of Architects. For existing

facilities, the bill requires Energy Star benchmarking and energy

audits to identify opportunities for improvements.

The bill also strengthens the requirements for agencies to procure energy efficient products.

3

President Kennedy did not know exactly how we would get to the

moon when he set that goal, but once committed to that goal, the

Nation found the way. And in doing so we created new space age

technologies that led the world.

That is the kind of Federal leadership we need to respond to the

threat of global climate change.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and for considering at this hearing opinions from the witnesses on how we can

achieve what we all should want to achieve—a reduction in energy

use and dependance on energy, as well as dealing with the climate

change pollutants that are threatening our planet.

[The text of H.R. 2635 follows:]

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Chairman Waxman. Of

course, we really appreciate your involvement in this hearing. And,

of course, we would not be here today if it had not been for your

involvement.

At this time, I would like to yield to the ranking member of the

full committee, from the State of Virginia, Congressman Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Well, thank you very much, Chairman

Towns.

Today, Mr. Issa, who is one of our ranking members on one of

the subcommittees, and I have asked the Government Accountability Office to conduct a comprehensive review of greenhouse gas

emission offset markets so we can understand better how these

markets operate.

We think it is a timely request as more and more climate change

legislation, including that under consideration today, relies upon

purchasing offsets to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions.

Climate change is one the most urgent matters we face here in

the Congress, and I think we need to be thoughtful as we look at

legislation and appropriate offsets. Unfortunately, we have just

seen the legislation for the first time last evening.

I hope that we will be able to hear from different Federal agencies before we mark this up so we can get an appropriate response

from them now that we have a bill that is marked.

I look forward to the testimony from the advocates that are here

today. I know that you have longstanding interest in this. I am

particularly interested in some of the vehicle fleet requirements

and some things we can do at the Federal level to utilize our purchasing power to try to drive markets.

So it is timely. I am not ready yet to make a decision one way

or the other until we have heard from some of the other stakeholders on this and have had a chance to digest the legislation.

But I appreciate the chairman bringing this forward, and I appreciate you holding this hearing. Once again, I look forward to our

witnesses.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you, Tom, very much. Now I yield to Congressman Welch.

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Chairman

Waxman.

The crisis of global warming, as you have said, is real, urgent,

and requires immediate action. I am among those who believe that

by embracing that challenge we can move forward with a pro-environment, pro-growth, pro-national security economy.

We can take concrete steps. This is a big bill and all of us are

optimistic that if we accept the challenge that Chairman Waxman

outlined, that we are going to make enormous progress for this

country. But we can take small steps along the way.

My congressional office is now carbon-neutral. We did it by providing financial support for a couple of Vermont renewable energy

projects. And by doing so I was able to offset the greenhouse gas

emissions related to just the day to day activities of my office—

turning the lights on, flying back and forth between Washington

and Vermont, driving around my district when I am doing my work

as a Member of Congress.

41

The legislation that we discuss today is a great example of how

to take concrete steps forward. And by moving forward on a carbon-neutral Federal Government, we will be able to demonstrate

the necessary leadership in action that is required to solve this

problem.

And this Congress must be the Congress to finally, squarely, and

aggressively address the significant threat that global warming is

to our world. We started in January, we continue today, and we all

have the obligation, working together, to be successful for the future.

Thank you.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much. I now yield to a person who

has the same birthday that I have. I knew he was special. Of

course, Congressman Duncan.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you Mr. Chairman, and you know of

my great admiration and respect for you.

Let me just say that I appreciate your calling this hearing. It is

a very important topic, a very important subject. And in fact, I am

not going to stay for much of this hearing because I sat through

several hours of the hearing on this same topic yesterday in the

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

This may be good legislation, but it does need to be thoroughly

discussed and debated. Most of us on our side certainly have no objection to the debate; we think it should be carried out.

We do have some concerns, though, about the tenor of the debate. To show you what I mean, I will read something that Richard

Lindzen, who is a professor of atmospheric science at MIT, wrote

a few months ago about what he called the alarmism and feeding

frenzy surrounding the climate change global warming debate.

He said, ‘‘But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy.

Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant

funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks, or worse. Consequently, lies about

climate change gain credence, even when they fly in the face of the

science that supposedly is their basis.’’

Professor David Deming, a geophysicist, wrote, ‘‘The media

hysteria on global warming has been generated by journalists who

don’t understand the provisional and uncertain nature of scientific

knowledge. Science changes.’’

And Robert Bradley, president of the Institute for Energy Research wrote that, ‘‘The emotional politicized debate over global

warming has produced a fire, ready, aim mentality despite great

and still growing scientific uncertainty about the problem.’’ And he

went on to say, ‘‘Still climate alarmists demand a multitude of dosomethings to address the problem they are sure exists and is solvable. They pronounce the debate over in their favor and call their

critics names such as deniers, as in Holocaust-deniers. This has

created a bad climate for scientific research and policymaking. In

fact the debate is more than unsettled.’’

The reason I read those quotes is this: yesterday in our hearing,

we were told by many, many witnesses from business and industry,

trade associations, and environmental groups of all the great things

that are being done to combat this problem at this time.

42

The witness from the American Association of Railroads, for instance, said that while all the trains in the United States use 4.6

billion gallons of fuel a year, that is 3.3 billion less than they would

have without those improvements.

The witness from GE talked about dynamic braking, and how in

train cars, buses, and cars, they are getting energy from braking

systems now.

They are doing marvelous and miraculous things that could not

have been done just a few years ago. We will have tremendous

progress toward solving this problem if we do not over-regulate and

socialize our economy. If we leave it up to the free enterprise, free

market system we will make great progress.

The worst polluters in the world are the socialist and communist

countries because their systems do not generate the excess funds

that are needed to do the good things for the environment that all

of us want done.

So with those few points, I thank you for calling this very important hearing.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much. At this time I ask unanimous

consent that the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa, participate

in today’s hearing. Without objection, so ordered.

With that in mind, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ISSA. I thank the chairman. I thank you very much for allowing me to participate today.

Through the work on my subcommittee of this full committee

and also my time in Energy and Commerce, I have certainly have

continued to have a keen interest in how we are going to lower

emissions. And as somebody who believes that we do have to deal

with CO2, I regrettably come here today with a few maybe disconcerting remarks.

Most importantly net carbon emissions are going to be reduced

through carbon offsets. These offsets are going to be purchased by

households and by airline passengers and are being proposed for

purchase by the Federal Government.

I am concerned about this legislation under consideration today

and the process that has gotten us to this point because, as far as

I am aware, the majority did not ask anyone from the Federal Government to testify. I do not see any administration witnesses before

me. So how is the committee to make an informed decision on this

legislation without hearing from the one entity that will be affected

most?

On Monday afternoon we got the highlights of this bill. On Tuesday afternoon we got a draft of the bill which included the finding

that individuals will suffer from global warming harms. And on

Wednesday afternoon, we got another draft of the bill that includes

an interesting section on judicial review.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, and I just stepped out

to come into here, let me tell you what the judicial review provision

will be: Step one, say that you have been harmed by global warming, perhaps a sunburn; step two, find a Federal agency that has

not complied with the terms of the act; step three, hire a lawyer;

step four, file a suit in any district court in the United States. My

vote would of course be Berkeley, CA; step five, win your case and

43

get $100,000 plus your attorney’s fees and of course your expert

witnesses; step six, repeat steps one through five.

This looks to me like full employment for the trial lawyers in the

class action lawsuits. Perhaps John Edwards should reconsider his

Presidential run.

Let me make it clear, I am not a global climate warming denier.

Just the opposite. I recognize that we are going to have to work on

a bipartisan basis to craft legislation that preserves our economy

and our ability to be, in fact, a global leader in cleaning up the environment while maintaining a lifestyle that Americans have

earned and come to expect.

I look forward to us including those not included today so that

we can, in fact, come up with a system. If it includes cap and trade,

then, in fact, we will work for all of that.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I want to thank you for giving me the

opportunity to sit on the panel. I look forward to the witnesses. I

yield back.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments,

but I want to assure you that we will be hearing from others as

we move forward. And I am certain that is the reason why we have

these hearings. To get the experts to come in and share with us,

and then after that we will be able to move forward.

This bill is not a bill that cannot be improved, or cannot be

amended. I think what we need is to start somewhere. And that

is the first step.

Mr. ISSA. I thank the chairman, and I will note that I no more

than made my statement and suddenly the Government was here.

I am going to take credit for that Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you. At this time I yield to a gentleman

whom I have had the opportunity to work with now for many,

many years. You know he was the Chair of the subcommittee, and

of course, I had the opportunity to work with him. As always, it

is a delight to see him, and now I would like to yield to him. Congressman Platts from Pennsylvania.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your holding

a hearing, and I apologize for coming in late and, as typical, not

being able to stay.

I am not sure, I will throw out a question in the way the legislation is written, if it addresses the Federal Government’s efforts in

how we can reduce our impact on global warming, specifically on

the fuel consumption of the Federal Government’s fleet.

I am a strong supporter of increasing fuel efficiency and, in fact,

I am the lead Republican, with Ed Markey as our lead sponsor, of

the fuel efficiency legislation that would take us up to 35 miles per

gallon for all passenger vehicles in 10 years, roughly. Is there an

estimate, if we were able to do that in the Federal Government

fleet, of what that alone would do? Are any of the witnesses aware

of those numbers? Any guesstimates? Or is this too broad a question?

Mr. TOWNS. Let me make a note of it and you can probably respond.

Mr. PLATTS. Actually, Mr. Chairman, I thought you already had

gone through the witness statements.

Mr. TOWNS. No, they have not been sworn in yet.

44

Mr. PLATTS. I was wondering why Mr. Issa was doing such a long

statement on a question. I thought you started before the votes and

I was catching up in the question period.

Mr. TOWNS. No, no, no, they have not been sworn in yet. After

that, then you can ask the question.

Mr. PLATTS. After that? OK, I will think about that question.

And we are going to come back to it.

My opening statement is thank you for allowing me to be here,

Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. TOWNS. I am sure that they made notes of your comments,

and I am certain that they will be responding in their answers.

I have always said that to solve our energy and environmental

problems, we cannot look for one silver bullet. We have to combine

several approaches to tackle such a big issue.

That is why I like this bill. It does not pick one thing and say

it is the answer to all of our problems. It sets out long term goals

and short term steps to get there. And it recognizes that we should

look at efficiency, new technology, buildings, and transportation all

together. We must look at all of this.

Our environment and our use of energy are some of the most important issues for the Federal Government. I am glad to be

Chairing the hearing today where we will get information coming

from the witnesses and be able to use this information to put together the kind of legislation that we know will benefit not only the

Nation, but also the world, from what we might decide to do here.

Let me turn now to our witnesses. Let me say that it is committee policy that witnesses are always sworn in. So will you please

stand and raise your right hands?

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. TOWNS. Let it be known that they all answered in the affirmative. You may be seated. Let me introduce our witnesses as we

move forward here.

Emily Figdor is Director of the Federal Global Warming Program

at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. We are delighted to

have you here today. She is the author of numerous reports on

global warming and the role of energy efficiency technology in reducing human impacts on the climate.

Jeffrey Harris is vice president of programs at the Alliance to

Save Energy. He worked for more than 25 years at the Lawrence

Berkeley National Laboratory and has extensive experience in Government energy management and energy efficiency procurement

practices. Welcome. We are delighted to have you here.

And we also have with us Marshal Purnell, who is the presidentelect of the American Institute of Architects. Mr. Purnell has

worked on such notable projects as the Washington, DC, Convention Center, the MCI Arena, and projects of the Department of

State, U.S. Navy, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Welcome.

Let me just say up front, your entire statement will be included

in the record. I would like to ask each witness to take 5 minutes,

and, of course, after that be prepared for questions.

So why don’t we begin with you, Ms. Figdor.

45

STATEMENTS OF EMILY FIGDOR, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL GLOBAL WARMING PROGRAM, U.S. PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH

GROUP; JEFFREY HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT FOR PROGRAMS, ALLIANCE TO SAVE ENERGY; AND MARSHALL

PURNELL, FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT/PRESIDENT-ELECT, THE

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS

STATEMENT OF EMILY FIGDOR

Ms. FIGDOR. Thank you for the opportunity to share my views regarding Chairman Waxman’s Carbon-Neutral Government Act.

My name is Emily Figdor and I am the director of the Federal

Global Warming Program at U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

USPIRG is the federation of State PIRGs and affiliated State environment groups, with a combined membership of nearly 1.3 million

people nationwide.

I applaud the chairman for writing this important piece of legislation. This bill would catapult the U.S. Government, for too long

a laggard in solving global warming, to being a leader and setting

the example. My testimony will focus on the need for large, overall

reductions in global warming emissions to avoid dangerous global

warming and the role of this legislation in beginning to achieve

those reductions.

Science is clear that the world faces dramatic consequences if we

fail to rein in global warming emissions from the burning of fossil

fuels. Yet science is also clear that what we do now can make a

real difference and enable us to avoid the worst consequences of a

warming world.

To prevent large-scale dangerous impacts of global warming,

such as setting in motion the complete melting of the Greenland

ice sheet and mass species extinctions, the United States must stabilize its emissions this decade, and then reduce them by at least

15 to 20 percent by 2020 and by at least 80 percent by 2050.

While preventing dangerous global warming is a daunting challenge, we already have the energy efficiency and renewable energy

technologies needed to achieve the required short and mediumterm reductions. But time is of the essence, which brings me to the

Carbon-Neutral Government Act.

The bill, as we heard earlier, would freeze global warming emissions from the Federal Government at 2010 levels and then reduce

them steadily each year through 2050, at which point the Federal

Government would be carbon-neutral. This level of reduction in

emissions is consistent with the pace and magnitude of the reductions demanded by the science.

The bill backs up its commitment to carbon-neutrality with a series of sound policy steps, including strong safeguards to ensure the

integrity of any emission offsets used to meet the requirements of

the bill, global warming emissions standards for Federal vehicle

fleets, and other measures that would improve the energy efficiency

of Federal operations.

The bill would have four major impacts. First, it would achieve

significant reductions in U.S. global warming emissions. The Federal Government is the single largest energy consumer in the

United States and the leading contributor to global warming emisVerDate 17-JUN-2003 14:06 May 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\41853.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
46

sions. By making the Federal Government carbon-neutral by 2050,

the bill would zero out these emissions.

Second, because the Federal Government is a major purchaser of

goods and services, the bill would spur markets for the development of clean energy technologies that we will need in order to effectively address global warming.

Third, it would demonstrate the Federal Government’s willingness to lead by example. A serious national effort to reduce emissions to stave off dangerous global warming will require effort on

the part of all Americans in all sectors of the economy.

And fourth, the bill would show the international community

that the United States is committed to taking the threat posed by

global warming seriously. It would be a first step toward the kind

of meaningful domestic action that can reestablish American leadership in the fight against global warming.

Because global warming emissions from cars and SUVs are rising very rapidly nationwide, I would like to spend a minute on the

Federal fleet standards in the bill. The bill would put the purchasing muscle of the Federal Government behind the drive for cleaner

cars. It would send a clear message to automakers that a significant market will exist for clean, energy efficient vehicles. Low

emission vehicles also would reduce oil consumption, thereby enhancing America’s energy security and protecting the interests of

taxpayers.

In closing, global warming is a challenge of historic scale. A Federal commitment to carbon-neutrality would be an important first

step in rising to the challenge. The next step is to pass Chairman

Waxman’s Safe Climate Act, which would limit total U.S. global

warming emissions to the levels needed to prevent dangerous global warming.

The bottom line is that if we get started now, the United States

can help stave off the biggest environmental threat of the 21st century. At the same time we can break our dependance on oil, enhance our long-term economic and national security, and once

again lead the world as a positive force for change.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Figdor follows:]

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Ms. Figdor, for your comments. And, of course, we look forward to questions later on.

Mr. Harris, will you proceed?

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to

testify today and for the chance to work with the subcommittee’s

excellent staff to explore ideas and solutions to this important problem.

My name is Jeffrey Harris. I am the vice president of programs

at the Alliance to Save Energy. The Alliance is a bipartisan, nonprofit coalition of more than 120 business, Government, environment, and consumer leaders. Our mission is to promote energy efficiency worldwide to achieve a healthier economy.

We are currently enjoying our 30th anniversary, having been

founded in 1977 by Senators Charles Percy and Hubert Humphrey.

We currently enjoy the leadership of Senator Mark Pryor as our

Chair, with congressional Vice Chairs Congressman Ed Markey,

Zach Wamp, and Ralph Hall, along with Senators Jeff Bingaman,

Susan Collins, Larry Craig, and Byron Dorgan.

This year the Alliance Board of Directors formed a new committee, the Government Energy Leadership Action Team, to address

the many important opportunities for Federal sector energy savings

and, as several people have commented, Federal leadership.

I would like to begin with a few comments on the need and importance for energy efficiency and reduced energy waste in the Federal Government, and then turn to some specific provisions of

Chairman Waxman’s proposed Carbon-Neutral Government Act of

2007. As you have heard repeatedly, the U.S. Government is the

world’s single largest user of energy and also the largest waster of

energy.

In 2005, Federal agencies accounted for about 2 percent of the

country’s total energy use, and this cost U.S. taxpayers about $14.5

billion. Of this total, about $5 billion goes to heat, cool, and power

the 500,000 Federal buildings in the country. But the majority of

the energy is used for mobility purposes. This includes light and

heavy duty vehicles, military aircraft and ships, and a large variety

of mobile systems that must be deployed and fueled wherever they

are needed, whether for defense, disaster relief and recovery, scientific research, or a host of other Federal purposes.

Thanks to efforts by the Congress and by Federal agency leaders,

Government as a whole has reduced its primary energy use 13 percent in the past 10 years, and reduced its energy bill 25 percent

in real dollars. But there is a potential for greater savings, and far

more to do, especially in mobility energy.

There are a number of existing targets, standards, and requirements that aim at reducing Federal energy use. Most of them currently deal with Federal buildings. And a number of them were put

in place within the last 2 years, so achieving them fully remains

a challenge and will require active involvement of Congress in

three areas.

One particularly relevant to this subcommittee is oversight. A

second is assuring adequate funding and, in a few cases,

57

supplementing or strengthening existing laws, as we have seen

with the proposed legislation that we are discussing today.

The Alliance believes, though, that the most important first step

in reducing Federal energy use is to make sure that the policies already in place are fully implemented. These include energy efficiency standards for new buildings, energy metering and savings

targets for existing buildings, performance contracting for third

party financing to improve efficiency in those buildings, energy efficient Government purchasing, and the use of life-cycle costs as the

basis for investment decisions. Congress’s first role here is to conduct thorough and sustained oversight to help focus the attention

of Government officials on meeting their obligations and achieving

their energy savings targets cost effectively.

Second, though, Congress has to assure adequate funding for energy efficiency improvements that will generate and sustain longterm savings. Billions of dollars of investments are needed and

warranted to meet these energy targets. However, in recent years,

actual appropriations for Federal agencies have fallen well short of

these needs, ranging from about $100 million to $300 million a

year. These appropriations need to be increased, but, at the same

time, Congress can take steps to encourage Federal agencies to

make much more aggressive use of the innovative financing tools

that are available to them—energy savings performance contracts,

or ESPCs, and utility energy service contracts, UESCs. I am sure

you will hear more about this as you call on Federal agency representatives.

A third and equally critical role, though, for Congress is to consider new legislation that expands the scope and impact of Federal

energy management. The Alliance supports a number of important

energy efficient provisions in the Carbon-Neutral Government Act

of 2007. First is the overall emissions inventory and reductions targets for greenhouse gases within the Federal sector. And it is very

important that these cover both mobility energy use and fixed facilities.

Second, the requirements that we just spoke about that Federal

agencies acquire more energy efficient and lower emitting fleet vehicles. Third, and another very important new provision, is that

agencies use the fully burdened cost of fuel when planning and acquiring these mobile systems that will be deployed for defense and

other purposes. And as was noted earlier by Chairman Waxman,

this recommendation comes from the Department of Defense

Science Board’s path-breaking 2001 study.

A fourth provision that is very important is to increase the stringency of energy standards for new Federal buildings so that they

match the goals of the AIA’s Vision 2030 that you will hear about

from Mr. Purnell, and also incorporate provisions of the U.S. Green

Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design [LEED], rating system.

There are a number of other provisions that are important. In

the interest of time let me skip over those. They are covered in our

testimony. But let me note in closing two other provisions that we

think are very important. One is that we believe that agencies

should be directed by statute to conduct regular energy savings

evaluations for energy and water efficiency measures in their faciliVerDate 17-JUN-2003 14:06 May 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\41853.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
58

ties and to implement all measures that have paybacks of 15 years

or less.

And a second one that we think would be an important addition

to the provisions in the proposed law are to apply principles of

smart growth in siting new Federal facilities so that these facilities

are accessible to public transit, to bicyclists, to pedestrians, alternatives to single occupancy vehicles.

And with that, let me conclude my comments and I will be glad

to answer questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:]

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Harris. Now, Mr. Purnell.

STATEMENT OF MARSHALL PURNELL

Mr. PURNELL. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee,

good afternoon. My name is Marshall Purnell. I am president-elect

of the American Institute of Architects. On behalf of our 81,000

members and the 281,000 Americans who work for architectural

firms nationwide, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to

appear here today.

I would like to share the thoughts of our Nation’s architects on

energy consumption and how it relates to the most overlooked sector in the greenhouse gas debate—buildings, the buildings in which

our people live, work, and play. I have submitted written testimony

to the subcommittee, but I would like to stress those points the

AIA feels are important.

I commend you for holding this hearing to examine strategies

that would reduce the amount of fossil fuel generated energy consumed by the Federal Government. Furthermore, I would like to

convey the AIA’s strong support for the legislation being discussed

here today. The Carbon-Neutral Government Act of 2007 makes

major strides toward reducing the amount of fossil fuel-generated

energy our Government consumes. This bill will improve the Federal Government’s energy efficiency, as well as decrease the

amount of greenhouse gas we produce.

In particular, the AIA strongly supports Section 204, which establishes energy performance standards for new Federal buildings

and buildings undergoing major renovations. This section builds

upon an AIA policy position which calls for carbon-neutral buildings by 2030. We are extremely pleased to see that the committee

has included our 2030 goals in this bill, and our timetable.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, buildings and their

construction are responsible for nearly half of all greenhouse gas

emissions in the United States every year. The building sector

alone accounts for nearly 39 percent of the total U.S. energy consumption, more than either the transportation or the industry sectors. Buildings consume 71 percent of U.S. electricity production,

and buildings in the United States account for 9.8 percent of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. Put another way, U.S. buildings

account for nearly the same amount of carbon emissions as the entire economies of Japan, France, and the United Kingdoms, combined.

If we want to be serious about energy use reductions, buildings

must become a significant part of the discussion. And by including

energy reduction targets for new Federal buildings in this bill, it

is clear this committee understands this. The AIA believes that architects must advocate for the sustainable use of our Earth’s resources. We have adopted an official position establishing energy

reduction targets in buildings. Architects across the country have

embraced this position and are expanding the use of design practices that enhance design quality as they increase the environmental performance of buildings.

Federal building energy efficiency. The AIA is pleased to see that

Section 204 closely mirrors our recommendations to require Federal agencies to immediately ensure that new buildings and buildVerDate 17-JUN-2003 14:06 May 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\41853.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
71

ings undergoing major renovations consume no more than half the

fossil fuel energy that a similar Federal building consumed in the

year 2003.

Beginning in 2010, agencies should be required to meet a declining cap on energy consumption, such that they meet minimum energy reductions compared to the 2003 baseline. We propose that by

2010, new and significantly renovated Federal buildings be required to reduce fossil fuel generated energy by 60 percent. By

2015, the cap should be lowered to a 70 percent reduction, continuing until 2030 when we should achieve a 100 percent reduction in

fossil fuel generated energy in all Federal buildings.

These energy reduction targets are included in this bill and we

applaud the committee for their leadership on this issue. Setting

declining caps on energy usage is not a new idea. In the past, Congress has passed similar legislation. And recently several States

have adopted energy reduction targets. These are important first

steps. Energy reduction requirements have shown a record of success, as referenced in my written testimony. It demonstrates that

the energy reduction targets within this legislation are readily

achievable.

Furthermore, the technology needed to design carbon-neutral

buildings exists. Architects across the country are designing high

performance green buildings that are environmentally responsible,

healthy, and productive places to work. My written testimony provides many details on sustainable design techniques, and I am

happy to answer any questions from the subcommittee on this subject.

The AIA also supports the development of green building rating

systems and standards. They often promote energy efficiency and

conservation. While we do not endorse any specific rating system

or product, green rating systems and standards are often the easiest and most cost-effective way to achieve energy efficiency in

buildings. The ratings serve as a checklist to ensure that a building

or project actually meets energy reduction and environmental protection goals.

The cost of building green. In my experience, the primary concern I hear from clients about building green is first cost. It is true

that some energy efficient building systems may cost slightly more

than their traditional counterparts. However, once the building is

in operation, the savings in energy expenditures alone often far

outweigh the initial cost of installing green systems, especially to

long-term owners.

There is increasing evidence confirming this, and the AIA is currently working with economists to research the economic benefits

of energy efficient Federal buildings. This study will analyze the

estimated energy and dollar savings the Federal Government will

realize by implementing our energy reduction goals for Federal

buildings over their lifespan. We expect to complete the study by

this summer and would be happy to submit it for the record.

America is ready. Polls show that the American public believes

the time is now to reduce energy usage and reduce the risk of climate change. They increasingly believe it is in the best interest of

our Nation and the planet to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel-generated energy and move toward a sustainable future. Reducing enVerDate 17-JUN-2003 14:06 May 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\41853.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
72

ergy use in Federal buildings would be a major step in redesigning

the future.

Once again, we commend the work of the committee for producing this bill and I welcome your questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Purnell follows:]

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Purnell, for your statement. At this time I would like to yield for an opening statement

to the ranking member, Congressman Bilbray from California. And

then, we will go in this order, then I will come back to the author

of the bill and have him to open for questions. Congressman

Bilbray.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the chance

of having this hearing and having the witnesses before us.

Having tried to retrofit and work on a lot of different issues myself previous to my life here, I served on the Air Resources Board

of California, which has one of the most successful environmental

programs in the history of the world. I mean, California today has

air that is twice as clean as it was 30 years ago with twice as many

people. And I think that is an accomplishment.

But some tough, very tough things were done. And a lot of sacred

cows, even environmental sacred cows, were slaughtered to be able

to get to that benefit. And I think that there are too many people

that talk about climate change today, and in the Science Committee I have raised this issue, that want to talk about changing

lightbulbs but not changing power plants, that want to talk about

requiring insulation of a building but not mandating that Government allow alternative construction techniques.

I have seen so often in my 30 years, 40 years, of working on environmental issues that the greatest barrier to allowing individuals

to do what is environmentally responsible has not been money, it

has been Government regulation. And sadly, we have stood in the

way. And so I look forward to the questions, especially to the representative of the AIA, specifically to some issues like how we can

do it from the building side of it.

But I think there are some tough decisions that need to be made

and I just ask that we keep an open mind and sort of abandon our

old prejudices that we thought were environmentally good. I think

global climate change is going to make us all rethink. I think those

of us involved in the environmental community think it is the business community and Government that have to change their attitudes. There are a lot of us on the green side that have to change

our attitudes, too. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Congressman Bilbray. At this

time I yield to the author of the bill, Congressman Waxman, chairman of the full committee.

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

Bilbray pointed out, we have to look at a more comprehensive approach and we have to use our imagination to get to the goals that

we want to achieve. The goal in this bill is a pretty tough one. It

calls for carbon-neutrality by 2050.

Now, some can say that is a long way off and we do not have

to worry about it, we can just take a few steps and then we will

see where we go. But it is a goal. And it is a goal that is not just

a wish, it is a goal that we are going to put in place to force action.

Is it a realistic goal? I would be interested in the witnesses’

views. Is this a realistic goal, and do you think we could meet this

goal? Where do you think we will face the biggest challenges? Just

go down the line. Ms. Figdor.

89

Ms. FIGDOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do think it is a realistic

goal. As you said in your opening statement, when President Kennedy set the goal of reaching the moon, we did not know exactly

how we were going to get there, but it was important to set the

goal initially.

We do know that we have the technologies today, the renewable

energy and energy efficient technologies to meet the short-term and

medium-term reductions that will be required in order to avoid

dangerous global warming more broadly, and certainly to meet the

reductions required by this legislation. If we aggressively move forward toward developing and deploying renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency technologies, we should be able to

achieve the 2050 goals as well.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you. Mr. Harris.

Mr. HARRIS. I certainly agree with my colleague here that it is

achievable, but a real challenge. Our view is that it is going to take

a lot of effort to do the job that needs doing, even with the goals

that we currently have. And so looking ahead in the timeframe of

this legislation, we need to make sure that the Federal Government and in fact the whole economy are investing in technology innovation, to pick up on the comment a little bit earlier from Congressman Bilbray.

That is certainly a needed component and we believe that more

has to be done with Federal leadership but not exclusively by the

Federal Government. The Alliance to Save Energy, for example, is

working with the AIA, with ASHRAE, with the U.S. Green Building Council, and with the World Business Council on Sustainable

Development on a new initiative that would address energy efficiency in commercial buildings of the sort that the Federal Government has, and create the technology base not just to get to the 30

percent or 50 percent, but to get all the way to carbon-neutrality.

And that is going to be a major investment in the pipeline that we

know is 10, 15, 20 years long, to get a new technology introduced

and in the marketplace on a large scale. So I think the first area

I would emphasize is new technology and aggressive efforts to

make sure that technology gets deployed as it is developed.

Mr. WAXMAN. So we need a long-term, sustained effort by the

Federal Government in order to achieve this goal. But you think

it is achievable?

Mr. HARRIS. That I do. You asked a second question, and that

is what is the toughest——

Mr. WAXMAN. I want to hear from Mr. Purnell and then I am

going to have some other questions.

Mr. PURNELL. I would tend to agree. It will take a long-term sustained effort, and it is not just about reduction. It is about new

technology and research to develop that technology. When the AIA

looked at it, we set a goal for carbon-neutral buildings in 2030, not

2050. We were looking at 2050, hoping that by 2050 not only would

the buildings be carbon-neutral, that we would be putting power

back into the grid for sale. So that is what we think we can accomplish by 2030.

We think we can get to carbon-neutral in the commercial sector.

I would imagine that if anything, the Federal sector has pretty

much always led the commercial sector in terms of procurement

90

and in building types and innovation. I would hope that whatever

the Federal Government’s investment in this is, that we would look

at a goal to get there as soon as possible and not just to keep looking at 2050. Because it is a long way off and if we look at let us

get there as soon as we can, we are likely to be successful.

Mr. WAXMAN. It is interesting, the comment made by Ms. Figdor,

that we already have existing technologies and strategies that we

can put into effect right now to get some of the early achievements

that we want, but we are going to have to then go to other technologies down the road. But we do not have to worry about them

right now. We need to press forward to develop them. Is that your

feeling?

Mr. PURNELL. I think we can realize enormous savings immediately but as we start reducing more and more and more, it will

take more technology and more time to get to those final reductions. Once we get past 60, 70 percent, it is going to take seemingly

more time to get that reduced to carbon-neutrality. We can get to

50, 60 percent with existing technology within the next 2, 3 years.

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

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much. Now I yield to Congressman

Bilbray, the ranking member.

Mr. BILBRAY. Ms. Figdor, can we take a look at the terminology?

And let me just tell you something. Maybe I am a nitpicker but

these are important things that we start using the right terminology. I keep hearing, Mr. Chairman, the term ‘‘renewable.’’ Renewable is not necessarily clean. And I think people are assuming it

is renewable.

One of our biggest challenges of air pollution is wood burning

stoves. That is renewable. Can we be careful with the terminology

used? I think I much prefer, personally, ‘‘zero-emission generators.’’

And I know that there are people who get used to these terms as

if somehow they are always environmentally responsible if you can

grow it again and go into it. But they can be major problems.

Let me sort of back up a second. Let me go over the AIA’s position. In America today, we have a national minimum standard for

building buildings, do we not?

Mr. PURNELL. A minimum standard?

Mr. BILBRAY. Yes.

Mr. PURNELL. ASHRAE standards, yes. But commercially those

are not necessarily achieved.

Mr. BILBRAY. Right. Unified building code probably is one of the

most successful government regulations we have ever had. And it

is kind of an interesting thing because it is a code put together

through a consensus of building inspectors who are kind of unique,

Mr. Chairman, in government because they are people who have

actually been out there building. Most building inspectors do not

come from college and go right into government. Most of them have

been in the business, done it.

What is the AIA doing to work with, to change the Unified Building Code to try to push that more over? Because I will just tell you

personally, I have run into situations where the Code has stood in

the way of using alternative building techniques and different materials. They literally say it is unapproved material, even though

91

it is environmentally great, sorry, you cannot use it because it is

easier for us to turn it down. Is there a real effort to re-engineer

the Unified Building Code and get that consensus from the men

and women who are actually going to make the decisions on what

you can build, and that is the building inspectors?

Mr. PURNELL. We are working with Code officials around the

country at the State and local level.

Mr. BILBRAY. Right. Mr. Harris, do you have any idea what will

be the cost of this bill to implement?

Mr. HARRIS. We have not analyzed that cost, Mr. Bilbray. But I

think as a matter of principle, and it is a longstanding principle,

that all the measures that are put in place for energy efficiency at

least need to be cost-effective. Now, my personal view is that costeffectiveness needs to take into account the full cost and the full

value of saving energy. And that is what one of the important provisions in this bill would do.

Mr. BILBRAY. Yes, that is one of the concerns I have with the

short-term time lines. One of the things that, as Mr. Waxman

knows, really made us successful in California is we not only allow

looking at cost-effectiveness, we mandate it. So you give priority to

the most cost-effective because for a dollar saved on one project as

you go into time, all at once things change and you can actually

get the biggest bang for the buck. Let us just say that. And always

understanding that, like it or not, we are always going to be deficient so we need to give that priority and from the environmental

point of view.

My question is that when we talk about zero, how do we get to

zero as long as we are buying dirty coal-fired electricity? Well, I do

not understand how you get to zero on that unless you are talking

about buying off somebody else’s reduction as a way to buy indulgences, something that even the Catholic Church does not do any

more. How do we get to zero?

Mr. HARRIS. Well, I do not have a detailed blueprint of that for

you, but I would say in concept the first and most important thing

to do, as you were suggesting a moment ago, is to invest in the energy saving measures that are cost-effective. And we believe that

over time, given the time to both fully deploy today’s technology

and to develop the new generations of technology that we were

talking about, we can get down to at least 75 percent, maybe 80

percent reduction in energy use in a typical building today.

That remaining 20 percent will have to come from a non-polluting source, as you were suggesting, and there are several options

available. One is renewable resources that are available onsite.

Solar is the most obvious. Second is renewable energy that is available offsite. And the third, of course, would be to purchase offsets

from action in other areas.

Mr. BILBRAY. Yes, and see, the offset issue is where I have a real

problem. I can see that out in the open market, but I think for us

to be buying up the offsets is then taking that out of the pool that

may be able to be used by the private sector. And I think that we

have an added burden as a public agency go onto it.

I just do not see why we are not negotiating right now, looking

at not buying any more coal, not buying any more dirty electricity,

and instead of talking 5 percent reduction we talk 100 percent reVerDate 17-JUN-2003 14:06 May 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\41853.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
92

duction because we do not buy from people that are putting out

greenhouse gases. And I know that sounds like a tough one to toe

but, as you know, you would go to prison in California for generating electricity the way it is generated in this town if you tried that

in California. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much. I yield to Congressman

Welch.

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Figdor, thank you

for testifying today. I want to ask you about legislation that I have

recently proposed, and I understand you have had a chance to review. I launched an initiative, and this is small compared to what

Chairman Waxman has initiated but something that as a Member

of Congress I could do, and that was to make my office carbon-neutral. I did it by working to first reduce my office’s energy use and

then by offsetting the remaining carbon emissions.

And I am offsetting the greenhouse gas emissions related to my

office activities by providing some financial support to two Vermont

renewable energy projects, and the end result making my office

carbon-neutral. Because of the existing law that applies to congressional budgets, I used my own personal funds to do this and was

glad to do it. But it seems to me we may get broader participation

from other offices if we give flexibility so that offices can use their

existing funds, not new money, but existing funds to do this. So my

question is are you familiar with my bill?

Ms. FIGDOR. Yes, I am.

Mr. WELCH. Has the environmental community, of which you are

a part, had the opportunity to review it?

Ms. FIGDOR. Yes.

Mr. WELCH. Do you have a view about whether this legislation

would provide a meaningful contribution to our efforts? Meaningful

but limited, I understand that. But a meaningful contribution to

our efforts to address global climate change if we would add language that addressed the issue that some of my friends in the environmental community on the other side are raising, that would

guarantee that the credits do have long-term integrity? Language

that would ensure that the offsets are real, that they are additional

energy that is renewable, that they are verifiable, that they are enforceable, and that they are permanent? Do you have an opinion

on that?

Ms. FIGDOR. Yes. In the short-term before a mandatory national

cap and trade program is up and running, a limited offsets program definitely has a role to play. It could provide a positive contribution by reducing the Federal Government’s carbon footprint

and also providing the EPA much needed experience in figuring out

how to develop and implement a sound offsets program.

As you stated, there are critical safeguards that we need to include in any such legislation to ensure the long-term integrity of

the offsets. In addition to criteria you mentioned, we would also

need to ensure that there is surplus, that credit would not be given

for actions that would have been taken anyway. And then also ensuring that EPA is the agency that is developing and implementing

the program.

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. So the EPA would be the right agency

to be doing this?

93

Ms. FIGDOR. Absolutely. They are the appropriate agency to implement this.

Mr. WELCH. OK, and with the addition of those criteria we would

have the confidence that the offsets and credits were actually providing a lasting benefit to the environment, ensure that taxpayer

money was well spent, not being wasted, and provide us with experience going forward to achieve some of these goals in the chairman’s bill? If we put those changes in that you have suggested and

I have discussed, then would that be legislation that your organization could support?

Ms. FIGDOR. Yes, we would be pleased to support that legislation

and work with you on it.

Mr. WELCH. OK, thank you. Mr. Harris, although the GSA and

Defense Logistics Agency are required to provide only energy efficient products in catalogs in which they are readily available, the

system apparently is not working. In some cases it can be hard to

find Energy Star or other efficient products in catalogs where they

should be available. In some other cases the catalogues claim that

products are Energy Star certified even though the Energy Star

program does not even apply to those types of products. Can you

help us understand this situation? Why is it so easy for products

to be falsely identified as Energy Star compliant in the government

procurement schedules and why are these schedules still prominently listing inefficient products?

Mr. HARRIS. Let me give you an introduction to that topic. I

think it is also important that the subcommittee hear directly from

GAS and DLA on that part of your oversight function. There is a

tremendously complex system of Federal procurement, and you

have mentioned the two largest Federal supply agencies, the General Services Administration and the Defense Logistics Agency.

They supply literally tens of thousands of different products. Since

this provision was put in law, and even prior to that, similar provisions have been part of executive orders for a number of years.

I would say that both agencies have made limited efforts to

transform their systems, but there is a lot more to be done. The

Defense Logistics Agency, in particular, has been forward thinking

and more aggressive in changing the way that they code these

thousands and thousands of products in their data bases so that

you can easily identify the efficient from the less efficient ones. In

the case of GSA, there is a somewhat different system that applies

to most of the energy using products that they provide. And that

is a system where they do not directly purchase wholesale and sell

retail to agencies, but they arrange contract price and conditions.

That is the GSA schedules. And the GSA position, as I understand

it, has been that they really do not control the quality of the data

that describe those products. That is the vendor’s responsibility.

They simply set up a marketplace and set up the terms of exchange and it is up to the buyer to watch out for him or herself.

I think personally that more can be done. This is a world of highly automated systems online. It should be possible, with some effort, to design checks and controls into the online systems that are

increasingly used so that it is easier for a Federal buyer to know

which product is efficient and which is not, to know which ones

meet the law and which do not. So there is a lot more to be done

94

and I think that is something the subcommittee should address directly to the GSA.

Mr. WELCH. OK, thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much. I now yield to Congressman

Issa.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a really good hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to sit in. It is kind of interesting,

I did not mention in my opening remarks but I am in the Cannon

Office Building. And although I respect the Member’s statement

that he is carbon-neutral, I have never been in a less environmentally friendly building. You can imagine, it has a 1939 air conditioning add-on that does not work right, windows are open everywhere, they are single pane and they are historic, meaning they

leak. One of my first questions, and it is not that I am complaining,

Mr. Chairman, you are here in Rayburn, are you not?

Mr. TOWNS. I must admit, I am.

Mr. ISSA. Specifically, one of the things not mentioned in the bill

but I would like to bring up, do you believe that this committee

should first of all hold the House of Representatives to the highest

standards at the earliest date and if so should we include either

in this or in companion legislation bringing the House of Representatives at least up to, Mr. Purnell, what one might call today’s

standards?

Mr. PURNELL. Well, I will speak for the AIA because we looked

at ourselves and we are in the process right now of greening our

headquarters building at 1735 New York Avenue and bringing it

up to today’s standards. The building was completed in 1974, not

quite 1939, and although it appears——

Mr. ISSA. No, no, we were 1907. They put in the air conditioning

in 1939 which is when we stopped being closer to carbon-neutral.

Mr. PURNELL. Well, we are sort of getting our own house in order

so that we can walk the walk and talk the talk with some certainty

and say this is how you do it with an existing building. It does take

an investment of both time and resources. And our members have

suggested that this is what they would like to see and our Board

has made that commitment. So to your question, yes, I think you

should.

Mr. ISSA. Do you think we should amend the historic preservation portions to allow for further modernization than presently is

allowed for many buildings, including the ones that we are in?

Mr. PURNELL. I do not know without looking at the building from

a design standpoint which preservations you would need to be relieved from.

Mr. ISSA. Well, for example, the Architect of Capitol does not

allow the windows to be changed either on the Capitol or on the

Cannon House Office Building, which by definition means they leak

even when painted shut.

Mr. PURNELL. As far as I know, in the Department of the Interior

regulations, there is nothing that says you cannot change the windows. You cannot change the profile of the windows or the material

of the windows, but you certainly can make them leak-free and

thermal pane. It will cost more, but you can do that. And you can

do it in such a way that you will not know that the windows now

are thermal pane.

95

Mr. ISSA. Thank you for making the record complete on that. I

will use it. I think probably the biggest question I have, and it is

following up on the earlier questions, is the business of distorting

the market. Would I be correct in saying that in our legislation we

should ensure that 100 percent of any offsets we buy are new production? That we not simply go out and buy nuclear energy or go

out and buy wind energy that is already there and thus deny the

private sector and meet our goals by, if you will, cherry-picking the

market? Only the disagreers need respond.

[No response.]

Mr. ISSA. The case of the automobile fleet, I would be the first

to say that we have way too many Suburbans hanging around

Washington, DC, even the unarmored one. But does anyone know

how much improvement we could make today if we simply went to

the most energy efficient automobiles available within, let us say,

reasonable use? I mean, you cannot use a Chevy sedan to do big

truck lifting, but how wasteful are we today? In other words, how

many quick gains, Ms. Figdor?

Ms. FIGDOR. I do not know the answer precisely off the top of my

head, but there is about one third of the vehicle market that currently meets the California emissions standards, the greenhouse

gas standards that would be required for the Federal fleet in this

bill. And that requires an overall reduction of about 30 percent by

2016.

Mr. ISSA. And following up, do you support nuclear as part of

reaching this goal?

Ms. FIGDOR. No, we do not support the use of nuclear power.

Mr. ISSA. Do you support carbon sequestration or what we often

call clean coal?

Ms. FIGDOR. We think it is important to continue the research

into carbon sequestration and see if it is a viable technology that

can be part of our strategy to address global warming.

Mr. ISSA. Great. I am sure we will continue this for many days

to come. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much for your questions. Let me

begin with you, Ms. Figdor. You say the time to act is now. What

will happen if we wait a few years? And let me put the flip side

to it, how would we be in better position if we had started doing

things say 5, 7 years ago?

Ms. FIGDOR. We would be in a much better position if we had

started 5, 7 years ago. About a fourth of all carbon dioxide emissions remain in the atmosphere essentially forever, for at least 500

years. So our actions and any delay that we take in starting to reduce our emissions has enormous consequences for future generations in terms of the actions that they will need to take in order

to avoid the worst consequences of global warming.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you. Let me just say to my colleagues that

I do have some good news. In response to a call from Speaker

Pelosi, the Chief Administrative Officer of the House has issued a

preliminary report on greening the Capitol. So I just wanted to let

you know there is some thinking about it.

Mr. BILBRAY. I have read it.

Mr. TOWNS. Yes, thank you very much. Mr. Harris, you say that

even before we start following new requirements, Federal agencies

96

need to follow the laws already on the books. What can Members

of the U.S. Congress do to have these agencies follow the law?

Mr. HARRIS. Well, as I was mentioning earlier, Mr. Chairman,

there are two critical areas. One is oversight and there are new

provisions in the proposed legislation by Chairman Waxman that

would create a flow of information through the Office of Management and Budget to the Congress in addition to the information

that already comes in the annual report to Congress that is prepared by the Department of Energy’s Federal Energy Management

Program. So frankly I think that looking at those reports, asking

questions, holding hearings, getting the Federal representatives in,

asking them what is important to help them solve the problem is

critical.

The second area is assuring adequate appropriations and stability of appropriations so that agencies are not facing ups and downs

in their budget every year. And it is true, they do have alternative

sources of financing as I mentioned in my comments and in our

written testimony, but that baseline of annual appropriations to

hire staff, to get staff trained and experienced, and to make sure

there is long-term management for these programs and some continuity are absolutely essential to carrying out any of these provisions.

Mr. TOWNS. Right. Thank you very much, Mr. Harris. Let me

move to you, Mr. Purnell. In the past we have heard a lot of comments about aesthetics in terms of people, in terms of the general

feel of green buildings. We have heard these comments down

through the years. I was hoping you would sort of set the record

straight today. Could you describe how a typical green building differs from a standard building we would be more accustomed to?

And how would working in a green building be different for the average person than a standard building?

Mr. PURNELL. Well, to answer the last part of that, it would

probably be healthier to be in a green building because of the emissions that would not be generated from using certain types of carpets or paint or fabrics in a building that is not a green building.

And let me say that green does not have to imply that it is an

ugly building aesthetically. I mean, we heard the same arguments

when the Americans with Disabilities Act was being implemented,

that the ADA is that we are going to have all of these ugly ramps

and these ugly door pulls and the poles in the bathrooms are going

to be looking crazy. And I would suggest today in a modern building that meets all of the ADA standards there is nothing that is

apparently ugly or unattractive about it in that it does meet all of

the requirements. As a matter of fact it is pretty much transparent

to the average user that the building is handicapped accessible.

That would be the same with probably a green building in time.

You may have a green roof that appears to be sort of unique when

a person goes out there but in time, after other buildings are implementing the same sorts of strategies, things that are obvious today

in a couple years will be normal and in use. I mean, look at what

we have done with the automobile industry in alternate fuel cars.

They are integrating that same technology in body styles that now

look just like every other car on the street. So, I do not see that

there will be an impact, or a negative impact, with aesthetics.

97

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much. If this bill becomes law, Federal agencies will have a couple of years to prepare to reduce their

greenhouse gas emissions. Let me begin with you, Mr. Harris. I am

wondering what discrete measures you would advise Federal facility managers to consider to reduce the emissions associated with

their facilities. What can they do right now, what would be the impact on our energy bottom line?

Mr. HARRIS. Well, let me focus on the energy saving activities.

There are some other provisions that might help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, perhaps choosing different fuel sources, but

that often involves a more significant capital investment. I think

that if you look at energy efficiency in existing facilities, there are

study after study and case after case that show that in almost any

Federal facility, just like non-Federal facilities, commercial buildings, you can typically find 15 maybe 20 percent savings out of relatively low cost, simple things just making sure that the buildings

and their systems are operating right.

There is a process called commissioning, which means that you

go through a building, you check out its systems, and you make

sure that what was designed into them is what is still there, that

changes have not been made, perhaps inadvertently over the years.

That the dampers that bring in outside air are not stuck open or

stuck closed when you do not want them to be. So there is a range

of activities that are fairly well established that involve energy

analyses or energy audits of operation and maintenance improvements and the commissioning or recommissioning of these mechanical systems. So I think that is an important short-term step.

A second step, though, is to make sure that the occupants of

those buildings understand how the building works and understand what they can do as occupants in their own way to make the

building work as intended. Not opening the windows at the wrong

time or closing them if they should be open to let in fresh air. Not

fiddling with the thermostats or getting up on their desks and

changing the settings in the air ducts. Turning off the lights, something as simple as that. Turning off their office equipment.

So there is a very important educational effort for Federal employees and there are examples of how this has worked very well

in certain sites and in certain Federal agencies. And for that matter, I would add it to the agenda for greening the congressional

buildings. Helping the occupants of those buildings, Members of

Congress and the staffs to understand how to use their buildings

and their equipment as efficiently as possible.

So those are the two things, I think. Short-term measures operations and maintenance to get that first 15 or 20 percent and then

helping the occupants of the building to make those measures succeed over the long-term.

Mr. TOWNS. Right. Thank you very much, Mr. Harris. Let me ask

you, Ms. Figdor and also Mr. Purnell, do you have any suggestions

for a Federal facilities manager who is thinking about how to meet

the goals? Do you? Let us start with you, Ms. Figdor, and then I

will come to you, Mr. Purnell.

Ms. FIGDOR. I think as Mr. Harris alluded to, employing the

technologies that we already have at our fingertips but are not

using. I mean, there really are enormous opportunities that we are

98

just passing up at this point, and then just being smarter about the

decisions that we are making.

Mr. PURNELL. Many of the decisions are sometimes management

and operational decisions, like when the building is cleaned. In

some cases you wait until everyone is out of the building, therefore

you are running the entire system for the building for heat or air

and lights while you have a very skeletal maintenance crew within

a building. You could maybe start that whole process earlier in the

day. You could design it in such a way, design the building systems

in such a way that you do not have to run the complete systems

or run a whole floor for a skeletal crew that is in there or for an

employee who wants to work late on night. That you are not heating or cooling an entire floor or third of the building based upon

the temperature controls for that particular building. Those are

things that could be looked at in terms of just operational things

that are happening not only in the Federal Government but are

happening in the commercial sector as well, the private sector.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much. Let me yield now to the ranking member, Congressman Bilbray.

Mr. BILBRAY. Yes, thank you very much. Ms. Figdor, do you believe, well let me stop a second. Now, I am sort of looking at this.

I appreciate the fact that you have talked about smart growth and

about non-point source emissions that are always missed out, that

the real footprint is missed out. I will tell you, every time I am in

a hearing on greenhouse gases, I look at the fact that we are having trucks bring our water in to us and us have an on-source purification. Now, I know that seems nitpicking, but after spending 18

years looking at deodorants to try to stop emissions you really do

get down to those kind of nitpicking.

Ms. Figdor, I have a question for you. Do you believe that, speaking of automobiles and emissions stuff, that corn-based ethanol is

part of the answer to fight greenhouse gases?

Ms. FIGDOR. I think it can help as a transition fuel, but we need

to move quickly to cellulosic ethanol that will get us a lot more reductions and be a lot more sustainable overall.

Mr. BILBRAY. Do you believe that corn-based ethanol is a net reduction in greenhouse gases?

Ms. FIGDOR. If it is sustainably produced and converted into fuel,

yes.

Mr. BILBRAY. OK, I just want you to know for over 12 years we

have been asking the Federal Government to stop the mandate to

use it for environmental reasons. And I know that there are people

in this town that defended it. Do you understand that the first

thing that a farmer does when they plant their corn is put nitrogen

into the soil? Do you realize where that nitrogen comes from? Do

you know the source?

Ms. FIGDOR. Yes.

Mr. BILBRAY. What is the source?

Ms. FIGDOR. Sir, I fully agree with you. Like I said——

Mr. BILBRAY. It is natural gas.

Ms. FIGDOR. It does have to be sustainably produced.

Mr. BILBRAY. OK, I am just saying not just that, but the fuel

used to produce this stuff, I just wish that some of us that claim

to be environmentalists are willing to stand up and say the emVerDate 17-JUN-2003 14:06 May 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\41853.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
99

peror has no clothes. And remember the ethanol and methanol

mandate. I got trashed because I stood up against that mandate

and now the wells are polluted around here and people who claim

to be environmentalist supported that mandate. But if you cannot

even say that Archer Daniels Midland selling, that corn-based ethanol just does not pencil out, not just economically but also environmentally. I got a real problem with your credentials if we cannot even agree on something as basic as the fact the environmental

community made a mistake. And this is what I meant by business

has to change their attitudes and reassess their values. The environmental community has to do this, and I am very concerned if

you can still defend corn-based ethanol sitting before this committee.

Ms. FIGDOR. USPIRG was a strong supporter of California’s

waiver of the ethanol requirement, and that was something that we

worked and were very——

Mr. BILBRAY. What year did you support it?

Ms. FIGDOR. A few years back, now.

Mr. BILBRAY. A few years back? Well let me tell you. In 1995,

1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 you attacked the proposal. It was

not until after 2000 and the wells were polluted that you reversed

your position. So if I am bitter here, it is because I was strung up

as being anti-environmental when I was carrying a bill for the Air

Resources Board, which I think you would agree is not somebody

who is in the pocket of polluters. So I would just ask that we get

a concern on that. I only bring that up because it really concerns

me that we rethink what you have been taught because we have

to rethink everything.

Mr. Harris, I really appreciate your talk about smart growth because the one thing we have not talked enough about is the fact

that we do not do enough to get government and local government

to take on the special interests and the active opposition to smart

growth. You know my district, it is a very environmentally sensitive district along the California coast. They are so environmentally sensitive, Ms. Figdor, they recycle the Congressmen.

But the same people who claim to be environmentalists will oppose intensification of development around the train station. And

nobody calls them down on the fact that this, I have not seen an

environmental group stand up and really fight for smart growth

when it means intensification to do all of it. And I want to thank

you very much for bringing that up.

Mr. HARRIS. Could I suggest that our colleagues at the Natural

Resources Defense Council also feel very strongly about smart

growth strategies.

Mr. BILBRAY. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I would really ask that we

have another hearing. I think that is really important because you

have people that have the concept here but I would like to have

the hearing of those who are actually doing procurement, actually

doing the leases, actually out there. And let us have a dialog with

them about the practical barriers. You have the theoretical approach here. Now we have to get the practical people in to try to

put them together, and I think that can really make this a possibility. Thank you very much, I appreciate it.

100

Ms. Figdor, I appreciated the chance to be able to vent my frustration. You can imagine standing up for the environment and having people trash you and say that you are trying to pollute the air

when you have spent most of your life fighting for that clean air.

And I appreciate the ability to work with you in the future. Thank

you.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Congressman Bilbray. Let me

thank the witnesses. I really appreciate you coming and sharing

with us. I think this is the way we really come up with strong,

practical, and important legislation. It was said many, many years

ago that Benjamin Franklin, I am sorry, it was Thomas Jefferson

who read a book on how to swim. And he read it, how to pull his

legs and kick and pull his arms, and he jumped in the deep water

and almost drowned.

I think that we do this here in the Congress quite often, that we

do not get enough input in our legislation before we jump and we

do it. So I want to thank you for coming and sharing with us. And

of course, we hope that as we continue to talk and dialog that we

will be able to get strong legislation that will move us in the right

direction. Because this is a very important issue and I think this

is the way we get it right. Thank you so much for coming.

And on that note, this subcommittee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ